4 ms·
Given how politicized this has become--anyone who challenges the alarmism is outcast from the field--I think there's good reason to be skeptical of the rapidly
by marcoperaza 10y ago
Given how politicized this has become--anyone who challenges the alarmism is outcast from the field--I think there's good reason to be skeptical of the rapidly escalating predictions of the consequences. I'm not saying climate change isn't happening or that it's not driven by humans, but it's kind of remarkable that 1C over a century has become 3.5C in two decades. And of course, global control of all major industries is always the proposed solution.
How about nuclear? It can power the world, it's carbon neutral, and modern reactors are physically incapable of meltdown. It seems to be the obvious solution, but those sounding the alarm over climate change tend to be the same groups that oppose nuclear.
- XorNot 10y agoYes, I too am surprised when new data causes us to have to re-evaluate our predictions. We made a prediction, gosh darnit we should ignore all subsequent observations in refining it!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 10y agoThe point I'm trying to raise is the potential for publication bias. If publishing results that challenge the narrative is a risk to your career, you won't publish it. Meanwhile, the outliers in the other direction, which do fit the narrative, get published and picked up by others in the field. Here's an article echoing my concerns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10837146/Climate-change-science-has-become-blind-to-green-bias.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/1083714...
- enraged_camel 10y agoAs we collect more data, we are able to make better and more accurate predictions. Welcome to science.
- losteric 10y agoGiven how politicized this has become -- anyone with dire predictions gets outcast from the mainstream news -- I think there's good reason to be even more concerned about the rapidly escalating predictions.
- Snargorf 10y agoYou think the mainstream news avoids people making dire predictions? Dire events and predictions are their entire business model (along with identity politics squabbles and celebrity sex gossip).
- Stratoscope 10y ago> And of course, global control of all major industries is always the proposed solution. That's what has troubled me when I've discussed this with people who clearly know much more than I do about climate. The underlying assumption often seems to be, "Since the science is unquestionable, then surely you must agree that massive government intervention is the only way to solve the problem." Now that's something I'm pretty skeptical of, after seeing how so many well-intended government programs have not only failed to accomplish their goals but have been actively harmful. Maybe government action is what's needed here. I don't know. But I sure don't want to assume that it's the answer. In the eyes of some, this just makes me a skeptic and a denier.
- FreeFull 10y agoI personally feel like the only way out now is some sort of active geoengineering solution. You're not going to convince everyone across the world to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, and I suspect that even if you manage to do that, we have released too many gases into the atmosphere already.
- api 10y agoThis for whatever reason is even more unpopular than population control and nuclear power. I completely agree though. Emission cuts are just not going to happen fast enough under any even slightly politically plausible scenario. It's a fantasy.
- XorNot 10y agoIt also tends to actually be more expensive then any other solution (other then doing nothing in the short term). The huge sources of SO4 or whatever you plan to use have to actually be produced from somewhere.
- api 10y agoI'm not convinced there are no good options. The problem has not been thoroughly studied.