6 ms·

I'm a climate change skeptic. I think there are a lot more factors at play than these models are using. A lot of people seem to believe these models are right

I'm a climate change skeptic. I think there are a lot more factors at play than these models are using. A lot of people seem to believe these models are right more out of fear than a rational validation of the models themselves. On top of that, creators of these models seem to be tripping over each other to come up with more outlandish results. Part of my skepticism is the timescales that we're working with. Other issues are perhaps a poor understanding of how the earth and everything on it might react to changing conditions. If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age. And finally, how is it that it's currently more socially/scientifically acceptable to believe that matter can travel faster than light than it is to be a climate change skeptic? Science is never settled, unless it's a computer model predicting the future? I hope I'm not the only person who finds that ludicrous. So here is my prediction: every generation of humans will have their boogeyman, religious apocalypse, nukes, GW, etc... but in the end an asteroid will cause a mass extinction event, just like it has before.

Oletros 10y ago
> If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age. No, it won't > And finally, how is it that it's currently more socially/scientifically acceptable to believe that matter can travel faster than light than it is to be a climate change skeptic? In which part of the Universe is more acceptable to believe that matter can travel faster than light?
- IanDrake 10y ago
  "After the initial report of apparent superluminal velocities of neutrinos, most physicists in the field were quietly skeptical of the results, but prepared to adopt a wait-and-see approach." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_a...
  - Oletros 10y ago
    Really? Even the scientists performing the experiment were asking to find errors in the experiments.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    That same article states the initial results were refuted by the ICARUS Experiment in 2012...
    - IanDrake 10y ago
      Of course it was! The point is that scientists took a "wait and see" approach instead of lambasting them for releasing results that was so obviously wrong while pointing out that it's absolutely impossible that matter can travel faster than light.
peterbell_nyc 10y ago
I'm not a climate scientist and don't play one on TV> It appears that most people who are (and are thus way better informed than me) have a consensus suggesting that climate change is both being caused by humans and lining up to be a problem. From flooding to sea level rises to changes in agriculture patterns and potential international conflicts over food/land. I don't know for sure that the climate scientists are right - it's possible they're all completely wrong. I also don't know for sure that the effects of climate change will be as predicted. I do however believe there is a reasonable chance that the majority of the specialists in this area are probably right. As such, there is a risk of anything from serious damage to an extinction level event. Given that until Elon gets his rockets going, an extinction level event on the earth would be very bad news for the human species, it seems prudent to me to look into ways of hedging and reducing the risk. Especially given that just as the fears of climate change may be overblown, they may also be underestimated due to previously missed positive feedback loops of which we're unaware.
Frondo 10y ago
Are you a germ theory skeptic, too? Can't see germs, after all, and people make a lot of bold claims about the things they can do.
- IanDrake 10y ago
  You should try using a microscope. Your tone is understood though. Calling me an idiot is childish and only hurts your credibility.
chillwaves 10y ago
So if you equate GW to nukes, then you acknowledge it is a very serious threat with the potential to wipe out most of humanity? While nuclear war did not happen, there is nothing to suggest that it could not have happened. That it was a "boogeyman" as you suggest.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Nuclear annihilation should not be discussed as if it lies entirely in the past, either. There are thousands of warheads ready to be fired on a moment's notice. MAD didn't disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union, people just stopped paying attention to it.
- IanDrake 10y ago
  Equal in terms of generating fear, yes. In terms of causing extinction level events, no.
flukus 10y ago
> On top of that, creators of these models seem to be tripping over each other to come up with more outlandish results. Any evidence of that? Normally a range of scenarios get published and I haven't seen them get any more dramatic over the last 20 years. On top of that, many of the models have greatly underestimate the temperature increase. >If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age. You do realize that this will involve relocating massive amounts of our population and rebuilding all the infrastructure of coastal cities? We will also end up with a lot less good farmland than we have now to feed a growing population.

Oletros 10y ago

> If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age. No, it won't > And finally, how is it that it's currently more socially/scientifically acceptable to believe that matter can travel faster than light than it is to be a climate change skeptic? In which part of the Universe is more acceptable to believe that matter can travel faster than light?

IanDrake 10y ago
"After the initial report of apparent superluminal velocities of neutrinos, most physicists in the field were quietly skeptical of the results, but prepared to adopt a wait-and-see approach." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_a...
- Oletros 10y ago
  Really? Even the scientists performing the experiment were asking to find errors in the experiments.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  That same article states the initial results were refuted by the ICARUS Experiment in 2012...
  - IanDrake 10y ago
    Of course it was! The point is that scientists took a "wait and see" approach instead of lambasting them for releasing results that was so obviously wrong while pointing out that it's absolutely impossible that matter can travel faster than light.

peterbell_nyc 10y ago

I'm not a climate scientist and don't play one on TV> It appears that most people who are (and are thus way better informed than me) have a consensus suggesting that climate change is both being caused by humans and lining up to be a problem. From flooding to sea level rises to changes in agriculture patterns and potential international conflicts over food/land. I don't know for sure that the climate scientists are right - it's possible they're all completely wrong. I also don't know for sure that the effects of climate change will be as predicted. I do however believe there is a reasonable chance that the majority of the specialists in this area are probably right. As such, there is a risk of anything from serious damage to an extinction level event. Given that until Elon gets his rockets going, an extinction level event on the earth would be very bad news for the human species, it seems prudent to me to look into ways of hedging and reducing the risk. Especially given that just as the fears of climate change may be overblown, they may also be underestimated due to previously missed positive feedback loops of which we're unaware.

Frondo 10y ago

Are you a germ theory skeptic, too? Can't see germs, after all, and people make a lot of bold claims about the things they can do.

IanDrake 10y ago
You should try using a microscope. Your tone is understood though. Calling me an idiot is childish and only hurts your credibility.

chillwaves 10y ago

So if you equate GW to nukes, then you acknowledge it is a very serious threat with the potential to wipe out most of humanity? While nuclear war did not happen, there is nothing to suggest that it could not have happened. That it was a "boogeyman" as you suggest.

mikeash 10y ago
Nuclear annihilation should not be discussed as if it lies entirely in the past, either. There are thousands of warheads ready to be fired on a moment's notice. MAD didn't disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union, people just stopped paying attention to it.
IanDrake 10y ago
Equal in terms of generating fear, yes. In terms of causing extinction level events, no.

flukus 10y ago

> On top of that, creators of these models seem to be tripping over each other to come up with more outlandish results. Any evidence of that? Normally a range of scenarios get published and I haven't seen them get any more dramatic over the last 20 years. On top of that, many of the models have greatly underestimate the temperature increase. >If I'm wrong, I'm also ok with the weather getting hotter. From a livable land mass perspective, the human race will be much better off with a warmer earth than another ice age. You do realize that this will involve relocating massive amounts of our population and rebuilding all the infrastructure of coastal cities? We will also end up with a lot less good farmland than we have now to feed a growing population.