5 ms·

> I don't know how anybody can take models like this seriously. It's about as valid as any of these economists models. Hell, it is partly an economic model. Be

> I don't know how anybody can take models like this seriously. It's about as valid as any of these economists models. Hell, it is partly an economic model. Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct and they are the greatest scientists in human history. It's crazy how this global warming political movement has hijack science to push their agenda. > We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign against skepticism. It's funny how model after model has proven rather suspect and yet you will get called anti-science or a denier if you don't accept their model 100% without question. If only the global warming movement had more humility of scientists rather than the total conviction of a cult members, I'd take them more seriously. And if they were more honest about the data and the science of climate rather than lying about it.

jgys 9y ago
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, two things: 1) that your assertion that environmentalists and public figures in media, politics, and (what we'll call, with marginal disrespect, "pop") science are lacking in humility and unwilling to admit any flaw in their predictions or assertions is a fair assertion, and 2) that they are generally correct in their concern about pollution in general and the effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures and weather patterns in particular, and that this is a risk to the welfare of many people around the world. Do you suppose that environmental activists are more likely to achieve their important objective of dramatically reducing carbon emissions by admitting even mild uncertainties in the rationale for their position in effort to appeal to educated, reasoned people like you, or by adhering to a steadfast narrative, increasingly accepted by the masses, that anthropogenic climate change is creating a severe risk to the welfare of people the world around?
- credit_guy 9y ago
  there's another thread of articles currently high up on Hacker News about Baltimore cops planting evidence. I don't like police doing that, and I don't like climate scientists being cavalier with the science "for the greater good".
cholantesh 9y ago
>Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct and they are the greatest scientists in human history. Certainly no match for master scientists like James Inhofe, Christopher Monckton, or Donald Trump.

jgys 9y ago

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, two things: 1) that your assertion that environmentalists and public figures in media, politics, and (what we'll call, with marginal disrespect, "pop") science are lacking in humility and unwilling to admit any flaw in their predictions or assertions is a fair assertion, and 2) that they are generally correct in their concern about pollution in general and the effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures and weather patterns in particular, and that this is a risk to the welfare of many people around the world. Do you suppose that environmental activists are more likely to achieve their important objective of dramatically reducing carbon emissions by admitting even mild uncertainties in the rationale for their position in effort to appeal to educated, reasoned people like you, or by adhering to a steadfast narrative, increasingly accepted by the masses, that anthropogenic climate change is creating a severe risk to the welfare of people the world around?

credit_guy 9y ago
there's another thread of articles currently high up on Hacker News about Baltimore cops planting evidence. I don't like police doing that, and I don't like climate scientists being cavalier with the science "for the greater good".

cholantesh 9y ago

>Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct and they are the greatest scientists in human history. Certainly no match for master scientists like James Inhofe, Christopher Monckton, or Donald Trump.