5 ms·

Everything you point to is speculations they are not scientifically demonstrated. This is the main problem here. "It can lead to", "it might", "potentially" et

Everything you point to is speculations they are not scientifically demonstrated. This is the main problem here. "It can lead to", "it might", "potentially" etc. that's not actually science. Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated. And just because you can show something in a lab you can't necessarily show that in larger scale systems. I am well aware of the claims about the 12 years and all that but I challenge anyone to show where it's demonstrated and I would invite anyone to dig into the material themselves. What you will quickly realize is that the actual science is a very small fraction of all the things you read about. The climate is changing yes. Besides that, the actual science starts to turn into more speculative territory. And then there are the issues with curve fitting etc. So much fud on both sides. IPCC does not actually do any science themselves, they don't even check the data they just do meta-studies and much of that is based on best guesses. They are an organization who only exist because there is a fear of climate change. That's not science that's politics. Let the scientists do science rather than this absurd political circus which gets in the way. There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes and that should be a big red flag to anyone who claims to be a critical thinker. Furthermore, none of the things you claim are things we won't be able to deal with or can't already. The frog metaphor would work fine if we didn't become better and better at dealing with the challenges nature puts towards us but that's not how things work. Nature doesn't give us a safe environment we don't make unsafe. It gives us a hostile and unsafe environment we then make safe and will continue to affect. There is no consensus that climate change can become an existential threat in anything than a speculative sense and it doesn't matter. A consensus is not proof nor is it science. Only demonstration is science.

uxcolumbo 8y ago
I'm aware IPCC doesn't do science themselves and it is a study of studies like you said. But meta studies are a gold standard (especially for complex systems) as they average out the errors. Those studies are from scientists who do science, so I don't quite follow your comment. If I understand your comment correctly ("test in a large scale system"), in order to be 100% sure what would happen if the global temperature rises above 1.5C we would somehow have to replicate planet Earth with all its complex systems and speed up time to see what will actually happen? What about the models that scientists create? Are you saying that's not real science? Keep in mind that Earth climate models were used to successfully predict Martian weather, so I think we can trust those models that warn us of a climate threat if we don't cut our CO2 emissions. Are you basically saying there is nothing to worry about, because nothing has been proven yet?
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Take something like curve fitting. That's not done based on some rigid methodology it's based on best guesses by the individuals. And because you are dealing with something as politicized as climate change that basically means that the validity of these metastudies is at least questionable. Keep in mind without climate change fear there is no need for climate change scientist. The climate is always changing but the scientists can easily cover that. You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry. The climate is changing but lets' stop pretending the hockey stick is science. It's not it's an interpretation of data a very very very different thing. On top of that. The claim that we only have 12 years left to do something about things is NOT science its speculation based on interpretation of the available data. Of course, the models aren't science. If it was science we wouldn't have different outcomes based on different inputs. We wouldn't be talking about a spectrum from almost nothing to +6 degrees. What exactly did they predict though with regards to the martian weather? It's is orders of magnitudes simpler than ours so that's not really an argument and no you can't trust the models cause they are based on very different things. What I am saying is that neither you nor anyone else has shown scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change we don't know how to deal with. So I would love someone to be specific with showing something we don't know how to deal with and which would warrant some of the more extreme proposals we have heard such as ban fossile fuels and subsidies to sun and wind. And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change.
  - uxcolumbo 8y ago
    My understanding is the models are an approximation but fed with real world data. You can't compare this to a law of physics. That's why we get a range and not exact values, so don't take the 12 years literal - it's also an approximation. There is much more explained on the NASA website https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ RE: You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry. What's in it for the climate scientists, e.g. what's in it for James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) to not be truthful about this? What's in it for him if he can convince the world that global warming has negative consequences for our habitat? Maybe the outcome would be that we would make a more concerted effort to get off fossil fuels and maybe try to have a more sustainable lifestyle? I don't think that's a bad outcome. There is a lot of profit for the oil industry to spread misinformation and for lobbying to keep the status quo. Exxonmobil's scientist already knew about climate change, but then Exxonmobil spread misinformation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... RE: And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change. Our local environment is connected to the global environment - you can't separate the two. Stuff gets into the stratosphere and then around the whole world or our plastic straws end up in a turtle's nose. It's one big system.

uxcolumbo 8y ago

I'm aware IPCC doesn't do science themselves and it is a study of studies like you said. But meta studies are a gold standard (especially for complex systems) as they average out the errors. Those studies are from scientists who do science, so I don't quite follow your comment. If I understand your comment correctly ("test in a large scale system"), in order to be 100% sure what would happen if the global temperature rises above 1.5C we would somehow have to replicate planet Earth with all its complex systems and speed up time to see what will actually happen? What about the models that scientists create? Are you saying that's not real science? Keep in mind that Earth climate models were used to successfully predict Martian weather, so I think we can trust those models that warn us of a climate threat if we don't cut our CO2 emissions. Are you basically saying there is nothing to worry about, because nothing has been proven yet?

ThomPete 8y ago
Take something like curve fitting. That's not done based on some rigid methodology it's based on best guesses by the individuals. And because you are dealing with something as politicized as climate change that basically means that the validity of these metastudies is at least questionable. Keep in mind without climate change fear there is no need for climate change scientist. The climate is always changing but the scientists can easily cover that. You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry. The climate is changing but lets' stop pretending the hockey stick is science. It's not it's an interpretation of data a very very very different thing. On top of that. The claim that we only have 12 years left to do something about things is NOT science its speculation based on interpretation of the available data. Of course, the models aren't science. If it was science we wouldn't have different outcomes based on different inputs. We wouldn't be talking about a spectrum from almost nothing to +6 degrees. What exactly did they predict though with regards to the martian weather? It's is orders of magnitudes simpler than ours so that's not really an argument and no you can't trust the models cause they are based on very different things. What I am saying is that neither you nor anyone else has shown scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change we don't know how to deal with. So I would love someone to be specific with showing something we don't know how to deal with and which would warrant some of the more extreme proposals we have heard such as ban fossile fuels and subsidies to sun and wind. And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change.
- uxcolumbo 8y ago
  My understanding is the models are an approximation but fed with real world data. You can't compare this to a law of physics. That's why we get a range and not exact values, so don't take the 12 years literal - it's also an approximation. There is much more explained on the NASA website https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ RE: You should at least apply the same kind of skepticism to the climate change scientists as you do to the oil industry. What's in it for the climate scientists, e.g. what's in it for James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) to not be truthful about this? What's in it for him if he can convince the world that global warming has negative consequences for our habitat? Maybe the outcome would be that we would make a more concerted effort to get off fossil fuels and maybe try to have a more sustainable lifestyle? I don't think that's a bad outcome. There is a lot of profit for the oil industry to spread misinformation and for lobbying to keep the status quo. Exxonmobil's scientist already knew about climate change, but then Exxonmobil spread misinformation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... RE: And I am saying there is plenty to worry about in your local environment which you can actually do something about and which is sustainable change. Our local environment is connected to the global environment - you can't separate the two. Stuff gets into the stratosphere and then around the whole world or our plastic straws end up in a turtle's nose. It's one big system.