3 ms·

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)

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.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    They are approximations using approximate data which isn't being checked for validity trying to predict consequences 50-80 years out. I am not taking it literally I am not even taking it seriously. Again I am well aware of the literature you still haven't been able to show actual proof of any claim of us having 12 or approximately 12 years left to avoid some catastrophe you haven't even substantiated what catastrophe or show that we can't deal with it. There are plenty of scientists who think Hansen is wrong and it's certainly been wrong that New York would be under water by 2010 as it was claimed by some. In fact, all claims about our inability to deal with climate change have so far been wrong. What do you mean what's in it for climate scientists? Their livelihood exactly the same as you claim is in it for the oil industry and which is in it for the Greentech industry. What do the scientists who are skeptical about the claims have to gain from this? You are only applying ill intent to one side not the other. There is plenty of NASA scientists who are skeptics too. Of course, I can separate the two when it comes to what I can do something about and what I can't. I can do something about whether someone should pollute in my backyard I can't do anything about whether China decides to build yet another coal factory. I would really urge you to spend the time and dig into this. Read both sides of the argument and then tell me that you don't come back much less confident in anything you hear.

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.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  They are approximations using approximate data which isn't being checked for validity trying to predict consequences 50-80 years out. I am not taking it literally I am not even taking it seriously. Again I am well aware of the literature you still haven't been able to show actual proof of any claim of us having 12 or approximately 12 years left to avoid some catastrophe you haven't even substantiated what catastrophe or show that we can't deal with it. There are plenty of scientists who think Hansen is wrong and it's certainly been wrong that New York would be under water by 2010 as it was claimed by some. In fact, all claims about our inability to deal with climate change have so far been wrong. What do you mean what's in it for climate scientists? Their livelihood exactly the same as you claim is in it for the oil industry and which is in it for the Greentech industry. What do the scientists who are skeptical about the claims have to gain from this? You are only applying ill intent to one side not the other. There is plenty of NASA scientists who are skeptics too. Of course, I can separate the two when it comes to what I can do something about and what I can't. I can do something about whether someone should pollute in my backyard I can't do anything about whether China decides to build yet another coal factory. I would really urge you to spend the time and dig into this. Read both sides of the argument and then tell me that you don't come back much less confident in anything you hear.