5 ms·

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 wi

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.
  - uxcolumbo 8y ago
    Yes, I'd like to dig into this, so I can better understand where you're coming from. Can you share your sources, scientists, reports etc? Thx
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons. But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about. Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion. So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ

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.
- uxcolumbo 8y ago
  Yes, I'd like to dig into this, so I can better understand where you're coming from. Can you share your sources, scientists, reports etc? Thx
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I assume you know plenty of places that argue like you do so I will give you a couple of other places that actually discuss this with both and cons. But keep in mind the debate isn't actually whether climate change is real. It is how accurate are the predictions and what if anything should we be worried about. Just so we are clear on the premise here. You will find very few people who say that climate change is not real that's not the discussion and it's never really been the discussion. So here are a couple of good debates that lay out some of the skepticism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-gLLxk-u78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass I would also recommend reading Alex Epstein's book The moral case for fossil fuel: he offers another way to think about this problem which is also what I am trying to get across. The climate debate we are having is mostly political and thus about priorities rather than about science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmL9hRrpIQ