4 ms·
Creation science is a purely religious viewpoint with basically zero physical evidence. Climate science has a clear physical mechanism (CO2 traps more solar en
by api 8y ago
Creation science is a purely religious viewpoint with basically zero physical evidence.
Climate science has a clear physical mechanism (CO2 traps more solar energy than N2, O2, etc.) and quite a bit of observation confirming the effect. It's simple to do an experiment showing that increasing CO2 increases a primary mechanism of the greenhouse effect. It's really pretty simple. The only debate is just how significant the effect will be, how rapid, and whether it's linear or there are thresholds.
The only reason this is a politicized issue is that the fossil fuel industry is wealthy and powerful and aligned with numerous interests including major nation states where petroleum makes up a huge percentage of export revenue. If it were not such an economically significant issue there wouldn't be any debate.
- basurihn 8y agoWrong.
- arcticbull 8y ago"Wrong" isn't an argument.
- basurihn 8y agojudith curry has an argument. She can speak for me.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoIt's not just the fossil fuel industry -- it's every industry that buys energy, and consumers that buy it -- it's politicized because the prosperity and growth of the economy as a whole is at stake.
- api 8y agoI don't think that argument works. According to caiso.org (California) about 30% of my electric power right now is solar and over 50% are non-fossil-fuel sources including solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. In Texas wind sometimes provides over 50% of power for some regions. 20 years ago that would have been under 10% in both cases. If fossil power is phased out it will just increase demand for other sources of energy. These will at first be more expensive, but high demand causes investments in scaling which reduces unit cost as in virtually every industrial process. Look at the cost curves for solar and wind for the past 20 years. It's almost like Moore's Law.