2 ms·

> The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they a

> The models which link human carbon emissions to the temperature are not "facts", they are estimations based on the extent of our climate knowledge, and they are under constant revision. Yes, the models are under constant revision, to be able to make temporal or regional predictions, or to narrow predicted ranges for temperature, rainfall and so on, which are more or less dubious depending on how precise your attempted resolution is, but the direction of movement for the whole system is clear. The basic science of the greenhouse effect is well understood, and doubling the concentration of a major gas has a clear impact on global radiative forcing (that is, the energy balance). Actually you can only deduce no connection between CO2 concentration and temperature using complicated models and tortuous mechanisms to produce something which will act as a sufficiently large negative feedback effect. The very few scientists who propose such mechanisms are not seen as credible because their mechanisms are not credible.

sparkie 8y ago
It's not really the science I'm skeptical of. It's the politicization of it which I'm extremely skeptical of, and since that political aspect is funding the advancement of climate science, I have my doubts that those involved are really up to the task. But lets say they are honorable and their claims are completely unbiased, and that even all scientists do actually agree (ie, we're not just told the lie "all scientists agree"), now what? The "solutions" being offered by the political left are of course, no such thing. You can't tax the problem away. Economies still need fuel, and they're not going to shut down. Those who would suggest that they should be shut down by force are creating a bigger problem than they think they're solving. The world they look to create is one where the life is taken out of living under dictatorial rule, because they are unable to grasp that such power claimed to solve one problem will be abused to cause others. Power corrupts. So if they don't rule by force, then people are going to burn fossil fuels, because they want energy. There may be successful entrepreneurs who are able to develop cheaper energy than burning fossil fuel and will "accidentally" solve the problems without the use of force. Bigger government will only prevent that from ever happening. I commonly hear the argument that "climate skeptics are paid for by big oil," but capitalists would openly welcome any competition to oil. Big government means more red tape, and more obstacles for entrepreneurs who might otherwise contribute meaningful solutions. Capitalists want less of all of this. The choice is between freedom and dictatorship. I opt for the former. News articles like this are trying to sell the latter.

sparkie 8y ago

It's not really the science I'm skeptical of. It's the politicization of it which I'm extremely skeptical of, and since that political aspect is funding the advancement of climate science, I have my doubts that those involved are really up to the task. But lets say they are honorable and their claims are completely unbiased, and that even all scientists do actually agree (ie, we're not just told the lie "all scientists agree"), now what? The "solutions" being offered by the political left are of course, no such thing. You can't tax the problem away. Economies still need fuel, and they're not going to shut down. Those who would suggest that they should be shut down by force are creating a bigger problem than they think they're solving. The world they look to create is one where the life is taken out of living under dictatorial rule, because they are unable to grasp that such power claimed to solve one problem will be abused to cause others. Power corrupts. So if they don't rule by force, then people are going to burn fossil fuels, because they want energy. There may be successful entrepreneurs who are able to develop cheaper energy than burning fossil fuel and will "accidentally" solve the problems without the use of force. Bigger government will only prevent that from ever happening. I commonly hear the argument that "climate skeptics are paid for by big oil," but capitalists would openly welcome any competition to oil. Big government means more red tape, and more obstacles for entrepreneurs who might otherwise contribute meaningful solutions. Capitalists want less of all of this. The choice is between freedom and dictatorship. I opt for the former. News articles like this are trying to sell the latter.