7 ms·

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information. However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because you're part of a mob. I mean it's one thing for an expert to claim certainty and argue their point of view, but you aren't actually certain - you just picked the safer bet. To be clear, I think the world would be a lot better place with less burning coal. I care a lot about the poisoning and pollution in the oceans. I think smog is disgusting. I probably have one of the smallest "carbon footprints" of any adult you know. However, I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. And concensus doesn't compel me much at all. Once upon a time in America, you could probably get a concensus (even among scientists!) that God was real.

adrianN 7y ago
The very fact that the climate is hard to predict and the models we use probably linearize a lot of nonlinear systems is what scares me most. The further we depart from normal average temperatures, the more likely it becomes that we hit some scary feedback loop the models don't account for and enter a hothouse Earth climate with palm trees at the poles.
- civility 7y ago
  Yeah, in the absence of information or understanding, a lot of people like to imagine the worst. I guess that's a good defensive instinct.
  - ljcn 7y ago
    "A lot" maybe, but I suspect the majority would do the opposite and deny/understate the problem. Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Risk management has a cost. The question is what is the price? What are you willing to pay for being "safe". What are you willing to risk? Are future generations worth more than current? Should we militarily prohibit poor countries from using fossil fuels which they use to better their lives? You can say worst outcomes with other things too, meteor, nuclear war, pandemic, terrorism, etc. you always have to find a balance. With the climate change debate, this balance is completely ignored and people are seriously suggesting making fundamental changes to society without having any ability to know what the consequences of those will be. Climate catastrophism is itself a potential danger.
      - specialist 7y ago
        I'm willing to risk removing the subsidies for carbon. Then let the Freedom Markets™ decide which sources of energy are better. Economically.
        ThomPete 7y ago
        Me too. Wind and solar constitute less than 1% of world energy consumption and doesn't have all the other properties and uses that makes oil such a fundamental and necessary ingredient for modern living. Hopefully overtime we will find something that's better, for now it's hard to find as amazing and flexible a resource as oil. Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal
        amanaplanacanal 7y ago
        > Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal Possibly, but it doesn't seem likely. In most parts of the US, it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than any of the fossil fuels. In some areas, I've read that it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than to run existing fossil plants. I don't know what the rest of the world looks like though.
        ThomPete 7y ago
acqq 7y ago
> I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Then you obviously don't know basic physics. The average temperature is much easier to predict (if some worse feedback doesn't get involved to make the development even worse, that is) than the microscopic "chaotic movements." I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years.
- civility 7y ago
  > Then you obviously don't know basic physics. Ugh, if you're going to just attack me, why not jump to the big guns and call me a shill for the oil company or some other cliche. > The average temperature is much easier to predict If you do enough averaging over a long enough period, this can be true. I mean, we can all tell the average position of a double pendulum. I'm guessing you think 1, 10, or 100 years is enough time to average temperature. Try looking at the last 400,000 years and tell me how well you can predict those swings. > I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years. You can believe anything you want, but I doubt you used the scientific method to get there.
  - acqq 7y ago
    > Try looking at the last 400,000 years and tell me how well you can predict those swings. Actually if we had so reliable measurements for that period like we do for last hundred years, it would not be hard. Your arguments have no basis, just an attempt to distract from the facts by grasping for what is not being discussed (e.g. 400 thousand years precise inference). Given the information we do have we have very good understanding of the relevant phenomena.
Gupie 7y ago
Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Because that consensus is trivial. Probably 100% agree that the climate is changing which is the question people agreed on. Even so-called skeptics agree on that. It's all the other questions that have much more uncertainty and less consensus. The use of that number is the kind of outright political manipulation that's so prevalent in this debate. Keep in mind we aren't even talking about scientifically demonstrated conclusions, we are talking about speculated conclusions. The IPCC doesn't do any research themselves and don't check the data, its a meta-study. What started my skepticism was when I realized they don't actually know how much human co2 emissions affect the temperature. Go try and find that number, you won't find it cause we don't know. Once I realized that and started understanding how the climate models work and saw how much interpretation and fitting and vague language was being used to obstruct the actual science, I realized that worrying about the environment was more rational. There is very very little actually demonstrated science in the climate debate it's almost entirely ideological and used by politicians to gain more power and create something to rally up voters around. In 10 years the climate catastrophism we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and see.
  - Gupie 7y ago
    >> In 10 years the climate catastrophim we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and se. That is very unlikely.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      Not really once you realize how much of the fearmongering is completely baseless. There is literally no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that we don't know how to deal with today let alone in 10-40-100 years from now.

adrianN 7y ago

The very fact that the climate is hard to predict and the models we use probably linearize a lot of nonlinear systems is what scares me most. The further we depart from normal average temperatures, the more likely it becomes that we hit some scary feedback loop the models don't account for and enter a hothouse Earth climate with palm trees at the poles.

civility 7y ago
Yeah, in the absence of information or understanding, a lot of people like to imagine the worst. I guess that's a good defensive instinct.
- ljcn 7y ago
  "A lot" maybe, but I suspect the majority would do the opposite and deny/understate the problem. Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Risk management has a cost. The question is what is the price? What are you willing to pay for being "safe". What are you willing to risk? Are future generations worth more than current? Should we militarily prohibit poor countries from using fossil fuels which they use to better their lives? You can say worst outcomes with other things too, meteor, nuclear war, pandemic, terrorism, etc. you always have to find a balance. With the climate change debate, this balance is completely ignored and people are seriously suggesting making fundamental changes to society without having any ability to know what the consequences of those will be. Climate catastrophism is itself a potential danger.
    - specialist 7y ago
      I'm willing to risk removing the subsidies for carbon. Then let the Freedom Markets™ decide which sources of energy are better. Economically.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        Me too. Wind and solar constitute less than 1% of world energy consumption and doesn't have all the other properties and uses that makes oil such a fundamental and necessary ingredient for modern living. Hopefully overtime we will find something that's better, for now it's hard to find as amazing and flexible a resource as oil. Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal
        amanaplanacanal 7y ago
        > Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal Possibly, but it doesn't seem likely. In most parts of the US, it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than any of the fossil fuels. In some areas, I've read that it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than to run existing fossil plants. I don't know what the rest of the world looks like though.
        ThomPete 7y ago

acqq 7y ago

> I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future. Then you obviously don't know basic physics. The average temperature is much easier to predict (if some worse feedback doesn't get involved to make the development even worse, that is) than the microscopic "chaotic movements." I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years.

civility 7y ago
> Then you obviously don't know basic physics. Ugh, if you're going to just attack me, why not jump to the big guns and call me a shill for the oil company or some other cliche. > The average temperature is much easier to predict If you do enough averaging over a long enough period, this can be true. I mean, we can all tell the average position of a double pendulum. I'm guessing you think 1, 10, or 100 years is enough time to average temperature. Try looking at the last 400,000 years and tell me how well you can predict those swings. > I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years. You can believe anything you want, but I doubt you used the scientific method to get there.
- acqq 7y ago
  > Try looking at the last 400,000 years and tell me how well you can predict those swings. Actually if we had so reliable measurements for that period like we do for last hundred years, it would not be hard. Your arguments have no basis, just an attempt to distract from the facts by grasping for what is not being discussed (e.g. 400 thousand years precise inference). Given the information we do have we have very good understanding of the relevant phenomena.

Gupie 7y ago

Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?

ThomPete 7y ago
Because that consensus is trivial. Probably 100% agree that the climate is changing which is the question people agreed on. Even so-called skeptics agree on that. It's all the other questions that have much more uncertainty and less consensus. The use of that number is the kind of outright political manipulation that's so prevalent in this debate. Keep in mind we aren't even talking about scientifically demonstrated conclusions, we are talking about speculated conclusions. The IPCC doesn't do any research themselves and don't check the data, its a meta-study. What started my skepticism was when I realized they don't actually know how much human co2 emissions affect the temperature. Go try and find that number, you won't find it cause we don't know. Once I realized that and started understanding how the climate models work and saw how much interpretation and fitting and vague language was being used to obstruct the actual science, I realized that worrying about the environment was more rational. There is very very little actually demonstrated science in the climate debate it's almost entirely ideological and used by politicians to gain more power and create something to rally up voters around. In 10 years the climate catastrophism we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and see.
- Gupie 7y ago
  >> In 10 years the climate catastrophim we see today will be laughed at. Just wait and se. That is very unlikely.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Not really once you realize how much of the fearmongering is completely baseless. There is literally no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change that we don't know how to deal with today let alone in 10-40-100 years from now.