6 ms·

Have you verified the other experts who are part of this "consensus" everyone always talks about but never measures? I would guarantee they're connected directl

Have you verified the other experts who are part of this "consensus" everyone always talks about but never measures? I would guarantee they're connected directly to the journalism / media industry, in fact it's blatantly obvious, the sources for all of those claims are not scientific in that Wikipedia section. I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either. The cycle goes [University PR] -> [Funding for the University] -> [Funding for anti-C02 efforts] -> [Paper] -> [University PR]. The process doesn't exist without the PR component which supports an entire industry. No wonder they have a consensus. Also, I wouldn't trust the Guardian on something like this, as they're directly connected to these climatologists. You could probably prove it, but I'll have to sleep so no one will, and I'm not likely to come back here, I prefer to exist in reality, goodbye! Enjoy the coming economic doom in Silicon Valley. > "healthy dose of climate scepticism". Beyond embarrassing and straight up evil in my eyes. I don't take any point of view here ultimately, I keep having to reiterate that, there's a certain uncertainty to science. If it's evil in your eyes, maybe you're caught up in the middle of it. I think skepticism is important in any context as it's the opposite of dogmatism. Anyways, I do have credentials, but it's a Friday night, if you're still interested in having a reasonable discussion I'd be happy to learn why I'm wrong.

jsilence 6y ago
'I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either.' Sure they would. Sorry, but this argument is simply void, and to be frank, stupid. Do you really think these people are so dumb that the only job they can do is program massive climate models?
- solinent 6y ago
  No, I don't, but you've missed the point. It's not the people who program the models who are at risk, just the one who command armies of masters students to do the trick for them and who can't do it anymore, who also take most of the pie. Not only that, there's a whole industry around writing news articles and selling ads (google) around this climate alarmism. People will literally pay a significant margin for certain products just due to its supposed greenhouse gas impact (it's usually not co2 strangely enough to me). I've seen their arguments on YouTube, and some of them are very very rudimentary and incomplete. It's perverse and real people suffer today. Not imaginary people in the future. These models are incomplete and unscientific, it's worse than pseudoscience. We can't verify these models until we've had 100s of years of this, and by then we'll have better models we won't need to verify. The entire world is complicated, 10000 or 100000 or even 1000000 parameters is not going to cut it. And it's chaotic, so there's no reason that even if we could measure everything to that degree of accuracy precision and resolution that we'd even be able to predict anything at all. This is a mathematical topic, not even science. edit: I drank a coffee. I gave up my valuable sleep for this. I hope you're happy ;) Honestly, at a personal level, I kind of wish I believed you were right. I'd have more friends. People would have more jobs.

jsilence 6y ago

'I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either.' Sure they would. Sorry, but this argument is simply void, and to be frank, stupid. Do you really think these people are so dumb that the only job they can do is program massive climate models?

solinent 6y ago
No, I don't, but you've missed the point. It's not the people who program the models who are at risk, just the one who command armies of masters students to do the trick for them and who can't do it anymore, who also take most of the pie. Not only that, there's a whole industry around writing news articles and selling ads (google) around this climate alarmism. People will literally pay a significant margin for certain products just due to its supposed greenhouse gas impact (it's usually not co2 strangely enough to me). I've seen their arguments on YouTube, and some of them are very very rudimentary and incomplete. It's perverse and real people suffer today. Not imaginary people in the future. These models are incomplete and unscientific, it's worse than pseudoscience. We can't verify these models until we've had 100s of years of this, and by then we'll have better models we won't need to verify. The entire world is complicated, 10000 or 100000 or even 1000000 parameters is not going to cut it. And it's chaotic, so there's no reason that even if we could measure everything to that degree of accuracy precision and resolution that we'd even be able to predict anything at all. This is a mathematical topic, not even science. edit: I drank a coffee. I gave up my valuable sleep for this. I hope you're happy ;) Honestly, at a personal level, I kind of wish I believed you were right. I'd have more friends. People would have more jobs.