2 ms·
>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? W
by aww_dang 5y ago
>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself.
That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never arriving at the zenith of truth.
>Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government.
This assumes one accepts the doomsayer's premises. These are the issues being disputed.
1)That men and their CO2 emissions are solely responsible for climate and weather.
2)That there is an optimal climate and fallible men can identify it.
Separate is the issue of "Free riders" and how that relates to the necessity of government mandates. The EPA sets standards for pollution. Those who are within the confines of those standards can do harm with their pollutants. Later they can claim they were within the established guidelines, absolving them of responsibility.
In this case the government regulators have created a scenario where polluters can "ride freely". Consider how this differs from the premises of natural law. If each individual owns himself and his body, those who's industrial factors damage the property of another should be liable for damages - regardless of EPA standards.
- syops 5y agoIt’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.
- aww_dang 5y agoYou hit the nail on the head with question about morality. The climate apocalypse is presented as a strictly scientific issue. It becomes scientism when the moral questions are ignored. IMHO, if we are to examine the moral question we need to ask not just about the premises of the doomsayers, but the potential outcomes of the favored solutions. Even where I disagree with their premises, I can appreciate the questions and arguments around the mechanisms for warming. However, the proposed solutions are plainly harmful. Where empirical observations required for climate science, apriori knowledge about human nature, reason and logic can be applied to their carbon credit central banking schemes. We know humans are flawed and greedy. We know the world is a complex place. Allowing the further privilege of centrally planning the world's energy consumption invites not just moral hazard, but catastrophic tyranny. Therefore, if you disagree about the specifics of AGW, fine. That is a separate issue. Consider the moral hazards of the doomsayer's proposals. Finally, avoid the trap of false alternatives. There are options besides inaction or adopting the warmist's proposals. Reforestation, forestry management and carbon storage through use of wood products is a viable alternative. Ask why this profitable solution is not given precedence over violent, government mandates.
- me_me_me 5y agoI am not saying smoking kills, all I am saying that there is not enough evidence that they do. So relax and have a cigarette...