5 ms·

This is misleading. No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". We have evidence which suggests that climate i

This is misleading. No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". We have evidence which suggests that climate is changing and humans may be responsible. But the global climate system is complex, constantly oscillating on periods ranging from days to eons, and our data is sparse, especially going back 20+ years. The certainty behind this consensus has been drastically overstated by ideologues who have taken it upon themselves to prioritize action over accurate reporting. There fundamentally is no proof that the changing climate will be catastrophic or result in runaway, especially when our historic temperature data is not fine grained enough to measure abrupt changes on the scale of 100 years. Though it is taboo to discuss, there is in fact evidence that such a rapid change is not unprecedented, that the earth has been hotter than it is now in the past, and that past sudden temperature swings clearly did not result in a venuslike earth. The fact that virtually all major climate change model forecasts published in the last decade or two have significantly overpredicted temperature increases is telling of the bias in mainstream climate science. I similarly take issue with this revisionist history wherein oil companies "knew" of climate change 60 years ago and deliberately ignored the danger. A claim of catastrophic anthropogenic terraforming requires evidence collection and modeling capability that simply did not exist 60 years ago, and given the periodic nature of climate, we simply will not know if this warming will indeed continue and/or become catastrophic without a lens into the future. Our current modeling capabilities are still inadequate.

derriz 5y ago
Anthropogenic global warming is scientific orthodoxy at this stage. You vastly underestimate the amount of evidence there is for this.[1] You're wrong about climate change models. The first 1990 one was based on a simplistic energy balance model and did overestimate warming. But all the later models have proven to have been uncannily accurate. [2] [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-... [2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...
- twofornone 5y ago
  The fact that it is indeed an orthodoxy is why the research is blatantly one sided. There is far less interest in, for example, unlocking millions of square miles of fertile, arable land. Instead its all doomsday - and the issue is systemic, publish or perish and orthodoxy are a dangerous combination, for any field.
teawrecks 5y ago
Ironic opening statement, there. > No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". You talk about "scientific fact" and "proof" like this is mathematics. The best empirical science can do is to gather as much data as possible and arrive at a probability that a conclusion is true given what is known. And what is known is that there is a greater than 99% chance that global warming is anthropogenic: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QE1ZU https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QE1ZU (Actual paper is paywalled and if you cared you'd go find it) You're right that our instruments and data have only gotten better over the last 70 years, but studies from the 50s conducted by oil companies already suspected that that global warming was happening and experimentally confirmed that CO2 released by fossils fuels were a likely contributing factor: https://www.slideshare.net/SimoneBoccuccia/cabon-dioxide-echange-between-atmosphere-and-ocean-and-the-question-of-an-increase-of-atmospheric-co2-during-the-past-decades https://www.slideshare.net/SimoneBoccuccia/cabon-dioxide-ech... So much for "revisionist history". But all of that is beside my point about media propaganda, much of which you are simply reciting in your own comment. My point is that the propaganda works, so thank you for taking the time to illustrate that.

derriz 5y ago

Anthropogenic global warming is scientific orthodoxy at this stage. You vastly underestimate the amount of evidence there is for this.[1] You're wrong about climate change models. The first 1990 one was based on a simplistic energy balance model and did overestimate warming. But all the later models have proven to have been uncannily accurate. [2] [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-... [2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...

twofornone 5y ago
The fact that it is indeed an orthodoxy is why the research is blatantly one sided. There is far less interest in, for example, unlocking millions of square miles of fertile, arable land. Instead its all doomsday - and the issue is systemic, publish or perish and orthodoxy are a dangerous combination, for any field.

teawrecks 5y ago

Ironic opening statement, there. > No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". You talk about "scientific fact" and "proof" like this is mathematics. The best empirical science can do is to gather as much data as possible and arrive at a probability that a conclusion is true given what is known. And what is known is that there is a greater than 99% chance that global warming is anthropogenic: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QE1ZU https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QE1ZU (Actual paper is paywalled and if you cared you'd go find it) You're right that our instruments and data have only gotten better over the last 70 years, but studies from the 50s conducted by oil companies already suspected that that global warming was happening and experimentally confirmed that CO2 released by fossils fuels were a likely contributing factor: https://www.slideshare.net/SimoneBoccuccia/cabon-dioxide-echange-between-atmosphere-and-ocean-and-the-question-of-an-increase-of-atmospheric-co2-during-the-past-decades https://www.slideshare.net/SimoneBoccuccia/cabon-dioxide-ech... So much for "revisionist history". But all of that is beside my point about media propaganda, much of which you are simply reciting in your own comment. My point is that the propaganda works, so thank you for taking the time to illustrate that.