4 ms·

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. When you look at the people who actually study this stuff for a living there is very little disagreement about

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. When you look at the people who actually study this stuff for a living there is very little disagreement about the nature of the problem and the direction things are headed. Most of the controversy and the oft-regurgitated talking points about "solar cycles", "ice age", "but everyone thought it was global cooling in the 70s", etc seem to originate from the same few sources. I agree that journalists suck and are easily manipulated. But the overwhelming scientific evidence seems to point in one direction and it's not good. It's ok to disagree on policy, but the global warming "skeptic" game plan has been to disagree on reality.

taylodl 4y ago
People keep forgetting how science works when it's convenient for them to do so. In the 70s Time reported scientists concerned with global cooling. Yes, some scientists were concerned about global cooling, but there was no scientific consensus. It was a scientific discussion. Now of course people say "scientists said" something back then and "scientists are saying something different" today - you just can't trust those darned scientists! Which of course simply isn't true but even if it were - so what? The evidence is the evidence.
helloworld11 4y ago
It should in principle be okay to disagree with whatever posture you like, just it should be okay for billionaires to fund the viewpoints of their choice if other billionaires can fund more dominant viewpoints of their choice without problems. I'd say it's you who misses the forest for the trees, and the other poster's main point, which to my reading was that if the Gates Foundation (and many others) can funnel billions to a certain climate science/policy stance, it's nothing short of hypocritical for hysteria to be devoted on people like the Koch brothers for doing the same in a different direction. On a final note, while the basic scientific consensus that human caused climate change is a real thing seems quite firmly settled, there are many details and disagreements that no self-respecting scientist can claim don't exist. There are enough of these for plenty of healthy debate, even on major points, to be a good thing, as it almost always is on most topics. There's also no shortage of self-interested politics being mixed into narratives pushing for aggressive climate change responses. This is rarely conducive to completely honest discourse from either side of the table.
frypto 4y ago
What are you talking about the most controversy is that scientist are refusing to answer questions sceptics have. Your talking points are just well poison used to make critiques look stupid. Like what is the margin of error of the climate data. They don't give any and just say they don't need too, they are perfect. Which can easily be disproven. Even Bill Gates criticized that scientist don't have an answer to "cloud formations" in his TED Talk about climate change. Clouds just don't exist in climate models, because apparently it's just to complicated.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  If you want metaphysical certitude, ask your preferred religious leader and then ignore all the other religious leaders who provide metaphysical certitude that contradicts your preferred religious leader. A good scientist will not provide you with guarantees, because they know that they are limited, imperfect humans who are doing the best with the information and models they have. Many people will interpret this as refusing to answer questions. The fact that we don't have a perfect understanding of climate does not suggest to me that we're free to alter the gas composition of our atmosphere any way we choose - I'd think the opposite - we should be careful when making changes to the Earth when we do not fully understand the consequences.

taylodl 4y ago

People keep forgetting how science works when it's convenient for them to do so. In the 70s Time reported scientists concerned with global cooling. Yes, some scientists were concerned about global cooling, but there was no scientific consensus. It was a scientific discussion. Now of course people say "scientists said" something back then and "scientists are saying something different" today - you just can't trust those darned scientists! Which of course simply isn't true but even if it were - so what? The evidence is the evidence.

helloworld11 4y ago

It should in principle be okay to disagree with whatever posture you like, just it should be okay for billionaires to fund the viewpoints of their choice if other billionaires can fund more dominant viewpoints of their choice without problems. I'd say it's you who misses the forest for the trees, and the other poster's main point, which to my reading was that if the Gates Foundation (and many others) can funnel billions to a certain climate science/policy stance, it's nothing short of hypocritical for hysteria to be devoted on people like the Koch brothers for doing the same in a different direction. On a final note, while the basic scientific consensus that human caused climate change is a real thing seems quite firmly settled, there are many details and disagreements that no self-respecting scientist can claim don't exist. There are enough of these for plenty of healthy debate, even on major points, to be a good thing, as it almost always is on most topics. There's also no shortage of self-interested politics being mixed into narratives pushing for aggressive climate change responses. This is rarely conducive to completely honest discourse from either side of the table.

frypto 4y ago

What are you talking about the most controversy is that scientist are refusing to answer questions sceptics have. Your talking points are just well poison used to make critiques look stupid. Like what is the margin of error of the climate data. They don't give any and just say they don't need too, they are perfect. Which can easily be disproven. Even Bill Gates criticized that scientist don't have an answer to "cloud formations" in his TED Talk about climate change. Clouds just don't exist in climate models, because apparently it's just to complicated.

hotpotamus 4y ago
If you want metaphysical certitude, ask your preferred religious leader and then ignore all the other religious leaders who provide metaphysical certitude that contradicts your preferred religious leader. A good scientist will not provide you with guarantees, because they know that they are limited, imperfect humans who are doing the best with the information and models they have. Many people will interpret this as refusing to answer questions. The fact that we don't have a perfect understanding of climate does not suggest to me that we're free to alter the gas composition of our atmosphere any way we choose - I'd think the opposite - we should be careful when making changes to the Earth when we do not fully understand the consequences.