2 ms·
It's very interesting that you seem to think climate science is shaky, but economics, that's the real hard science. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Ther
by simiones 4y ago
It's very interesting that you seem to think climate science is shaky, but economics, that's the real hard science.
Of course, the exact opposite is true. There is now absolutely no doubt whatsoever that global warming is happening and that is is caused by the vast amounts of CO2 and other GHGs that our industrial activity is releasing into the atmosphere. There is a long history of fundamental science (chemical+physical quantifiable measurement of the warming effects of GHGs), historical data from geological records, statistical climate modeling and so on that is as established as any other of the earth sciences.
On the other hand, Economy can only vaguely be described as a science, with extremely over-simplified models that fail consistently, with very little theoretical or empirical evidence to back up the vast majority of its proponents claims - and with nowhere near the standards for what is considered "evidence" that physics or the earth sciences ask for (in terms of statistical measures).
- zosima 4y agoI think you are mixing solid and much less solid science here. GHG:s and their warming effects are solid science. This can be tested out in any lab. Statistical climate modelling, and the historical climate reconstructions are much more shaky and are probably not much more reliable than economics is. And probably for the same reason too: Experiments in those area are very difficult to perform.