3 ms·
Are you discussing the cause and effect chain or the policy solution? From what I've seen, the data is compelling: burning coal is contributing to climate chan
by hellojesus 4y ago
Are you discussing the cause and effect chain or the policy solution?
From what I've seen, the data is compelling: burning coal is contributing to climate change.
The policy solution, however, is much more challenging, and that's where I see the most groupthink occurring.
- systemvoltage 4y agoI find data compelling as well. That's not my argument at all. I am just saying that there is no room for dissent both in academia, but as you said it is even more insane in the policy sphere. I find any area in science that's strongly guarded in combination with media, corporations, governments and group think extremely problematic, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me.
- babypuncher 4y agoThere comes a point where the evidence and consensus are so strong that dissenting opinions are no longer worth considering. If someone in acadamia tries to say the Earth is flat, would you expect them to be taken seriously, or laughed out of their profession?
- systemvoltage 4y agoClimate science isn't settled, although the data is compelling, more needs to be done and level set, separate wheat from the chaff. Investigate incentives, censorship and funding. Evidence is nowhere as strong as defining the radius of the earth or questioning the law of Gravity. There is a giant machinery of Big Tech + ESG + Environmentalists + MSM that's spinning up the public opinions on climate change to the point where it is everywhere from products we buy to Apple keynotes, from Tinder profiles to corporate PR releases. It has become a religion of sorts. That alone makes me question every aspect of the policies, but also the underlying science. We need more debate, not less.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoWhile I agree in the general sense that climate science is worthy of scrutiny (as any other science is), anthropogenic contributions to climate change have been proven to 5σ certainly via satellite data for some time now. It's not as certain as the radius of the earth at a given point in time, but it is as certain as the existence of the Higgs boson. At this point, any contrary assessment would requires an extraordinarily robust rebuttal.
- pstuart 4y agoIf you're going on the "science is corrupted because they have an agenda" route, then perhaps include the fact that the fossil fuel industry is highly incentivized to subvert science to protect their profits.
- coding123 4y agoI think and hope we all agree here now about flat earth not being true. But most science debate is politicized. At every turn we optimize what we already believe is true. Thus what studies get funded? The ones where the main researcher already said coal/gas/etc. is causing climate change. The ones that don't? Sunspot activity researchers. The WAY this post will be replied to and downvoted IS the thing we're talking about. If you don't want to repeat history as has been for a 10000 years of human history, start listening to dissenting opinion more. At least more.
- origin_path 4y agoYeah people said that point had been reached for COVID too - within weeks. It hadn't and tons of stuff with "strong consensus" turned out to be wrong or worse, deliberate lies. Climatology is nowhere near as certain as the shape of the earth. It's filled with modelling projections, and dubious or outright manipulated evidence. Just look at the way they edit historical temperature data. It's so heavily edited that large swathes of scientific papers from the 40s 50s and 60s are now in open contradiction with current temperature graphs of the 20th century. Then it happened again in the first decade of the century - there was famously a "pause" in global warming that later they decided had never happened at all. Once again, at a stroke huge piles of research were invalidated. To compare a field that routinely invalidates decades of its own research by rewriting historical temperature measurements, to the shape of the earth, is not intellectually honest. The gap between these things is vast.
- coding123 4y agoIt's still not clear. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html#:~:text=Since%20the%20late%201970s%2C%20the,to%20a%20NASA%20funded%20study https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313.... Now don't get me wrong, I would rather our energy come from clean sources, but as a principal of healthy lungs not changing climate. There's much much much stronger evidence that the actual sun is affecting our climate more than anything right now. When things don't fit the narrative, all funding and direction is cut off.
- tomp 4y agoAnd building green unstable energy sources is contributing to burning coal. But anyone opposing solar power is branded as “climate denier”.