3 ms·

He doesn’t deny anthropogenic warming, he denies that it is the only significant forcing. No one predicted the current record temperatures, it fits with his mo

He doesn’t deny anthropogenic warming, he denies that it is the only significant forcing. No one predicted the current record temperatures, it fits with his model but not the IPCC estimates.

LatteLazy 3y ago
If he really has findings to share, he should take them to the IPCC. Writing 20+ pages (10 of which are just rhetoric or repeditie) about a pet subject on the internet is pointless by 99% of us don't have the knowledge to be sure or the power to do anything if we are sure. Add to that that the vast majority of these articles are just denialism and that it takes asymmetrically more time and energy to disprove BS that to create it and you understand people's refusal to engage. Would you read my 50 page essay about a perpetual motion machine, that I, a no one else happened to have invented? No, and rightly not. I did read about half and there are 2 key issues with this: 1. He commits the same mistakes he points out in others. He criticises Climate Change research because researchers don't stick to their own area of expertise. Because the field is so huge. But apparently he personally knows all these fields? 2. His key claim (that warming is not ONLY due to emissions but also sudden, extreme, geological change) is irrelevant. It does not really matter why the climate is suddenly violently changing. It matters how we stop it. If climate is because of emissions, we should stop emitting or take other action to counter the effect. If it is because of emissions AND geology, we should stop emitting or take other action to counter the effect. So who cares? If he has some amazing geological plan to stop warming then I am all ears. But he doesn't. He's engaged in an academic exercise of "I know the deep hidden secret no one else does because I am smarter than the experts", only his secret is not relevant to policy even if it is (however unlikely) 100% correct. I am sorry if this comes off as angry, but the science is in: we're in deep shit, and we need to move to the action phase. Not do more science. And we aren't, because action is painful and doing more science sounds better than pain so it's a good excuse. Like a cancer patient who keeps asking for more tests because Chemo / Radio / Surgery is a hard choice with no easy option...
- brutusborn 3y ago
  Your point about policy is good, but if he is correct then that would mean geoengineering policies would become more attractive than lowering emissions (since lowering emissions would have a limited effect and is very hard). I agree with the BS asymmetry. I don’t put this article in that category since he seems to have a clear hypothesis that explains the current record warming that is much higher than IPCC predictions. If the IPCC models are significantly wrong, this is important to know. He has tried to contact climate scientists but he hasn’t got very far and I don’t think it’s because he’s schizo. No worries about the tone, I understand the frustration. And to be clear, I don’t want more science per-se, but I worry we might be doing bad science.

He doesn’t deny anthropogenic warming, he denies that it is the only significant forcing. No one predicted the current record temperatures, it fits with his model but not the IPCC estimates.

LatteLazy 3y ago

If he really has findings to share, he should take them to the IPCC. Writing 20+ pages (10 of which are just rhetoric or repeditie) about a pet subject on the internet is pointless by 99% of us don't have the knowledge to be sure or the power to do anything if we are sure. Add to that that the vast majority of these articles are just denialism and that it takes asymmetrically more time and energy to disprove BS that to create it and you understand people's refusal to engage. Would you read my 50 page essay about a perpetual motion machine, that I, a no one else happened to have invented? No, and rightly not. I did read about half and there are 2 key issues with this: 1. He commits the same mistakes he points out in others. He criticises Climate Change research because researchers don't stick to their own area of expertise. Because the field is so huge. But apparently he personally knows all these fields? 2. His key claim (that warming is not ONLY due to emissions but also sudden, extreme, geological change) is irrelevant. It does not really matter why the climate is suddenly violently changing. It matters how we stop it. If climate is because of emissions, we should stop emitting or take other action to counter the effect. If it is because of emissions AND geology, we should stop emitting or take other action to counter the effect. So who cares? If he has some amazing geological plan to stop warming then I am all ears. But he doesn't. He's engaged in an academic exercise of "I know the deep hidden secret no one else does because I am smarter than the experts", only his secret is not relevant to policy even if it is (however unlikely) 100% correct. I am sorry if this comes off as angry, but the science is in: we're in deep shit, and we need to move to the action phase. Not do more science. And we aren't, because action is painful and doing more science sounds better than pain so it's a good excuse. Like a cancer patient who keeps asking for more tests because Chemo / Radio / Surgery is a hard choice with no easy option...

brutusborn 3y ago
Your point about policy is good, but if he is correct then that would mean geoengineering policies would become more attractive than lowering emissions (since lowering emissions would have a limited effect and is very hard). I agree with the BS asymmetry. I don’t put this article in that category since he seems to have a clear hypothesis that explains the current record warming that is much higher than IPCC predictions. If the IPCC models are significantly wrong, this is important to know. He has tried to contact climate scientists but he hasn’t got very far and I don’t think it’s because he’s schizo. No worries about the tone, I understand the frustration. And to be clear, I don’t want more science per-se, but I worry we might be doing bad science.