4 ms·

It's a bit worse than "zero appreciation" in some cases, it's people using the results from hundreds of years of advances in science and engineering to proudly

It's a bit worse than "zero appreciation" in some cases, it's people using the results from hundreds of years of advances in science and engineering to proudly post their anti-scientific viewpoints.

abwizz 3y ago
rather common thou, as it should be. i.e. there absolutely cannot be any obligation to subscribe to the ideology of either team eddison or team westinghouse in order to make use of a light switch.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
[flagged]
- imtringued 3y ago
  I'm sorry but CO2 being the primary driver of climate change was predicted in the 50s. Back then it was just a hypothesis and now it is undeniable. Meanwhile the competition that was "bullied into submission" made ridiculous claims like global cooling all the way until 2014. Inform yourself about a topic before talking about it. Here is the ancient paper: [1] If you check the prediction in the abstract it mentions doubling CO2 levels, which means going from 310ppm (1955) [2] to 417ppm today or a 33% increase. The paper predicts a 3.6°C increase and 33% of that is around 1.18°C which is dead on. The temperature record goes back to 1880 but when you look at the relative warming then 1950 and 1880 had the same temperature [3] so it doesn't matter that IPCC numbers start from 1880 instead of 1950. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.... [2] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5/download.table https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-co... [3] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globaltemp/global_gis_2022_chart.png https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globalte...
  - machina_ex_deus 3y ago
    If you think predicting a single number and doing it this badly (temperatures), 33% within the correct value, and calling it science, you're the problem. Oh and nice cherry picking. With the given variable and its pretty small variance, I can cherry pick models too, and claim it is the rain god's judgement, or whatever. The fact that IPCC's models currently barely even give a consistent prediction, and the variance between them is so high, shows this isn't science. Everyone's attributing the signal in the models to CO2 or climate change, while the most reasonable explanation, is that the signal is a result of the agreed upon biases and approximations that everyone in "climate science" is copying from each other, and it is also clear that models that were developed independently give more diverging results, the Russian model even predicting cooling.

It's a bit worse than "zero appreciation" in some cases, it's people using the results from hundreds of years of advances in science and engineering to proudly post their anti-scientific viewpoints.

abwizz 3y ago

rather common thou, as it should be. i.e. there absolutely cannot be any obligation to subscribe to the ideology of either team eddison or team westinghouse in order to make use of a light switch.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

[flagged]

imtringued 3y ago
I'm sorry but CO2 being the primary driver of climate change was predicted in the 50s. Back then it was just a hypothesis and now it is undeniable. Meanwhile the competition that was "bullied into submission" made ridiculous claims like global cooling all the way until 2014. Inform yourself about a topic before talking about it. Here is the ancient paper: [1] If you check the prediction in the abstract it mentions doubling CO2 levels, which means going from 310ppm (1955) [2] to 417ppm today or a 33% increase. The paper predicts a 3.6°C increase and 33% of that is around 1.18°C which is dead on. The temperature record goes back to 1880 but when you look at the relative warming then 1950 and 1880 had the same temperature [3] so it doesn't matter that IPCC numbers start from 1880 instead of 1950. [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.... [2] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5/download.table https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-co... [3] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globaltemp/global_gis_2022_chart.png https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globalte...
- machina_ex_deus 3y ago
  If you think predicting a single number and doing it this badly (temperatures), 33% within the correct value, and calling it science, you're the problem. Oh and nice cherry picking. With the given variable and its pretty small variance, I can cherry pick models too, and claim it is the rain god's judgement, or whatever. The fact that IPCC's models currently barely even give a consistent prediction, and the variance between them is so high, shows this isn't science. Everyone's attributing the signal in the models to CO2 or climate change, while the most reasonable explanation, is that the signal is a result of the agreed upon biases and approximations that everyone in "climate science" is copying from each other, and it is also clear that models that were developed independently give more diverging results, the Russian model even predicting cooling.