4 ms·

The problem with your argument is comparing climate science to religion. There -is- actual science to support the climate doomers. You can cherry pick headlin

The problem with your argument is comparing climate science to religion. There -is- actual science to support the climate doomers. You can cherry pick headlines all you want, but the models have actually been pretty decent so far. Even a little too conservative. But it's a political problem in the end, anyway, not a science one.

iamegypt 3y ago
[flagged]
wernercd 3y ago
"there is actual science" There is SOME truth. but not all of it. Just like there is truth in religions - be nice to your neighbors. Do unto others. Truth. surrounded by bullshit (religion, dogma, etc). There is truth and "actual science"... but there's also half truths, lies, bad prophecies, etc. "you can cherry pick" likewise, you can cherry pick some facts about carbon... and then ignore stuff like the destruction required to make batteries, the inability to recycle a MASSIVE fuckton of "green" (wind mill blades, batteries, solar panels, etc - all ending up in land fills). "models" yeah... except that models are limited, have increasing error rates and you end up with the spaghetti modeling with the simple stuff like weather for next week - much less the weather for next year. Speaking of cherry picking... you'll cherry pick one or two models from a decade ago and ignore the 100+ others that are wrong. "political not science" it's both. and religious. It's faith in models that have been cherry picked while ignoring inconvenient truths about "green" solutions that are based on bad models that can't be proven and that don't cover all the possibilities. the problem with your response is your apparent faith in science and, like a Catholic who will downplay problems with priests, you'll ignore the parts you are uncomfortable with. climate change is real (little c, little c). Has been happening for... all of history. Climate Change is not (big C, big C). It is a religion. One is based on facts and science. the other is based on faith.

iamegypt 3y ago

[flagged]

wernercd 3y ago

"there is actual science" There is SOME truth. but not all of it. Just like there is truth in religions - be nice to your neighbors. Do unto others. Truth. surrounded by bullshit (religion, dogma, etc). There is truth and "actual science"... but there's also half truths, lies, bad prophecies, etc. "you can cherry pick" likewise, you can cherry pick some facts about carbon... and then ignore stuff like the destruction required to make batteries, the inability to recycle a MASSIVE fuckton of "green" (wind mill blades, batteries, solar panels, etc - all ending up in land fills). "models" yeah... except that models are limited, have increasing error rates and you end up with the spaghetti modeling with the simple stuff like weather for next week - much less the weather for next year. Speaking of cherry picking... you'll cherry pick one or two models from a decade ago and ignore the 100+ others that are wrong. "political not science" it's both. and religious. It's faith in models that have been cherry picked while ignoring inconvenient truths about "green" solutions that are based on bad models that can't be proven and that don't cover all the possibilities. the problem with your response is your apparent faith in science and, like a Catholic who will downplay problems with priests, you'll ignore the parts you are uncomfortable with. climate change is real (little c, little c). Has been happening for... all of history. Climate Change is not (big C, big C). It is a religion. One is based on facts and science. the other is based on faith.