3 ms·
The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science" (science is about doubt), because the climate scie
by dekken_ 2y ago
The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science" (science is about doubt), because the climate scientists actually can't prove anything, fundamentally. They only have stats, and stat models, and there is no way, at our technological level to even model a single mole of carbon 12 (12 grams of atoms), so you think they can model an entire planetary system? Accurately? No, it's not possible.
They also like to muddy the waters, climates change, because climates aren't even a thing, but an aggregate, obviously. Anthropogenic climate change, is what's being questioned, and that there is no certainty that it will cause disasters any more so than if there was still 300ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Maybe 400ppm is bad, doesn't seem so tho, we are living the experiment.
BUT also, I would bet Air Conditioners are far worse for the planet than 400ppm CO2, even if they act together. ACs, are, absolutely abysmal thermodynamically. Heating up one space to make another space colder temporarily, with high likelihood of CO2 release.
Slight tangent. Have you heard the sixth Dimmu Borgir album? Good stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRwNYPsHwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFRwNYPsHwY
I wonder will it generate any discussion, or just be castigated via downvotes, your choice.
- zaik 2y ago"Psychology can't produce real results because we can't even model a single brain cell perfectly. They only have stats, and stat models."
- dekken_ 2y agoYou want people to think you're a specious disingenuous person? It's of your own doing.
- MaxBarraclough 2y ago> The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science" (science is about doubt), because the climate scientists actually can't prove anything, fundamentally. There are people out there denying the shape of the planet, despite that it has been observed directly.
- dekken_ 2y agoAm I talking about those people? You're conflating things that are empirically verifiable with things that are not.
- MaxBarraclough 2y agoI was responding to what you wrote: > The fact that there is even a term like "Climate change denial", means that it feasible to deny "the science" This is clearly untrue. Some people, such as the 'flat Earthers', deny plain facts.
- dekken_ 2y agoYeah good point, I'll try better
- acidburnNSA 2y agoWe also can't model every single one of the atoms splitting in a nuclear reactor core, but thanks to stats and models, we can predict how they behave to very high precision. Knowing whether or not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions impact global climate can be reasonably achieved with some modeling assumptions. We may not be able to predict the weather in each location for the indefinite future, but we certainly can and do understand the general impact of bringing billions of tonnes of new greenhouse gas into a system.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kstrauser 2y agoSimilarly, “We can’t even model the inside of a proton. How can you possibly know when a pot will boil?” Turns out you can get pretty far modeling the macro behavior without perfect knowledge of the micro details.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]