3 ms·
As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved. I
by FD3SA 11y ago
As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved.
It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this planet. Yet, the biosphere has always adapted and life continued.
Assuming that mankind is destroying the biosphere at an unprecedented rate (we are), and burning hydrocarbons at an even faster rate (we are), are these two factors enough to turn the earth into a Mars-style wasteland, completely devoid of all life?
It just doesn't seem plausible to me on an intuitive level. We can use linear regression models of the atmosphere and show temperatures rising until life becomes impossible, but that is not how complex biospheres work.
In any case, climate science is definitely a worthy scientific discipline to study, but it is becoming akin to economics in the prediction department. As in, the principles are sound, but the predictions of the experts are laughably wrong on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, this is all due to Al Gore and his "moment of genius" which instantly politicized the scientific process, thereby destroying any potential for real scientific progress through the feedback loop of empirical testing and model formation. If you disagreed with Al Gore's version of climate change, Al Gore's version of climate models, and Al Gore's version of climate science, you suddenly became a heretic "climate change denier".
Alas, we humans really are terrible at science.
1. http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
2. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.h...
- hga 11y agoIt happened earlier than that, or at least according to a science journalist friend who interviewed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen in 1990 plus or minus a year. He quoted Lindzen saying that he had thought scientists were interested in the truth.... I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. Amusingly enough, one of those guys became one of the most notorious global warming "scientist".
- scarmig 11y agoI'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. At this point, that should be worth at most an eye roll. But it bears re-iterating: never happened. Not true. And repeating it is dishonest.
- hga 11y agoI guess it was just my imagination when I was coming of age starting in the late '60s.... Try again.