I'm biting my tongue. I find it so interesting that such smart people can be so dismissive of global scientific consensus.Originally Posted by Rogar
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I'm biting my tongue. I find it so interesting that such smart people can be so dismissive of global scientific consensus.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
Not dismissive, just providing context for anyone interested.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I believe we should phase out fossil fuels, curb plastic and other pollution, maintain strict environmental rules to secure clean air and water and protect forests, etc. I don't, however, think "scientific consensus" is infallible. in fact, it has a pretty spotty record. We might have mitigated global climate change to a degree if we had phased out fossil fuels decades ago, but big money interests quashed that.
That's because "scientific consensus" is just a generalized agreement of opinion. It has no place in the scientific method of observations, hypothesis, testing and eventual proof or refute.
I don't think our current popular notion of anthropomorphic climate change has been verified conclusively by the scientific method yet, it's still in the "likely" stage, much like the onetime "consensus" views that the Earth was the center of the universe or bleeding sick patients would release bad humours.
Someone please correct my heresy if I'm wrong.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Science is usually right compared to all the quakadoodle theories that have replaced it in online media. Science is fallible and incomplete, yes I know, but how much time should I waste belaboring such a common sense obvious point, when outright quackery is what is competing with it usually, and seems to be multiplying by leaps and bounds. I mean most of the alternate theories for stuff scientific (I'm not including social science) have actually Far Less Basis than the consensus view.
Even further accelerated climate change may well be the fatal influence of frankly FAR right leaders like Trump, heaven help us all, and not just because he might be a tad bit worse than say Jeb would on this or that policy. I don't doubt that. But ... i'ts not those shades, it's what the far right is doing to the world, with Bolsanaro etc.. All these traces a line of inspiration from leaders like Trump.
Trees don't grow on money
I wonder if the examples you provided were not based on any contemporary scientific methods, but more religious dogma and folklore. When you are talking "conclusively" I don't know that there will ever be the evidence required by some. Would 95% probability work? At least that's what NASA says. Enough from me for now. I would hope you continue to challenge things just to keep us believers honest. I doubt we will agree anytime soon.
Yes, I'm impressed with 95% probability, at least when talking Global Warming, which I believe to be a short term event already well on its way to being mitigated. I'd require something a little more conclusive than probability though when discussing Climate Change, which is a much broader and farther reaching phenomenon.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
You don't think environmental regulations being discarded are negative?
Just in case I mis-stated things, this is what NASA says. They did put a man on the moon after all (or so some say). OK, now I'm done.
"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."
My comment you're referencing had to do with the economy, not the environment, but even if I had meant environment I'm not sure what negative effects we've seen. I believe we're still ranked somewhere around 26th of 120 nations in eco-friendliness (with another 75 or so not counted). Don't quote me on that, I may be off by one or two points plus or minus, but still among the worlds most eco-friendly countries.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote