General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
tom66:
--- Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 10:44:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pm ---If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved? Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening? Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
--- End quote ---
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.
--- End quote ---
Except as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historically underpredicted warming.
EEVblog:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 05:10:31 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on August 01, 2023, 08:10:35 pm ---scientists as a group will have to come to some sort of consensus on what is the 'truth of the day'.
--- End quote ---
No, I strongly disagree. This is not the job of scientists as a group to do. To decide what to do is politics, and politics can be based on science, but it's still not science.
For science, it's completely OK to say "we don't have truth of the day about this". This is also the job of science. Coming up with some kind of compromise middle ground or consensus is pseudo science.
--- End quote ---
And we saw how the unwillingness to do that during and now after covid, not only caused them to fail epicly, but it destoryed almost all of the communities respect in science (and politics, if there was any respect there to begin with).
I see this same thing happening again with climate science and climate politics.
And I'm an environmentilist who's married to an environmental scientist.
This is all going to come-a-gutsa-badly, but it'll be a slow train wreck over the next few decades as they attempt to push people to breaking point.
tszaboo:
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2023, 07:47:53 am ---
--- Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 10:44:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pm ---If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved? Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening? Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
--- End quote ---
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.
--- End quote ---
Except as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historically underpredicted warming.
--- End quote ---
Here is a graph cumulating 102 different models they run. There is one model that is relatively OK.
--- Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 02, 2023, 03:27:20 am ---I agree that a lot of efforts of fight global warming are overcomplicated and of poor value compared to some easier efforts that seem to be largely ignored. For example, the "carbon capture" schemes that are basically scams. Except for one that isn't - planting trees.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, fascinating that the solutions that don't provide any profit are the least talked about, isn't it.
--- Quote from: EEVblog on August 02, 2023, 03:31:42 am ---
--- Quote from: tautech on August 02, 2023, 03:03:17 am ---Good presentation of the facts will win the day...or should do.
--- End quote ---
There are more guesses than "facts". And the facts that you do have to do not always point to the best way to deal with any problem.
--- End quote ---
I really don't know how facts could succeed, when we scared young people to the point that they have depression and existential fear due to this. It's all just emotions at this point.
tom66:
--- Quote from: tszaboo on August 02, 2023, 10:26:39 am ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 02, 2023, 07:47:53 am ---
--- Quote from: tszaboo on August 01, 2023, 10:44:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on August 01, 2023, 09:59:10 pm ---If this was a grand conspiracy involving science, how does capitalism get involved? Surely it would like to minimise costs and maximise profit, by finding the truth that is being covered up(!), by paying those scientists who go against the grain to produce a detailed thesis on why climate change is not happening? Yet no such "truth" emerges despite the enormous financial benefits.
--- End quote ---
Are you this naïve? They are getting involved in it, because they can sell the same fuel with higher margin. Everything green is more expensive. The food which is made to barely resemble meat costs more than the actual meat. You know, stuff that the chicken eats costs more than the chicken.
Nobody is denying that it's not happening. We are denying the models, because they are flawed. All the IPCC past models have been too hot, and reality was always colder than what they predicted. There were a big scandal about satellite measurements inaccuracies that nobody of the normies heard about. Or you know, they didn't think about you know, the clouds :palm:. And even worse, social media and news is terrible at actually understanding what the models mean. They turn it into headlines to scare you, and by the looks of it, they succeeded.
--- End quote ---
Except as I showed in #27, the IPCC has historically underpredicted warming.
--- End quote ---
Here is a graph cumulating 102 different models they run. There is one model that is relatively OK. [..]
--- End quote ---
That's a model of warming in the troposphere, which is not the same thing. Global warming is about the warming of the atmosphere (troposphere included) causing warming of the planet as a whole (what the IPCC is concerned about because of crop failures, sea level rise and weather are strongly influenced by both surface temperature and tropospheric temperature.) And the IPCC models have underpredicted this: it is warming faster than anticipated.
This looks interesting:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data/
hans:
--- Quote from: Siwastaja on August 02, 2023, 05:10:31 am ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on August 01, 2023, 08:10:35 pm ---scientists as a group will have to come to some sort of consensus on what is the 'truth of the day'.
--- End quote ---
No, I strongly disagree. This is not the job of scientists as a group to do. To decide what to do is politics, and politics can be based on science, but it's still not science.
For science, it's completely OK to say "we don't have truth of the day about this". This is also the job of science. Coming up with some kind of compromise middle ground or consensus is pseudo science.
--- End quote ---
Couldn't be further from the truth though. It may not be the duty of a single scientist to single out everyone's other fault in their paper introduction to make their article more stand out (its professional suicide), but there are certainly survey papers and collective studies which has the main goal of going into the overall landscape of a scientific area.
E.g. medical studies aren't also concluded from a single trial. Each trial will have it weaknesses and limitations, such as population selection or scale, and there is always more research warranted. At some point someone will write up a review paper of say 10 studies, highlight the flaws and weaknesses, the contradicting and communal findings, and ultimate summarize what consensus facts and inconclusive findings can be established, and thereby what future work is needed. There are plenty of studies and even dedicated professorships and study groups that work on translating science into policy.
Take renewable energy. One of the best things we could do is to transition from a supply-regulated to a demand-regulated market. But how many people want to think about when energy is surplus so they can run their washing machine and dish washer? Its a solution we desperately need, but very little incentive for people to do so. Energy is our second currency, and politicians like to stick to old fashioned morals by subsidizing the crap out of anything that's non-sustainable.
Politicians should stay as far away from science as they can. If you see any politician that is citing science articles; run. They have contradicting stakes to scientists. Politicians are not indifferent, because if they would be, they would not join a party and be classified as left/right or conservative/progressive, and they would not broadcast hot takes to win voters.
Bureaucrats, jurists and other policy workers (like think tanks) should use the latest scientific findings to make realistic proposals (to the aforementioned politicians) that can help the society forward. And these are also the people that put off these politicians on the dumb ideas about how the world would work.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version