Setting Fire To Sleeping Strawmen (now with extra Toniiiiiiiiiight, you're right, you're right, you're right)
-
Cue an army of idiots ignoring any data compiled at SkS on the basis that they are "clowns" in 3... 2... 1...
-
"Note the continuing downward trend in Antarctic land ice during the last decade." Right, because the Earth has existed for only a decade, and not several billion years...
-
The reason I think we need to act is that, from my perspective, the potential costs of not doing something and being wrong in that decision are far, far higher than the costs of acting.
IOW, you're making an argument based on emotion. And, if we're planning to spend billions of dollars on your feelings, let's have Al Gore sell all of his worldly possessions first, including his shiny digs.
-
-
Well I'm not an expert in climate science by any means, so take everything I say with a large pinch of salt, but the climate is a damned complicated thing. It's hardly likely that, even if average temperatures increase, the result will be a uniform heating.
For instance, I live in the UK and it's frequently predicted that the gulf stream/jetstream will weaken or move or disappear if the global climate warms up, which could mean we get colder here.
This is why I prefer to say 'climate change' rather than 'global warming'. Global warming is far too simplistic, and opens the door for people to point to a place that isn't warming up and claim that nothing's happening. Or to shrug the matter off saying that they wouldn't mind it being a bit warmer.
And if we're talking observations from the last decade or so, I don't have a scientific analysis of data to hand, but I'm old enough to remember when widespread flooding in this country shocked everyone. Now it's a matter of course that it floods somewhere or other many times a year. Go tell a person who now sweeps river mud out of their house on a semi-regular basis that climate change isn't happening because some places aren't getting hotter.
-
Go tell a person who now sweeps river mud out of their house on a semi-regular basis that climate change isn't happening because some places aren't getting hotter.
Don't see how more flooding = humans cause climate change though.
-
The climate scientists seem to think it's going to be a big deal and they're the experts.
Some of them do, but then they would, wouldn't they?
So when all the experts agree
Let me know when we're there.
and dissenters aren't changing anybody's minds with evidence
Hey, at least they have evidence.
At this point it's a fact in the same way that plate tectonics, the big bang and evolution are, which is to say that some knuckleheads still try to deny it.
This is insane. But could you explain why you think so? Are you simply appealing to what you think is authority? What do you think the "consensus" is?
-
The existence or not of climate change is not a political view. It's fucking fact.
+Ř
-
What did I read recently(ish) about sailing the northwest passage for the first time in forever?
Forever being like 100 years or so?
The signal being measured is tiny, the noise is huge.
So why are you so sure you know what the signal is? That's a very serious question. And more importantly, how do you (we) know the cause?
You mean all that oil money? I don't know what money you're talking about. There's probably enough money going around to enable the kind of analysis necessary to debunk climate change if the evidence supported it
Dude, all the research grants that get handed out by applications tying stuff to AGW. What oil money are you talking about? Those guys also spend money researching AGW and alternate energy and stuff. The money they spend on "pro" AGW stuff far outweighs the "con" AGW stuff.
-
More flooding = climate change.
I didn't say anything about humans causing it. I said it's happening. As I am not aware of any evidence or hypothesis to the contrary, I believe it is caused by whatever factor or combination of factors are causing climate change in general. This was just an example of one such change.
As it happens, I do believe that humans are causing or contributing to climate change, however my knowledge of the evidence that this theory is based on is not thorough enough for me to want to try to argue the point or be able to defend it if I did.
-
It was still the fourth warmest on record.
I have a lot of concerns about the temperature adjustments that continue to be made. Old temperatures get adjusted down and newer temperatures get adjusted up.
That said, please don't say "we can't predict the weather a week from now how can we predict it in 50 years"; that is a painfully dumb argument. If I ask you to predict a coin flip, you'll be wrong about half the time. If I ask you to predict how many heads will come up in 500 flips, you'll be pretty accurate.
It's not at all painfully dumb. Flipping a coin is not a chaotic and dynamical system. Comparing something like the climate to flipping coins is, however painfully dumb.
The reason I think we need to act is that, from my perspective, the potential costs of not doing something and being wrong in that decision are far, far higher than the costs of acting.
I heartily disagree, depending on what you mean by acting. If you mean that we need to make cheap energy artificially more expensive, then we should take this to the evil ideas thread. If you're saying something like, "let's invest in R&D in new energy sources," then I think you might be on to something.
Making energy expensive will harm people. And it will also make it more difficult to invest in those alternate energy sources, since we'll all be poorer. But you're also preventing truly poor people from improving their lives in major ways (think the 3rd world, here). Granted a lot of them will probably continue cooking with shit in their houses even with cheap energy, but you're just putting up another barrier.
-
Cue an army of idiots ignoring any data compiled at SkS on the basis that they are "clowns" in 3... 2... 1...
Well, they are. And at the end of the day, everything rests on computer models that have no predictive skill.
-
More flooding = climate change.
I didn't say anything about humans causing it. I said it's happening.
Got a cite for that? This passage is about the US:
In none of the four regions defined in this study is there strong statistical evidence for flood magnitudes increasing with increasing GMCO2.
Then, from the same link regarding floods:
The [IPCC] SREX is consistent with the scientific literature -- neither detection (of trends) nor attribution (of trends to human forcing of the climate system) has been achieved at the global -- much less regional or subregional -- levels.
...
(IPCC AR5 SOD) There continues to be a lack of evidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale
-
No, I don't have a cite. As I said in my original post, to which I was referring, I do not have citations and I am far from an expert but I have observed that the climate in my country has changed over the two decades I have been old enough to remember things. My country did not use to experience widespread flooding regularly. It now does. That is a change.
-
If we continue this line of conversation I'm going to end up needing to tell you to fuck off again. So I'll bow out at this point and just let you get on with displaying your superior grasp of pseudoscience to everybody else.
-
If we continue this line of conversation I'm going to end up needing to tell you to fuck off again.
I know. It's sad that "fuck off" is your best argument.
So I'll bow out at this point and just let you get on with displaying your superior grasp of pseudoscience to everybody else.
I know right? Who needs stuff like evidence or skillful prediction? What a drag.
Seriously, though, let me know if you find any evidence of a model with predictive skill.
-
I didn't say anything about humans causing it. I said it's happening.
Apologies, I had other folks posts in my head when I was reading yours.
@CarrieVS said:As it happens, I do believe that humans are causing or contributing to climate change, however my knowledge of the evidence that this theory is based on is not thorough enough for me to want to try to argue the point or be able to defend it if I did.
I don't really want to argue either. I would be very curious to see any such evidence though. No offense, but most people I've talked to about this tend to have the same position, "I believe it but can't really prove it". No disrespect to you, but that's not enough for me.
-
I am just going to leave this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU
There is a bit too much pseudo-science in here for me to join in though.
-
Well, I'm told by people who say they've done science on it that it's so. I haven't done science on it so I listen to the people who have.
Also it seems implausible to me that you can make a bunch of changes to a system and expect it to stay the same. There may be a certain amount of resilience but if you keep on pushing, something's gonna give in some way. That's not in any way proof - the Earth's atmosphere and climate is a highly complex system that I understand only in a very limited way - but it is my reasoning.
Furthermore, with the caveat that we have to find a way to do it that doesn't screw over millions of people in developing countries, not pouring so many pollutants into the atmosphere (and the oceans and everything else), not obliterating the rainforests as fast, and all the rest, can only do good. In other words, whether man-made climate change is real or not isn't much affecting my opinion on what action we should take - so I honestly don't care about it enough to do the research.
-
My view on climate change/renewables:
In some sense, it doesn't really matter if fossil fuel usage is destroying the environment or not. Oil, gas and coal will run out and if we're still dependent on them then we're screwed. That's the root of why I want to see more green tech and renewable energy.
-
Well, I'm told by people who say they've done science on it that it's so.
And some who've "done science on it" say it ain't so. The ones saying it's so haven't made a very compelling case to me.
Also it seems implausible to me that you can make a bunch of changes to a system and expect it to stay the same.
Yes, but it's difficult to know all of the changes and what it would have been like to begin with or even if the changes are "good" or "bad."
Furthermore, with the caveat that we have to find a way to do it that doesn't screw over millions of people in developing countries, not pouring so many pollutants into the atmosphere
Our fuel is so much cleaner (especially with modern usages) than the fuels used by those people. Compare wood / dung stoves to natural gas or even a modern coal plant powering an electric stove.
And claiming that CO2 is a pollutant is a big assertion that's far from proven. Obviously, it occurs naturally and is necessary, so we're really talking about levels. There seems to be a lot of evidence that historically recent levels are really damn low (and still are).
-
a modern coal plant powering an electric stove
We shouldn't be lighting coal on fire. Instead, we should be "burning" the thorium from coal in LFTR's. We should also use the abundant energy generated by LFTR's to liquefy the non-thorium part of the coal - and recycle used plastic!!! - into gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products. While we're at it, we should also use that abundance of energy from LFTR's to build and run water desalination plants by the shitload. Let's see, that covers energy independence, skewering of Big Oil, less pollution (including that eeeeeeeeevil CO2 that plants need, but anyway), clean water by the metric fuckton... I think that would do nicely. By the way, China's on this path already...
-
energy independence
Apparently Nigeria is shitting bricks because we just stopped buying oil from them, mainly due to our increase in production.
-
> CarrieVS:
Furthermore, with the caveat that we have to find a way to do it that doesn't screw over millions of people in developing countries, not pouring so many pollutants into the atmosphere
Our fuel is so much cleaner (especially with modern usages) than the fuels used by those people. Compare wood / dung stoves to natural gas or even a modern coal plant powering an electric stove.
That was kind of my point.
We can afford to run things on cleaner power and use energy more efficiently, and in many ways we already do. Other people can't - if someone's only source of power is a wood-burning stove, are you going to tell them they mustn't use it? If someone's only source of income is farming land that used to be rainforest, are you going to tell them they must stop?
If we were to simply say 'everyone must stop doing these things that harm the environment' - well actually what would happen is that it wouldn't get done, but let's do a thought experiment where we imagine we have some means of enforcing that mandate on the world - what happens to the people who can't afford to do anything else?
I'm not saying there's no solution either, just that any potential attempts to curb global emissions need to consider the impact on the poorest people.
-
My thing:
- We are/will get some climate changes -- it happens, no need to be apocalyptic about it, Homo sapiens made it through such things in the past.
- Fossil fuels will run out, sooner or later -- we need to have the alternatives in place before they do, though, so that we can smoothly move on instead of having a massive business shock due to the oil being all gone
- There are technologies that most people haven't even heard of that likely will play a role in our future energy situation -- thermal depolymerization of organic wastes, for instance, lets us make our own crude far faster than natural decomposition gives it to us.
- We cannot afford to give up a diverse generation mix just to jump on a political bandwagon. Do wind and solar have a role to play in our future? Yes. Are they a panacea? NO! We'll still need nuclear and closed-loop geothermal to provide bulk baseload, hydro for its blackstart capability, and (bio)gas for peaking. Never mind the need for biofuels and/or synfuels to serve as dense energy carriers, and the demand for petrochemicals...
-
@tarunik +1E100
-
All I know is last winter, here in Nebraska it was like -10° F for a solid two months, and that's a cold winter even for Nebraska! We even had cold weather and snow in May! Fast-forward to last summer, and everyone's claiming it was the warmest Nebraska winter in like a hundred years, easily debunked by anyone who actually lives here.
So forgive me if I'm skeptical, but when I see "expert" "data" about my area that doesn't match my own observations it makes me doubt all the other "data" the "experts" have.
-
Apparently Nigeria is shitting bricks because we just stopped buying oil from them, mainly due to our increase in production.
Unfortunately, fracking et al. aren't long-term solutions. Also, given OPEC's recent decisions to keep oil prices below profitability levels for US-based petro production ops, and also given that many such ops are debt-leveraged, expect some serious carnage in that sector within a couple years... which will lead us straight back to the Foreign Oil tit.
-
All I know is last winter, here in Nebraska it was like -10° F for a solid two months, and that's a cold winter even for Nebraska! We even had cold weather and snow in May! Fast-forward to last summer, and everyone's claiming it was the warmest Nebraska winter in like a hundred years, easily debunked by anyone who actually lives here.
So forgive me if I'm skeptical, but when I see "expert" "data" about my area that doesn't match my own observations it makes me doubt all the other "data" the "experts" have.
I'll respond to other comments later, but...Comments like this are very frustrating to me. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about the word "global". Like, you talk about the cold in Nebraska. Fine. You know what was going on in Alaska while we were having our polar vortex? Record heat. What about Australia? Record heat.. Even California? Record heat.
-
Whoosh. Except it wasn't a joke.
The problem is along with all the record heat in Australia and California, people were also claiming record heat in Nebraska, which was nowhere near true. If anything, it was more of a cold record, though we've certainly had colder before.
Actual cold record = reported heat record =
-
Unfortunately, fracking et al. aren't long-term solutions.
Define long term. "In the long run, we're all dead."
Also, given OPEC's recent decisions to keep oil prices below profitability levels for US-based petro production ops, and also given that many such ops are debt-leveraged, expect some serious carnage in that sector within a couple years.
A lot of things could disrupt. Like, Mexico or Venezuela could stop sabotaging themselves. I don't ever expect a "smooth" market in oil.
-
You know what was going on in Alaska while we were having our polar vortex? Record heat. What about Australia? Record heat.. Even California? Record heat.
Lucky them. We do a lot better in warmer temperatures than in colder ones.
-
If I may, a clip from The Wire:
-
So I'll bow out at this point and just let you get on with displaying your superior grasp of pseudoscience to everybody else.
This is not materially different from telling him to fuck off.
@Intercourse said:
There is a bit too much pseudo-science in here for me to join in though.
It's time for a new entry in the Antiquarian Lexicon:
pseudo-science (n.): disagreement with the consensus of scientists
Keep in mind that at one point the consensus was that people couldn't survive speeds of more than 30 mph. Science has been wrong before, and this is a field where falsification is effectively impossible, so we should be a lot more careful with this issue.
-
the consensus of scientists
TRWTF in this case is what most people seem to think the "consensus" is.
-
Keep in mind that at one point the consensus was that people couldn't survive speeds of more than 30 mph. Science has been wrong before, and this is a field where falsification is effectively impossible, so we should be a lot more careful with this issue.
So, because science has been wrong before, we should always assume it is wrong when the science shows something that does not align closely with our beliefs?
Here is my belief on the subject: 99% of scientists fall on the side of believing that climate change is happening. 99% of those believe that it is very likely to be the cause of increased greenhouse gases. You have 1% of scientists on the other side saying that it is not. I err on the side of majority in areas that I have no expertise in, because scientists fucking live to prove each other wrong. That is their fucking mission in life. It makes careers when someone goes against the grain and proves "common knowledge" wrong. That is not happening here.
I also hear that those who support climate change are profiting from this? How? I mean yeah, Al Gore, etc are. But the scientists in the field? Not hardly. There is a hell of a lot more money to be made on the other side preserving the status quo.
So my position on climate change is, "Fuck if I know, I am not a climatologist, but I trust the scientific process."
-
If I may, a clip from The Wire:
I am guessing that would have made sense if I had watched the show?
-
@Intercourse said:
Here is my belief on the subject:
What informs your belief? It doesn't match anything like what I've observed.
@Intercourse said:
I also hear that those who support climate change are profiting from this? How? I mean yeah, Al Gore, etc are. But the scientists in the field? Not hardly.
Stable employment is not the same as Al Gore selling his TV network to oil men, to be sure.
@Intercourse said:
It makes careers when someone goes against the grain and proves "common knowledge" wrong. That is not happening here.
Part of the reason is surely that dissenters have been actively prevented from making their case. It's a huge risk to go against the funding zeitgeist.
@Intercourse said:
So my position on climate change is, "Fuck if I know, I am not a climatologist, but I trust the scientific process."
This is not unreasonable, but you don't seem to have a good view of how the process is proceeding here.
-
What informs your belief? It doesn't match anything like what I've observed.
My numbers were not exact. An overwhelming majority of them do though. Those who disagree are in the vast minority. That is good enough for me.
Stable employment is not the same as Al Gore selling his TV network to oil men, to be sure.
So, then it seems to be your belief that there is a vast conspiracy that is being kept quiet solely for "stable employment"? I find that a lot harder to believe than any of the rest of the arguments against climate change. Anytime someone's point of view comes with the basis of a vast conspiracy, I find it suspect from the very beginning.
Part of the reason is surely that dissenters have been actively prevented from making their case. It's a huge risk to go against the funding zeitgeist.
How?? There have been a lot of them linked in this thread. Just because you have an opinion does not mean that it deserves equal coverage. Allow me to reply via XKCD:
This is not unreasonable, but you don't seem to have a good view of how the process is proceeding here.
I have a good enough view to satisfy me that there is no vast, overarching conspiracy occurring. So, again:
@Intercourse said:
So my position on climate change is, "Fuck if I know, I am not a climatologist, but I trust the scientific process."
Fuck me, I am being drug in to this quagmire. Aren't I?
-
@Intercourse said:
I err on the side of majority in areas that I have no expertise in, because scientists fucking live to prove each other wrong. That is their fucking mission in life. It makes careers when someone goes against the grain and proves "common knowledge" wrong. That is not happening here.
You do have a point there. However, climate change is a difficult area to do this in, for several reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head:
- Any study necessary to prove any part of the current climate change model wrong would take decades. Admittedly, the data for climate trends are generally available. But what if you wanted to try a different method of measuring temperatures? What if you wanted to try a show that there is little or no human impact on climate change? Those things would take a lot of time.
- Such long studies would be expensive. You'd need to be able to but the equipment and fund a team of scientists over the course of a decade or two. Good luck finding a backer with that kind of long range foresight. Especially since they probably won't get any sort of return on it.
- Climate is complex. Sure, we can measure the general trend, but how can we really have any idea what the cause is? Honestly, we can only have a hypothesis, because the only lab we have for climate is the earth. And since we can't control all the variables in that lab, we can't really be sure what is causing the changes we observe. We can make educated guesses, but that's all. We can't really test the cause hypothesis to the point of being able to even call it a theory, let alone a fact. So the "fact" that humans are influencing climate change is really a hypothesis.
-
However, climate change is a difficult area to do this in, for several reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head:
I get it. I am not trying to cop-out of the argument being presented here, but I just keep coming back to:
@Intercourse said:
So my position on climate change is, "Fuck if I know, I am not a climatologist, but I trust the scientific process."
I trust that those who are involved know what they are talking about, and that if they do not someone else will come along and disprove them. When one side of an argument has an overwhelming majority on their side, I tend to trust the scientific process. In the realm of climate change, we are a lot closer to 90/10 than we are even 50/50. There are a LOT of people involved and you cannot convince me that the overwhelming majority are doing so in order to provide:
Stable employment
It just is not going to happen.
-
-
And since we can't control all the variables in that lab, we can't really be sure what is causing the changes we observe. We can make educated guesses, but that's all. We can't really test the cause hypothesis to the point of being able to even call it a theory, let alone a fact. So the "fact" that humans are influencing climate change is really a hypothesis.
No offense intended, but this honestly sounds to me like the arguments against evolution or the Big Bang. Just because we cannot control all variables and observe the results does not mean that we cannot develop a working theory, and in the scientific world "theory" is as close as it gets to "fact".
-
@Intercourse said:
"Fuck if I know, I am not a climatologist, but I trust the scientific process."
This is were I have the problem. I get that the climate is changing. There is ample evidence to show that. It has been proven, using the scientific method.
What they haven't proved via the scientific method (and really, they can't) is that climate change is even minimally influenced by human activity. Could it be? Maybe. But there is no way for them to reliably test the hypothesis. Yet despite the fact that it cannot be tested, there are some who claim it is a fact that humans are heavily influencing the climate. From my <abbr title=Point Of View">POV, it's those people who are most likely to fall in the group that @boomzilla is talking about. These are the ones most likely to say "it's all our fault" in exchange for money.
-
@Intercourse said:
My numbers were not exact. An overwhelming majority of them do though. Those who disagree are in the vast minority. That is good enough for me.
What's vast? Who are you considering to have "valid" scientific opinions here?
@Intercourse said:
So, then it seems to be your belief that there is a vast conspiracy that is being kept quiet solely for "stable employment"?
That's not what I said at all. Anyways, it's not that quiet.
@Intercourse said:
I find that a lot harder to believe than any of the rest of the arguments against climate change. Anytime someone's point of view comes with the basis of a vast conspiracy, I find it suspect from the very beginning.
It's not a conspiracy, really (aside from some of the mucking around with peer review in some climate journals). But there's a sort of groupthink going on with respect to this stuff.
@Intercourse said:
How?? There have been a lot of them linked in this thread.
Stuff like stacking peer review to prevent people from publishing. I'm not saying that it's prevented anyone from pointing out the Emperor's naked ass, but if you're trying to say that there's no bias in funding or publishing, well, you're living a fantasy.
@Intercourse said:
I have a good enough view to satisfy me that there is no vast, overarching conspiracy occurring.
But not a good enough view to realize that's not what I said (though I didn't go into too much detail). But you're also ignorant about the scientific claims and have a distorted view even about who believes what.
-
What they haven't proved via the scientific method (and really, they can't) is that climate change is even minimally influenced by human activity.
Yes, it is entirely possible to prove such hypothesis. Computer modeling is one great way. We also have other available planets to compare atmospheric concentrations of gases with their amount of heat retention, etc. We can also simulate a very small atmosphere in a laboratory to examine the effects of small changes of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. There are lots of ways.
Just because we do not have a full-scale laboratory that is a precise representation of Earth along with an extra 7B people to place in to it for experimental purposes does not mean that we are unable to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
As I have said:
@Intercourse said:
So my position on climate change is, "Fuck if I know, I am not a climatologist, but I trust the scientific process."
But, it seems like a scientist could reasonably prove that dumping shitloads of CO2 in to the atmosphere while also cutting down vast swaths of forest land for various purposes will cause a measurable increase in atmospheric CO2.
Can we simulate what happens when you increase CO2?
Yep.
What happens?
The overall climate gets warmer.
Is that bad?
Yes, because weather simulations show that if you increase overall global temperature weather becomes fucking chaotic.
Is that why I had to buy a snowblower for the first time last year?
It is pretty fucking likely.
-
@Intercourse said:
I trust that those who are involved know what they are talking about, and that if they do not someone else will come along and disprove them.
From what I've seen, they have been proven wrong when they say something along the lines of, "Man is changing the climate in catastrophic ways by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere." They simply don't have a credible case.
There's some plausibility given basics about greenhouse gasses and so forth, but basic physics doesn't get you very far here. And there are a lot of very important unknowns.
@Intercourse said:
When one side of an argument has an overwhelming majority on their side,
What's the argument for which you think there's an overwhelming majority? I'm not only saying that they're wrong, but that your perceived majority is wrong, too. But maybe you want to exclude people like meteorologists or geologists.
@Intercourse said:
...and in the scientific world "theory" is as close as it gets to "fact".
What do you do when your theory doesn't predict what it claims to predict? Because that's where we currently are. You may believe that the models simply aren't good enough yet, but then you can't claim that the state of the art is anything like "fact."
-
But not a good enough view to realize that's not what I said (though I didn't go into too much detail). But you're also ignorant about the scientific claims and have a distorted view even about who believes what.
Those convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still.
I bow out. I like all of the people in this thread, so I bow out before abject frustration sets in.
-
@Intercourse said:
No offense intended, but this honestly sounds to me like the arguments against evolution or the Big Bang. Just because we cannot control all variables and observe the results does not mean that we cannot develop a working theory, and in the scientific world "theory" is as close as it gets to "fact".
There has been sufficient evidence discovered to bump evolution from hypothesis to theory. Case in point: tortoises in the Galapagos Islands. I'm pretty sure that the same holds true for the Big Bang.
If you're trying to dismiss my "Hypothesis v. Theory" issue at this point, maybe you need to go back and review the scientific process that you trust so much. It goes something like:
- Build a hypothesis. A hypothesis is basically a guess.
- Test your hypothesis.
- If your test shows your hypothesis is wrong, start over.
- If your test shows your hypothesis is right, you have a fact. A fact is something that has been proven.
- If you can't test your hypothesis, then observe.
- If your observations contradict your hypothesis, start over.
- If your observations support your hypothesis, you have a theory. A theory is like a fact, but there's still a chance it could be disproved.
My main problem is that the "humans are responsible" group are still working on number 3 - observe - but they talk like the have reached 2.2 - fact.
-
@Intercourse said:
Yes, it is entirely possible to prove such hypothesis. Computer modeling is one great way.
Now if only the models didn't disagree with reality, eh?
@Intercourse said:
We also have other available planets to compare atmospheric concentrations of gases with their amount of heat retention, etc.
Really? Can you name one? I can't.
@Intercourse said:
We can also simulate a very small atmosphere in a laboratory to examine the effects of small changes of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
We simulate things like drugs' effects on a human in petri dishes of cells, too, and that isn't a reliable predictor either.
@Intercourse said:
Can we simulate what happens when you increase CO2?
Yep.
What happens?
The overall climate gets warmer.But what do you do when the simulations aren't good simulations of reality?
@Intercourse said:
The overall climate gets warmer.Is that bad?
Yes, because weather simulations show that if you increase overall global temperature weather becomes fucking chaotic.Bullshit (well, weather is always chaotic in the mathematical sense, but I think you're talking about it getting more extreme). Weather on Earth is driven by temperature differences at the poles and the equator. Current theory says that the poles will warm more, which might reduce extreme weather. The record on "extreme" events also hasn't cooperated with the theory, either.
You say that you trust the scientific process, but you're accepting stuff that defies it.
