Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

So when 100% of the worlds doctors claim that Radium has health benefits, would you believe that too? Or would you simply accept that it's glow will also give you a healthy glow too.
I mention this under the assumption that you know the history of radium. If not, look it up.

History is flush with 'scientists' not being right. And just because they all believe it doesn't mean they are right.
They may well be spot on with their analysis for the time, but in almost every single scientific field, scientists were proven to be wrong.
How many hundreds of years did it take for doctors to be proven right in their diagnoses for illnesses?
even into the early 20th century the practise of leaching(or bloodletting) was still considered to be a cure for all manner of ills .. fever, cold or whatever.
Thousands of years of science .. gone but only after the science had reached a mature stage in it's evolution.

The climate change debate is no different to previous scientific topics in human history ... from round earth to medicine to physics .... an infinitum.

Climate science is foolish to believe they have reached a mature stage in their evolution, and could well be more destructive than any other science in history if they are not careful in how they approach their attitudes.

And the argument that those were the bad old days, and now we know better is the propaganda machine hard at work. Every day they make new discoveries in science that changes the understanding of what they've learned.
Again, my example of the magnetic field issue now cropping up. They previously knew how the magnetic field works and evolves, only to suddenly discover that what they knew about it's process was thrown out the window in only a few years.

For whatever insane reason that defies logic, too many folks seemed to have come to the opinion that climate science has never been wrong, is not wrong, and will never be wrong.
Common sense dictates that science is there to be questioned. 100%. Once we stop questioning the science it's no longer science .. it's a religion(or a belief system).
A belief system(like a religion) is something you believe to be true without questioning it.
The issue here is not the science, or the topic, it's us. We're too emotional to disseminate fact from fiction. Human emotions seem to dictate how the facts are to be interpreted when it comes to climate change.

---

I don't believe there has been or will ever be 100% consensus on anything. I also think that for almost everything (and i say almost because I dont know everything) there are benefits and there are disadvantages - unfortunately, like you say, history has shown that often the disadvantages become apparent long after we've discovered the benefits (asbestos is another good example).

I agree that science has been wrong plenty of times in the past. Our world is not flat, nor is it the centre of the universe, and leeches are no longer generally accepted for medicinal use. Yes, we have a dataset that can be construed however we feel, and I am often skeptical of how the data is presented, as I am aware of historical temperature and sea level rises and reductions, and the fact (apparently, i have neither collected or collated the data) that we are currently, and have been for thousands of years, in a typical warming of the climate. But just because science has been wrong in the past, doesn't mean it is wrong (or right) now. It is societies best guess as to the way the world/universe works.

My logic in this situation is more of a risk assessment than anything. What if the scientists are right? My greatest fear here is that our arrogance will mean the situation is SNAFU for future generations. The cost to us (well, future generations) if we do something and the science is wrong is way less than if we do nothing and the science is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Comparing "science" of 100 years ago and peer reviewed science of today is very unscientific.

Peer reviewed science of today is not about belief.

---

Having a double science degree, I always wanted to believe that too. Then I saw Ben Goldacre on a couple of TED talks talking about scientists not publishing all the data from studies which skews results, especially in medicine. That opened my eyes a little!

Here's one to get you started. He has many more vids and a couple of books - 'Bad Science' and 'Big Pharma'.

TEDMED - Talk Details - Where’s the rest of the data iceberg?

I'm all for saving what's left of our planet for future generations and believe in the precautionary principle. But we humans are fallible, even with the best intentions. Sadly, scienfitic research is not immune from this!

Lack of leadership in a crisis is the real issue here, I think.

Analysis: If a catastrophe can't pause the culture war, we really are in a lot of trouble
The catastrophic bushfire season is an opportunity for leadership — if only someone would seize it - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

So when 100% of the worlds doctors claim that Radium has health benefits, would you believe that too? Or would you simply accept that it's glow will also give you a healthy glow too.
I mention this under the assumption that you know the history of radium. If not, look it up.

History is flush with 'scientists' not being right. And just because they all believe it doesn't mean they are right.
They may well be spot on with their analysis for the time, but in almost every single scientific field, scientists were proven to be wrong.
How many hundreds of years did it take for doctors to be proven right in their diagnoses for illnesses?
even into the early 20th century the practise of leaching(or bloodletting) was still considered to be a cure for all manner of ills .. fever, cold or whatever.
Thousands of years of science .. gone but only after the science had reached a mature stage in it's evolution.

The climate change debate is no different to previous scientific topics in human history ... from round earth to medicine to physics .... an infinitum.

Climate science is foolish to believe they have reached a mature stage in their evolution, and could well be more destructive than any other science in history if they are not careful in how they approach their attitudes.

And the argument that those were the bad old days, and now we know better is the propaganda machine hard at work. Every day they make new discoveries in science that changes the understanding of what they've learned.
Again, my example of the magnetic field issue now cropping up. They previously knew how the magnetic field works and evolves, only to suddenly discover that what they knew about it's process was thrown out the window in only a few years.

For whatever insane reason that defies logic, too many folks seemed to have come to the opinion that climate science has never been wrong, is not wrong, and will never be wrong.
Common sense dictates that science is there to be questioned. 100%. Once we stop questioning the science it's no longer science .. it's a religion(or a belief system).
A belief system(like a religion) is something you believe to be true without questioning it.
The issue here is not the science, or the topic, it's us. We're too emotional to disseminate fact from fiction. Human emotions seem to dictate how the facts are to be interpreted when it comes to climate change.

---

But what is the cost if the majority of climate scientists are wrong and we clean up our act vs we do nothing and continue on our merry way and they are right??

Is it really worth that risk?

This is what gets me with denying vs acting and trying to clean up the mess we've made.
If we transition to a low carton economy all it does is that it might cost a few $$ for a few years vs potential catastrophe?

An example.
If the tsunami warning system goes off as there's an under sea volcanic eruption somewhere in the Pacific and I'm told there's a potential for a tidal wave here at Ballina or Lennox I'm getting off the beach and going up the hill to the plateau, but you are saying that you won't go as the bouys and modeling aren't 100% reliable?

This is where our own biases get in the way of rational thought.

How many scientists, I wonder , are in the pay of the climate change denial movement. And there is such an animal.


Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement
|
Smart News
| Smithsonian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Lack of leadership in a crisis is the real issue here, I think.

Analysis: If a catastrophe can't pause the culture war, we really are in a lot of trouble
The catastrophic bushfire season is an opportunity for leadership — if only someone would seize it - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Good question Mick, there "appears" to be a lot of inaction on that front & cynic me wonders if it is all to with "looking after my mates that prop me up & I owe favours to" Needs to be someone with huge balls to get this moving & really, no-one springs to mind. There are too many factions.

No, I don't mean 'Whelan the Wrecker' either.

Apparently there is a lot of tech that exists to not only reduce our current environmental impact to nothing, but also reverse at least some of our historical impact. I heard the writer/director of this film talking about some of what he found out during the film. I am yet to watch it.

2040 - Own it on Disc & Digital

There is also apparently an Australian company that has developed the tech to turn plastic back into oil

YouTube

Even if climate change is not real, the less impact we have the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Lack of leadership in a crisis is the real issue here, I think.

Analysis: If a catastrophe can't pause the culture war, we really are in a lot of trouble
The catastrophic bushfire season is an opportunity for leadership — if only someone would seize it - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Not so simple, Mick. As it states, bushfire fighting, droughts, and dealing with water allocations are constitutionally within the control of the states. All the Federal Gov. controls is disaster relief funding and provision of funding to aerial fire fighting. The Constitution would have to be changed to allow a separate entity created to have control , and report to the Federal Gov. [ that's my understanding of it ] It seems the perfect time for some one to raise it in the Senate and have a bi-partisan vote on it. The retired fire chiefs in the news lately would be front runners for the job. However, this goes against LNP culture on climate change, and agreeing to that would be an admission that they got it wrong, and that would be politically unpalatable to the powerbrokers of the Federal Government. Once again, just my take on it.

AK83, using the fact that scientists have been wrong in the past so we can't trust them now is a logical fallacy.

These articles explain better than I could, why that is the case.

“But scientists have been wrong in the past…” | The Logic of Science

Science was wrong before - RationalWiki

The articles are fairly long, but worth reading to understand why the argument is illogical or fallacious.

Lack of leadership in a crisis is the real issue here, I think.

Analysis: If a catastrophe can't pause the culture war, we really are in a lot of trouble
ABC.net.au: Page Not Found por-leadership/11708632