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

I can see the future, it's a gift. So every one shut up and listen.

Now brace yourselves

The sun is getting bigger!



It will eventually expand to consume the Earth before imploding in on itself



If the human race needs to be eternally present in this universe, we should be looking to leave at some point.



But let's not get ahead of ourselves.


The problem we have right now is a heavy population that is looking to grow and push available resources to their limits.

Billions of people need to share finite resources, so the biggest risk to up and coming generations will be resource scarcity leading to poverty and war.

At the moment we are polluting the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat. When there are billions of mouths to feed , we cannot afford to **** all over these things and if we going to add more mouths we need to be way more efficient with our consumption.

The solutions proposed to combat climate change also happen to be solutions for enabling further population and economic growth. So whatever story successfully mobilises people to make the nessesary changes is the correct story/science to push.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

Did any climate scientists predict flying cars?

scientists yes.

Originally Posted by Arapiles

The "alarmists" you're referring to are climate scientists - you know, the people who are actually experts in the subject. The "comments to the contrary" are coming from people like yourself who haven't done post-grad degrees in science and meteorology or run the climate studies or know how to construct the computer models.....

OK. Lets agree that I'm not a scientist, in any way .. including the climate genre.
But we do know of some well known scientists that are climate scientists.

eg. lets take James E Hansen.
A famous well known and well respected scientist. is there any argument that he's does or doesn't know how to model climate science? Or that he knows what he's talking about?
Without an immediate answer, I'll assume that we all agree that he's knows his stuff.

So back in 1988, he predicted that the globe will warm by 1° in 30 years. Many climate denialists know this story and is probably used regularly.
We know know that the global average temp from 1988 to 2018 has risen approx 0.3°.

Was J.Hansen an alarmist back in 1988?
I guess the answer would be no. He's not an alarmist, he's just a well respected climate scientist who gets it right 100% of the time.

So with the fact that he's a non alarmist climate scientist, how well to we assess his ability to output accurate climate science?
He's a scientist afterall, and he must be right. Right?

What you're saying is that we shouldn't question climate scientist, even tho the data record shows that they don't always get it right.

If a scientist publishes 1000 reports on a topic and in only one of those reports the predicted outcome is correct, is this person a scientist?

Me not being a scientist, with zero level of education(post grad or otherwise) on the subject, nor any historical output on that same subject, and I make a single prediction and it turns out to be correct .. does that make me a scientist?

Question is .. what makes a climate scientist, and why aren't we allowed to question their validity?
Are climate scientists such a precious human resource, that they're protected from scrutiny?

if so, sounds a lot like 300BCE religious leader syndrome .. and so inevitable result that climate science has devolved into a religion, and not a science.

To be sure, I used to read science stuff all the time(I'm just geeky this way), so read the climate cooling articles and just accepted that the scientists know what they're on about.
I consume a lot more science than just climate stuff, theoretical physics more than others, but not limited too.

One thing that struck me a few years ago, was that there is this general condition that arguing against a climate scientist is somehow unwarranted and frowned upon.
Yet in the general science community(ie. non climate science) there is zero resistance to it, and that it happens continuously, and is usually encouraged.

eg. back to the Einstein phenomeon. Many have tried to present a newer, more accurate version of explaining everything, 100 years later Einstein is still being proven right in his predictions. Doesn't stop anyone from trying to disprove his theories tho.
Latest field is Loop Quantum Gravity hypothesis .. hoping to further GR theory and encompass quantum at the same time.

So if we, the untrained non post grad general public types, are to act accordingly: climate scientists are immune from scrutiny, but all other sciences are still an 'open season', and we the uneducated should just accept the party line.
Would that be an accurate summary of your replies?

And if this is the case, then the reason for climate scientist immunity to analysis is .... ???<insert reasons here>???

Bizarre

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

Bizarre

yep sure is!
The only science that I know is apparently taboo to question is climate science.

One word questioning their lack of accuracy in predictive terms, and watchout! .. you're a heretic.

Questioning science is fine if it’s informed by expert knowledge. Reactive rants and diatribes are just bizarre and have zero agency.

Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed

Questioning science is fine if it’s informed by expert knowledge. Reactive rants and diatribes are just bizarre and have zero agency.

That's an opinion to which you are entitled, factual or otherwise.

Originally Posted by AK83

OK. Lets agree that I'm not a scientist, in any way .. including the climate genre.
But we do know of some well known scientists that are climate scientists.

....

And if this is the case, then the reason for climate scientist immunity to analysis is .... ???<insert reasons here>???

Is it just climate science that you have an issue with with or do you also have an issue with other fields of science? Would you like some input into, let's say, the debate about the Higgs boson? What about gravity? Is the consensus scientific view there also wrong?

I'll put it to you that the reason that climate science is being attacked, and there's misinformation all over the place, is that a couple of the worlds richest men, whose fortunes are built on fossil fuels, have spent a very large amount of money pumping out disinformation to destroy what they saw as a threat to their wealth.