Posted on Aug 11, 2019
Against Censorship: The Climate Story Forbes Doesn't Want You To Read - The Global Warming Policy...
2.53K
12
10
2
2
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
I think it's irrelevant at this point who or what is responsible. I think the bottom line is that the climate IS changing - and not in our benefit. We have the means to do something about it and we should. Even if it's 100% natural, it will 100% naturally be the end of mankind. Maybe that's the "circle of life" but I don't think we have to go down without a fight.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt (Join to see) - We say that people will adapt to whatever climate brings - but the planet has really only be inhabited by humans for under half a millennia. And I agree that we cannot stop climate change, but just like we've accelerated it, we should be able to slow it down - which gives up longer to adapt. Time is everything.
Cpl (Join to see) I think something to consider as a significant difference is the number difference between the Council of Nicaea and the number of scientists out there. Also, consider that the council was convened generally by one body for a limited period of time, whereas these scientists have been gathering data for generations.
What we're really saying, when we say that the 95+% of scientists who concur with global warming are wrong, or biased, or bought doesn't add up to me. Are that many scientists really willing to risk their entire life's reputation on being bought out by someone? It doesn't make sense. Some? Sure. But the VAST majority? That's conspiracy theory level thinking.
Cpl (Join to see) I think something to consider as a significant difference is the number difference between the Council of Nicaea and the number of scientists out there. Also, consider that the council was convened generally by one body for a limited period of time, whereas these scientists have been gathering data for generations.
What we're really saying, when we say that the 95+% of scientists who concur with global warming are wrong, or biased, or bought doesn't add up to me. Are that many scientists really willing to risk their entire life's reputation on being bought out by someone? It doesn't make sense. Some? Sure. But the VAST majority? That's conspiracy theory level thinking.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski Numbers don't mean anything when politics and a paycheck is involved. It's best to begin with the assumption that there is an ulterior motive and work your way back from there. The consensus numbers are changing daily and statistics are easy to manipulate; is that 95% of the total audience of scientists or a pool of scientists? How do you know for sure, faith? There are plenty who agree with Dr. Curry and there is more than the media is telling you.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
MAJ Bryan Zeski - thanks for the comments. having good emotion free discussions on this is very important! The 95% is a bit high for any recent scientific theory especially one as young and as dependent on computer modeling as climate science. Judith Curry is right with her comments on model uncertainty. Dealing with computer models and AI at work I know how easy it is for uncertainty to really make a model ineffective. However, we as a society should pick up our “mess”. We should help our environment by reducing ocean pollution and air pollution like SOx, NOx and VOCs.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
MSgt (Join to see) - Completely agree. And normally, I'd agree that 95% is high for a consensus on relatively new scientific theory. I think we see the 95% as the agreement for the general idea about climate change - not necessarily the details of who, what, how, when... those are where we're going to get discrepancies.
Again, regardless of how or why or who - I think you're right that we need to cut down on ocean and air pollution as quickly as possible.
Again, regardless of how or why or who - I think you're right that we need to cut down on ocean and air pollution as quickly as possible.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next