always funny to hear people bring studies, models and so on in and claim because "science" says so. scientists today also claim you can change your sex and be deer sex. scientists, professors openly say a person claiming to feel like an elephant actually is one.
I should believe same group of overeducated people (scientists), that are mostly 100 % depending on government handouts about climate change as I should about sex change.
Always funny to hear someone suggest that "science" and "scientists" are somehow a monolithic, homogenized mass.
I spoke of multiple standards of assessment that have value specifically in CLIMATE science. Evidently you couldn't dispute or refute that, so you introduced topics that are irrelevant to this thread's discussion.
Meaning that you concede the points I actually made. I'm glad we see eye to eye on that.
More generally, I am not as educated as some, yet I don't fear or resent people who know more than I do, who are further educated than I, or who have made their life's work in a field with which I have only a passing acquaintance. I'm actually glad that there are such people in the world, and I think my species is the better (overall) for it.
Well we cant understand all areas of science, as such we have to trust the scientific community that they are able to establish what is accepted and valid. We can question this ability and honesty of science as their are "gender studies" and good old biology is actually seen as "harmful". universities introduce segregation between so called "races" and people openly promoting racism are professors. Dissent is not allowed at universities and comedy is offensive. Like this we cant really say that "science" can be trusted anymore because if even basic discussion is offensive how could scientific discussion be openly possible.
always funny to hear people bring studies, models and so on in and claim because "science" says so. scientists today also claim you can change your sex and be deer sex. scientists, professors openly say a person claiming to feel like an elephant actually is one.
I should believe same group of overeducated people (scientists), that are mostly 100 % depending on government handouts about climate change as I should about sex change.
How would you react if someone who knows far less about something than you do told you that your opinions on it were wrong because you were “overeducated”? Say, if someone who had never run a step in their life told you that running a marathon was impossible. Would you accept that claim?
Well we cant understand all areas of science, as such we have to trust the scientific community that they are able to establish what is accepted and valid. We can question this ability and honesty of science as their are "gender studies" and good old biology is actually seen as "harmful". universities introduce segregation between so called "races" and people openly promoting racism are professors. Dissent is not allowed at universities and comedy is offensive. Like this we cant really say that "science" can be trusted anymore because if even basic discussion is offensive how could scientific discussion be openly possible.
I think you are conflating gender studies (a qualitative sociological field) and university politics with atmospheric science (a field based on creating quantitative, predictive physical models). Believe it or not, they’re not the same thing.
Well we cant understand all areas of science, as such we have to trust the scientific community that they are able to establish what is accepted and valid. We can question this ability and honesty of science as their are "gender studies" and good old biology is actually seen as "harmful". universities introduce segregation between so called "races" and people openly promoting racism are professors. Dissent is not allowed at universities and comedy is offensive. Like this we cant really say that "science" can be trusted anymore because if even basic discussion is offensive how could scientific discussion be openly possible.
I think you are conflating gender studies (a qualitative sociological field) and university politics with atmospheric science (a field based on creating quantitative, predictive physical models). Believe it or not, they’re not the same thing.
social sciences also do experiments, use statistical modes and look for correlations and quantitative analysis. Even gender studies does this. The issue is that all those words have no meaning. Ask any honest scientist and they will tell you that a plurality of research articles in quantitative sciences (chemistry for example) are just crap as well. theoretical physics and chemistry produces thousands of papers a year predicting new structures with great properties, which are never validated by reality. You guys have way way too much confidence in science.
social sciences also do experiments, use statistical modes and look for correlations and quantitative analysis. Even gender studies does this. The issue is that all those words have no meaning. Ask any honest scientist and they will tell you that a plurality of research articles in quantitative sciences (chemistry for example) are just crap as well. theoretical physics and chemistry produces thousands of papers a year predicting new structures with great properties, which are never validated by reality. You guys have way way too much confidence in science.
Yes, many hypotheses are tested and disproved as we explore our world. Many crappy papers are published every day. That doesn’t mean that the scientific method doesn’t work. In fact, it is the scientific method itself that tells us that those crappy papers are crappy and that those false hypotheses are false. If you wanted to prove that a claim is false, you would test it. Isn’t that how you would do it? Otherwise you would not be able to justify your own claim.
I’m not saying that gender studies papers don’t use statistics or models. I’m saying that the things they study are sociological constructs that do not have strict physical boundaries. They are multifaceted categories, and when people argue about “changing sex” they are typically arguing about changing different facets and intentionally misunderstanding one another’s arguments.
I don't think it is fake, but the computer models that are employed are very tricky. And computer models are the basis of climate science. They involves millions of grids that represent the atmosphere and the physical properties of each grid is subject to assumptions about the energy and physics involved in each grid. We would like smaller grids, but we lack computer power. We have no idea whether the grids should be uniform size.
It Is one way to control for all other variables, but those of us who do econometrics know the danger of overfitting the models. What explains past history may not predict the future. And of course, with computer models one way to overfit is to make assumptions that make the model fit the data.
As the models improve, we should see the variance in predicted outcomes decline. The spread in predicted outcomes is wider than ever (5.6 F, 3x wider than the observed temperature rise in the 20th century).
Most of the models overshot the expected global warming in the early 2000s. They was good explanation as to why there was an overshoot, but they were not included in the existing models. This provides fuel for the deniers.
Many of the qualitative forecasts outline the possible risks we face: warmer temps, more drought in some areas, less ice, etc.
I seems to be a giant insurance issue. The high end predictions may come true and what can we do to mitigate the risk?
Oh yes! There are a lot of people in the US that think the topic of climate change is nothing but a big hoax. Huge numbers and they don't want to do anything that would remotely help the environment.
Well we cant understand all areas of science, as such we have to trust the scientific community that they are able to establish what is accepted and valid. We can question this ability and honesty of science as their are "gender studies" and good old biology is actually seen as "harmful". universities introduce segregation between so called "races" and people openly promoting racism are professors. Dissent is not allowed at universities and comedy is offensive. Like this we cant really say that "science" can be trusted anymore because if even basic discussion is offensive how could scientific discussion be openly possible.
So once again nothing to say regarding climate science. I accept your acquiescence.
Humans burning fossil fuels has warmed the planet quite a bit already, and the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and global temperature is very robust and comports with very simple greenhouse effect physics.
If you acknowledge this but have doubts about the scale of economic ramifications I would listen. If not, you can't be taken seriously at this point.
I believe climate change is real, so i try to be like Hollywood stars , i buy the biggest boat i can afford, drive a sports car, travel the world by plane, lecture to the poor but use paper straws.