Things which concern me today
My concerns about eating
It genuinely gives me a sense of creeping horror that so many people are still so invested in denial of climate change.
I see numbers like this, going ever upward for most of my adult life. I see reports of the effects of these increases in reputable journals, not only in terms of abrupt and disastrous localised weather ( Read more... )
It genuinely gives me a sense of creeping horror that so many people are still so invested in denial of climate change.
I see numbers like this, going ever upward for most of my adult life. I see reports of the effects of these increases in reputable journals, not only in terms of abrupt and disastrous localised weather ( Read more... )
The evidence doesn't support the explanation of natural variation as a sole factor. There's a huge and very credible body of evidence which supports the idea of anthropogenic climate change, and very little which credibly undermines it.
I went and read a lot of very boring science papers to make my own opinion; every now and again I go and read some more to see if the situation has changed. My (inexpert) conclusion after considering the evidence was that not only is there no reasonable footing for doubting anthropogenic climate change, but that scientists were being conservative and understating the danger.
I realise my assertion isn't going to convince you, and it shouldn't, as I'm not an expert. But neither are most climate change skeptics. Most actual climate science experts are convinced of anthropogenic climate change. Sure, all of them could be wrong, but it's just not likely. Occam's razor.
All that said -- I don't think the situation is hopeless, but I do think a lot of people are going to get hungry and dead before we have workable solutions in place.
Reply
I'm not an expert. But neither are most climate change skeptics. Most
actual climate science experts are convinced of anthropogenic climate
change. Sure, all of them could be wrong, but it's just not likely.
Occam's razor.
The problem is that the people pushing the idea of anthropogenic climate change have a political axe to grind. Those who push the idea tend to be people who want governments and international organisations like the UN to have more power. For them climate change was a godsend. It was the issue they desperately needed and it came along when they were at their most desperate. My concern is that those people want to believe. They need to believe.
And the climate scientists have a massive incentive to push the idea - that way they get more government funding. Scientists are as cynical as anyone else. Huge numbers of climate scientists have built their whole careers on anthropogenic climate change. They can't afford not to believe.
We live in a world where everything, including science, is politicised.
Reply
Tell me about the politics of the skeptics now. You've only given half the story.
Reply
I've never met a left-wing person who didn't believe passionately in anthropogenic climate change. I've never met a true conservative who did believe in it. That to me indicates that we're dealing with a political belief, nor a scientific one.
Climate change skeptics are skeptical of climate change, but they're also skeptical as to whether we should governments even more power over our lives than they already have. And they're skeptical about the honesty and the usefulness of international organisations like the UN.
What to me it comes down to is that it's all about power and money. Companies pushing things like wind power are collecting enormous amounts of government money. They might not generate much power but they generate lots of money. That's what "green energy" is all about - money. It's big business. Big Wind is more sinister than Big Oil. The entire "green economy" is all about collecting money from the taxpayer. Money that could have been spent on genuinely useful things.
It also worries me that electricity is now a luxury item in western countries. Poor people are going to freeze to death because they can't pay their electricity bills.
Reply
- always left-wing, based on political axe to grind
- want governments and international organisations like the UN to have more power
- based on want and need for power
- scientist want government funding
- scientists' reputations are more important than evidence
- green energy is... ?; the oil industry is... ?
- green energy is about... ?
- green energy... [presumably does make energy]
- money should be spent on green energy because... ?
- the west's current use of non-green energy is... [presumably causing climate change]
climate change skeptics
- always conservative, based on political belief
- want governments and international organisations like the UN to have no more power, or less power
- based on a belief that there's a general lack of honesty in institutions
- skeptics want... ?
- skeptics reputations... ?
- green energy is sinister; the oil industry is much less sinister
- green energy is about making money for companies, and collecting money from taxpayers
- green energy doesn't make energy
- money spent on green energy should be spent on more useful things
- the west is energy poor due to green energy and poor people are dying
Do you notice how not a single aspect of your reasoning actually engages with the science of climate change? It's all politics.
Politics is a reality, you're right about that. It absolutely does exist in the academy, and it does influence what is researched. But you know what? That doesn't make the findings of scientists wrong or incorrect.
Until you address the actual science, your argument is only half an argument. Among experts, the consensus on the science is: climate change is happening at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes.
You cannot really be arguing that the majority of scientists are partial and wrong, but the majority of skeptics are unbiased and right. That is obviously just absurd on the face of it. You might as well argue that all left-wing people are liars and wrong, and all right-wing people are truth-tellers and right.
Reply
with the science of climate change? It's all politics
Yes, it is all politics. People decide whether to believe or not based on their political stance. The science doesn't come into it.
So little is really known about climate science. There are very few things on earth as complex as climate, or as little understood. There's lots of data, but no-one can be sure what it means. Data that indicates that climate change is or is not occurring does not tell us why that is happening. The reasons are pure speculation. Many people confuse data with evidence. Anyone who says the science is settled doesn't understand science. In the late 19th century the science was settled on Newtonian physics. Every scientist agreed that Newtonian physics was correct. But they were wrong. Science is never settled. Theories come and go. Data is reinterpreted.
Climate science is at a very primitive stage of development. Scientists can do whizz-bang computer modelling, but they have no idea if the assumptions on which they base those models are correct or not.
Scientists tend to agree with their peer group, as does everyone else. If a particular interpretation of data is popular they'll go along with it. If they don't they may lose their funding, or even their jobs. There's massive pressure to conform. Scientists are only human. They're no braver than the average person - in other words they're not very brave at all. Conforming is the safe option.
Reply
Reply
That's despite the fact that the CSIRO paychecks came from the government.
Reply
Leave a comment