The IPCC has told us, again, that we only have ten years until disaster. "Cut carbon emissions, and we really mean it this time." I heard this is the 4th time they've made the announcement.
Someone asked me recently, in the face of my AGW denialism, "What is your argument, that we should do nothing?"
Someone asked me recently, in the face of my AGW denialism, "What is your argument, that we should do nothing?"
Translation: we the non-deniers, who believe in the god of science, think things are so bad that "we" should get the 535 assclownstooges and our president to use violent coercion to make us do something, anything, to reduce carbon emissions because we are afraid of something that we don’t understand.
My argument isn’t an argument. This is what I understand to be true:
The term scientist is so vague that saying “a majority of scientists agree” is a meaningless statement. Quantify – do you mean actual people doing research on climatology in labs daily? Do you mean anyone published in a professional journal? Do you mean anyone with a PHD in a scientific field? Do you include PHD physicists and other hard sciences only?
“Science”, or the scientific method, cannot be used to test climate in the same way it can be used to test, for example, gravity. Climate cannot be reduced to lab experiments. What is asserted about what causes what in climate is conjecture. It may be correct, it may not be correct, and since the conjecture cannot be tested the answer is not certain. Therefore, what is asserted about causality with regard to climate is belief, and has become strongly held belief for reasons I don't understand.
There is a way to validate causality with climate, which would be to create a predictive model - one that accurately forecasts (forward and in reverse) temperatures based on the man made inputs that people fear cause changes in climate. Many climate models have been built, and none have accurately predicted climate temperature change.
There is a way to validate causality with climate, which would be to create a predictive model - one that accurately forecasts (forward and in reverse) temperatures based on the man made inputs that people fear cause changes in climate. Many climate models have been built, and none have accurately predicted climate temperature change.
Scientific consensus – good if it advances inquiry. As a way of setting policy, consensus is a joke. Consensus is nothing more than the opinions of "scientists". This is in no way equivalalent to the application of the scientific method under controlled conditions. The whole point of the scientific method is that experts are not trustworthy (we all fall victim to bias). All work is subjected to scrutiny, tests must be performed in another lab by other scientists to be accepted as valid. Scientific consensus is to the scientific method as sawdust is to a smooth automobile transmission.
There are many well articulated arguments against the notion that CO2 is a driver of climate change. The ones I have found are in my blog. One rule I follow is that being informed means I could articulate the case I oppose in terms that would be acceptable to someone who is a believer. Most of those who advocate for AGW cannot articulate the sceptic’s position, or won’t, and default to accusations of poor character.
