But your philosophy is no good it's dangerously insufficient and simplistic . You may indeed have a gods' eye view of the duration of our universe. But you are not a god but a man who stands to suffer with the rest of us. People who are so impractical they cannot understand climate change scare me. Such people would not matter if they were small men with small powers. But such men as you seem to be are now powerful politicians.
No it's not. It points to the essence of ignorance.
Only ignorance and belief need fear the illusion of danger
- What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!
- What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!
- Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!
- You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 1:49 pm“If I* was trying to get to Redbud** I sure as hell wouldn’t start from here***.”
* Humanity
** Unchanging climate
*** Planet Earf
Can you name a single climate scientist that would?
Any who use the term, "Climate denier," or any variation thereof, and any who say that the science is settled.
Think you might have tripped yourself upper with your own cleverdickery. The question is whether you could name any climate scientist that denies that the climate has changed without any human input.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:06 pmAre you one of these ignorant folks?
Do you mean for instance, that I think humans were responsible for the last Ice Age? If so, no. If on the other hand you are asking whether I think that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we have been pumping it into the atmosphere, then yes, that is demonstrably the case. I've no idea whether that will lead to catastrophe, but I think it's a bit of a worry.
"A bit of a worry" is weak justification to destroy the world economy.
Yep.
Undeniably, the climate, a dynamic, heat-shiftin' system, changes. Not so certain: that human industry is the prime, or even secondary, driver of the change.
Me: I want conclusivity before I give up eatin' cow & drivin' a car & agree to a colostomy to moderate my 'emissions'.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:27 pm
"A bit of a worry" is weak justification to destroy the world economy.
Ah, so you're an economist. Splendid. Tell us why burning less oil, or even failing to capture the carbon dioxide emissions will destroy the world economy.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:27 pm
"A bit of a worry" is weak justification to destroy the world economy.
Ah, so you're an economist. Splendid. Tell us why burning less oil, or even failing to capture the carbon dioxide emissions will destroy the world economy.
Well you see, what happens is that you stop using some old redundant resources like coal fired power stations, and you destroy the economy by investing in stuff like new power distribution networks and solar panels and stuff.
Superficially this might look a bit like how economies have always grown in the past, but this time it's ... erm... hmmm. Well it's bad this time.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:44 pm
Well you see, what happens is that you stop using some old redundant resources like coal fired power stations, and you destroy the economy by investing in stuff like new power distribution networks and solar panels and stuff.
Superficially this might look a bit like how economies have always grown in the past, but this time it's ... erm... hmmm. Well it's bad this time.
And on the off-chance that global warming does trigger a cataclysmic climate change, trashing the economy is way WAY worse than trashing the planet.
Right?
Despite the fact that we have way more evidence on the human resilience to economic crashes than on our resilience to biosphere crashes...
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:44 pm
Well you see, what happens is that you stop using some old redundant resources like coal fired power stations, and you destroy the economy by investing in stuff like new power distribution networks and solar panels and stuff.
Superficially this might look a bit like how economies have always grown in the past, but this time it's ... erm... hmmm. Well it's bad this time.
And on the off-chance that global warming does trigger a cataclysmic climate change, trashing the economy is way WAY worse than trashing the planet.
Right?
Despite the fact that we have way more evidence on the human resilience to economic crashes than on our resilience to biosphere crashes...
Well in those last few months of human existence I guess inflation could go either way.
On the one hand you might be the poor guying trading everything you own for a half gallon of water, hopefully with very little piss in it. But on the other you will be able to buy a very nice car for half a gallon of water that's secretly half urine.