pull down to refresh

I do some work that involves climate change and it's wild how strongly biased the environment is. Researchers can make pretty much any negative attribution to climate change and receive minimal pushback, regardless of how little support the claim has. If, however, you find something that runs even slightly against the narrative the pushback is enormous, regardless of how well supported the claim is.
If I worked in this space all the time, perhaps I would have a better knack for navigating these things.
Understanding the scientific method is crucial when examining complex phenomena and related hypotheses like “man is the main cause of climate change.” Unfortunately, "political method" has replaced the scientific method.
The weird thing about that opinion article is that it says although 99.9% of scientists agree on man made global warming, there are still 2 sides of the debate. But there really aren't, at least not two equal sides. There's also no substance, just vague statements like "it's complex, we would be humble", implying that climate scientists aren't. Which is kind of rich, coming from an economist...
Outside of the US, the debate concluded in the 1950s and people talk about climate change with the same certainty as gravity
reply
Outside of the US, the debate concluded in the 1950s and people talk about climate change with the same certainty as gravity
That's not a good thing, since predictions based on gravity are extraordinarily precise and accurate, while predictions based on climate change are widely dispersed and highly biased.
Which is kind of rich, coming from an economist
Interdisciplinary pot shots are one of life's small pleasures. Epistemological humility is different from a humble personality. More of both is usually good.
99.9% of scientists agree on man made global warming
A lot can be lost in statements like that. It is true that virtually all climate scientists believe humans add heat into the environment. It is also true that there is a lot of disagreement about the relative importance of different contributors and the overall size of human impact.
reply
Solar activity
reply
Do you agree with the hockey stick graph generated by Michael Mann?
reply
Bottom line is human freedom is being curtailed on the basis that a phenomenon 88% attributable to nature can be augmented by said curtailment. We really have to eat bugs and love it over 12%? Hell no! Ammo up because Klaus needs to be exposed to lead.
reply
Is net zero viable and desirable?
So, serf, what does your life look like in 2050?
No air travel No beef or lamb No concrete No international ocean freight shipping Small electric cars only No new roads No oil or gas fired heating or hot water Colder rooms in winter Border controls / tariffs based on emissions More manure, less fertiliser in agriculture Tripled electricity production, mostly from bird choppers
reply
reply
Thanks, another excellent example of how you've been manipulated. The cover on the left is fake and has been going around for 10+ years. It's an edited version of the april 2007 cover, where the real headline was "The Global Warming Survival Guide"
reply
reply
Predictable that you'd double down on the propaganda when you've just been debunked
There was no climate debate before 1960. How can there be a consensus when there was no debate or research?
reply
FFS man, please go back to school
Arrhenius was almost spot on on radiative forcing in the late 1800s.
Fourier, Foote, Tyndall? I suppose those names don't ring any bells? That's all 19th century physics you get in early high school
reply
19th century physics you get in early high school
Not in America you don't
reply
You are confusing climate change and global warming.
No one says global warming anymore because it has been effectively debunked.
Ergo, big brother has employed new speak.
Climate change lacks a coherent definition which is useful for scientifically illiterate activists.
reply
I don’t remember these names from AP Physics Mechanics or E&M
reply
Not knowing those names while trying to have a debate about climate change is like trying to debate relativity with someone who doesn't know who Einstein was
It's OK to be ignorant, but maybe be a bit more humble about it
reply
reply
Since you are the opposite of ignorant, can you predict when the world will end? When is the next catastrophe?
reply
Temperature decreased from 1940 to 1970. Global cooling was all the rage in 1969
reply
It did, because of soot (the same climate science explains this). Global cooling was never a rage
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
Those people are scientifically illiterate
reply
There was no climate change in the 1950s.
Anyone who thinks climate change is scientific like gravity is an idiot
reply
In 1954 the fossil fuel backed "Air Pollution Foundation" funded some of the most foundational climate change research, including Keeling's early work...
Appreciate this perspective. It makes sense when you consider the incentives in play as well as social pressure.
The politics have taken over both sides of this topic. It is clear to me that most politicians are completely using this topic for their own hold on power.
reply
I would say the truth is more welcome on the right, but they definitely prefer to advance a political narrative over reality as well.
reply
There really isn't any difference. The difference that matters is between authoritarianism and freedom. You'll find authoritarians on the extremes of both the left and the right and each and every one want to take away your freedoms to gain more power
Anyone who identifies as left, right, anti-left or anti-right has been brainwashed
reply
646 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 5 Feb
Put more simply. I like to think about left and right at least in modern politics as being two sides of the same coin. Both movements are controlled by the same globalist / corporate interests. The left vs right fight is much like pro wrestling. They really are fighting about issues that don't matter to the power elite. They both favor war. They both favor power over the plebs. They argue and debate for show and to raise money and gain attention.
In my view the only way to win is to refuse to play their games.
reply
Agreed. And #Bitcoin is an important tool that empowers people to opt out.
reply
Wrestling is a very good analogy for politics. It's mostly staged, with some improve, and the participants know their roles: the right are the heels and the left are the faces.
The other good analogy is the Harlem Globetrotters (D's) and Washington Generals (R's).
reply
646 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 5 Feb
You are correct about authoritarianism but there are differences in the way people on the left and right think. I have read and seen that people with different emotional temperaments are more attracted to the left or right. There are also people like myself and probably you that are more open to free thought. More curious and we tend to reject the frame.
I think saying "anyone" is to broad. I used to identify with right wing but it was just the environment. The more I questioned and dug the more wrong I found in the right side of politics. The masses could be accused of being brainwashed. I forget the philosopher who said this but it was something like the masses are like ballast. They just flow. The have not foundation. Some of the left/right thing is cognitive bias as well. Some when confronted with hard truths stick their heads in the sand. I've witnessed this many times. Others do deep soul searching and come out of that changed.
reply
Spot on. I will say that until very recently, I agreed with the sentiment that there's basically no difference between the parties or their members; that it's all just tribalism.
In light of the radical swing to the left that is well documented throughout the west, I think it's almost willfully ignorant to stick with the "no differences between them" position. Our ideas (the entire range of them) are far more tolerated on the right and I'm someone who came from the left.
reply
What if you're anti-anti-right? Sometimes I feel like that, because the charges levied towards the right are so stupid most of the time, and I am not at all someone who comes from the right.
reply
@Lost_dogz you are clearly left wing! You have chosen a side.
reply
Yep.
reply