Misdemeanor B
06-10-2019, 08:29 AM
#42
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,019
Originally Posted by Excargodog
As the Catholic Church did before Copernicus. Yes, it cuts both ways.
The "other side," or the climate change deniers, are akin to the catholic church's position on science prior to Copernicus (who was hounded chiefly by Protestants, actually), the same which imprisoned Galileo for life (and generously recently pardoned him)? It cuts that way, too?
Not much of a cut. Sort of like carving soap with a popsicle stick while waiting for the short bus in the summer heat. Summer heat, incidentally, which is the product of climate change.
06-10-2019, 08:31 AM
#43
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,501
Originally Posted by OOfff
Ah yes, comparing this to the world before the scientific method
https://byrslf.co/the-null-hypothesi...y-3189413d8cd0
06-16-2019, 12:19 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,584
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Aviation is rather more black and white.
My family (and circle of family friends) are mostly science academics (hard science PhDs). None of them feel that the current "climate science" sold for mass political consumption is rock solid. Climate scientists are not inherently trustworthy when grants and celebrity are at stake. There are a lot of complexities and most likely NOBODY fully comprehends all of the interactions. For example they were pretty darn sure about global warming... until they had to rebrand it. "Rebranding" to adjust your hypothetical model does not smack of good science to those who know what good science is supposed to look like.
There's obviously something going on, but it's really hard to predict the ramifications or even how the root cause(s) interact.
Also hard to predict how successful any proposed solutions will be. And it probably doesn't matter what the first world does with carbon if the third world keeps slashing and burning rain forests... equatorial forests really do account a lot of absorption, and there is a very large natural metabolic cycle of emission and absorption by living things. That cycle still needs rain forests, unless we want to build CO2 absorption machines (theoretically possible, but probably pretty expensive).
But all that said, the political reality is that carbon emissions must be reduced. Certain political critters love nothing more than tearing down the system, and carbon is a great excuse to do just that. They're going to hold on to this with a death grip, and the inherent complexity of the science only works to their advantage (hard to prove, disprove, or quantify the cause or correction).
My family (and circle of family friends) are mostly science academics (hard science PhDs). None of them feel that the current "climate science" sold for mass political consumption is rock solid. Climate scientists are not inherently trustworthy when grants and celebrity are at stake. There are a lot of complexities and most likely NOBODY fully comprehends all of the interactions. For example they were pretty darn sure about global warming... until they had to rebrand it. "Rebranding" to adjust your hypothetical model does not smack of good science to those who know what good science is supposed to look like.
There's obviously something going on, but it's really hard to predict the ramifications or even how the root cause(s) interact.
Also hard to predict how successful any proposed solutions will be. And it probably doesn't matter what the first world does with carbon if the third world keeps slashing and burning rain forests... equatorial forests really do account a lot of absorption, and there is a very large natural metabolic cycle of emission and absorption by living things. That cycle still needs rain forests, unless we want to build CO2 absorption machines (theoretically possible, but probably pretty expensive).
But all that said, the political reality is that carbon emissions must be reduced. Certain political critters love nothing more than tearing down the system, and carbon is a great excuse to do just that. They're going to hold on to this with a death grip, and the inherent complexity of the science only works to their advantage (hard to prove, disprove, or quantify the cause or correction).
