get it to x wrote:Trinity wrote:That’s how you convince jack wagons.
Well, so far we have zero deniers of pre-industrial climate variations ("Climate Change" is a marketing term I refuse to use), including warm and cold periods that appear to be more pronounced than anything we've experienced in the last 150 years. So please tell us how we know CO2 is the culprit and not something else like cloud reflectivity, a massive volcanic eruption or solar activity? Right now real climate scientists are playing a guessing game. Only it's a game with real world consequences. While the scientists study, the MOTU see this as a way to make America poorer and less competitive. Even an IPCC official admitted as much:
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... ing-scare/
FTA: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
This is another peek behind the curtain at the morons who think if the USA is weak it's good for them. Of course they believe in static vs dynamic scoring of economic policy or their plans disastrous results would be obvious even to them.
You miss that we track "massive volcanic eruptions and sun spots". They're not ignored. I don't know about "cloud reflectivity" but I'd think that any factor measurable is considered.
Of course scientists cannot predict with accuracy exactly what the climate will be 100 years for now, because an exogenous, non-man made factor could produce a different direction or worsened direction. BUT, they can predict directionally the impact of man-made influences, and model out the impact.
These models are updated as additional data is available, and can change based upon exogenous factors, should they occur.
It's super important that the assumptions and data sets be challenged by other scientists, indeed that's the whole point of peer review science. But the challenges should NEVER be to wave our hands and suggest it's all fruitless effort. The challenge needs to be exacting and scientific, with no cherry picking of data.
Unfortunately, all sorts of biases
do enter into any realm of scientific inquiry, especially when the stakes are high for various interest groups. We as citizens, but not the scientists ourselves, need to be wary of self-protecting, entrenched economic interests resisting scientific challenge of their economic outcomes. These groups have far more economic and thus political power than do those who have emerging competing interests. Which is not to say we need to simply accept or support any challenge to prior economic interests, but we do need to support the inquiry.
I'd note that our US military has progressively become more and more convinced that the impacts of predicted man-made extreme climate variability and events need to be addressed in their strategic planning. THEY see climate issues as a major, not minor, strategic factor to the security of our nation.
Seems to me that is only prudent, not alarmist.
Again, the interesting questions really are not whether man is having a negative impact, but rather what are the best approaches, the most efficient approaches, to address and ameliorate those impacts, both short and longer term. Hiding our heads in the sand is the worst thing we can do, but half-cocked approaches that fail to weigh costs and benefits beyond simply climate are also not the right path.
But if you put your head in the sand as a citizen or policy maker, you're not even in the conversation about how best to efficiently address or prevent the most likely scenarios.
