cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:11 am
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:32 pm
The fact that the climate is changing is really not in doubt. The fact that the changes are significant are not either.
The fact that the deniers don't really have a good argument that it is not changing is also not in doubt.
Hence the "scam" label...if you cannot refute the science attack the motivations...
Dr Spencer and quite a few other scientists have put forth valid and rational counter points based on their own research. Is science about consensus or is science about truth? My point is not about the climate changing. I have said all along and I will ask you... what is the mechanism in any solutions being proposed that will reverse what is happening? I am not a PhD scientist but I am smart enough to read between the lines. There is not a single responsible and honest scientist out there that can assure the world they can reverse CC/GW. It boils down to if we do everything some scientists say... MAYBE just MAYBE the climate will find its way back to its natural equilibrium, whatever that is suppose to be? I bet scientists could debate that forever and not agree what that is suppose to be. My guess it is whatever the consensus of scientists claim it should be.
IMO, trying to change what the planet will do is pretty damn risky business in my book. What the hell trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars will lead us to the path of environmental nirvana
Not quite a few - VERY few. Science accepts what cannot be disproved in reality. Spencer, for the most part with his "contrarian" research is not being accepted because scientists in the field are the ones who decide what is considered "good" science or not. Until he is able to convince his peers he is right, he will not be accepted as anything but a contrarian who has a quite minority position.
And there are lots of proposals to slow things down and even reverse some of the bad effects. If it is reducing GHGs, switching to more renewables, plus nuclear. Better/more efficient use of fuels in transportation before we are able to build a replacement fleet that uses renewable/nuclear power.
Sequestering CO2 via trees, ground storage, etc. have been proposed. Some have big problems or costs, others do not.
As far as "natural" balance - that is a complicated question. But the reality is that CC will be disruptive. The ultimate question is do you just accept the disruptions and their costs, or do you work to mitigate it at a likely lesser cost?