Completely agree. The term "settled science" seems to me to be a non sequitur. The whole point of science is to discover how our current understanding of things is flawed and move thought in new directions.History is replete with formerly "settled science" that turned out not to be so settled at all.Message to science... Call me back when you can ACTUALLY create life, revive the dead, travel in time, or explain in any way that makes any sense how the universe is not infinite in size or age. Then you may have some credibility. Until then, it's just one more source of religious dogma added to the mix.
Yes, and not just decades. There have always been those who predict the end of the world as far back as historical records go. It's always some goofy theory that is designed to scare people. The "climate change" hoax (which used to be called "global warming" until they found out that the earth was actually getting cooler for many years, is a pure political propaganda scare tactic to make you feel more dependent on government to save your ass. It's an excuse to let the government shove its fat greedy hands in your pocket even deeper and make even more draconian regulations to control how you have to live your life. In other words it is designed to take away more of your freedom. That's why the left loves it. They hate liberty!
From my study of Environmental Economics, (even if man-made climate-change were true) the only thing 100% certain is the massive cost of attempted prevention. The actual benefit…? Even if the benefits were to materialize, we'd all be long dead before it happens, so we can never confirm the position's accuracy. And if the advertised benefits didn't materialize, all that massive socioeconomic burden we were forced to suffer were all for nothing! Something ELSE should have been done to save the world, but we just didn't know any better, so we payed the heavy price of re-shaping societies worldwide in the wrong way nonetheless. And if man-made climate-change were false (which seems more certain to me), the endeavor was all the more a massive rip-off!
@ N192K001An analysis that clearly is precisely right. In simple terms there are too many "ifs" to dedicate such a gigantic amount of resources to such a project.IF there even is climate change happeningIF it is caused by anything man is doingIF even spending ALL of our resources would be enough to prevent a catastropheIf the climate change naysayers made their sales pitch on Shark Tank, they'd be booted out of the room without a penny. But of course that doesn't matter to these tyrants... they want to FORCE you to do as they say because they are smarter than everyone else.
@MementoMori_ @goadedTrue (for both). There are just too may contingencies for acceptable certainty.@goaded And "better" is a relative term. Does banning plastic straws "for the environment" make a better world?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTrECOS4fzUThat's debatable (& more pricey) and can be argued to actually be counter-productive due to higher environmental impact of paper-straw replacement. Recycle everything? Actually, recycling in the U. S. is actually more expensive and damaging to the environment due to the higher cost of labor & specialized equipment and the resulting pollution (ex. water pollution form paper recycling). Mandate replacement of all gas-powered cars for hybrid and/or electric cars? That depends on the jurisdiction's power-plants. If they're already nuclear-, solar-, and/or wind-powered (which are all more expensive), sure (assuming greenhouse gases, not the sun, are the major actor in climate). If the power-plants are coal-powered… now that was counter-productive again.There are too many contingencies and the benefits aren't guaranteed, though the costs are. In cases were being green saves greens, then those specific cases are more likely.
The wheels on my car are wobbling and my car shakes a lot when it moves, but I can't be acceptably certain they're going to fall off on this next trip, so carry on driving! Those same tyrants force you not to drive on the sidewalk, too! How unreasonable!And yes, they *are* smarter than you, me, and everybody else who hasn't spent serious time studying the topic; that's what an expert is! You don't go to a plumber to get your teeth fixed, you trust experts, it's the smart thing to do.
@goadedHere's the thing: Experts say different things. Who told me about the green uncertainties? My Environmental Economics professor, who is a Ph. D. Who told me about the cons of recycling? It's in my Public Finance textbook written by my Public Finance professor, a Ph. D. who was brilliant enough to work in the U. S. central bank, the Federal Reserve.Also, do you think that experts' words should be believed just because they're experts? My Public Finance professor told me why he works in academia, instead of other places: Back in the Federal Reserve and in think-tanks, continued employment depends on your ability to give the "correct" answers and show how you "naturally" reached those "right" conclusions. If the numbers tell you otherwise and you get the "wrong" answer (and you dare report it as your answer), your access to select data (and even employment) comes to question. As he told us, don't just accept conclusions from experts. Check it yourself and reach your own conclusions.
Correction: "My Public Finance professor (an Economics Ph. D.) told me why…"
Those are interesting examples, but, for example, producing paper from wood also generates pollution; where's the research, and perhaps there's a need for more regulation?
@goaded Yes, both make pollution. And I confess, I haven't exactly read research papers directly, but reports of them. (And I should probably fix that.) On side effects of paper ♻️ing, the best source I could find on the matter is from a healthy lifestyle journal.www.livestrong.com/.../The rest are less specific, like this response to eCo₂ Greetings (a tree-planting business e-cards vendor) by Planet Green Recycle (a fundraising organization that sells ♻️ed ink-cartages & small electronics) on the issues of recycling.www.eco2greetings.com/.../...ing-isnt-cracked.htmlplanetgreenrecycle.com/.../recycling-facts-does-recycling-cause-pollutionBut they do agree that, in the "Reduce, Reuse, ♻️" slogan, it's the "Reduce" and "Reuse" that should be emphasized. And this is even more so, now that 🇨🇳 has decided to exit the exported-paper & -plastic ♻️ing market.www.businessinsider.com.au/china-citi-single-use-plastic-bags-waste-australia-2018-9www.nytimes.com/.../...ndfills-plastic-papers.htmlEven in ♻️ing plastic in the 🇺🇸 seems less certain due to sorting issues. Manually sorting plastics is too expensive, but via machine is faulty. So, it's sometimes is more eco-friendly to just throw away plastic, than to throw it into the recycling bin.discovermagazine.com/.../06-when-recycling-is-bad-for-the-environmentAnd I'll admit. ♻️ing does feel good. (For more than a decade, I've gotten use to ♻️ing. When I had to live ½ a year in an place that didn't ♻️, I felt guilty every time I threw things away. When I moved-out & ♻️ed again, that felt so great!) But it's still uncertain. Most of what I read is digital. Is that good? In terms of trees saved & chemical-pollution spared, 👍. But in terms of the ☢️ waste incurred every time I recharge my devices via our near-by ☢️ power plant, 👎. So, in all?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I agree. The science is NOT "settled" as some want you to believe.
That's exactly right. In the 70s there was an article by scientists claiming that golbal COOLING was going to destroy the planet within a decade. Then, when it got warmer instead of colder they changed the term to global WARMING, then when it got cooler AGAIN, they changed it to CLIMATE CHANGE. What a bunch of socialist fakes, phonies and frauds. Their only interest is political. They want to control your life and take away your liberty.
"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."usatoday30.usatoday.com/.../...lobal-cooling_N.htm
By my count that makes 27 who were either "neutral" or believed it there was golbal COOLING.That proves none of them have a clue.And I haven't even talked about the scandal that exposed a conspiracy in the "scientific community" to cook the figures so that it looked like there was global warming when there wasn't. They were caught red handed. And I do mean RED. These people are communists.
No, it says that, of 51 that made a comment about climate change, 44 (86%) said it was warming. (And even by your stretched claim, 61% did.)
38% of them either thought there was going to be global cooling or they couldn't say either way (neutral). That's over 1/3 who didn't have a clue what was going on. Hardly a "consensus" on global warming, and proof that they don't know what they are talking about.
You are way behind the times. Science has been infiltrated by leftist political propaganda and operatives as has virtually every other institution of our society from the schools to the government. It is as corrupt and politically biased as all the others.
A big part of the problem is that science is funded by politicians. The schools get their government research grants through one of the most corrupt systems in the country today. There is a political agenda attached to every grant. Do it our way and we'll keep the money coming. This global warming crap is a good example or the corrupt alliance between "science" and the left, but far from the only one.
@MementoMori_Science has no political affiliation.People make stuff up to fit their cause and claim it's science.www.youtube.com/playlistIn the first minute of a 1. st video, he explains it.Everything that you said is same for the political right.Why is political right denying global warming?As I know only in the USA.Global warming is real it has nothing to do with politics.If your car is broken you go to a car mechanic, not an ice-cream maker to fix it.
Considering the track record of science on this issue, I don't have any confidence at all in their climate predictions. They can't even get the weather right 3 days in advance half the time.Any 4th grader knows that the earth has had 4 ice ages. So yes, it gets warmer and it gets colder. That has been the natural cycle of climate since the earth was formed. That doesn't mean we should turn over the keys to the planet to socialists.
Aparently not. So far: "More floods, more droughts, more wildfires", yes, yes and yes.
More intense hurricanes. Check.
OK, the very last part is excessive, but possibly only a few years out.
Absolutely more intense hurricanes. I think it's something like we've had more category 5 hurricanes in the past 5-10 years than we have since they started tracking them.
FalseSix years have had more than two category 5 hurricanes. Two of them were 86 and 87 years ago and one of them was 58 years ago. And that doesn't count the hurricanes in the years before they were measured. So strong hurricanes are hardly a new invention.
*more than two... should have been... more than one
Here's a graph OlderAndWiser posted some time ago, trying to show the point you're claiming:It seemed pretty obvious to me that there was more colour (activity) on the right than the left, so I had a closer look at the data, smoothing the counts over five year periods:The first time there were 15 major hurricanes over 5 years was in 1935, for five years in the early 50's there were 15 to 17. But, the first time it reached 20 major hurricanes over 5 years was in 1999, and it didn't go back below 15 again until 2013, and even the 13 major hurricanes in 2009-2013 was higher than any number recorded before 1933. The pattern is similar for normal hurricanes and tropical storms. It's getting worse; there are more storms now than there were.Raw data is here: www.nhc.noaa.gov/.../AtlanticStormTotalsTable.pdf
Nicely put goaded.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!