Having read a lot recently about the climate change (on which I'm a skeptic) it all comes down to one thing. Modelling. The current models predict X.
Which worked really well with the dataset you have, because it was built from that dataset. But when used to predict the future, it works ok now and again, but misses some significant fundamentals, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
However, as soon as you put your neck out to say this, you're called a denier, put in the same basket as every other nasty denier in history, and want to kill the planet for profit. Nobel prize laureates praising and reaping the benefits off their own research, haven't we been here before?
Matt Ridley has talked extensively about this. Your opinion isn't new. Go fawn off somewhere else.
despite phrasing it like a tosser, this is actually helpful. Thanks, even if your intention was to put me down rather than spread the word.
No offense bro but I am a tosser. Just how I evolved I suppose :(. Go fuck yourself.
fyi, go check Ridley's talk at the Edinburgh RSE. It was covered by Reason and a number of others -- it's extremely helpful and perhaps what you're looking for. Half of it looks at modelling bias and contradictions used.
Okay, so I'm a fellow skeptic, and here's my take:
1) Doesn't fucking matter if climate change is happening or not. It's my surroundings, my environment, I don't like people shitting on it.
2) I think there are a lot better comparisons to be made than LTCM (global cooling, for one).
3) Look past the $ bills (to an extent) and love the shit outta this environment. The companies that are going to be successful in the future are the ones that don't shit all over it.
no
Where I struggle currently is when the sheeple come out with "scientists have said this", I need solid evidence to argue that, its very frustrating to try and explain to people that quote "experts" and expect to be right and anyone that disagrees is an idiot. Will check it out.
T
Sure if you can't find it please tell me.
Btw, your writing is really hard to read, aka, it sucks badly. My, my, my, do you mind reading Orwell's politics of the English Language while you're at it.
and as always, go fuck yourself.
It is too complicated. I don't have time to learn about it. Something like 97% of climate change scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change.
Does it make me a sheep to trust experts? I guess, but you must have a hard time if you never quote "experts". They're not always right, just almost always. I find it rational to believe them. I don't assume you're an idiot if you don't believe them, unless you're not a PhD. In which case, not believing makes it very likely that you are, in fact, an idiot.
Should we stop all development in order to reduce greenhouse gasses? Of course not. Should we consider the long term implications of climate change as we manage policies to deal with the collective action problems associated with scarcity? It seems rational.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-c…
[quote=cityknight]It is too complicated. I don't have time to learn about it. Something like 97% of climate change scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change.
Does it make me a sheep to trust experts? I guess, but you must have a hard time if you never quote "experts". They're not always right, just almost always. I find it rational to believe them. I don't assume you're an idiot if you don't believe them, unless you're not a PhD. In which case, not believing makes it very likely that you are, in fact, an idiot.
Should we stop all development in order to reduce greenhouse gasses? Of course not. Should we consider the long term implications of climate change as we manage policies to deal with the collective action problems associated with scarcity? It seems rational.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-c…]
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-sur…
long story short, his reason for conversion is not build on anything substantial or new.
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/UC-climate-change-skeptic-changes…
That's worth reading. A former hardcore skeptic, whose research is also backed by donations from the Koch family (for what it's worth), has come around big time after more and more research.
that's the point now isn't it? that even scientific panels backed by those that wish to deny are finally coming around to agreeing that the change is anthropogenic.
to OP: Of course models are always wrong, but here there's no choice as to be in the game or not (as with LTCMs decision to make investments) so it's a different situation entirely. With climate non-action (business as normal) is just as much a moral decision as action and you have to rely on what scientific information and tools (models) you have at hand to make informed decisions.
That's why him saying that climate change is real and caused by humans is such a big deal. The guy is basically funded to be a skeptic, and he's saying that the evidence is both overwhelming AND understated by most experts. Pretty huge, in my opinion.
Full disclosure, I'm not some sort of climate nut and generally don't think that much about it, so I've got no dog in this fight other than disliking when people are skeptical about something for no legitimate reason. Especially in highly scientific arenas. This isn't targeted at anyone on here, just a general statement.
I am not a climate change nut. I really dont know who is right, you know why? Because I, like most, know as much about the subject as a 2nd grader knows about calculus.
My skeptic side can see many of these climate scientists (or wanna be scientists, such as Al Gore) who are doing this to further an agenda in which they profit from, through either making their field of study relevant / important, increasing grant money to them, profiting from a climate business they started, or any number of things.
I have simply come to the conclusion that we should use common sense when dealing with this subject.
Do we need to revert back to the caveman days and create mass genocide across the globe in order to stop our population growth and impact on the environment? Hell no. Should we allow every green space in the USA to be turned into a development? Nope. Or even creating laws to ban items such as paper bags? No. But we should encourage clean beaches, alternative fuel options, public transportation or biking, and turning off your electricity when you leave the house. Duh.
Lets just not let the god damn United Nations have any kind of say in any matter like this.
Ullam omnis excepturi molestiae culpa dolore ab. In vel maiores quia sint cumque. Amet dolorem qui suscipit dolorem tempora et. Perferendis sunt hic est sit est. Voluptas quo corrupti nesciunt doloremque.
Rerum sit nam quos ex reprehenderit. Magnam et nemo et sit sed sunt ratione. Quas sunt iure illo hic unde ab minima. Et id est et labore minus. Dolor mollitia repudiandae qui hic sunt. Beatae autem aspernatur et accusantium quas ea at.
Occaecati velit commodi sit cum. Velit nobis omnis aspernatur ipsa. Impedit velit aut architecto iure.
Molestiae doloremque id occaecati ut molestiae quo. Recusandae earum incidunt tempora iste ex quod eaque. Deserunt voluptas pariatur a aut ratione quis. Veniam incidunt cupiditate et voluptatem rerum nihil. Fuga voluptatum aut eligendi nihil.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...