The Case Against Climate Change, by Former Greenpeace President
technocracy.news
technocracy.news
He goes on to say that this is a good thing, since high levels of CO2 are necessary for plants to develop. He also claims that we are in a long-term downward spiral, and that the fact that humankind is intervening is a lucky coincidence to avert mass starvation in the medium term (geologically speaking).
I like this, but I have a couple of questions:
- what is the mainstream science critique to this theory?
- how come that, even though CO2 cycles have happened in the past, we are now in a final CO2 crisis? The Earth has done great without massive intervention from humankind, why is this needed now? We even have fungi now to break down lignin!
- how can he foresee the effects of an externality (release of CO2 by non-natural means) massively affecting the environment?
Basically his argument is that the Earth is, right now, in need of terraforming, and that we have arrived at the right moment to do it. Isn't this too much of a coincidence? Sounds too good to be true.
As for the lead-in: just because he was president of Greenpeace decades ago, doesn't automatically make anything he says about modern climate science credible (unless, of course, he's saying what you want to hear...)
Eeehh, no.
And the rest of his lecture is the same things debunked time ago
Probably. I would love to read the critique.
> Nobody should believe that 97% of scientists are wrong, or be trapped in an echo chamber.
Sorry, but I do not buy that argument. Scientists are, like the rest of us, subject to peer, media and economic pressure. They can make mistakes too. I hope they don't, but I can not religiously accept that science is infallible.
Authority arguments apply to science too.
If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation
This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it.
> If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation
We are talking very long term effects here, so it is nearly impossible to know in detail how a chaotic system like Earth will evolve.
He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify:
1) that without human intervention long-term CO2 levels tend to zero
2) that current increases in temperature do not follow increases in CO2, rather the opposite
3) that increases in temperature (and CO2) do not mean mass extinctions, rather the opposite.
What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?
And is this what is happening with climate science?
> He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify:
> What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?
Why should exists a counter argument? He is the one making this claims, he should publish papers supporting his claims.
And until now, there is none.