I am completely fine with it. We need to convince low information voters that climate change is a serious issue, and the opposition likes to point at snow storms and bring snowballs to congress as proof that climate change is a hoax.
1. That claim certainly isn't science, because it's neither reproducible nor falsifiable.
2. If it's not science, what is it?
If we convert our entire energy and transportation sectors to renewable energy and climate change turns out to be a hoax, we still get cleaner cities, cleaner air and a cleaner environment. That is a perfectly acceptable consolation prize considering the potential risks.
1. That's not my definition of science--it's the definition of science.
2. If your argument is not based on science, what is it based on?
> If a planet destroying meteor is hurtling towards earth, is that reproducible or falsifiable?
That scenario would be a matter of Newtonian physics, which any astronomer could run the numbers for. Newtonian physics is indeed reproducible and falsifiable, as demonstrated by the many objects launched into the solar system, as well as the astronomical observations and predictions over the centuries.
It's disingenuous to compare climate change alarmist claims based on primitive, already-falsified computer models to simple, proven Newtonian physics.
> Should we do nothing until you personally are convinced that it has been scientifically proven that it will destroy the planet.
Should we do what you demand when you demand it because you personally are convinced that the planet is going to be destroyed? (N.B. Earth will certainly be destroyed, either when impacted by a large celestial body or when the sun expands. Earth would not be destroyed by a minor GATA increase.)
> If we convert our entire energy and transportation sectors to renewable energy and climate change turns out to be a hoax, we still get cleaner cities, cleaner air and a cleaner environment.
If it might be a hoax, shouldn't we consider why such a hoax would be perpetrated? Might there be ulterior motives? What would be the implications of those motives?
> That is a perfectly acceptable consolation prize considering the potential risks.
Your analysis presented here is completely one-sided. It does not mention any drawbacks or side-effects. It is not impartial, it is not fair, and it is not scientific. It is not a reasonable analysis to act upon, especially considering the risks, i.e. decimating the economies and lives of billions of people in poor and developing nations.
> 1. That's not my definition of science--it's the definition of science.
Definition of science: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
> That scenario would be a matter of Newtonian physics, which any astronomer could run the numbers for.
Please provide citations and evidence for these extraordinary claims. And no, academic references don't count because they are obviously biased due to them trying to advanced their own careers. I will only accept citations from 2-bit think tanks funded by mega-corporations that have obvious financial interests at stake.
> Should we do what you demand when you demand it because you personally are convinced that the planet is going to be destroyed?
Yes.
> i.e. decimating the economies and lives of billions of people in poor and developing nations.
Please use science to back up that claim. Until then, clean energy is the way forward. Its already cheaper[1], healthier[2], and creates more jobs[3] than fossil fuel.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-09-19/solar-and... [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fu... [3] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
“It’s snowing - climate change is a hoax”
“It’s 100F, - climate change proof”
You can thank the CRU and all the other alarmist for implementing exactly what you propose and it's is absolutely the reason the populous does not buy it. Never assume people are idiots, it is a fatal mistake.
The question now is, when will "you" (i.e. not you personally) figure out that you're lying to yourself about your lying? Stephen Schneider advocated lying to the public in 1996:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5.
How much longer will "you" keep lying?