It seems as if you disapprove (apologies if I'm reading too much into your comment).
What is the alternative?
Cold hard facts don't seem to move the majority of people as they are hard to relate to.
What is the alternative?
Cold hard facts don't seem to move the majority of people as they are hard to relate to.
I do, because trying to manipulate people's emotions is the lowest form of argumentation. Not to mention the fact that she (or rather, her handlers) only care to target western countries. I'd be more willing to trust her (handler's) sincerity if she ALSO AT THE SAME TIME called out the country that has a giant brown cloud, visible from space, hanging over it.
> What is the alternative?
Make a better argument for why _this time_ it's truly different. Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered) and admit that scientists HAVE gotten things wrong about the climate in the past (e.g., the ice age predictions of the 70s). Then proceed with arguments that detail why previous dire predictions were incorrect and why it's different this time.
Finally, be logically consistent in your arguments:
* People in western countries are told to "have fewer children" in order to save the earth. Well guess what, we're already below replacement levels. We've done our part. Lecture folks in the developing world to do so, they're the ones contributing to overpopulation.
* At the same time, much is said about per-capita CO2 emissions in western countries. Why do we hear complete silence from climate alarmists about migration from third-world to first-world countries? I would think they'd be staunchly opposed to it, seeing as how every person imported into western countries will instantly have their carbon footprint boosted sky high. Wouldn't it be better for the earth to not have these migration patterns occur?
You claim this, but the rest of your post is primarily about emotions. You want people to admit they were wrong, as if that makes any difference to the science.
> Start off by admitting that scientists aren't always correct
I can't imagine you could find a single scientist who wouldn't admit this, but ironically the example you give, "the ice age predictions of the 70s", is a common myth propagated by global heating deniers. See [0].
> ("the science is settled" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered)
The science is settled. Why do you think it's dumb?
[0] https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.ht...
"Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember."
There may have been more reporting of ice age predictions, but that wasn't what the scientists were saying.
It's because of claims and citations like yours that people don't believe alarmists. It's dishonest (or ignorant) to cite a fraudulent paper as the source for a claim that the science is settled. Real science is falsifiable and can withstand dissent.
There's a lot of evidence for overwhelming consensus on the science of global heating.
Starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views...
Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority.
Don't take my word for it. You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. Their fraud was exposed years ago, yet people continue citing him, his paper, and his Web site. (You probably won't find much about it on Wikipedia, of course.)
And the lies are nothing new. For example, Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. It's been going on for decades.
> Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority.
All the science that's been proven correct was once an extreme minority view. An argument based on the number of people who believe something is not a scientific argument.
And why would you make an unscientific argument about a scientific issue?
I won't. I want peer-reviewed science, like the vastly significant body of research that has been produced showing AGW.
> You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper.
No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy is wrong. You present the evidence.
> Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5.
No, he didn't. Try looking up the original. But even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The science is overwhelming. It makes no difference what one individual said 23 years ago.
Are you also unaware of the peer-review crisis?
> No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy is wrong. You present the evidence.
Since you appeared to be unaware, I informed you that a particular, widely cited paper was discovered, years ago, to have been fraudulent, and that the information about it is freely available on the Internet. Five seconds on Google (or perhaps DuckDuckGo) would present you with the information.
You have refused to avail yourself of said information.
It is not my responsibility to educate you about science. If you care about scientific integrity, you can look up the information without any interference from me. If you prefer to remain ignorant and fixed in your beliefs, that is your decision.
> No, he didn't. Try looking up the original. But even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The science is overwhelming. It makes no difference what one individual said 23 years ago.
You accused me of "bullshit," but here you are simply lying. I have cited the original, and I have the original, and since you are willfully ignorant, I will quote it here:
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
Now you can look it up and see for yourself, and then you can retract your ignorant lie and false accusation.
You obviously don't care about the truth. Climate change is your religion, and your faith is unwavering.
There's definitely issues in science with things like repeatability in individual studies, but that doesn't apply to something like AGW. It's supported by thousands (millions?) of papers, models, meta-studies, science bodies, and so on, all agreeing.
See for example NASA's overview: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> Now you can look it up and see for yourself, and then you can retract your ignorant lie and false accusation.
Gosh, you're furious. But at least you have got the correct quote, and it just isn't the smoking gun you think it is. It's just one remark, made in public, about the need to be media-savvy. He was not suggesting misleading the public.
That's nonsense. Not only have you not supported your assertion, but: 1) there's no reason to think that AGW is immune to these problems; and, worse, 2) AGW research is not reproducible, because it's not falsifiable, so it specifically does apply to AGW; and 3) even if you think models are meaningful, falsifiable predictions, the models have proven to be inaccurate. The claim fails in every way, from general to specific.
> It's supported by thousands (millions?) of papers, models, meta-studies, science bodies, and so on, all agreeing.
I have to wonder here if you actually believe what you're saying. "All agreeing"? That's a nonsensical, blanket statement. That's not science.
Five seconds on a search engine would prove to you that there are many scientists who do not agree with AGW hypotheses and alarmism. The parallels between your mindset and those of religious true believers who can't tolerate dissenting views are striking. Nope, don't look at any information that might contradict your scriptures, that might reveal their weaknesses, that might undermine the foundations of your faith.
> See for example NASA's overview: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
See for example this former NASA employee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20997978
I worked on NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" program for a few years. Cherry-picking of models that produce results that meet the current agenda is not uncommon. Just as researchers have a (deserved IMHO) reputation for publishing data that concurs with their topics...
> Gosh, you're furious.
Let's recap:
1. You accuse me of "bullshit." 2. I make a truthful claim. 3. You accuse me of lying. 4. I prove my claim and say you should retract your accusation. 5. You say, "Gosh, you're furious!"
Where did you learn to act so shamefully? You accuse someone of bullshitting and lying, then when they prove they're not, your response is, "lol u mad." You can't even handle the truth, and your trolling is predictable.
> He was not suggesting misleading the public.
Of course he was. But he's practiced at couching, characterization, deflection, and projection, just like you are.
Have you looked up John Cook's fraudulence yet? Can you admit that knowledge to your psyche, or does it need to be protected from dissent?
We made a major effort to reduce particulates, which largely succeeded.