Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

there are many who question the ability to resist conforming to an increasing consensus, especially in an area that is highly uncertain and filled with variables.

This implies a misunderstanding of the scientific process, which is the best framework we have for excluding bias, influence, human error from the task of determining the real nature of something.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by chris95040

...Anyways, science is imperfect, by design! And as long as people don't start burning down universities it'll keep moving us forward.

All nicely put Chris. I do have this fear that our western societies are moving towards to a place where book (and university) burning might become possible once again. But hopefully this is just my irrational mind speaking .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, I think you're right Exile. It does appear linked to your country's increasingly corrosive politics over the last decade or so. But is that cause or effect? It's certainly not unique to the US. We've seen similar themes here in Canada, particularly associated with our most recently unseated federal (Conservative and conservative) government.

It's all very interesting, especially given the recent research around the limitations of human rationality. Oh, but wait... if people are rejecting the findings around climate change then are they may also be rejecting the findings around the limits of human cognitive abilities.

Circles within circles...

Here in the US anyway, I think the increasingly corrosive politics might be explained by the rise to power of the more extreme elements in the two major parties, with the vast majority of the country being a little to the right or left of center. But the extremes attract the money and the enthusiasm, and therefore all too often drive the "debate." (As often communicated in sound-bites by the 24-hr. news cycle ). I often wonder if our last two presidents -- Obama & W. Bush -- weren't the two most divisive & polarizing presidents in modern times. I actually think that fact is more dangerous than whatever policy changes they managed to achieve on behalf of their respective constituencies. If it's simply a matter of "winner take all" every time there's a change of leadership, then we're into Banana Republic territory.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

All nicely put Chris. I do have this fear that our western societies are moving towards to a place where book (and university) burning might become possible once again. But hopefully this is just my irrational mind speaking .

It is a reasonable fear, but I am confident that when our generation dies off, or at least gets too old to be influential, things will get better. There will always be a small percentage of folks who hate change and therefore cling to a conservative utopian view of a mythical past, but even their baseline of acceptance in constantly progressing. So, the tomorrow's conservatives will be a small percentage of today's youngsters, who are have today's progressive values.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

All nicely put Chris. I do have this fear that our western societies are moving towards to a place where book (and university) burning might become possible once again. But hopefully this is just my irrational mind speaking .

I am not sure that you mind is being irrational.
If there is one thing that we have learned fro history, it is that humans will continue to do the same things over and over again regardless of the results.
What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The "solutions" proposed are mostly economic and not scientific. That's the main concern. I don't care whether or not AGW is real. But the "solutions" would surely kill a lot of people. We have already heard many on this thread advocate "population control" as the only means to solve the problem. If that doesn't scare you nothing will.

And worth noting that there is less scientific consensus on the amount of harm the problem will produce, and even less on what to do about it.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

Yet we still try to teach it....so who is not learning then?

A society that will not learn from history
Or
Those trying to teach said history that they already know society won't listen to?

It's almost like a Star Trek Time look episode.
That's why I have a sick mind....I think of thins like this....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

All nicely put Chris. I do have this fear that our western societies are moving towards to a place where book (and university) burning might become possible once again. But hopefully this is just my irrational mind speaking .

Your post reminded me of

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”


― Isaac Asimov

Which, in turn, reminded me of

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”


― Harlan Ellison

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Thanks. I sense that this is at the core of the anti-AGW sentiment here; that there is fear would (possibly through misunderstanding) that the prescriptions would cause more harm to society than the as yet uncertain consequences of AGW.

If that's the case... I wish people would man-up (sorry person-up) and state that, instead of the farce that there's something seriously wrong with the science.

Because then a more useful discussion is possible. Personally I'm not after a New World Order, or soshulist utopia. I want to move FORWARD, with all the problems we have. But attacking the science and its practitioners in the way it's currently being done is like poking our own eyes out. The only answer to incomplete or uncertain science is more science, not denying it.

Except you yourself are denying any incompleteness or uncertainty in the science itself.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

I am not sure that you mind is being irrational.
If there is one thing that we have learned fro history, it is that humans will continue to do the same things over and over again regardless of the results.
What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

For those who wish to learn from the past, I would suggest A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright.

RonaldWright.com

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your post reminded me of



Which, in turn, reminded me of

Always easy assigning anti-intellectualism, ignorance, or personal corruption to those who disagree with you, and it must be nice going through life with such certainty.

[SV THIRD DAY]

BINGO.....

Originally Posted by Exile

Always easy assigning anti-intellectualism, ignorance, or personal corruption to those who disagree with you, and it must be nice going through life with such certainty.

Ah....but there's the Rub....
The Game of labeling those that disagree with the Science (or lack of proof) as Deniers...or ignorant...notice the game.

The intellectuals accept MMGW...the stupid/dolts/deniers/hayseeds and haters deny MMGW.

When you get to define the debate...you have already won it and that is the game the MMGW Cult plays. I push back by calling them Cultists, using their same religious language as them calling folks deniers...and it upsets them to have their own tactics used on them.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This implies a misunderstanding of the scientific process, which is the best framework we have for excluding bias, influence, human error from the task of determining the real nature of something.

The "best" framework indeed, but infallible?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Except you yourself are denying any incompleteness or uncertainty in the science itself.

I am pointing out that the experts themselves, who know more than you or I about their field, including it's uncertanties and the difficulties of producing a workable hypothesis within this uncertainty... have come forward with what they have, and an indication of how certain or uncertain they think their conclusions are. In other words, they wouldn't have bothered us with it if they didn't think the findings were dependable enough to require bringing our attention to it.

For non-experts to think they know the field or its uncertainties better than the experts... how is that rational?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The "best" framework indeed, but infallible?

The best we have. Period.

Nothing is infallable, but no-one has yet proven that in this case they have screwed up. If your argument against AGW is that 99% or whatever of the scientists have screwed up... it's a thin argument.

I'm much more interested in the real reasons why you don't think we should act on AGW.