|
I'm trying to bait someone into providing evidence that prior IPCC reports have given good enough prediction of events that transpired that we can have increased faith that current/future reports are likely to be accurate.
My point is that every cause proclaims itself as being most important, and those most involved have a greater bias to see things the way they want/expect to see them. I'm not too sceptical of the scientific methods used to gather data, but I am sceptical of the interpretation of the data with regards to framing the problem in the most appropriate sense of scale.
The apocalypse is inevitable, but there are various faiths about how that will come about. Some believe it will be due to the outdoor thermostat being messed with too much. This seems highly unlikely to me considering the more direct ways in which humans harm others, and in light of humanity prospering in nearly every measurable way over time.
I don't find objecting to subjectivity to be entirely pointless. If my car is scientifically measured to be going 90 miles per hour, there is little point in arguing the objectivity of that reading. On the other hand, if someone says I'll surely die because that is too fast, then I object to the subjective interpretation of the objective data.
|