The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No group is my God, and my reasoning is that the individuals comprising the group are fallible and made of the same limited stuff I am.

Nowhere did I say that scientists pull numbers out of their rear; that's a mischaracterization of me.

What did I say; that scientists are guessing, which absolutely undeniably is the case. That's exactly what probability is; a method of guessing based on available data and understanding of how it's related.

The most basic statement, such as things exist, is a guess, as there is no way to prove that. Therefore, every conclusion drawn is based on unprovable and untestable givens. Absolutely everything is a guess.

I don't have much to say about addictive substances since I don't know what you're referring to. I'll say that science has nothing directly to do with morality. I'll also say that evil wasn't invented by capitalism; it's intrinsic to the human condition. It's a system of organizing labor that is subject to abuse, just like any system.

Your loose use of the term 'guessing' completely marginalizes those who've dedicated their lives to saving you from your own ignorance.You have completely mischaracterized the entire scientific community.
We can argue that,structurally,you're no different,but that doesn't address intellectual capability,specialization,experience,and familiarity.
Scientists speak of statistical probabilities.That's as far as they can go.But,some of these folks are endowed with extreme perspicacity,and can smell a trend,or connect dots like no others.You exhibit zero.
Just because everyone who's jumped off the edge of the Grand Canyon is dead,doesn't prove that if you jump,you will die.Do you want to prove some theory?
We've known about the greenhouse effect since 1824.The implication that humans could alter the climate dates to 1847.From Tyndall,in 1859,we knew carbon dioxide absorbs heat and that variations of it in the atmosphere could drive the climate.Svante Arrhenius,in 1896 deduced that coal and petroleum combustion could cause global warming.We've known about cloud condensation nuclei since 1896 as well.In 1939,steam engineer,Guy Stewart Callendar observed historic hot temperatures over a 5-year span.In 1952,scientists at the highest levels of the US Govt knew the dangers of fossil-fuel combustion.HUMBLE Oil Company studied the enormous quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.Roger Revelle and Hans Suess published their climate change paper in 1957 as well.The Bell Science Hour debuted their film,"The Unchained Goddess" in 1958.The American Petroleum Institute replicated HUMBLE's research results in 1958.According to the C.I.A.,global climate change began in 1960.On December 30,1963,the Moon 'Vanished' during a lunar eclipse,obscured by atmospheric aerosils,lofted into the stratosphere,six months earlier,during the volcanic eruption of Mt. Agung,verifying the theory of nuclear winter,scoffed at by climate deniers.In 1965,an Executive Report,issued by the Science Advisory Committee dealt with rapid climate change.In 1967,a USSR space probe reached Venus,and measured 800+ F,verifying temp measurements already made by radio astronomers....................................... ........
This stuff goes on,through the 70s,80s,90s,,up to the present.
Climate change isn't something cooked up by the commie-pinko-leftists Green Party in Sweden and Germany,or anywhere else.
The real problem started with the 14th Amendment in 1868.Exacerbated by Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th's due process clause in 1886.The Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated corporations turning the whole nation into a colony.Citizen's United was the coup de grace.We no longer have a democracy.
If you want to play Karl Popper,or some NeoPlatonist and dink around with logic semantics go ahead.
BAYER HEROIN (trademarked) was put on the market around 1913,as a safe cough suppressant.It was the Oxycontin of its day.
Corporations are soulless entities,designed to make money.When they usurp the legitimate government of the country,we lose our democracy.
Climate change isn't something you want to test to 'certainty.'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

1 billion light vehicle cars and trucks on the road in the world right now. Do we really think it is feasible to have 1 billion electric cars and trucks with 60 kWh batteries or larger? 60 TWh of batteries on the road? So even if we achieve the 1 TWh/ year world battery production by 2028 that is forecast at 4 times the current capacity, It would take another 60 years to make this many batteries just for light vehicles. And the current CCS and Tesla charging standards do not even allow for vehicle to grid two way supply.
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news...ies-are-secure
.

So,if the goal is to not only cease greenhouse gas emissions,but also remove existing carbon dioxide and methane levels back down to pre-Industrial Revolution levels,over a 30-year span,what's your plan?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Your loose use of the term 'guessing' completely marginalizes those who've dedicated their lives to saving you from your own ignorance.You have completely mischaracterized the entire scientific community.

If I've committed the sin of marginalizing the entire scientific community, then it was merely in response to the equal sin of elevating them to supreme authoritative status.

The scientific method is the best one we've got for testing hypothesis and informing our understanding of the physical world. Scientists are just people who practice the scientific method to further understanding. They are no more or less moral than any other arbitrary group of people, and they tend to be motivated by the same things everyone else is.

Science has nothing to do with morality or meaning, because observing something as objectively as possible conveys no meaning or morality.

We can argue that,structurally,you're no different,but that doesn't address intellectual capability,specialization,experience,and familiarity.
Scientists speak of statistical probabilities.

I'm not denying the usefulness and expertise of scientists, only pointing out that understanding climate change and its impact on the well-being of humanity is so complex that anyone that believes they have The Answer is either profoundly ignorant, or corrupt.

Climate change isn't something cooked up by the commie-pinko-leftists Green Party in Sweden and Germany,or anywhere else.
The rel problem started with the 14th Amendment in 1868....We no longer have a democracy.

I've not denied climate change, nor have I denied that negative consequences have or will occur in the future. My position has been that the appropriate response is somewhere between upend all society and accept the ensuing death and misery and corruption as a necessary evil to save the planet, and do nothing and deny that we have any impact on climate at all. My position is also that climate change doesn't make the top 10 list of activities that most harm humans, or pose an existential threat to humanity.

...and we never had a democracy, we have a representative democracy, and deserve the consequences of anything we allow.

The 14th amendment is fantastic, and merely states what is now obvious, that government should not deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process. In other words, don't be a tyrant.

Corporations are soulless entities,designed to make money.When they usurp the legitimate government of the country,we lose our democracy.

Of course, on this we have agreement. My only disagreement is that corporations haven't usurped the legitimate government. We still elect officials to act in our interest, and only those elected officials have legal authority to enact law. The People have allowed government to be corrupted by a number of special interests; and some of those special interests are corporations.

I've suggested some ways that might discourage corruption; but we're (collectively) seemingly unconcerned as long as our expectations for well-being are mostly met.

[freebeard]

Google results aren't consistent for people, as they apply an algorithm for each individual.

Why are people still using Google? That just encourages them to sway the next election.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=project+veritas+google&ia=web

Try that search on Google and compare the result.

Of course, on this we have agreement. My only disagreement is that corporations haven't usurped the legitimate government.

Not for lack of trying.

[redpoint5]

I generally like the results Google provides to me, that's why.

If Google is evil, I want them to go full evil as quickly as possible so we'll know. To that end, I don't have a problem with them data mining.

My attitude is more "come at me bro", than most others. If evil is looking for a victim, I hope it tries to make a victim out of me instead of harming others. I'm more accepting of devastation and willing to oppose evil than most.

For instance, if the government ever outlaws free speech and wants to round up everyone in support of it, I hope they find me. The government will have clearly defined themselves as evil at that point, and I consider this the fair warning that I will not abide evil.

[freebeard]

And yet you recognize the filter bubbles they maintain. Maybe compare? Even Microsoft has an alternative.

I think we've been there since Google disavowed the "Don't Be Evil" corporate motto and Eric Schmidt went to North Korea to help them with their [Ukrainian] missiles and censorship.

My attitude is more "come at me bro", than most others. If evil is looking for a victim, I hope it tries to make a victim out of me instead of harming others. I'm more accepting of devastation and willing to oppose evil than most.

Just be aware the government is bound by law to respect free speech, but social media are not. The devastation won't be overt, you will be deplatformed and denied the mark_of_the_beast aka social credit score.

[redpoint5]

Well you make good points, and it's very likely I tolerate Google because I derive things I want from them.

To the end that they help North Korea and China with their propaganda machine, they are evil... though perhaps there's still a way for people to circumvent the information filters, and that any access to outside information is better than no access.

To the end that they data mine information I feed them, it isn't clear they are evil, and I expect them to come up with schemes to monetize that information. I'm fairly resistant to advertising, and have never clicked one of their "sponsors".

I'd wear deplatforming as a badge of honor (pride being among my biggest faults). If someone doesn't want my contributions, then I don't want to contribute for them. Same as if someone doesn't want to bake me a cake, I don't want to force them to. Forced relationships are not healthy relationships.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I generally like the results Google provides to me, that's why.

If Google is evil, I want them to go full evil as quickly as possible so we'll know. To that end, I don't have a problem with them data mining.

My attitude is more "come at me bro", than most others. If evil is looking for a victim, I hope it tries to make a victim out of me instead of harming others. I'm more accepting of devastation and willing to oppose evil than most.

For instance, if the government ever outlaws free speech and wants to round up everyone in support of it, I hope they find me. The government will have clearly defined themselves as evil at that point, and I consider this the fair warning that I will not abide evil.

All I can think of while reading this is: "Send bachelors and come heavily armed."

Bravo.

[redpoint5]

If people fight words with firearms, it at leasts clearly identifies the enemy and alerts other potential victims heros.

I'm with Peterson on this one; the freedom to speak isn't the freedom to be an A-hole, it's the freedom to think. There is no greater intrinsic right than the freedom to think. I'll go on record that I will not allow my thinking to be limited or controlled, and accept any consequence of my position on the matter. There's a reason that freedom to think is the very first amendment to the US constitution. Nothing else matters if you don't have the right to think.

BTW- That's really the crux of the evil that is the North Korean religion/government.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If I've committed the sin of marginalizing the entire scientific community, then it was merely in response to the equal sin of elevating them to supreme authoritative status.

The scientific method is the best one we've got for testing hypothesis and informing our understanding of the physical world. Scientists are just people who practice the scientific method to further understanding. They are no more or less moral than any other arbitrary group of people, and they tend to be motivated by the same things everyone else is.

Science has nothing to do with morality or meaning, because observing something as objectively as possible conveys no meaning or morality.



I'm not denying the usefulness and expertise of scientists, only pointing out that understanding climate change and its impact on the well-being of humanity is so complex that anyone that believes they have The Answer is either profoundly ignorant, or corrupt.



I've not denied climate change, nor have I denied that negative consequences have or will occur in the future. My position has been that the appropriate response is somewhere between upend all society and accept the ensuing death and misery and corruption as a necessary evil to save the planet, and do nothing and deny that we have any impact on climate at all. My position is also that climate change doesn't make the top 10 list of activities that most harm humans, or pose an existential threat to humanity.

...and we never had a democracy, we have a representative democracy, and deserve the consequences of anything we allow.

The 14th amendment is fantastic, and merely states what is now obvious, that government should not deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process. In other words, don't be a tyrant.



Of course, on this we have agreement. My only disagreement is that corporations haven't usurped the legitimate government. We still elect officials to act in our interest, and only those elected officials have legal authority to enact law. The People have allowed government to be corrupted by a number of special interests; and some of those special interests are corporations.

I've suggested some ways that might discourage corruption; but we're (collectively) seemingly unconcerned as long as our expectations for well-being are mostly met.

You're using exaggeration and sensational language just like people you've just criticized.
When scientists kept their place, just did their work and submitted their reports,basically,nothing happened to move things off dead center.Here we are 60-years later,and people want to continue to argue,as we slip closer to the brink.'To know and not tell makes cowards of men,' Lincoln said.The scientists grew a pair,and they're not backing down.
As to things,climate science,the climate scientists are all we have.They would have the best command of the data,as they're the ones in the trenches,on the front lines.
Perhaps the appropriate response is to recognize that we have a problem,and a narrow window of opportunity in which to act.Go ahead and feed the poor so they can starve to death as an older person later,when the global food supply collapses.The immorality would be putting more people on the planet only to kill them down the road.
You're entitled to your opinion.
You can landscape the yard while the house burns down.Free will.
Pushing the Earth out of the Goldilocks Zone might qualify as an existential threat.
We had more of a democracy before corporations became 'persons.' Pack the Supreme Court, Senate,Agencies,and committees with clients and voila!,no more republic.
The fossil-fuel industry is depriving We The People of life,liberty,property,and the pursuit of happiness.And I'm party to the crime,through my purchase of their products.
There IS evidence that our government has been usurped.And it's done as an inside job.No different than Rome.The due process clause of the 14th Amendment,subsidies,PACs,dark money,non-elected appointees,from a minority-elected administration,a friendly Supreme Court,are all one needs.