The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

On Brazil the polarization it's very clear.

I think the morality (or "morality") and the rise og evanglic churchs, and at the same time the momogenation of sexual behavior (actual hedonism plus media alienation and erotization in young age), it's responsible for a good deal of such polarization, together with the left wing domain in universities.

Internet also allowed a lot of "bubble effect" since people today easier association with who think similar and can block people they dislike.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I've wondered if it only seems we're more polarized, or if we actually are.

What can account for the shift? Perhaps when we were all listening to the 3 available moderate news sources, we were more moderate? Now that there are many biased news sources to choose from, we tend to listen to the ones we're most comfortable with and slide away from moderate views.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Which is why the POTUS should have fundamental economics down, so they can have a conversation with experts. Each domain of knowledge has its own language, and contending with ideas requires having the basic vocabulary down.

You've clearly demonstrated this importance by having learned the language of climate change science and understanding the principles of it.



He's got a degree in economics, and seems to be fairly smart by my estimation. His gut got him into office, so he's no dummy. That isn't to suggest his values or methods are correct, but it would be a mistake to characterize him as unintelligent, despite his limited public vocabulary. As Peterson says, give the devil his due.



Scientists might know their domains of expertise, but the world is larger than a few narrow disciplines. Course of action requires more understanding.

There's a chance that I'll be on my deathbed one day saying I should have done more to forstall global warming. Perhaps there's a much smaller chance I'll say that I should have done less... most likely I'll say nothing of it. Tragedy befalls all of us, and it rarely involves environmental conditions.

According to Woodward,he never went to class.He got by with Cliff Notes,and was a C-student.
Having a degree in economics might not mean much.You can see how many economic crises, meltdowns,recessions,and depressions we've racked up.It's never been considered a science.'kind of a system de jour.
The book I'm currently reading on it has very little good to say about economists.When they were given direct,advance warnings about the 2008 meltdown,they chose to let the economy burn down.I know one economics professor from UNT and I consider him an enemy of the state.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Most people are just like me.
According to Gallup they have found consistently that about 97% of likely to vote Americans don't think climate change, pollution or the environment is the biggest problem facing the country.
Then according to Reuters about 2/3 of Americans refuse to pay more than $10 per month or $100 per year to fix climate change.
So I'm just like the vast majority of people.

What could you expect from an uninformed public?
You yourself appear to have no command of climate science,yet your posts demonstrate a ready eagerness and champing at the bit to disrespect the entire climate science community.As if you'd know the difference.Kinda like a redneck calling a hillbilly white.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Having a degree in economics might not mean much.You can see how many economic crises, meltdowns,recessions,and depressions we've racked up.It's never been considered a science.'kind of a system de jour.
The book I'm currently reading on it has very little good to say about economists.When they were given direct,advance warnings about the 2008 meltdown,they chose to let the economy burn down.I know one economics professor from UNT and I consider him an enemy of the state.

It's at least as much a field of science as climatology or meteorology. Economics has predictive power, which lands it squarely in the sciences. The problem, like with climate, is that there are so many variables at play. The outcome of something depends not only on what we know about the factors, but how people feel. The more basic economic principles that have fewer confounding factors have stronger predictive power.

While I haven't studied the subject much (I don't follow news), the trade war with China is probably long overdue. The appropriate response to a tariff is a tariff, with the goal of both sides eventually reducing or eliminating them. Trade works best for all when it's free.

[freebeard]

It must be a science because it is known as the dismal science.

While I haven't studied the subject much (I don't follow news), the trade war with China is probably long overdue.... Trade works best for all when it's free.

They're flying American flags in the streets of Hong Kong. And Tibetans in New Delhi born in exile have adopted Pepé the Frog in solidarity with them. Another Tienamin Tiananmen Square incident would end the ruling Party.

edit:* Tiananmen

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

What could you expect from an uninformed public?
You yourself appear to have no command of climate science,yet your posts demonstrate a ready eagerness and champing at the bit to disrespect the entire climate science community.As if you'd know the difference.Kinda like a redneck calling a hillbilly white.

I respect them as much as any other cult.

[RedDevil]

Calling science a cult says less about science than about you.

[freebeard]

For What It's Worth — Buffalo Springfield
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind.
More at MetroLyrics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6epAyJ7sQ

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Calling science a cult says less about science than about you.

I have no problem with real science. Only the fake science.

Originally Posted by freebeard

For What It's Worth — Buffalo Springfield
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind.
More at MetroLyrics

I would be more open to that. That is more likely closer to reality.
The the church of climatology believes everything they have is real science, irrefutable, not open for debate, settled science, ect. If it's not open for debate, then it's not science.
The most shocking thing to me is when they try to act like their hypothesis is a law of science.

[NeilBlanchard]

You seem to think that you can separate science about the climate from the rest of science - you cannot. Science is the sum total of our knowledge about the universe. You can't pick and choose which facts you want to "believe" in.

Calling science a cult is ridiculous.