Assuming a slow, gradual warmup from burning fossil fuels, my concern is a potential increase in catastrophic events. That is, tornadoes and hurricanes might increase in frequency and severity as a nonlinear response to temperature. Personally I doubt that climate models could theoretically prove this one way or the other. So I guess we run the experiment in real time and just see what happens.
It’s not entirely fair because climate change ”science” long ago stopped being science at all. It’s the progressive left’s secular version of young-earth creationist “science”. The non-scientific agenda completely subsumes the science-like patina. As with the devout fundamentalist, you cannot shake their beliefs and any legitimate counter-evidence is ignored, distorted, discredited, dismissed or suppressed. One form of deception is primarily religious, the other political, but neither involves the honest, unbiased seeking of scientific truth.
The problem with questioning the climate change narrative, is that the skeptics don't offer any alternative that I am aware of.
"The earth is getting warmer", science says. Skeptics say "no, you just measure if wrong". "It is because of human activity". Skeptics say: "no we don't know that". Science say it could be bad for us. Skeptics say "no, I don't think so".
I've been looking but I haven't found any real alternative from the skeptics. In their mind, the climate cannot possibly get warmer, human activity cannot possibly be a factor, and it cannot possibly have any harmful effects. How do they know? Because they say so.
Duarte states quite clearly that he thinks man-made climate change is a (correct) scientific consensus, so as far as I can see your post doesn't apply to him? In general, grouping any criticism of the most maximalist doomerism into a general-purpose skeptic bucket is sure to give one a slanted view of the issue.
In any case, there is nothing wrong with a moderate narrative, in which there are some problems and challenges associated with the rising temperatures, but it's neither unsolvable nor an existential problem, and there are even some benefits, depending on where you live.
Correct, my post is about climate skeptics in general. And about the difficulty in discussing science with people who will generally distrust science, without offering an alternative.
I just want to know what the alternative is? If (supposedly) only 80% of the scientific articles believes climate change is man-made, what do the others believe causes climate change? If there is an alternative, why don't the skeptics describe it, instead of just saying "scientists are wrong"?
Ah, understood. Last time I checked, it was more a 90%+ consensus, and the majority of the dissenters was what I'd claim "quibblers": They agree climate change is happening, and agree that human behaviour has a substantial effect on it, but, well, quibble that it's hard to prove it's the sole reason, and just fall back on other reasons that are uncontroversial to have caused historical climate change. As you note, they often concentrate on very technical debunkings of specific mainstream talking points as opposed to fleshing out a detailed alternative model.
Assuming a slow, gradual warmup from burning fossil fuels, my concern is a potential increase in catastrophic events. That is, tornadoes and hurricanes might increase in frequency and severity as a nonlinear response to temperature. Personally I doubt that climate models could theoretically prove this one way or the other. So I guess we run the experiment in real time and just see what happens.
It’s not entirely fair because climate change ”science” long ago stopped being science at all. It’s the progressive left’s secular version of young-earth creationist “science”. The non-scientific agenda completely subsumes the science-like patina. As with the devout fundamentalist, you cannot shake their beliefs and any legitimate counter-evidence is ignored, distorted, discredited, dismissed or suppressed. One form of deception is primarily religious, the other political, but neither involves the honest, unbiased seeking of scientific truth.
The problem with questioning the climate change narrative, is that the skeptics don't offer any alternative that I am aware of.
"The earth is getting warmer", science says. Skeptics say "no, you just measure if wrong". "It is because of human activity". Skeptics say: "no we don't know that". Science say it could be bad for us. Skeptics say "no, I don't think so".
I've been looking but I haven't found any real alternative from the skeptics. In their mind, the climate cannot possibly get warmer, human activity cannot possibly be a factor, and it cannot possibly have any harmful effects. How do they know? Because they say so.
Duarte states quite clearly that he thinks man-made climate change is a (correct) scientific consensus, so as far as I can see your post doesn't apply to him? In general, grouping any criticism of the most maximalist doomerism into a general-purpose skeptic bucket is sure to give one a slanted view of the issue.
In any case, there is nothing wrong with a moderate narrative, in which there are some problems and challenges associated with the rising temperatures, but it's neither unsolvable nor an existential problem, and there are even some benefits, depending on where you live.
Correct, my post is about climate skeptics in general. And about the difficulty in discussing science with people who will generally distrust science, without offering an alternative.
I just want to know what the alternative is? If (supposedly) only 80% of the scientific articles believes climate change is man-made, what do the others believe causes climate change? If there is an alternative, why don't the skeptics describe it, instead of just saying "scientists are wrong"?
Ah, understood. Last time I checked, it was more a 90%+ consensus, and the majority of the dissenters was what I'd claim "quibblers": They agree climate change is happening, and agree that human behaviour has a substantial effect on it, but, well, quibble that it's hard to prove it's the sole reason, and just fall back on other reasons that are uncontroversial to have caused historical climate change. As you note, they often concentrate on very technical debunkings of specific mainstream talking points as opposed to fleshing out a detailed alternative model.
Full-on sceptics are very fringe.
In the forums and spaces I hang out, most people are full on skeptics.
Sure, but we were talking about climate scientists, who are if anything somewhat biased towards alarmism.