/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10293762
>how is it a bad thing to stop polluting the planet and working steadily towards moving off of fossil fuel?

>>9400174
>marxist anti-industrial anti-civilization cartel who control the global warming narrative.

>>8344923
>What's your solution?
For starters, acknowledging the true limits of our understanding. And besides that, acknowledging the proper relationship between experts and laymen, and the necessity of providing honest, convincing, and comprehensible demonstrations of relevant competence before being trusted to guide policy.

When laymen just trust experts because they dress up like experts, endorse each other, and say that the real argument is too complicated for laymen, we get lobotomies, space shuttles, and multi-trillion-dollar bailouts.

>what's your better solution?
For starters, not presenting and endorsing a brazenly fraudulent argument to the public.

Climate scientists should have been howling at the inaccuracies in "An Inconvenient Truth", and resigning in protest from organizations that persisted in endorsing it. That they weren't shows a pervasive lack of integrity.

The idea that it's necessary to persuade the public is an extremely dangerous one for scientific integrity, particularly when it lines up with one's desires to feel important, win arguments, signal virtue, forward other agendas, advance one's career, expand and secure one's income, discredit rivals, enhance the prestige associated with one's occupation, and dominate others.

Once you decide that it's sufficiently important to persuade the public to accept a position that you will bite your tongue when you hear a bad argument in its favor, you cease to be a scientist and become a politician, with the pose of being a scientist just your angle.

>>7913396
>Why don't people just argue that we should limit the production of pollution?
Pollution is harmful by definition.

When you burn oil completely, you make CO2 and water. What makes the CO2 "pollution" and the water not pollution?

The economic benefits of burning carbon fuels are tremendous, furthermore, the increasing CO2 levels promote plant growth and increase crop yields. But oh hey, let's just arbitrarily declare a common, naturally-occurring gas that's essential to plant growth "pollution" and start cutting back on using our main energy source, regardless of whether it's actually harmful.

>>7753136
Who cares if its fake or not?

>>7728664

>>7691548
He might not necessarily be wrong. There is a lot of evidence in the other direction, also.

Humankind's natural carbon footprint is relatively small compared to the total amount of all wildlife living everywhere. Especially the rainforest.
Not only that, but we see historical cycles of drastic hot/cold in relation to solar activity, not just as a recent trend.

I'm not saying that I disbelieve manmade climate change. Just saying that writing off the opposition as asinine or lacking evidence is just as stupid.
Pic related is my main argument.

>>7414098
Every year the average temperatures go up by just a bit, not much but it's a constant rise and it's starting to cause trouble with flooding and droughts in many areas. You have to be some kind of /pol/ tier retard to deny the weather is getting fucked up year after year. It doesn't even matter if it started as a natural change, human activity is helping accelerate it not just trough greenhouse gasses but many other pollutants. We're not going to turn into another Venus anytime soon, but the damage to biodiversity is real and the cummulative effect will prove to be disastrous even for us in the long term. Pic very related.

>>7166539
>I’m not an economist, but I would have thought that we could grow the economy by tackling these problems?
Here's the reason you can never really trust warmists: they pretty much all assume that treating catastrophic global warming as real will have strongly beneficial side-effects even if it's not real.

Even if they see something that gives them doubt, they feel virtuous in suppressing that evidence.

It's a political bandwagon for people who don't trust economic freedom and want bigger government. Many of them are strongly in favor of reducing the human population and dramatically reducing material standards of living.

I'm enthusiastic about emerging solar power technology and prospective nuclear technology because I see them as ways to increase energy consumption by orders of magnitude, enabling not only the average person to enjoy the kind of lifestyle currently limited to the First World nations, but also new extravagances such as routine space travel.

You never hear warmists talking about alternative power this way, even though we're talking about the same technologies. They want it deployed in its current crude, expensive forms, and to strongarm people into just living on less power, and with less wealth than they have now, and to lock that in forever.