/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9819810
>You call people who questions the accuracy of a computer simulation of the climate anti-science. So, no it isn't a strawman.
Yes, you are anti-science if you "ask questions" while not wanting to find out the answer. That is essentially the antithesis of science.

And how does this even imply that what you wrote is not a strawman? You wrote, "I don't know anyone in this debate who denies that the climate changes over time or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas," when what I asked was "do you deny that global warming is occurring, caused by humans, and harmful?" In other words, it's a strawman.

>>9819849
>The ones predicting sea levels weren't too useful.
I don't see a model or currently testable prediction in either link, and sea level rise has been accelerating, so you'll have to explain what you're babbling about.

>Also a climate model that makes predictions that can't be confirmed for decades, at least, wouldn't be so bad if basing our energy policy on those models wouldn't utterly fuck up our economy (and for nothing if they are wrong), especially when the same people railing against Big Oil also rail against nuclear power, though, to be fair, there are at least some people on the global warming side that are serious about reducing CO2 emissions and actually puts forth viable alternatives like nuclear power.
There are models that have been running for decades and are accurate, so what exactly is your objection? You have it completely backwards. Ignoring the best evidence we have and allowing global warming to occur unmitigated is what will do the most damage to the economy. Maximizing our expected value by mitigating global warming is the rational, risk-reducing choice.

>MUH NAOMI KLEIN
>MUH BILL NYE
I could bring out a parade of retarded celebrity deniers but I won't, since unlike you I have actual evidence instead of guilt by false association. The intellectual vacuousness of your position forces you do these things, so I forgive you.