Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
It's Not Global Warming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4238382" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>It's hard to get funding when your research doesn't point to a crisis that needs to be averted, particularly when your field of study does not produce anything that can be commercialized.</p><p></p><p>The 97% consensus is a sham perpetrated by politicians, based on a study of published papers about climate that expressed any position on the impact humans have on climate. Meaning that papers that did not make any connections between human activity and climate were not included in the meta-analysis. Of all the ones that did, 3% expressed a position that humans made no impact on the climate. The rest were a mix of differing levels of certainty on the impact of human activity on the climate, and whether that impact was net positive or negative. Only a small percentage expressed that humans' impact on climate was so disastrous that it requires immediate attention. That's not really a consensus, and this claim has been around for a long time, regardless of what has been happening with the climate.</p><p></p><p>True scientists are not in the business of making value judgments about their data or conclusions. But when politicians secure funding to fight the invisible dragon of "climate catastrophe" in an attempt to maintain or increase their power, scientists would be shooting themselves in the foot to correct said politicians. So much so that they will ostracize any fellow scientists who dare attempt to kill their golden goose.</p><p></p><p>The claim that climate change is bad and must be addressed is not one that can be evaluated with the scientific method. Belief otherwise is to assert the position of scientism, that science is the only way through which we can gain knowledge of the world. This is clearly an incorrect assertion. Science is maybe the greatest tool we have to assist us in our understanding of the physical world, but it has its limitations</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4238382, member: 63706"] It's hard to get funding when your research doesn't point to a crisis that needs to be averted, particularly when your field of study does not produce anything that can be commercialized. The 97% consensus is a sham perpetrated by politicians, based on a study of published papers about climate that expressed any position on the impact humans have on climate. Meaning that papers that did not make any connections between human activity and climate were not included in the meta-analysis. Of all the ones that did, 3% expressed a position that humans made no impact on the climate. The rest were a mix of differing levels of certainty on the impact of human activity on the climate, and whether that impact was net positive or negative. Only a small percentage expressed that humans' impact on climate was so disastrous that it requires immediate attention. That's not really a consensus, and this claim has been around for a long time, regardless of what has been happening with the climate. True scientists are not in the business of making value judgments about their data or conclusions. But when politicians secure funding to fight the invisible dragon of "climate catastrophe" in an attempt to maintain or increase their power, scientists would be shooting themselves in the foot to correct said politicians. So much so that they will ostracize any fellow scientists who dare attempt to kill their golden goose. The claim that climate change is bad and must be addressed is not one that can be evaluated with the scientific method. Belief otherwise is to assert the position of scientism, that science is the only way through which we can gain knowledge of the world. This is clearly an incorrect assertion. Science is maybe the greatest tool we have to assist us in our understanding of the physical world, but it has its limitations [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
It's Not Global Warming
Top