- 02 Dec 2018 14:10
#14968719
So you don't know. So you just reject all of the science because you cannot point to some giant one-over-the-world experiment. You reject all of the "proofs", experimental or observational that went into making the estimates. So you misunderstand why the estimates are estimates rather than a set figure.
You mean like 'medicine', genetics, bio-chemistry and physics? Climate science is not something cut from whole cloth. It is like medicine....a combination of settled science and new scientific observation/experiment leading to best practices/applications.
You mean like medicine? So your solution is to reject the best work by the best people in the field and choose the results that fit your own world view and not the science?
No its not. I agree. They are not inaccurate and unreliable. They aren't exact nor are they intended to be. We do not have the cure for cancer either but one thing is for certain. If you don't go with the best treatment we have you will die sooner and badly.
How accurate is accurate? Reliable for what? To exactly predict climate? You seem to be confusing weather with climate. We are pretty good at both of them but they are not the same thing. Are the data reliable enough to act on? Of course. That is why the overwhelming number of scientific organizations from all over the world (virtually all of them in fact) instruct us to act.
I was once bitten by a dog. The dog got away. If we had the dog (model) we could have tested the dog to see if he had rabies or not. Rabies are very rare in domestic animals in the US. Nevertheless I took the rabies shots. Why? Because in the absence of evidence I knew that if I guessed wrong I would die a horrible death. This is good science.
Climate science is similar to the extent that we know the danger if we are wrong. Widespread suffering and death. And we know that a relatively simple course of actions today, even though moderately expensive and a bit uncomfortable could save millions if not billions of lives later.
But you choose to find a few naysayers and bet the whole farm that they are right and the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field are wrong. Not the actions of a wise person. And, of course, there are political implications to what you are doing. Like the idiot anti-vaxers the ignorance of people with ideas like yours encourage people to ignore the best science available and elect people who put us in danger. People like Donald Trump and his rag-tag group of stooges. And you want to argue science?
Let's just start with the fact that they're unproven,
So you don't know. So you just reject all of the science because you cannot point to some giant one-over-the-world experiment. You reject all of the "proofs", experimental or observational that went into making the estimates. So you misunderstand why the estimates are estimates rather than a set figure.
and they're constructed on a limited understanding of an emerging science,
You mean like 'medicine', genetics, bio-chemistry and physics? Climate science is not something cut from whole cloth. It is like medicine....a combination of settled science and new scientific observation/experiment leading to best practices/applications.
and they're attempting to simulate a system that is unbelievably complex.
You mean like medicine? So your solution is to reject the best work by the best people in the field and choose the results that fit your own world view and not the science?
The question isn't why are the models inaccurate and unreliable,
No its not. I agree. They are not inaccurate and unreliable. They aren't exact nor are they intended to be. We do not have the cure for cancer either but one thing is for certain. If you don't go with the best treatment we have you will die sooner and badly.
the question is why would anyone expect them to be accurate or reliable in the first place?
How accurate is accurate? Reliable for what? To exactly predict climate? You seem to be confusing weather with climate. We are pretty good at both of them but they are not the same thing. Are the data reliable enough to act on? Of course. That is why the overwhelming number of scientific organizations from all over the world (virtually all of them in fact) instruct us to act.
I was once bitten by a dog. The dog got away. If we had the dog (model) we could have tested the dog to see if he had rabies or not. Rabies are very rare in domestic animals in the US. Nevertheless I took the rabies shots. Why? Because in the absence of evidence I knew that if I guessed wrong I would die a horrible death. This is good science.
Climate science is similar to the extent that we know the danger if we are wrong. Widespread suffering and death. And we know that a relatively simple course of actions today, even though moderately expensive and a bit uncomfortable could save millions if not billions of lives later.
But you choose to find a few naysayers and bet the whole farm that they are right and the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field are wrong. Not the actions of a wise person. And, of course, there are political implications to what you are doing. Like the idiot anti-vaxers the ignorance of people with ideas like yours encourage people to ignore the best science available and elect people who put us in danger. People like Donald Trump and his rag-tag group of stooges. And you want to argue science?
To believe in God is impossible not to believe in Him is absurd.
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire
Voltaire
God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh.
Voltaire