House Science Committee tweets embarrassing climate change tweet

there was never an overwhelming belief that the earth was flat though, there where disagreements about how big it was and if there where more continents.

 

People in Ancient Greece and Egypt were able to determine that the earth wasn't flat using "not so advanced now but advanced at that time" math and observing stars.

It just shows this inherent "eh science is like okay I guess they can be wrong but since flat earth was lols this is too" idiocy

 

Scientists are wrong often enough, that automatically believing exactly what a "consensus" of them says is illogical. Reminds me of time many physicists sent a letter to Einstein "proving" they were correct and he was wrong. "Consensus" is NOT a scientific term, BTW. Pure political manipulation to keep pointing out % = victory in science.

Straw man argument by that chap was unfortunate. Trump guy even said he was not a scientist.

Finally, I support global warming research. Hysteria ain't helping. Humanity will figure this out, most likely. Chillax FTW.

 

I now believe that the moon is made of cheese. After all, the scientific consensus might be wrong!

 

As a logical person, I support global warming research.

But the some continue to mock and/or attack my position. Zealotry?

 

just ,you know, not the results?

ignore Boozha he's being an ass, I should know, it's usually my job.

 

I don't believe the results 100%. Skepticism has served me well to date, and I have zero plans to change that. Research away says I. Here be my tax monies.

 

It's your good right to be sceptic or choose to not believe something. It just so happens to be that you are scientifically wrong in this case.


Also, when the sea level rises the dutchies will feel it first @Geressen how waterproof are your dams and basement?

 

I am "scientifically wrong" on what point? My support for a few more generations, minimum, of research into global climate change has been frequently stated here. There is tremendous variability within the scientific community about the exact nature and exact severity and exact solution to global climate change. Which scientist, specifically, am I supposed to put most/all of my faith in before you--and others--will stop pretending I oppose science? We are polluting our planet. And we have a responsibility to conserve and preserve and restore as able. What else must I say/do before worthiness is achieved?

 

no we are not, that small polynesian island group that is made of attols just a few feet above sea level will feel it first.

also basement? what is a basement? is it something you do in places where the ground is not made of wet sand and clay?

 

The Illusion of Knowledge

Posted December 29th, 2016 @ 10:37am in #climate science

Yesterday I kicked the hornet’s nest by suggesting that no scientist really believes that complicated models with lots of variables can reliably predict the future. This is a subset of my larger point that no non-scientist can evaluate the claims of climate science because BOTH sides look 100% convincing to the under-informed.

So how did the public respond to my claim that BOTH sides of the debate look convincing? They berated me for not sufficiently researching materials from ONE side of the debate that happens to be their side. Many people suggested that I could simply do some homework, on my own, and get to the bottom of climate science.

That is a massive public illusion.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-knowledge


I implore you to read the entire article, ponder and then post your observations here. He hits the very center of the bullseye, IMO.

Some say it is too late to meaningfully impact global climate change. I am more optimistic. We should continue to poor time, money and energy into analyzing the problem from every angle possible and then moving forward with solutions. It is good that some of my tax money is spent on green initiatives. Continue says I. Trump met with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, which I think signals continued green funding. We shall see soon enough. Conservation is also important, and we should continue to improve in that area as well. Very smart humans are very smart, and they should come up with innovative action sooner or later. Don't lose hope says I.

The public at large, specifically the vast majority of voters, cannot possibly crack the scientific nut that is global climate change. What say you?

 

I say that I studied chemistry, including a very eye-opening seminary on energy technology, and I think that I have, all in all, learned enough to say that either someone with absolutely super-human power has warped the entire world to do his bidding, save for some lone heroes, or that the current worrying trends concering earths climate are our wake-up call to focus on moving to solar energy (which includes wind energy). Seeing how the technologies advanced from when they came into being - from wind farms being decried as a waste of money to bringing in their money twentyfold over their lifetime, for example, or experimental solar cells approaching 40% efficiency, while traditional technologies like combustion engines and powerplants have practically reached a plateau where their efficiency is almost not increasing anymore - really showed that a world in which we don't drown a bunch of island states is a possibility.

That said, without at least ... say, two years of study in a related field it shouldn't be possible to get real insight into a topic as broad and bleeding edge as climate change and the responses to it. For example, I have little idea of how to steer the medical system of a country in detail, and gaining knowledge in one field only shows you how much you don't know in other fields. As a studied man (?) you should know that feeling.

One of the most important factors for someone without a deep education in a field to decide who to trust in such a debate is: who actually benefits from their position? If on one side there are mostly lobbyists that get paid based on their position and on the other hand scientists that get paid one way or another provided their work is of sufficient quality, I think one side will be more biased than the other.

So then some say "but wait, all journals generally considered reputable are only accepting papers supporting the 'right' version of the issue!". Of course you can claim that, but you end up claiming that across pretty much all countries of the earth something made all the journals lying in stark contrast to their actual task and mission, promoting knowledge, and only the aforementioned tiny minority is crying out against it. Despite papers hardly being immune to criticism, considering the constant quarrels with universities and such over prices, copyrights and whatnot. But not over whether or not climate change is real.

Oh well. Ramble ramble. One way or another, solar panels and wind turbines don't emit dust particles that cause cancer and other ailments (besides just making everything dirty), don't require as much mining, are far more recycling-friendly, and so on and so forth. Climate change is hardly the only reason to get cleaner energy sources.

 

Tons of logic. Enjoyable rambling. I love the idea of green energy, and I believe we will get there sooner or later. Obviously sooner is much preferred. Your last sentence is spot on. Can I use it going forward without paying a royalty?

 

that sounds like mental communism!

 

Just use this cartoon

 

By the way, It's a couple weeks old but I figured people could use some good news on this front:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind