How much do you care about pre emissions

[WinterDeere]

I understand how common sense and logical conclusions drawn from readily available studies baffles a lot of people.

Claims of "common sense" are almost never useful in complex problems, where things can often run contrary to intuition.

I have people routinely tell me that circuits take two wires, a closed loop... it's "common sense". But I make my living sending electrical energy down hollow pipes, like water, without a separate conductor for current return path.

Have you not figured out, there is more money in the fear hustling of climate change then there is in the solation of climate change. Why solve it when we can debate for several decades at a cost of billions...

Of course you're right here, there are people making money by taking every half-baked hypothesis and either pushing policy or products, based upon it. I won't argue with you there. But that doesn't invalidate the science. To use your own words, "They are two separate things."

I have seen many times, a scientist says "early data shows maybe this caused that, more analysis required", and the next month everything from headlines to congress are saying, "we need to stop that by reversing this". It's even more obvious in medicine than in climate science. But don't confuse these opportunists, who are either deliberately or foolishly misinterpreting or construing scientific findings and hypotheses, for the actual science or scientists.

The quote is getting old and tired now, and I didn't even like Bertram Russell, but he was onto something when he said, "the fundamental cause of the trouble is that, in the modern world, the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Don't be so sure you have figured out what so many people studying massive data models have not been able to conclusively understand, despite decades of effort.

 

[Snobdds]

Claims of "common sense" are almost never useful in complex problems, where things can often run contrary to intuition.

I have people routinely tell me that circuits take two wires, a closed loop... it's "common sense". But I make my living sending electrical energy down hollow pipes, like water, without a separate conductor for current return path.


Of course you're right here, there are people making money by taking every half-baked hypothesis and either pushing policy or products, based upon it. I won't argue with you there. But that doesn't invalidate the science. To use your own words, "They are two separate things."

I have seen many times, a scientist says "early data shows maybe this caused that, more analysis required", and the next month everything from headlines to congress are saying, "we need to stop that by reversing this". It's even more obvious in medicine than in climate science. But don't confuse these opportunists, who are either deliberately or foolishly misinterpreting or construing scientific findings and hypotheses, for the actual science or scientists.

The quote is getting old and tired now, and I didn't even like Bertram Russell, but he was onto something when he said, "the fundamental cause of the trouble is that, in the modern world, the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Don't be so sure you have figured out what so many people studying massive data models have not been able to conclusively understand, despite decades of effort.

Have you ever been accused of being a reflexive contrarian before?

 

[WinterDeere]

Have you ever been accused of being a reflexive contrarian before?

haha... I will give you that. I suppose I do like to always be sure both sides of a debate are represented, at least when I have nothing tying me particularly tight to one side or the other.

One thing I've realized over the years, is that nearly any topic that's been debated for so long, tends to get less "black-and-white", the more you dig into it. The debate exists because the answers aren't obvious or universal.

 

[IndyIan]

Have you ever been accused of being a reflexive contrarian before?

He just doesn't agree with your thinking... And I like that quote, "the fundamental cause of the trouble is that, in the modern world, the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." as its a good reminder to do some further investigation when I "know" I am right and someone disagrees, who seems to have done some research on the topic, beyond watching big network 6 o'clock news, or conspiracy websites...
Most complicated things like governments putting in environmental regulations, or Ford deciding on their long term product lines, or a general drawing up a battle plan, are based on a group of experts in the field coming up with their best guess of what the future is going to bring, and how their policy/cars/soldiers are going to fit in to that. It's not guaranteed they are going to come up with the best plan, but on balance they think what they are doing has the best change for a good outcome.
If we don't do anything for 100 years about climate change until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt we're the cause of it, we are going to be in a bad situation, its going to be much harder/expensive to fix things up. Right the vast majority of climate researchers think our greenhouse gas emissions are causing the extra heating and increased storm severity, so I think its best for us to do something about it now so the long term pain will be reduced.

 

[DarkBlack]

Politicians do what’s best for their own wallet and what they think will work for keep them in power.
Sorry, but that’s the ugly truth.

Saying they do what’s likely the “best outcome”, means what’s best for their own career and wallet. Thinking it means something nice for the peasants, points towards the peasant being gullible

 

[Rustyiron]

Aren't "most scientist" and "climate researchers" working on government grant money that has an agenda attached?

 

[DarkBlack]

Aren't "most scientist" and "climate researchers" working on government grant money that has an agenda attached?

Only those poised to benefit from the “expected” “results” fund it.

 

[WinterDeere]

Politicians do what’s best for their own wallet and what they think will work for keep them in power.
Sorry, but that’s the ugly truth.

True. But our system of government was designed with the aim that the politician's self-interest should rarely be in direct opposition with that of the voters and financial backers who put them there. Would you rather they more regularly voted against the desires of the voters and supporters who keep them in power?

I think the vast majority of unwanted legislation comes from the way bills are packaged, more than anything else. They're written so that it would be political suicide for the lawmaker to vote against it, because of one provision, even if it means saddling voters with many other undesirable components of the same bill. More often than not, when you look at some horrendously bad bit of legislation that's been passed, it's because it was packaged with something else that just couldn't fail.

This is the fault of the few who are drafting bills, not the many who are stuck casting votes between two bad choices.

 

[Williy]

some quotes:
If your right and everyone is wrong then wrong yourself so
you can be in harmony

I believe in everything that way it don't leave me any room
for an argument

willy

 

[paulsharvey]

.