I would hate to see your house get damaged by a falling tree.
Trees are less likely to fall on your house if you hug them.
I would hate to see your house get damaged by a falling tree.
Governments can find any evidence they need to push through whatever policy they want to. Just employ the right experts to write a report, and if you don't like it, employ some more until they see the light and get it right.
Oh it is the most evidence based endeavor. They just have a different idea of evidence than you do.
But supposing one politician says "It is a fact that US inflation is currently low", is that a fact? If they add more details like "compared to the historical average", does that make it more of a fact? Or if they say "compared to the rest of the world"?I think the recent acceptance and promotion of "alternative facts" by the current U.S. federal government is related to that. When that term entered the American lexicon, I began to feel that all hope was lost for even a small amount of reason and logic from those currently governing the U.S.
If there was a bucket of gold stars to give out for good posts here, you would deserve the biggest one for that comment, which is an extraordinarily succinct point the the thread with it many bloviations.
Most of those who propose solutions - especially people involved in finance, investing, and other business-related are looking for way to profit from those solutions. I'm not sure we as a species with our cultures and governments are even capabile of selecting the most effective and beneficial solution. The global current trend towards electing far-right nationalists and saparatists. The haves want to keep what they've got, and the have nots want s big slice of the pie. I am not optimistic regarding the long term. (He says as ominous thunder from an approaching storm accentuates the dark afternoon sky.)
Science and logic will not determine the path forward - politics and big egos will lead the way.
Actually AGW is based exclusively on computer models
Yes, actually that wouldn't be so bad. It seems gov't tends to pass legislation on theory, and if it doesn't work, they keep that legislation and add some more for some other reason.There is a tendency for governments to pass legislation based on a hypothesis. It sounds good, so let's do it. Maybe it works or it doesn't. Sometimes they admit defeat and reverse course.
Demonstrably not so. Plus lots of science has been/is based upon models with and without a computer. That alone isn't much of a criticism.Actually AGW is based exclusively on computer models
Who or what specifically is "the climate science research"?
So is the navigation for our visits to the planets.
Yes, actually that wouldn't be so bad. It seems gov't tends to pass legislation on theory, and if it doesn't work, they keep that legislation and add some more for some other reason.
I don't know a practical way to do it, but I'm wondering if at least as done in the USA, precedents and legislation shouldn't be pruned away periodically in some manner. Keep the constitution and its amendments, but some laws need clearing out or a limited lifetime or something like that. Even when things get revisited and updated it seems the old versions (or old interests in the old versions) corrupt it plenty. e.g. the most recent copyright acts.
I think the recent acceptance and promotion of "alternative facts" by the current U.S. federal government is related to that. When that term entered the American lexicon, I began to feel that all hope was lost for even a small amount of reason and logic from those currently governing the U.S.
Or you can reference this one about beautiful models that make incorrect predictions.
Better than the current situation that if you have two political parties, three of them are lying.If there was no such thing as alternative facts and politics was based on evidence, wouldn't that mean that if you had two political parties and they weren't saying the same thing, one of them had to be lying?
I use the word hypotheses as something which has no proof. A theory has insurmountable evidence to support it. Part of the climate debate is over whether the evidence is insurmountable. Sunset dates would help a lot. The constant extension of copyright terms is unfortunate. A recent project by the NY Public Library identified many books written before 1964 which were not registered with the copyright office and are now in the public domain. I wonder if the same approach is possible with other works such as audio recordings and movies.
One of these days I will get to Florida and buy the first round.
BTW the CIMP climate Models runs vs observation. The CIMP Models are the ones used by the IPCC.
View attachment 31205
I would also note the inability of the climate models to converge to a single solution. Those who took math in college may appreciate the significance of that.
A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased.