The Koch Brothers and Climate Change

[Chris]

Do something about an unfalsifiable alarmist hypothesis? LOL

Can you be more coherent please?

It was coherent.

Scientists make hypotheses, right.

And those hypotheses must be falsifiable--if you want more explanation, ask, I'll be glad to explain.

Unfalsfiable hypotheses are pseudoscience.

Alarmists are those who politicize climate change.


OK, maybe reorder the words to alarmist unfalsifiable hypotheses.

[Chris]

This is hard to believe but Slate defends alarmism. In short it's OK to use emotional appeal and scare people into agreeing something, anything must be done.

Alarmism Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change

...We don’t need to guard against alarmism, against depression, against anger, against despair when it comes to climate change. Sure, the hopelessness that accompanies pondering our fate might depress people out of recycling their water bottles or switching their light bulbs. That doesn’t matter. If it also scares people into actually taking this issue seriously at the ballot box, the trade-off will be well worth it. Because the ballot box is where it matters. If we force the issue—if we elect people who care about the survival of all humans rather than just a few—then we might have a shot of preventing the hellscape Wallace-Wells has outlined.

If you don’t want that outcome, we need to start by being more alarmed.

[Kalkin]

This is hard to believe but Slate defends alarmism. In short it's OK to use emotional appeal and scare people into agreeing something, anything must be done.

Alarmism Is the Argument We Need to Fight Climate Change

Emotion over intellect, the liberal MO.

[Chris]

Emotion over intellect, the liberal MO.

That seems to be the tendency.

[spunkloaf]

It was coherent.

Scientists make hypotheses, right.

And those hypotheses must be falsifiable--if you want more explanation, ask, I'll be glad to explain.

Unfalsfiable hypotheses are pseudoscience.

Alarmists are those who politicize climate change.


OK, maybe reorder the words to alarmist unfalsifiable hypotheses.

It was not a coherent sentence.

I can't debate people who can't write English. I wasn't raised in a barn. My ability to decipher the meaning of what Hoosier said is null. I am sorry.

Now, to answer your post.

Climate change is happening, and in the perspective of human history, it is occurring quite fast and suddenly. This much cannot be refuted, but Chris, the right wing continues to downplay it. (Hint: that is politics meddling with science, and the misinformation campaign is quite transparent.)

The bigger question is whether humans are the cause of these climate trends.

97 out of 100 scientists say that climate change is being caused by humans. I would argue that, indeed, the "hypothesis" is falsifiable. This is not how the scientific method works, Chris.

Here's an article about what we're discussing. I'm onto your plot.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...ntific-method/

Smith went after climate scientists right in the statement he used to open the hearing, saying, "Far too often, alarmist theories on climate science originate with scientists who operate outside the principles of the scientific method." He went on to say that "all too often, scientists ignore the basic tenets of science." Smith singled out climate projections such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), saying that any predictions made to the end of this century are simply not credible.
"Alarmist predictions amount to nothing more than wild guesses," he said.


Why would scientists be making these "guesses"? Smith had an answer for that, too. "Their ultimate goal," he said, "is to promote a personal agenda, even if the evidence doesn't support it." He once again reiterated his accusations against the scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who had updated the agency's temperature records, saying that "this was done to arrive at politically correct results."

You see that last sentence in this quote? "Politically correct results."

Do you mind telling me what the $#@! that even means? As a dumb liberal, I can't wrap my head around that one.

[Chris]

It was not a coherent sentence.

I can't debate people who can't write English. I wasn't raised in a barn. My ability to decipher the meaning of what Hoosier said is null. I am sorry.

Now, to answer your post.

Climate change is happening, and in the perspective of human history, it is occurring quite fast and suddenly. This much cannot be refuted, but Chris, the right wing continues to downplay it. (Hint: that is politics meddling with science, and the misinformation campaign is quite transparent.)

The bigger question is whether humans are the cause of these climate trends.

97 out of 100 scientists say that climate change is being caused by humans. I would argue that, indeed, the "hypothesis" is falsifiable. This is not how the scientific method works, Chris.

Here's an article about what we're discussing. I'm onto your plot.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...ntific-method/



You see that last sentence in this quote? "Politically correct results."

Do you mind telling me what the $#@! that even means? As a dumb liberal, I can't wrap my head around that one.

Climate change is happening--has always been happening...



And actually leftwingers tend to downplay it to support alarm while rightwingers tend to upplay to support denial.

The real question, as you argue, is how much does man affect climate change? Rightwingers, given climate change has always happened, deny man has any effect while leftwingers alarm it into a hockey stick:



Which has been debunked by the 16, 17 year hiatus in warming despite dramatic increases in CO2.

I would argue, as a skeptic, that man has to have an effect, and probably makes climate change more erratic: One time it was global warning, then global cooling, then just plain climate change. Man meddling with natural cycles, like even the business cycle, makes them more erratic.

So step back a minute. Earlier it was pointed out the what deliniate science from pseudoscience is falsification. Scientists work by it, science is defined by it.

OK so what it this concensus of 97 out of 100 scientists? That's not falsification. It borders on trying to make science democratic, a matter of voting, where the majority rules. In. short the concensus is political. And it's argued by alarmists.

Policially correct thus means it falls in line with the concensus view. Even scientists are subject to political pressure, wanting to be in the in group. But it's also where the money lies for most funding by government grants. All this was written about decades ago by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

So we're left with man must have an effect on climate change. So how much? Unknown. Though if you aggregate all the climate models we're talking a rise in temps of 1-2 degress.

But even if it's worse, that does not dicate what solutions should be pursued. On one hand you need to prioritize with other major problems like proverty, pollution, war, and so many other human problems. On the other hand you need to decide which is better, government solutions or private free market solutions. Any solution will require billions if not trillions of dollars. Where does government get such money? By taking it from people, which hurts the poor much more than the rich. The free market allows people to choose, and gain from it, as the market adjusts in a process of discovery of what works.