ring bells, yes, i remember two climate scientists, one being run off due to being overly extreme doom and gloom, which spending some time studying over his arguments i found them overall compelling however i was bothered that he made the assumption that since we had created problems for ourselves that we currently have no solution for w…
ring bells, yes, i remember two climate scientists, one being run off due to being overly extreme doom and gloom, which spending some time studying over his arguments i found them overall compelling however i was bothered that he made the assumption that since we had created problems for ourselves that we currently have no solution for we were therefore doomed, like hello maybe we might figure out a solution as we go along, like why is this not a possibility...
but the other was for dissenting such that it gave support for the counter narrative, her issue was with the models, that the uncertainty was being under played and that key data collection needed for the model to be more robust was being ignored, left unfunded, yet she also made the statement that the models could be off both ways...
then the models from my understand are not robust enough to well predict when to expect effects, that there are variables within the model that must be assumed within a range of possible values, such that play with the assumptions, and you play with the outcomes...
however, we do have good certainty that we are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that the planet is gaining heat energy, more incoming heat energy than outgoing heat energy, this which is counterbalanced/buffered by the earth's thermal mass which the oceans, ice caps/sheets, become an especially important aspect of...
then from here the uncertainty increases as far as how precisely this will affect the climate, that there are nonlinear feedback loops in the model which make predictions really difficult to forecast, and as far as belief, i don't share your belief, i more accept that mankind has been "blessed" with free will and that our task is to muster the maturity to handle it responsibility, that if we collectively desire to experience our own demise then so be it...
all this said i do feel this issue with gobal warning is a diversion, that there are other issue like roundup which if Zach Bush MD is correct about his concerns over multigeneration effects of roundup then we have way bigger issues ahead than gobal warming...
such that the bigger issue here is that with any legitimate stewardship concerns nefarious types and going to use them in nefarious ways for nefarious perceived gains, then the concerned scientist trying to bring legitimate issue into the public perception are faced with the need/desire of maintaining research funding where to ensure funding you need to sell a fear of concern to the public to get the funding...
ring bells, yes, i remember two climate scientists, one being run off due to being overly extreme doom and gloom, which spending some time studying over his arguments i found them overall compelling however i was bothered that he made the assumption that since we had created problems for ourselves that we currently have no solution for we were therefore doomed, like hello maybe we might figure out a solution as we go along, like why is this not a possibility...
but the other was for dissenting such that it gave support for the counter narrative, her issue was with the models, that the uncertainty was being under played and that key data collection needed for the model to be more robust was being ignored, left unfunded, yet she also made the statement that the models could be off both ways...
then the models from my understand are not robust enough to well predict when to expect effects, that there are variables within the model that must be assumed within a range of possible values, such that play with the assumptions, and you play with the outcomes...
however, we do have good certainty that we are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that the planet is gaining heat energy, more incoming heat energy than outgoing heat energy, this which is counterbalanced/buffered by the earth's thermal mass which the oceans, ice caps/sheets, become an especially important aspect of...
then from here the uncertainty increases as far as how precisely this will affect the climate, that there are nonlinear feedback loops in the model which make predictions really difficult to forecast, and as far as belief, i don't share your belief, i more accept that mankind has been "blessed" with free will and that our task is to muster the maturity to handle it responsibility, that if we collectively desire to experience our own demise then so be it...
all this said i do feel this issue with gobal warning is a diversion, that there are other issue like roundup which if Zach Bush MD is correct about his concerns over multigeneration effects of roundup then we have way bigger issues ahead than gobal warming...
such that the bigger issue here is that with any legitimate stewardship concerns nefarious types and going to use them in nefarious ways for nefarious perceived gains, then the concerned scientist trying to bring legitimate issue into the public perception are faced with the need/desire of maintaining research funding where to ensure funding you need to sell a fear of concern to the public to get the funding...