Avatar
unclebobmartin 1y ago

Good Morning Nostrs.

Today on X someone said:

Scientific consensus is well established on climate change issue: It is human made, and drastic reduction of emissions is required.

To which I replied:

“Consensus” is a political term that is used to obscure the actual science. It’s an argument from authority, with that authority being usurped by the arguer.

The actual research indicates rising levels of CO2 and rising temperatures; but does not suggest “drastic” anything.

In short, the research is interpreted, then summarized, then reinterpreted, then re-summarized, in a game of “telephone” that warps and obscures the actual results of the research to align with the goals of the politicians.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
graycat 1y ago

I just don’t think science can get us all the way to a policy recommendation. That requires values and prioritization.

Avatar
unclebobmartin 1y ago

Science can explain and inform. Policy requires honesty and judgement -- two things that our politicians are seldom known for.

From: (graycat) at 01/24 08:15

> I just don’t think science can get us all the way to a policy recommendation. That requires values and prioritization.

CC: #[4]

Avatar
pam 1y ago

You are spot on. Climate change is real, but drastic change of anything often leads to questioning the money trail.

Also, there is no "scientific consensus” on climate change. A simple online search for research papers on ‘climate change fallacy’ will point to the other side of the coin.

Typically literature reviews tend to have confirmation bias and I think this seems to be more apparent in climate change research. Circular reasoning is also common due to bias and activism (and there is a paper on this), where researchers' prior beliefs shape their methodology. There will always be 2 sides of the coin when it comes to research. Even the discovery of atoms went through multiple definitions over time, based on new evidence, knowledge and insights.

If people are really concerned about climate change, they would reduce coal production - is it still at 80% usage ? And maybe push for nuclear clean energies. The solutions proposed often seem very selective and suspicious.

10
10e053b4... 1y ago

'Unsettled' by Steven E. Koonin, does a nice job of presenting the study data and the "summaries" along side each other. In most cases, the "summaries" do not accurately represent what the data shows, but make for click-bait headlines...

5c
5c077d22... 1y ago

This net zero agenda is an overkill. I am pretty sure a net 30%, or net 40% would suffice.