Indeed. And if you say any valid argument to a normie they start raging and screaming that youāre a climate change denier or a conspiracy theorist š¤£š
Discussion
What kind of arguments do you hear the most these days for climate change?
āThe science says itās happeningā
āHow do you explain the warmer weatherā
āThis billionaire says itās happeningā
š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£
By hearing these arguments you already know how stupid they are.
There is no āthe scienceā. Science isnāt a consensus. If we had to trust the consensus, the sun would still be circling around earth and earth would be flat.
First, youāre right that thereās not THE science. As a scientist I can 100% confirm that as soon as you have a total consensus in science, itās not science anymore. I canāt imagine a situation in which I would fully agree with my competitors (theyāre doing bullshit anyways š).
Second, the climate change is undoubtedly happening. However, thereās caveats (as usual š). 1) Whether or not itās human made is still a matter of active debate. Thereās no killer arguments in favor of human-made global warming. We only see correlations, but correlation is not causality. 2) The human brain is a master of over-interpretation. The simplest example of this bias is Simpsonās paradox: whatever appears as a trend on a shorter timescale, can be exactly the opposite trend on a longer timescale, but our brain is not able to comprehend this due to our short life time and the bias of the brain towards finding patterns where thereās simply none.
Thanks for this!! Really appreciated.
Iām not an expert on it but isnāt it also BS that they can stick a number of degrees they can lower the temperature by lowering carbon outputs?
Always wondered why nobody can give some good numbers without falling in the āitās the scienceā narrative.
Iām definitely not a denier of climate change (that has always happened over the past thousands of years). But Iām convinced this is all for a very big part a marketing stunt to get a lot of money.
Well the so called +1.5 degrees per year number they are talking about is a collective measure of the global average temperature increase. Local fluctuations can be of course much stronger. This is the science part. Now comes the politics. It is convenient to explain the politicians what the situation is using a few number (I mean we all know most of them aināt well educated anyways). The problem is rather what conclusions they draw from these numbers. It is not scienceās business to tell them what to do in my opinion, because sciences is about unclosing and explaining complex mechanisms, not about dictating people what to do.
Now the carbon stuff. Itās true that if you drastically reduce the CO2 output, the climate would change. The problem is, how are you gonna measure this? Thereās not THE CO2 detector š You can only do indirect measurements. So all these CO2 certificates for the industry is complete bullshit š