Global Warming: A New Study Could Destroy Doomsday Climate Change Forecasts
Another hit on the "settled science" of climate change, which may just throw the whole model into the dump...
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
These facts can be ignored or taken into account.
Just look at what is happening to the humanities departments in many universities. And it’s spreading to all ages of student.
I have not heard a clear plan about what to do about it. I think they could do the best calculation possible of the costs and tax those activities. That's very hard to do because it's hard to measure those costs. There's also the risk that it would be just be another tax, with no corresponding decrease in income tax or other taxes. Working out the amount would be politicized. We still have people in denial of the basic facts. Imagine trying to work out numbers for a tax change that benefits high-income earners at the expense of people in jobs that contribute to climate change. Moreover, there will be hell to pay if new evidence is discovered showing the wishful thinking were right and that either human activities have less impact that we thought or the costs of the change are lower than we thought.
"hordes of publicly paid scientists"
This is the funniest part. Scientists are getting paid, so we can't trust science. Literally trillions of dollars of economic activity in some way contribute to climate change, so there's unbelievable pressure to understate it. So it's ironic when people say financial interest biases the science in the opposite direction.
How much mankind is also affecting the swings of the climate changing, in what way, with what possible consequences, in how much time, and what to do about it is totally debatable. But instead, it has become more of a political and ideological witch hunt. Punishing/shutting up those that question the testing or cherry picked conclusions of the collective hordes of publicly paid scientists.
There's no serious debate that the evidence shows it's happening and is hastened by human activities. If this makes it's "settled science" then it is "settled science".
But science is always open to new evidence, and I will not be surprised if some revolution shows we were wrong in some major way. Wishful thinkers will say, "can't you guys just settle on one answer and stick to it?" That's not how science works though. The people who write these articles start with something they and I wish were true and then go looking for any anomalies they can use to get to the answer they (and I) want.
Obama
Sounds like “settled science" to me.
“
...science is not supposed to have a politically predetermined outcome pushed by ideology and politics. This new nitrogen study is but one example of consensus science being overturned. The global warming science establishment should now be open to similar studies and dissenting voices on CO2 to overturn the alleged climate change consensus."
But will they?
“