Climate change: children taking legal action because adults are complacent

[magellan01]

@wolfpup

So you would like climate scientists to publicly and falsely announce that they don’t have a clue what the climate is really going to do, and then you’ll be willing to join the cause of climate change mitigation?

No. I would like them to simply admit they don’t know. Because they don’t. And I’d like the warming alarmists to admit that, too.

@wolfpup

It looks to me like you’re just looking for an excuse to continue to do nothing.

Nonsense. I’ve said repeatedly on these boards that regardless of the veracity of the claims made by the warming alarmists, there is plenty that we should do. being more efficient with our energy and being gentler on the planet makes sense if the alarmists are largely incorrect in their panicking. That’s true even if the climate change we’re experiencing turns out to have very little to do with human activity.

But the problem is, as I’ve also stated repeatedly, is the type of rhetoric coming from the alarmists. It really does feel like religious zealotry, and that’s not helpful in swaying the non-religious.

[septimus]

@magellan01

No. I would like them to simply admit they don’t know. Because they don’t. And I’d like the warming alarmists to admit that, too.

Nonsense. I’ve said repeatedly on these boards that regardless of the veracity of the claims made by the warming alarmists, there is plenty that we should do. being more efficient with our energy and being gentler on the planet makes sense if the alarmists are largely incorrect in their panicking. That’s true even if the climate change we’re experiencing turns out to have very little to do with human activity.

But the problem is, as I’ve also stated repeatedly, is the type of rhetoric coming from the alarmists. It really does feel like religious zealotry, and that’s not helpful in swaying the non-religious.

You’re interested in protecting the environment though you don’t agree on what the threats are. :eek: Very big of you.

You imply that scientists speak with excess confidence but The real problem may be just the opposite! Consider the following statement issued many years ago by a prestigious U.S. scientific agency:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century… The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [my emphasis]

I’ve emphasized some words of equivocation. An objective reader would conclude human-induced warming is probably in progress, but right-wing politicians will seize on the equivocal words to insist that scientists are uncertain.

Of course, the thoughts of these thousands of scientists can all be dismissed if magellan01 has, all by himself, more expertise on the issues than all the scientists put together. Is that your position? (I’m not trying to be sarcastic; I honestly want to understand the mindset that “Me and the bloggers know more than all of academia.”)

[watchwolf49]

Reading magellan01’s post I honestly don’t see how you can conclude he’s saying “Me and the bloggers know more than all of academia.” Typically among the sciences, there’s more we don’t know than what we do know; and for every answer we get, more questions are raised.

I think magellan01 is specifically addressing the alarmism involved. It’s certainly possible for sea levels to rise 10 feet by the end of the century, but it’s fair to ask what the calculated probability is for this; and it’s fair to ask what is the most likely sea level rise will be.

There’s plenty of people who think we should reduce the fossil fuel consumption because it’s a finite resource, we will run out someday. It’s counterproductive to the common cause to denigrate these folks, and name-call them “denialist”, just because they don’t buy-in to the CO[sub]2[/sub] dogma. If we stand divided, we will be conquered.

[septimus]

@watchwolf49

Typically among the sciences, there’s more we don’t know than what we do know; and for every answer we get, more questions are raised.

Of course. Scientists are themselves the first to point that out (which gives right-wing or anti-science agencies — often wrong but never in doubt — a lead when news becomes propaganda).

@watchwolf49

I think magellan01 is specifically addressing the alarmism involved. It’s certainly possible for sea levels to rise 10 feet by the end of the century, but it’s fair to ask what the calculated probability is for this; and it’s fair to ask what is the most likely sea level rise will be.

Has Magellan01 cited specific “alarmists” with faulty figures? I don’t see such posting either at SDMB or in scientific journals. Reputable sources are consistent in predicting a range of futures, with attention to assumptions and probability estimation.