I am not sure you get it...your comment seems to be more, "I get it, your team thinks Curry is bad" Plus it's not about being bad or good - but rather how accurate and trustworthy they are.
I don't believe it is I don't believe it is I get it: Curry BAD. i.e., she is not on the "preferred list" of climate science vendors. I get it. I get it. Look, you know I'm retiring this month. I have just spent the last 35 years of my life arguing with scientists, policymakers, bureaucrats, and fellow academics--sometimes to worthwhile effect, and sometimes just wasting my effort. I've been pretty good at my job, but at this point I'm genuinely tired of arguing. I don't see how it gets anyone anywhere, honestly, at least most of the time. The ideological rigidity I've encountered and experienced in academia is shameful, and I'm at a fairly decent institution. Folks sometimes wonder why I don't write more of my own views here . . . if I did that to any significant degree, I'm sure folks could figure out my digital fingerprints and guess who I am. At this point I'm not much interested in having that happen either. I will say that one hope I have for retirement is that I won't have to spend as much time on the computer as I have. I have come to believe that computers are death and the internet is mostly hell. how's that for some Friday afternoon reflection
I get what you are saying - I do. Arguing is pretty fruitless....and yet...you are here. So you aren't completely tired of it But in all seriousness, what I have found is this - in order to make debate worthwhile, it's helpful to know when you are having an argument with someone who isn't capable of changing their mind, and when you are arguing with someone who is. I doubt anyone could figure out who you are based on your view points - unless you specifically refer to something that is only in your papers or books, I would be shocked. Just don't use any terms you've coined.
What a great read. People don't realize how much the bill transformed the world. It's funny how democrats are doing trillion dollar climate projects and the republicans are obsessed are with..........hunter Biden? I remember a decade ago when the republicans were hell bent on repealing obamacare and that was less than the climate spending.
You labeling people <<< late career Curry << early career Curry < real and rigorous scientists using today's analytical methods Sorry
On one side you have: Reality: Science and data show the world is warming due to mankind's Co2 waste and it will impact the environment in dramatic ways unless we come up with a plan. On the other you have Denialism: Climate is always changing! It's a hoax! There's no consensus! Confirmation Bias: It's too cold today for their to be global warming! All or nothing thinking: One thing doesn't make sense to me therefore everything is wrong! Dunning-Kruger effect: I know better than scientists who spend their lives studying this! It's sunspot activity! It's natural cycles! Correlation is never causation! The data is wrong! Unfounded emotional attacks: The other side is funded by the big fat cat green industry! Scientists are lying because because because Acceptance with logical fallacies: We can adapt just like life has always! Climate change is actually good for us! But we can't let this hurt the economy! Politicization: It's just another way for the left to control us! It's communism! Deflection through ridicule: Look at the dumb climate activists gluing their hands to things - how can anyone be on the same side of these idiots? Labeling: It's all wokism! I'm not going to do this because of wokism - look, they are still flying planes! Look how many cars in their motorcade!
I think also the problem is when people talking about climate change use the worst case model predictions in their presentation. I understand why they would do it. But it ends up being an issue when the worst case models don't unfold. Sadly people on both sides need to acknowledge that worst case model scenarios are stated as being only true under certain conditions. Better to present several models and explain what they are. Hopefully, people will change things and do more to take action regarding climate change.
The biggest issue that climate folks have is they think fear mongering and telling folks the worst scenarios is the way to go. This will never work as you will never establish trust with society. Its so crazy how Biden is spending trillions of dollars on climate change and yet literally nobody on the right cares at all. According to the latest polling done by econ over 56% of DEMOCRATS dont know biden is spending trillions on climate change. Biden is doing exactly whats needed by removing the politics out of climate change. Hes made it a jobs program and a national security issue with china if we dont onshore green tech ASAP. The only way we win the climate change debate is if we lower cost and deploy green tech on scale. Nothing else matters I follow climate news daily and its crazy how nobody in the real world has any idea of the transformational work thats being put into place behind the scenes. Its just mind boggling how nobody cares
Yes I've stated this several times that there is a misunderstanding of science widely in society. Unfortunately it's often hard to get things done without alarmism of the worst case scenario. As you note though when it doesn't come to pass, and never was in a very high likelyhood of happening, that can damage the overall view. THis is why I don't think for how much attention Al Gore raised with 'An Inconvient Truth" he also damaged the movement too. Scientific predictions will always be a range of possibilities with varying probabilities. It's very rare there are any exact certainties. For policy discussions you have to weight the probabilities and just relying on the most optimistic ones is usually bad policy. TO use an example I brought up in another thread. During the withdrawl from Afghanistan there was a possibility that the Afghan government wouldn't collapse before the US could withdraw. From a lot of evidence that was a low probability as areas throughout Afghanistan were falling quickly in the weeks leading up to withdrawl.
Yes. Even accepting the argument you made in the other thread that is a perfect example of the failure of policy to consider other possibilities.
No matter how many times you want to spin this narrative theres zero concrete evidence that Afghanistan completely collapsing was a high probability. According to your own rigged government report only a small number of officials thought this was possible and the overall consensus was that it would not fall by the end of the year. This was in the state department report Im muslim and anyone can tell you Afghanistan was a scam. They were never going accept America
You can keep on denying it yet it happened. This is not much different from those denying climate change even as they deal with the effects of climate change.
BBC did a segment how the climate movement is helping.........rural kentucky... The CEO described it as a "gold rush"
One thing you can’t deny @Os Trigonum @AroundTheWorld blocking a road of cars and bikes is stupid Blocking an airplane runaway might be Darwinism at its finest I’m rooting for the Boeing 747 here breh
