Bill St. Clair on Nostr: npub1fznqt…4tde7 "And when the climate crisis does come up, it’s often framed as ...
npub1fznqtkx4lu37rkshgqztzx6fmc5lflnlrgert424t7hqxt6snmmsq4tde7 (npub1fzn…tde7)
"And when the climate crisis does come up, it’s often framed as a simplistic, either-or question that implies that the science remains unsettled: do you, or don’t you, believe man-made climate change is real? That question was settled long ago; the scientific consensus around the climate crisis is approaching the consensus around gravity."
That is the one paragraph in the article that said ANYTHING about the reality of human-induced climate change. And it talks about "consensus" and "settled science", concepts that are entirely unrelated to scientific inquiry. Science cares about theory and repeatable experiments to prove that theory. The final repeatable experiment is engineering. If you can build a machine that depends on a scientific theory, and that machine works as intended, you have proven the theory, within the operating domain of the machine. No matter for how long or how many experiments support a theory, a single experiment that disagrees causes the theory to need changing.
"Approaching the consensus around gravity"? Not by a long shot. I can do experiments in my house, after building or buying a simple vacuum container, which will show the amount of gravitational acceleration on Earth, and that it is independent of the mass or density of the test body. I can certainly prove that CO2 holds heat, in a sealed container. Experiments in atmosphere have, as far as I know, never been done. Models have shown what the models predict, but I haven't seen experiments showing that those models reflect reality. I doubt that in-atmosphere experiments are even possible; too many unaccounted-for variables. Can you say "sunlight" or "clouds"?
I'm tempted to build a machine that emits huge amounts of CO2, ask a few hundred thousand non-believers to build one, and set them going, just to show that they have no effect whatsoever on the weather. But I'll bet the trees around the emitters will be happy about it.
But hey, religion sells. Get enough people to believe in a drummed up theory, and you can convince idiots that paying more taxes and destroying the economy will somehow help their children. And those idiots vote.
I've been watching the globular warming hoax since Al Gore's convenient lie. Nothing has yet convinced me that there is ANY truth to it.
"And when the climate crisis does come up, it’s often framed as a simplistic, either-or question that implies that the science remains unsettled: do you, or don’t you, believe man-made climate change is real? That question was settled long ago; the scientific consensus around the climate crisis is approaching the consensus around gravity."
That is the one paragraph in the article that said ANYTHING about the reality of human-induced climate change. And it talks about "consensus" and "settled science", concepts that are entirely unrelated to scientific inquiry. Science cares about theory and repeatable experiments to prove that theory. The final repeatable experiment is engineering. If you can build a machine that depends on a scientific theory, and that machine works as intended, you have proven the theory, within the operating domain of the machine. No matter for how long or how many experiments support a theory, a single experiment that disagrees causes the theory to need changing.
"Approaching the consensus around gravity"? Not by a long shot. I can do experiments in my house, after building or buying a simple vacuum container, which will show the amount of gravitational acceleration on Earth, and that it is independent of the mass or density of the test body. I can certainly prove that CO2 holds heat, in a sealed container. Experiments in atmosphere have, as far as I know, never been done. Models have shown what the models predict, but I haven't seen experiments showing that those models reflect reality. I doubt that in-atmosphere experiments are even possible; too many unaccounted-for variables. Can you say "sunlight" or "clouds"?
I'm tempted to build a machine that emits huge amounts of CO2, ask a few hundred thousand non-believers to build one, and set them going, just to show that they have no effect whatsoever on the weather. But I'll bet the trees around the emitters will be happy about it.
But hey, religion sells. Get enough people to believe in a drummed up theory, and you can convince idiots that paying more taxes and destroying the economy will somehow help their children. And those idiots vote.
I've been watching the globular warming hoax since Al Gore's convenient lie. Nothing has yet convinced me that there is ANY truth to it.