AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Yes, what if the science has been wrong and we made the planet better for no good reason.

That would be a horrendous misallocation of resources.

Perhaps due to the fact that to do so also carry a very high not only in terms of dollars but terms of human cost of reducing or not allowing the standards of living to increase for a large percent of the human race.

As usual, you're barely coherent, but it does appear that you've drunk the capitalist Koolaid. Your claim is bullshit.

If you put my comment in context, you'll see I was explaining that not all the concern surrounding global warming is Gore-induced hysteria, scientism, or apocalypticism.

I do agree that some of the presentations of the problem have created more of a rift between the public and science and have the potential to fuel an anti-science backlash.

As for egalitarianism regarding standards of living throughout the world, that's a high ideal. If we presently had a global government with the power to channel the planet's resources in an intelligent way, I think it would be funding research to come up with a plan for transitioning from fossil fuel in a way that would best secure the well-being and human rights of all residents of the planet.

But we don't have that. On a global level, we're not much more sophisticated than we were 100,000 years ago on the plains of the Serengeti. Fear, mistrust, and misunderstanding rule.

I used to speculate about what sorts of things could transform the global scene into something that would allow us to govern our affairs (as a species) with a little more intelligence. It would be fun to talk about that, but I've helped to derail this thread enough as it is.

Peace out.

You guys are aware that Big Oil has been spending millions of dollars to confuse the issue and misinform you on global warming, right?

Im bacck but Im not sure whether my point was even relevant after all these focused pages.

Did I answer max' point? Im not sure what pqges.

Can't help you there... No idea what max' point you're talking of.

maxdancona was discussing "what we knew, and when" (he was using smoking and later climaate change ).
I focused on smoking ,(then I hadda go upstate to do work over the weekend and yesterday )

no biggy. ill just start from here if I want to jump in.

Doesn't matter what they spent. The climate change predictions and the models have all been wrong. The only way the believers have been close to correct is when they change the data. People are finally waking up to the lies of the climate groups. The climate has always changed and it will continue to change. It's all guess work at this time and the guesses have been wrong.

So if predictions are wrong then we should discount everything that is predicted?
Companies predict their sales for the next year. They are consistently wrong.
Companies predict their expenses for the next year. They are consistently wrong.

Because their predictions are wrong that makes companies liars and we can't trust them. That would mean capitalism is nothing but a lie and we should abandon it if we follow your logic.

You are only partially right but I'll play your apples and oranges game. If you want to compare a company that actually produces a product and a branch of science that doesn't produce anything then sure. The problem comes from their predictions and what happens when they are wrong.

A company that misses it's sales predictions suffers in the stock market and eventually they loose business and funding. A company will close down a product line that continually misses it's marks. The same thing happens if they are wrong on their expenses. If they are way wrong they won't get funding if they are a start-up. No one is going to invest in a business that is run poorly. If they are a company with different lines of products, then the company will rid themselves of a product or a dept if they can't work within their budgets. If anything they will change the management team to one that is more effective. Companies fire CEO's who don't meet the marks all the time. That is the consequence of getting your predictions wrong when running a business.

So your apples and oranges comparison really doesn't work. When something like the science/scientists are wrong, they don't have any consequences to suffer. They just double down and continue to get funding, the battle cry for climate science is that you hate science.

Wow.. So you ignore that some of the predictions of science for warming were less than what has been observed. A company that misses it's sales predictions on the low end doesn't suffer in the stock market at all. It would be rewarded.

You show you are being disingenuous in your argument. The predictions of warming have actually been much closer than the sales predictions of many companies that are still doing quite well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
Hanson's 1988 prediction C is almost dead on after 27 years.

Hanson's predictions of warming have been much better than the economic forecasts of almost any administration since WW2. I doubt you would argue we should throw out all economic forecasts when deciding the US budget because the predictions are always wrong. But then again, maybe you would argue that. We also can't predict the test scores of students in the US so maybe we should just give up on schooling.

I think the internet has increased skepticism, not decreased it. I was reading an opinion a while back about how cults these days have a harder time getting going now that so much information is a search away.

I think people have always pushed back against science when it challenges their beliefs from the notion that the world is round to the theory of evolution, I am not sure that there is even a significant increase in this phenomenon currently. I think there has always been a sector that views science as a threat to their worldview.

Which are you going to work with, govt predictions or company predictions? After all you and others have already said that the govt doesn't run like a business. So you are going to change tactic's when you were proven to be working with apples and oranges, now you want to add banana's the equation?

There are predictions that happen all over the place. Trying to say I can only compare one type of prediction is your error, not mine. For a prediction to fit after 27 years is almost unheard of in any area. The 2014 claim for Hanson was .62 increase. The observed was .68.

You want to claim that the predictions that are within a statistical 95% accuracy are the ones we should completely ignore.

I didn't limit it, I just said you can't compare apples and oranges and then switch to banana's. There are consequences in business when your predictions are wrong but none in climate science. We are trying to change the world to fit climate science and the problem is climate science is wrong more often than it is right. To change our entire way of life on the whim of inaccurate science is a mistake. You might think I hate science but that would be the religion of climate science in you.

Now if you want to discuss other area's of science in which predictions were made to be wrong and there was a consequence, then we can do that. You don't want to because you are more interested in defending climate change then the actual science of science, which is what this thread was about.

So if you do not give full faith and credit to unproven computer climate models you are anti-science and when the club of Rome came out with their book the limit to growth basic also on unproven computers models we should had tear up the 1970s society to keep it doom day predictions from coming true?

Of course there are consequences in science if the predictions are wrong. You are arguing that if the prediction is 95% accurate in science then we have to completely throw it out. That is nonsense. We simply tweak it to make corrections. Science has always done that.

Please provide your evidence that the predictions in climate change are wrong. I would love to see what you think makes it wrong. Let's look at the actual science you claim is wrong since you are the one making the claim that I don't want to look at the actual science. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to present actual science.