I can’t speak for conservatives, although I’d wager the conclusions of some portion of them against the concept of CO2-driven manmade climate change are just as much the product of groupthink as those in favor of it. Nor can I speak for those on the far-right who espouse vehement anti-vaccination beliefs (i.e. those who dismiss that they have value and help protect from hospitalization, or who think they are filled with magnets, even though they turned out to wane sooner than preferred and are less effective than first presented), nor for those on the other end of the political spectrum who demand socially and mentally harmful mandates, and who to this day despite evidence to the contrary still think cloth masks are effective against a virus that at .1 to .3 microns in size is smaller than the pores of cloth (when in fact masks lure people to gather in unventilated indoor areas and unwittingly expose themselves to infection), or who still think that therapeutics and natural immunity don’t have value, or don’t think there’s a strong chance COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan.
But, I can, and will, speak for myself.
First off:
Albert Einstein
Alfred Wegener
Amedeo Avogadro
Aristarchus
Barry J. Marshall
Charles Darwin
Galileo
George Zweig
Giordano Bruno
Gregor Mendel
Ignaz Semmelweis
J. Robin Warren
Johannes Kepler
Louis Pasteur
Ludwig Boltzmann
Nicholas Copernicus
Pythagoras
What do the above names have in common? They were all individuals whose ideas defied consensus and were rejected until many years later when it turned out they were correct, in some cases even after their death (which also in some cases was a direct result of their rejected idea threatening establishment power structures). My point with this is that trusting in institutions (or individuals) is never wise. Outright rejecting a concept accepted by institutions (or individuals) is also unwise. Always question. Never believe, never disbelieve. So, your requirement of wanting at least one institution is misguided and counterproductive. Don’t dismiss the little guy merely because they’re small by comparison. Take heed of their words and carefully weigh the information presented. Institutional concepts equate to groupthink and are fraught with feedback looped confirmation bias, which can, yes, possibly align with reality, but can just as equally not.
My point? Never outright reject, nor fully believe ideas, whether from an institution or individual. Never blindly trust authority, nor a lone proclaimer. Never think in simplistic absolutes (e.g. one ideology vs another, as opposed to a blend), always nuance and complexity. Always be ready and willing to adapt one’s conclusions of probability as new information is discovered and/or revealed.
I will say, again speaking for myself, that I used to put some stock in the possibility of global warming, now more commonly referred to as climate change. But the more I dug into it, the more things seemed amiss, especially regarding how past climate trends were being systematically erased from public record (although there’s always a trace—it can never be truly eliminated), and the vast majority of data being put into models was quite simply just made up and pulled out of thin air. The more I looked under the covers, the more the “settled science” (an oxymoron if I there ever was one) and accepted consensus became suspect, the product of groupthink and corruption (e.g. political agendas, funding desires, power maintenance, etc.), and the more I realized that proponents of the idea appeared socially stuck in that bubble by those very unscientific pressures, even if they didn’t really buy into what they were saying anymore. So, my mindset regarding the notion of CO2-driven manmade climate change is now one of skeptical possibility, rated at a very low probability of holding up to empirical scrutiny (which time and time again it has not), destined to wither and fade away in the future.
As soon as one is sure about something to 100% certainty, it’s morphed into a belief and is no longer science, even if that belief coincides with testable output in the affirmative. For example, I don’t even dismiss the infinitesimally small chance of the chair I’m sitting on right now as I type this very sentence spontaneously decohering at a quantum level (or something that’s more plausible, such as a mechanical failure occurring) to send me tumbling to the floor. This is just how I’m wired. Will that happen? Almost certainly not. But it could. If it did, a belief of certainty that it couldn’t would be instantly refuted by reality. A truly scientific mindset would always keep the possibility, no matter how remote, in mind. Be anti-belief, anti-groupthink, anti-religion, anti-anything that obfuscates a genuine scientific mindset and process, which modern climate science is riddled with. Only a mindset of belief would dismiss the glaring problematic areas.
CONTNIUED…
reply
share
warrior-poet (1369)
3 years ago
…CONTINUING
The difference between CO2-driven manmade climate change and, for example, gravity or germ theory, is that gravity and germ theory are experimentally repeatable. Even that shouldn’t lead one to believe them to 100% certainty, but their alignment with reality is highly probable (above the 99 percentile, although it’s always in flux), given all currently known information about those subjects. Global warming, on the other hand, has made prediction after prediction that has been proven false merely by the passage of time, beyond the point of the many dates set for those predictions. That’s a very bad track record compared to theories like evolution, gravity, germ theory, thermodynamics, etc. Unlike those others that have been repeatedly tested and proven to a high degree of certainty, not a single climate change prediction has come to pass. Additionally, major climate events of the past century that were much, much more severe (e.g. heat, weather, etc.) than anything in the past few decades have been erased from the record to bolster the hocky stick image, to support the notion of a warming trend, with the narrative peddled by political elites and social charlatans for personal gain.
While that, in my view, doesn’t dispute the possibility of warming, it completely obliterates the foundation the fervent alarmist version of the concept is based on, and puts it firmly into the realm of being highly questionable. At most, I’m on board with Bjorn Lomborg, i.e. there may be some warming, but there’s absolutely nothing to suggest any form of crisis, or anything to be alarmed about. In fact, as it currently stands, the positives (e.g. a greener planet, higher crop production yield, etc.) appear to far outweigh any perceived possible negatives. Plus, the so-called negatives being claimed (e.g. more severe weather, less glacial ice, etc.) are demonstrably false, with prediction after prediction failing the test of time. Real science would be calling the entire theory into question at this point, with so many failures. Which is a telltale sign that what’s going on has very little to do with genuine science, and more to do with belief, no different than any other apocalyptic cult predicting the end of days time and again, only to have date after date pass by uneventfully, while in the meantime engaging in ever-escalating self-destructive behaviors in fruitless attempts to avoid those perceived calamities (or to help them come to pass). After years of analyzing all available information, I lean more heavily now toward the Johnny Ball camp (see the link and quote below) than even Bjorn Lomborg. At the very least, we should carefully consider Lomborg’s view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmCwrSXqqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZqBfPsVlsU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNWqqYzXLLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxWYglbtqnQ
If not Johnny Ball’s take on the matter:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2012/11/debate-for-and-against-climate-change/
When the climate-change furore began around 1988, I was alarmed and took a stance against it, earning the title ‘denier’. Now, 24 years later, everything I advocated then has been proven to be true. The damage done to the image of science, engineering and technology in terms of warping the minds of future generations of engineers and scientists, politicians and the general public will take years to repair. So on what did I base my opposition, with complete disregard to the danger to my reputation? Was the planet warming? Yes, it was, and by 1998 it had warmed 0.7°C in 100 years. But it had reached that peak in the 1930s and had been so much cooler in the 1960s as to suggest an oncoming ice age. There was, and still is, nothing alarming about the trend.
But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consistently claimed that catastrophic changes were taking place. We now know that all those claims were exaggerations and their leader Rajenda Pachauri has said: “There must be no more exaggeration!” In truth, there has been no sea-level rise, glacier depletion, ocean acidification or polar ice loss. All have fluctuated in line with normal expectations.
Burn anything, including food, and hydrocarbons split with oxygen to produce CO2 and water with usually two molecules of water for every one of CO2. Now the water is a greenhouse gas. Cloud traps heat and keeps things mild, while the absence of cloud lets heat disappear and we have morning frost. In fact, water is more than 85 per cent of the cause of local climate-change. But the IPCC never introduced water to the computer models that pointed the finger at CO2.
CONTNIUED…
reply
share
warrior-poet (1369)
3 years ago
…CONTINUING
The major thrust of climate-change claims is that man is destroying the planet. There is much evidence to show that we are the greatest burden that Earth has to bear. To simply rape the earth of all its fossil-fuels would be gross folly.
But there is a conceit that mankind is so important. Less than 4 per cent of all CO2 produced is manmade. Every tree and creature grows, dies, rots and ferments, giving back its CO2. The oceans covering 70 per cent of the Earth’s surface contain 80 per cent of all plant and animal life. Man, compared to that, is far less significant. Only one-quarter of the 30 per cent of the planet that is land can support man unaided - just 7.5 per cent of the entire surface. Add volcanoes and natural phenomena, and man is quite puny. But we are a burden to the Earth and reducing that burden is our responsibility. The answer is engineering greater efficiency.
But look at our record in that. The Clean Air Act of the late 1950s means that today a building stays the same colour as when new. The catalytic converter means that vehicles are cleaner than even thought possible 25 years ago. It prevents sulphurs entering the atmosphere and turns unburnt or half-burnt carbons into CO2. Why? Because CO2 is harmless. More CO2 provides more plant food and is, in effect, greening the planet.
New cars require only half the engine size to produce the same power and twice the mileage. Electric generators that 25 years ago were around 30 per cent efficient are now around 70 per cent efficient. Yet the ‘greens’ would have us adopt wind generation, solar power or electric cars, none of which can ever approach the efficiency of boiling water to achieve a 600 times expansion and thus power the world as economically as is possible to date. Green policies cause more damage.
Whatever our future problems, including unburdening the planet, engineering is our only salvation, and improvements are huge in every aspect. Recent miracles will be dwarfed by those we will achieve in the future. But only if we put our faith in leading-edge engineers finding the best and safest way forward.
The day of extreme, irrational, badly schooled yet powerful environmental lobbyists must come to a close, for all our sakes.
CONTNIUED…
reply
share