For decades, the very people who support these models have been telling people we're just a few short years away from the demise of the species...only for nothing to happen (and for the very things they claim to be getting worse, actually getting better). Again, and again, and again. First it was global warming, then it was "climate change" (hint: the climate always changes—the real subtext here is Malthusian discontent for humanity, not a desire to protect nature).
Those very same people, too, go out of their way to dismiss technology like nuclear energy and carbon capture which can solve the problem they claim to wish to solve (reducing and/or eliminating emissions). Why? Because if they solve the problem, they can't milk subsidies from the government and will actually have to find real work to do. Not just parading around (in f*cking private jets pouring out emissions) and self-flagellating at conferences and "summits."
The whole thing is a gigantic self-defeating farce, that, when looked at through the lens of objectivity makes about as much sense as Scientology (the comparison to a religion, here, being purposeful). The parallels to the COVID groupthink are apt, correct, and the exact same candy bar in a different wrapper.
I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing?
No, but the things actually being cited—namely, the IPCC annual reports—as the pretext for a lot of the foolish policy we're seeing, are based on models.
> I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing?
No, that rhetoric often comes from misinterpretations/misrepresentations of scientific papers and statistics (by politicians, the media, and leaders of NGOs) which is then used to justify the aforementioned foolish policy.
Which is frustrating as the papers often denote a problem existing, but not as one without remedy. And this is the crux of the problem: the argument is framed as being whether or not climate change exists (anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative whole is automatically a "climate denier") and not "given that it exists—and we know the cause—why are we ignoring viable solutions to those causes in favor of less-viable half-solutions that exacerbate the problem?"
The disagreement today isn't about the science, but about policy - what should be done about it, what's the cost/benefit analysis, and so forth. There's a sizable faction that wants to avoid this conversation by yelling about "Science(tm)!", which cuts off the actual policy discussion before it can get started.
edit: typo
Show me the research grants available for disproving man-made climate change. If researchers want to make a paycheck, they find evidence for what they are paid to find or next year they find a new job.
There is a real crisis. But it starts with the crisis of science and the rise of scientism.
A carbon tax? Do what you like, push any additional costs onto the customer. As long as we get our money, climate change is solved!
Grossly simplified, but still accurate.
Your argument is dismissive and similar to flat earthers and hoaxers. I am not referring to climate deniers. I just want people to feel that there is room for questioning climate science with science.
The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area.
Strangely, the issue is similar to COVID.
They'd be a fucking hero. I know a few atmospheric science faculty. They are hyper distraught at the data. They'd love nothing more than to find out that actually we are going to be fine. Being able to keep burning coal for centuries would be a huge boon for reducing poverty worldwide. It'd be amazing. This hypothetical researcher would have among the most positive influences on human prosperity of any human to ever live.
Journals select for novel results that upend prior work. Strong analysis that demonstrated that the existing research is wrong would be front page cover of Science or Nature shit.
By declaring that there is a cabal that will silence quality research it allows people to dismiss the entire professional community without actually doing any work whatsoever.
> The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area.
What do you mean by fake? Could you throw together a bunch of fake numbers that match existing expectations and get that published? Sure, so long as it didn't get rejected for lack of novelty. But this is true for everything. I could read that falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s2 in a book and decide to make up some observations that match this and submit that to a journal. This doesn't demonstrate that gravity is hokey. It just demonstrates that paper reviewers aren't especially well equipped to identify fraudulent observations.
Also, the number of grad students working their ass off trying to get their research published and getting their work rejected demonstrates pretty clearly that it is not "remarkably easy" to publish whatever you want as long as it aligns with the existing best thinking.
tl;dr he died alone and poor in an insane asylum for being a science "heretic". Same freaking story as all the doctors who were silenced during this "pandemic". [1]
>Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. His findings earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, giving Semmelweis' observations a theoretical explanation, and Joseph Lister, acting on Pasteur's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.
ExxonMobil would be shouting it from the tops of the hills at every second of every day. The GOP would hold nonstop hearings for these researchers to present their work over and over and over. And I'm telling you that existing atmospheric science faculty would weep with joy over this news.
Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged.
I agree completely.
>Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged.
I disagree completely. The old saying, "science advances one funeral at a time" is still as true today as when it was coined.
The bonus is that there's so many other wins from transitioning away from fossil fuels.
While it isn't "remarkably easy" to publish what you want, even when it aligns with the establishment position, it is always infinitely harder to get what you want published when it conflicts with the establishment position (when it comes to "mainstream" publications).
It would have been career suicide to go against the narrative with covid. Witness what happens to any paper published that suggests things in covid-land might not be as bad as claimed. They first get discredited as "not peer reviewed" and their authors get thrown to the wolves. Same with anything that shows masks don't really work very well. Or lockdowns don't work well. "Not peer reviewed" and "authors are bozos".
These same people have absolutely no problem accepting papers that are based on crazy computer models using garbage data or "studies" that don't mimic anything real with very small sample sizes.
Anything that goes with the narrative that covid is the worst thing ever and that masks are awesome was cheered on. It didn't matter how flimsy the research was. As long as it supported the cause it was golden.
Climate science has been churning for decades. Would disagreeing conclusions be laughed off at first? Sure, probably. When most disagreement has been junk science by quacks, it's natural to reflexively make that assumption of new disagreement. But there's ample time and space for new studies to be analyzed, expanded on, replicated.
Same as with climate science. When predictions turn wrong (glaciers still existing in 2020, Great Barrier Reef recovering) everyone just moves on to new fear-mongering.
Surely you aren't going to argue the the vaccines did more harm than good?
Or that wearing a mask caused someone personal harm?
Or that trying to keep kids safe was a bad idea? My wife personally took care of many sick covid kids. They had all kinds of weird ailments no one was used to pre-pandemic.
Not sure why you are citing glaciers still existing as something to stand on, they are clearly and measurably disappearing.
Her response, "What is the standard of care for Covid patients first presenting?"
There were none for years, the Govt conspired with BigTech to characterize doctors like Zelenko (RIP) and McCullough as loony quacks when they came up with their own protocols for treatment.
Yet, later on the govt did come out with protocols that strangely, mimicked Zelenko & McCullough's material.
No no no this is disinformation! A protocol which includes *checks notes* Pfizermectin is totally different than a protocol which includes ivermectin. You can't compare the two!
If by "Pfizermectin" you are referring to Paxlovid, that is not accurate. There are significant biochemical and pharmacokinetic differences between the molecules.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/12/02/how-does-pfizers-paxlov...
However, the McCullough protocol [1], and the closely related Zelenko protocols were not only about Ivermectin, HCQ, or Zinc, but instead cocktails of drugs with proven efficacy, and an overall approach to treatment prior to hospitalization.
Referencing the late 2020 publication:
Sanitization
Masks
hand washing / hand sanitizer Fresh air / Air circulation Negative pressure air isolation
Supplements:
Zinc with hydroxychloroquine Vitamin D & Vitamin C
Antivirals / Antibiotics
Quercetin Favipiravir Azithromycin Doxycycline
Mono-Clonal antibodies
bamlanivimab (MAB) casirivimab and imdevimab (MABs)
Anti-Inflammatory Colchicine
Corticosteroids
budesonide dexamethasone
Antiplatelet agents and antithrombotics
aspirin heparin Orals - pixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran
[1] https://www.imrpress.com/journal/RCM/21/4/10.31083/j.rcm.202...
This is why I say it is all over the place.
Also, RCTs have significant challenges in them
But such evidence didn't exist for COVID. Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance.
The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. You don't get to make broad, highly disruptive mandates with almost zero evidence they would even work.
For the mandates to actually be worth it, you should be able to show the data to any reasonable person and they'd immediately see an order of magnitude difference between test & control. The fact you can barely tell florida apart from california is pretty damning. If you need fancy math to see a difference, it wasn't worth it.
Not necessarily. Precautionary principle and all when we didn't know much. Mask mandates aren't that disruptive. Lockdowns obviously more disruptive, and definitely justified at the very beginning when we didn't know anything.
Instead governors doubled down. That was the end of “science and data” and the beginning of 2.5 years of stupidity.
Fauci actually did mislead the public about masks, but he actually believed they were effective, so he lied to the public claiming their ineffectiveness at first due to fears of shortages.