This has really triggered me and I am only up to the dot points. Although I have thoroughly enjoyed the specificity articles to date I cannot continue with this one with it being based on dodgy information from the outset.
From the first sentence;
‘Most people’, can you define most? As a portion of the earth’s population I think ‘some’ would be more accurate.
‘agree that climate change’, I will assume you mean man-made climate change because changing how cosmic rays interact with our atmosphere is very much more difficult to influence than how much man produced carbon goes into the atmosphere, which is hard enough on its own.
‘is a big problem we should be solving,’ I don’t agree with this either (surprisingly). If you had said “is a big problem that requires understanding’ i would have been more happy.
‘but couldn’t tell you what specifically “solving climate change” means’, I think this mainly comes down to a poorly defined problem. A couple of degrees of warming would actually be nice for people who’s farm freeze solid every year. A couple of degrees of warming would actually be nice for reducing the thousands of deaths of people who can’t afford to heat their homes (off the top of my head I think it was 50 000ish in Europe last winter)
The graph you have included next is the best example of a texas sharp shooter fallacy I have ever seen. Compare 10000 years of data to a cherry picked average of 19 of those years, cmon really? Seriously, this is the foundation?
The dot points
Earth’s average temperature has shot up by 1°C in the last 50 years.
How is this a problem that needs solving even if it is accurate? Which I doubt anyway due to the cherry picked nature of the information so far.
The causal link from greenhouse gas emissions to Earth’s rising temperature has been well established.
This is actually the most controversial part of the whole debate. If it were established you would be able to find a model that modelled it. Best of luck with that.
On a 1M-year timescale, Earth’s temperature has been fluctuating plus or minus a few degrees tops, so this 1°C change is a big fluctuation.
We’re predicting it to be as high as a 6°C warming by 2100, so it’s actually a hugefluctuation.
Oh, come on. Al Gore’s hockey stick was debunked years ago.
When I get time I will probably read through. I am going to have work really hard on my biases before I do. It will be interesting, I suppose, to see how you solve a problem you have not defined/defined erroneously.
This has really triggered me and I am only up to the dot points. Although I have thoroughly enjoyed the specificity articles to date I cannot continue with this one with it being based on dodgy information from the outset.
From the first sentence;
‘Most people’, can you define most? As a portion of the earth’s population I think ‘some’ would be more accurate.
‘agree that climate change’, I will assume you mean man-made climate change because changing how cosmic rays interact with our atmosphere is very much more difficult to influence than how much man produced carbon goes into the atmosphere, which is hard enough on its own.
‘is a big problem we should be solving,’ I don’t agree with this either (surprisingly). If you had said “is a big problem that requires understanding’ i would have been more happy.
‘but couldn’t tell you what specifically “solving climate change” means’, I think this mainly comes down to a poorly defined problem. A couple of degrees of warming would actually be nice for people who’s farm freeze solid every year. A couple of degrees of warming would actually be nice for reducing the thousands of deaths of people who can’t afford to heat their homes (off the top of my head I think it was 50 000ish in Europe last winter)
The graph you have included next is the best example of a texas sharp shooter fallacy I have ever seen. Compare 10000 years of data to a cherry picked average of 19 of those years, cmon really? Seriously, this is the foundation?
The dot points
Earth’s average temperature has shot up by 1°C in the last 50 years.
How is this a problem that needs solving even if it is accurate? Which I doubt anyway due to the cherry picked nature of the information so far.
The causal link from greenhouse gas emissions to Earth’s rising temperature has been well established.
This is actually the most controversial part of the whole debate. If it were established you would be able to find a model that modelled it. Best of luck with that.
On a 1M-year timescale, Earth’s temperature has been fluctuating plus or minus a few degrees tops, so this 1°C change is a big fluctuation.
This is flat out wrong. I didn’t even have to go to a sceptic site for this graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
We’re predicting it to be as high as a 6°C warming by 2100, so it’s actually a hugefluctuation.
Oh, come on. Al Gore’s hockey stick was debunked years ago.
When I get time I will probably read through. I am going to have work really hard on my biases before I do. It will be interesting, I suppose, to see how you solve a problem you have not defined/defined erroneously.