|
leonine -> RE: Interacademy finds errors in IPCC (9/30/2013 1:32:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
FR:
It's always a shame when I see people who have been caught in the nonsense that the vast vested interest in denying climate change brings to bear on this topic.
My sincere advice to anyone looking at this topic is to first try to understand the process of "science". Very few scientists claim to know for certain the extent of the human influence on climate change, they go so far as to publish the level of their confidence.
It's really important that the data, the models, the assumptions and theories that are applied to climate change be vigorously and rigorously challenged.
But if a person cares for science they'd do a little of their own research before believing what they read, and the very widely held consensus is that climate change is happening, and that human behaviour is having an impact.
There are important debates to be had about the extent of that influence, and what might be done about it, and contrarian research has done a great job in helping climate scientists improve the data, models, and assumptions.
To the extent that, despite massive pressure from vested interests (and governments) the IPCC is more certain of its findings in this report than ever before.
That'll be "science".
And yep, I have a real problem with people who blindly deny climate change, firstly because they usually bring up shit culled from a denial website that is out of date, and second ... well fuck... it's such an anti-science stance that I feel sorry for them.
This is serious shit. The more we learn about climate change the better prepared we'll be, any research needs to be challenged and tested and anyone with a fucking ounce of common sense would step back from the process and try to understand where the consensus is going
The fundamental problem is not the science, that was settled long since, and most of the "disagreements" that the deniers shout about are over the last decimal place of the conclusions or the fine detail of which area will get more rain or less.
The problem is that the politics (which is what will save or sink us in the end) is being driven by people who think that science is an extension of the debating society, and truth is whatever you can convince the most voters it is. The survival of civilisation depends on people who would pass a law declaring that Pi equals 3.000 if they thought there were votes or money in it.
|
|
|
|
