This viewpoint should be the consistent standard across scientific endeavors. This standard seems in conflict with the recent article on climate event attribution posted on this substack.
Well, we aren't going to get certainty with any of this kind of science. I think that Quico's Oct 10 and Oct 11 posts were aiming to get at the balance of the evidence, for the sake of vitally needed action, vs. doing nothing.
Except there IS NO vitally needed action. Bluntly, the current data does NOT support alarmism. Likewise, even the alarmist projections show no significant benefit from any individual countries taking immediate actions. Even if you somehow made the entire US carbon neutral today, the change to the planet would be inconsequential. The proposed solutions aren't effective. Look to the Kyoto Accords for an example of real world outcomes from carbon reduction targets:
"International climate negotiation expert at the University of Bern, Ralph Winkler, whose research on the Kyoto Protocol indicates that not only did it lead to no significant benefits in terms of emissions but that in some cases it may even have hindered emission reduction efforts in countries that had set Kyoto targets."
"Do SOMETHING right NOW!" is terrible policy. Governments and society are massive things with tremendous momentum, if your initial course of action is off even slightly the divergence from your intended goal will only widen over time and mistakes undermine support for any course corrections other than outright stopping or reversing course. If it's important enough to impose drastic costs on entire nations, then it's important enough that you better darn well get it pretty much PERFECT the first time. An 80% solution today may be preferable to a 100% solution too late, but nothing I've seen suggests that we're anywhere near 80% "good enough" on either understanding all the mechanics nor on modeling the potential impacts of proposed solutions.
"The Science" already calcified into a carbon cult that covers up contrary data, outright deceives in their summaries, and attempts to censor any dissent from "The Science" by the actual science. Are THOSE the people you trust to dictate policy prescriptions to the world? People who to lie, cheat, and cancel genuine scientific inquiry to defend their own prestige, funding, and partisan objectives?
Science is supposed to INFORM the public. Actually choosing the trade-offs they'll accept is still supposed to remain with the people, not the scientists. And most people today, even after hearing the alarmist propaganda, aren't willing to lose even a single $1 to climate policies. You can disagree with that all you want, but that's their right, and the only things you can do about it are to either build more persuasive arguments by doing better science to support them or find policy solutions that don't cost the public even a single dollar per person, either of which are going to take some time and not destroying the credibility of the entire enterprise anymore than it already is by trying to manipulate the public with alarmist overstatements not actually supported by the science.
Science has been in crisis since Heisenberg introduced indeterminacy to demolish its ontological certainty. Einsteins "God doesn't play dice" was a response to this from the "Newtonian" side. So we have to decide if science is, 1. A fixed and ultimately simple relation between cause and effect or 2. Something other than a FAIT ACCOMPLI. Can there be discrete ONTOLOGICAL domains where kinetic reality is represented by incompatible laws.
This viewpoint should be the consistent standard across scientific endeavors. This standard seems in conflict with the recent article on climate event attribution posted on this substack.
Well, we aren't going to get certainty with any of this kind of science. I think that Quico's Oct 10 and Oct 11 posts were aiming to get at the balance of the evidence, for the sake of vitally needed action, vs. doing nothing.
Except there IS NO vitally needed action. Bluntly, the current data does NOT support alarmism. Likewise, even the alarmist projections show no significant benefit from any individual countries taking immediate actions. Even if you somehow made the entire US carbon neutral today, the change to the planet would be inconsequential. The proposed solutions aren't effective. Look to the Kyoto Accords for an example of real world outcomes from carbon reduction targets:
"International climate negotiation expert at the University of Bern, Ralph Winkler, whose research on the Kyoto Protocol indicates that not only did it lead to no significant benefits in terms of emissions but that in some cases it may even have hindered emission reduction efforts in countries that had set Kyoto targets."
"Do SOMETHING right NOW!" is terrible policy. Governments and society are massive things with tremendous momentum, if your initial course of action is off even slightly the divergence from your intended goal will only widen over time and mistakes undermine support for any course corrections other than outright stopping or reversing course. If it's important enough to impose drastic costs on entire nations, then it's important enough that you better darn well get it pretty much PERFECT the first time. An 80% solution today may be preferable to a 100% solution too late, but nothing I've seen suggests that we're anywhere near 80% "good enough" on either understanding all the mechanics nor on modeling the potential impacts of proposed solutions.
"The Science" already calcified into a carbon cult that covers up contrary data, outright deceives in their summaries, and attempts to censor any dissent from "The Science" by the actual science. Are THOSE the people you trust to dictate policy prescriptions to the world? People who to lie, cheat, and cancel genuine scientific inquiry to defend their own prestige, funding, and partisan objectives?
Science is supposed to INFORM the public. Actually choosing the trade-offs they'll accept is still supposed to remain with the people, not the scientists. And most people today, even after hearing the alarmist propaganda, aren't willing to lose even a single $1 to climate policies. You can disagree with that all you want, but that's their right, and the only things you can do about it are to either build more persuasive arguments by doing better science to support them or find policy solutions that don't cost the public even a single dollar per person, either of which are going to take some time and not destroying the credibility of the entire enterprise anymore than it already is by trying to manipulate the public with alarmist overstatements not actually supported by the science.
Science has been in crisis since Heisenberg introduced indeterminacy to demolish its ontological certainty. Einsteins "God doesn't play dice" was a response to this from the "Newtonian" side. So we have to decide if science is, 1. A fixed and ultimately simple relation between cause and effect or 2. Something other than a FAIT ACCOMPLI. Can there be discrete ONTOLOGICAL domains where kinetic reality is represented by incompatible laws.