Slashdot Mirror
Science By Democracy Doesn't Work
StartsWithABang writes The US Senate just voted on whether climate change is a hoax, knowing full well that debates or votes don't change what is or isn't scientifically true or valid. Nevertheless, debates have always been a thing in science, and they do have their place: in raising what points would be needed to validate, robustly confirm or refute competing explanations, theories or ideas. The greatest scientific debate in all of history — along with its conclusions — illustrates exactly this.
Isn't that called "consensus"? Isn't that what's being pushed by the "Global Climate Change" (new name this week!) crowd as impetus for ending discussion and declaring the science "done"?
Because we have had colder temperatures with more CO2 in the past and the earth is primarily a self regulating eco-system leading to stability.
Climate alarmists would have you believe the climate we had recently is closer to perfect and like a boulder balanced on top of a mountain where in any change could cause it all to topple. In reality it's more like a boulder in a valley.
We still have NO credible numbers as to what percent of temperature is MAN MADE and what is natural cycle.
If you run the CO2 vs Temperature prediction (simulation) charts backwards in time they do not level out and reflect the known history, they show a warped negative value suggesting the effect multiplier values being used are inflated.
The whole thing is based on flawed computer simulation.
Have you ever written a simulation? I have. You have to use simplification of calculations and use predetermined result tables to avoid doing the calculations to get any kind of speed in result return. This causes deviance from true simulation. The only way to accurately simulate the real thing is to build the real thing.
Is climate change real and not a hoax?: Yes (98:1) - Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) voted "Yes"
Do humans contribute significantly to climate change?: No (50:49) - All the Dems plus a few Reps votes "Yes". Key to that result however is that before the vote Sen. Lisa Murkoswki (R-AK) took exception to the word "significantly", which I actually think is a reasonable point given the available data that tries to quantify our contribution to the changes.
The question that remains unanswered is how many of those 50 that voted "No" in the second vote would have voted differently if the contentious "significantly" wasn't present. That's almost certainly more than zero, so it appears that the disconnect between what US politicians and scientists believe about climate change and AGW might not be as far apart as some are portraying it, and might not even exist at all.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
By "self regulating eco-system" AC meant that Earth always has a climate. And at some point (indefinite future) it will stabilize. Did snowball Earth (if such existed) have climate? Yes. Was it stable? Sure, for a while. So there you have it.