A Foolproof Way to Talk about Climate Change | Grist
If you’re like me and have to talk about climate science in public forums a lot, you struggle with the denier community and how to talk about the issue. Personally, I find the denial world so outrageously out of touch that I mostly hit the science head on and then blow the deniers out of the water with facts if they challenge me. But straight science isn’t always the best approach for all audiences, especially very conservative ones. You need to skirt the question sometimes.
...
...we know that warming of 2-4 degrees C is much more likely to be catastrophic than good for the world. (It’s very easy to debunk the argument that warming will be bad some places but good other places, the idea that Greenland will be nice and we’ll move there. All that methane filled permafrost melting, plus all the sea level rise easily negates the argument. Not to mention floods, droughts, fires, etc. ) Fourth, we know that humans have the ability to radically cut greenhouse gas emissions, and that doing so will prevent catastrophic warming. So it makes sense to do so, especially since the consquences of inaction will be much more costly.
Posts
1 comment:
There is currently a thread at Judith Curry's blog about the futility of carbon reduction - http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/ .
Commenters were asked by the author to provide mathematical evidence of what carbon reductions would achieve. So far, those who have provided equations show that massive carbon reductions will have little if any impact on temperatures, let alone "catastrophic global warming."
A couple warmist scientists have piped up claiming that the commenters' equations were all wrong. The warmists "just know" these equations were wrong and can't provide any equations of their own to prove their own point, because they say it's too difficult if not impossible. Yet, we should somehow trust their judgement.
This is the quality of the evidence we're only ever given for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Auden Schendler talks about facts, but he never actually gives any. He just talks about them, as if that is enough. Schendler and other warmists need to show the actual work not just reference it if they want any credibility at all. Please, Schendler, blow them all out of the water with actual equations and science, not just talk about equations and science that you say you have without ever proving you have them. How can people NOT be skeptical of these types of "scientists?" They're no different from psychic surgeons who magically pull what looks vaguely like a piece of bacon from someone's ribcage while calling it a cancerous tumor. Let's start calling BS unless they let us examine the tumor for ourselves.
Post a Comment