placeholder

Thanks for sharing your view. You got any actual evidence to back up your take on this? Do you even have evidence that ancient people believed that the moon revolved around the earth. To have believed that, they would have had to believe that the earth is spherical. Do you have any evidence to support that?

Not a question of what they think but how their thinking will affect their vote.

Really? The first evidence we have of recognizable science being practiced is from the ancient Greeks. They believed the earth was round. Apparently, they came to this conclusion from observing that during an eclipse the shadow of the earth on the moon was round .

I don't have the patience to keep on addressing your logorrhea. It shows how unbalanced your expectations are that you actually think it's reasonable to expect someone to read a 17 page treatise on problems with machine learning! If you have any specific science-based objections to actual climatology research, as opposed to broad claims about conspiracy, groupthink, and and various malign influences, I will be happy to engage. Otherwise not. I won't be holding my breath.

Scientific evidence?

What can be said to someone who believes either in mass conspiracy or mass hypnosis? The fact is that the climate change model has proven to be wildly successful. And your silly misrepresentation of Thomas Kuhn's work not worth responding to in detail. When Copernicus declard that the earth orbited around the sun, it met with lots of opposition from the old guard. As I pointed out earlier, Louis Agassiz, a justly eminent scientist, rejected the theory of evolution. It's not a matter of groupthink when a new theory enjoys massive confirmatory success and the opposition to it repeatedly comes up empty.

At a certain point in time, when a theory is massively supported by evidence it's time to move on. And when the critics repeatedly get it wrong, they should no longer be taken seriously.

It's still ridiculous. They were talking about teaching computers how to judge information. Why would you even bring that up. And what you thought was evidence that supported your case actually undermined it. You're the one who keeps on claiming that the climatologists' work is based on statistical trends and not on real science. As per usual, you've got it backwards. The scientific models of the 70's were borne out by the subsequent data. The predictions of the denialists were repeatedly proven to be wrong.

Climategate exposed virtually nothing. The major claim by the Times was exploded. The Times had to retract the major claim of its article as I noted earlier. The rest of what you offer is just empty accusations with not a shred of valid evidence. The report of the minority (i.e. Republican) subcommittee should be taken seriously?

Governments and private citizens massively subsidize the fossil fuel industry. IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data: 2023 Update This paper provides a comprehensive global, regional, and country-level update of: (i) efficient fossil fuel prices to reflect supply and environmental costs; and (ii) subsidies implied by charging below efficient fuel prices. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion in 2022 or 7.1 percent of GDP. Explicit subsidies (undercharging for supply costs) have more than doubled since 2020 but are still only 18 percent of the total subsidy, while nearly 60 percent is due to undercharging for global warming and local air pollution. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281#:~:text=Summary%3A,or 7.1 percent of GDP.

I don't care whether or not you understand or approve of my post. What it does do, is blow a big fat hole in your claims about statistical reasoning and it's relation to science. Invoking machine learning as relevant was ridiculous. As for the rest, what don't you understand about the fantastic improbability of all these scientists agreeing based on falsity? And, given the basis of your objections, why shouldn't we apply the same disbelief to all of science?. You clearly have no appreciation of what it means to be virtually impossible. As in, it's virtually impossible you're going to win the the billion dollar lottery. Yes, there is an infinitesimal chance. Should someone plan their future based on their chance of winning?.

You know that someone's got nothing when they misleadingly edit a post. You've got nothing. If you care to re-engage quote my entire statement. It's not long.

What form are you claiming this alleged influence that billionaires and politicians are applying to scientists so that they alter the results of their research? Either scientists are lying about their research or not. And if they are lying about it, it would have to be on a mass basis. Do you have any actual specific that this is taking place? And if you're not alleging that billionaires and politicians are pressuring scientists to alter the results of their research, how do these nefarious actors affect what is published in scientific journals? As for the scientists who opposed the climate change model, their models have failed, and with them, their predictions. They're mostly older scientists who are resistant to new theories. Just as in the past, older scientists often resisted other major theories. Louis Agassiz, the great geologist who came up with the theory of ice ages, opposed evolution. As Thomas Kuhn noted. a scientific revolution isn't complete until the older generation of scientists dies off.

Could you explain what you mean by "ALSO"?

Because you're an inveterate practitioner of this class of slur.

What don't you understand about the fact that the fossil fuel industry is, contrary to your claim, a major producer of methane and CO2 in its operation and therefore a major contributor to climate change. What happens after that is not relevant to your false claim that the oil industry is not a major contributor to climate change. What is there about that that you don't understand? If, in fact, the gun industry during it's manufacturing process was somehow directly responsible for gun deaths, you'd have a point. Unless that's what you're claiming, you've got nothing. And if that is what you're claiming, please provide, for a change, a link to an credible source. And, again, as I pointed out, most of them. And to an astonishingly accurate degree. It isn't that they just predicted there would be global warming, but that their quantitative positions so closely matched reality. It's comparable, statistically, to the situation in sports betting, where a prediction of victory isn't enough, but it's the margin that is determinative of the validity of one's bets.

You fail to note that the issue these articles are addressing here is that mere statistical trends can't be depended on to predict the future. But climate change models aren't about mere statistical trends. In fact what you don't seem to understand is that the understanding isn't derived from the trends, but rather that the trends confirm the original scientific understanding. The fact that the model based on this scientific understanding has so successfully predicted these trends is what makes the theory so compelling.

Once again, you offer to the public your cheap and shoddy mindreading act. Why do you persist with such nonsense?

The only article that supports your claim about human extinction is the last one. The authoritative ones don't. And who is Julian Cribb that we should mind what he says?

Another completely irrelevant reply. My references have been to the science. What do "politics and investment opportunities" have to do with that? You got some evidence that there is some kind of massive conspiracy underwritten by certain billionaires to produce a vast web of falsified research?

Funny that someone who claims to have no use for consensus invokes a cheering crowd, albeit an imaginary one, to support a rebuttal. A rebuttal that in no way address the argument but is simply a bald statement. And the fact that you put it in the typographical equivalent of shouting shows just how little you've got. In fact, you've got nothing.

What don't you understand about the fact that this addresses the problems of educating computers? It's not about how scientists work. The problem with these machines is that they can come up with absurd conclusions unchecked by engagement with reality. Scientists research is an actual examination of reality. Research is based on other reality checked research. Reality provides the check. And this ties in to your ridiculous belief in a vast scientific conspiracy fueled by billionaires' cash. You've got nothing.

No, we are not headed for extinction. I can't think of any climatologist who makes such a claim. That is definitely not a claim of the IPCC. Just that things will get very bad for billions of people if nothing is done.

You got a problem with capitalism?

environment/2022/12/12/billionaires-climate/ "Do you understand that by making such an allegation you only confirm that your thought processes are risibly conspiratorial?" Now what were you saying? What I've said before. There's nothing in this article that questions the validity of the science. Or even suggests in any way that the science is corrupted. The influence of these billionaires consists of what technologies they choose to invest in to mitigate climate change. A different matter entirely.