I think that if climate change is real, then everyone will agree that climate change will be important. We need climate experts and experts to agree that it does not matter much, because there is no way to change what will happen. We cannot change the goals of China, so we should not change our approach. Let the competition be held to the end, because whoever gets there will win.
I call you, obviously.
Because climate-change expert is a self-defined expertise.
Actually my field is science, albeit not climate science, nonetheless there is nothing about the OP that is looking to question or debate the climatologists who speak about the effects of climate change:
“Assuming those on that side are correct what reductions in global CO2 do you really believe will see, especially with more countries looking to industrialize their economies and with continued population growth? Also what differences in the climate do you believe we will see if only modest reductions are the result?”
So, your solution is simple. Self-identify as a climate scientist expert, and cast your vote for the denialists.
I suspect you don’t really understand why this argument is irrelevant to the concept of “climate change expert”.
That’s what I meant, even though I didn’t word it that way. For example deforestation doesn’t only happen just because more space is needed for human population. More people also means more houses need to be built, etc.
-
I want someone who has proof that they know what they are doing. Every climate prediction from the alarmists has been wrong.
-
you must think that only random right leaning internet forum characters dispute the alarmists. Has your honest up front left wing narrative ever showed you this?
O would not expect a person who has no scientific background to have an opinion really, nor to take the opinion of someone they cannot prove has the ability to predict the global climate. Your analogy… there have been millions of appendectomies. NO ONE has every accurately predicted the whole ■■■■■■■ global climate of the earth.
Oh, it’s relevant. In one case, an expert through learning and experience has developed more knowledge about a topic than most. In the other case, an expert through learning and experience has developed more knowledge about a topic than most.
In the second case, however, your appendix isn’t at risk, and so your choice means less.
So, in a choice between an actual expert and a guy in his garage with a hot butter knife, you choose the butter knife, because the actual expert didn’t make a prediction that sufficiently satisfied you with your chosen degree of confidence.
Gotcha.
Karma adjustment?
Gender-identification coach?
Crystal alignment expert?
Tarot reader?
Lots of “experts” out there. So far, climate change experts have shown they are right up there with them.
Yes, they know more about climate science than anyone here.
Does knowledge matter?
You mean the consensus. There are experts who disagree with the consensus. I posted a link earlier.
But the warm blanket of consensus sounds right for the left.
So far the so called “experts” haven’t hit the mark on temp increases, sea level increases, nor ice.
So a comparison to a surgon who doesn’t get the right thing would be accurate. yet the one I replied to said he WOULD go to the surgen that can’t get anything right.
No, but I would chose a Doc that has a history of doing things RIGHT.
How’d the Natural de-forestation go the last couple of years with the fires?
You make the best choice with the opportunities that appear before you.
If your standard is that an expert should make all predictions with complete accuracy, and if your margin of error excludes everybody on the planet, then you choose the experts who come closest–or better yet, the ones who are most likely to be the most accurate in the future.
You don’t dismiss the experts entirely and opt for a confident neighbor with a butter knife, because that decision makes no sense.
Consensus by a group of people with the greatest amount of knowledge about a topic.
Does knowledge matter?
Yup, and right now your chooses the experts who have been WRONG.
Complete accuracy?? Wrong on temp increases. Wrong on sea level increase. Wrong on loss of ice. How about getting even ONE right?
Just remember at one time the consensus of the experts was the earth was the center of the univers and everything rotated around it. How’d the consusus of the experts work out on that? Or the world was flat?
There are those who argue that climate change is the reason for forest fires. So that group does not view forest fires as natural but another problem caused by climate change.
And in response, you don’t choose someone who is likely to be more wrong.
You choose the person or the group with the greatest chance of being right in the future.
Or you dismiss a person or group for being wrong in the past, and then choose to follow someone with a lesser chance of being right in the future, for some reason that I’ll never understand.
Are you really arguing that we should dismiss scientific consensus today because centuries ago, the world thought that the earth as flat? Is that really what you’re going with?
