If the sun has a period of greater intensity, what do the science denying Climate Cultists propose we do to combat it?

[hal9000]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1388389489748418560

 

[GromsDad]

I am unsure what you mean by "varying motivations". It is a bit vague and scientific consensus shouldn't involved such a thing as "motivations". If you think researcher as saying whatever they want just so they can get grant money, then it is logical that entities on the other side would do that same (money). A bit of healthy cynicism is probably good to have but using it as a a broad brush seems like the same sort of motivation you decry.

Simulations, models, and estimates are done all the time in various fields. Ever have a estimate performed for a home construction project or a loan, see a weather forecast, do military exercises (simulations)? Good ones are bases in on known quantities, not guesses. I do not understand why you think "we" can't possible calculate or project an outcome or cost or whatever? I'll bet you have done estimates for a business plan...are they based on your knowledge/understanding of the business and business environment?

I've put up some scholarly sources which demonstrate the underpinnings of the scientific consensus so everyone knows I'm not just making stuff up (and so it can be checked). I know smatterings of the various physical disciplines upon which this is based and so they are easy enough to follow, but I don't think that is a requirement to get a decent understanding of where the basis is coming from.

It sucks that the extreme outcomes get all the press and taints the well, but that is the "news for entertainment/profit" kind of world we live in. We know the world has been warming since the continental ice has retreated to the poles long before our ancestors field burning to drive critters off cliffs or clearing crop land, and it makes sense that this continues (and would without any humans around). Humans adding small % of CO2 (of total) since the advent of our industrialize society, does not appear to be slowing the rate of the warming.

Politics can imply this can be for the better (woo, more arable crop land in the northern climes) politics can imply this is worse (expanding deserts), but they don't know which it will be because that is not their job....their job is to do their best to understand the reports and come up with a plan to better the people they work for.

Anyway, lots of words, doubtful it will change anyone's mind, just trying to present a fleshed out view why the scientific community says what it says.

Very well said. Really like your 4th and 5th paragraphs. The well has been horribly tainted. Regarding paragraph 5 about politics. The politics is not motivated by altruistic things. It is motivated by POWER far more than anything else and this topic is just a convenient tool towards that ends.

 

[hal9000]

I only read the parts that I agree with and ignored the rest.

 

[kidfury]

Very well said. Really like your 4th and 5th paragraphs. The well has been horribly tainted. Regarding paragraph 5 about politics. The politics is not motivated by altruistic things. It is motivated by POWER far more than anything else and this topic is just a convenient tool towards that ends.

Fight back good neurons! You can do it!

 

[hal9000]

Fight back good neurons! You can do it!

move out of the way and let your motivated reasoning do all the heavy lifting.

 

[Lance Mannion]

WWJKD?