I actually "know" a guy ( old Usenet contact, current Facebook friend ) and he's savvy enough to explain the models to me. I don't understand them, but I can kinda sorta get a little bit about it - they depend on theorems and assumptions that, if I started now, I might get to the bottom of before I die. The knowledge gap here is staggering. I just don't have that kind of training and bandwidth.
Basically, I sort of have to trust him. That's not the same thing as "knowing".
No, he won't write That Book; I asked. He doesn't have the time. He has grad students that do have the time, but they're busy doing something else.
I am unusually lucky in that regard. And fossil fuels are pretty important as a replacement for animal - and human - muscle power, historically.
It's less activists than ordinary people going "Lol, whut?". And if, as I see it, there's a skirmish line between the industries that make carbon-causing things and ... "science", it's not reasonable to expect the carbon-people to all just get shot and lay down.
This is looking more and more like a "smoking" thing, and that didn't turn out so well. I know people of low income who smoke, and the taxes hurt them. They already live close to the edge. You and I don't get to tell them to quit; that's up to them.
I am not even a "doubter" but don't ask me to show my work. So I can hardly throw rocks at people who draw a different conclusion.
> It's less activists than ordinary people going "Lol, whut?".
The activists are the ones telling ordinary people "scientists disagree and there's no consensus" when the reality is it's fundamentally settled science. The same occurs with evolution.
> I know people of low income who smoke, and the taxes hurt them.
Smoking is actually a great example to use here. Same situation as climate change - right-wing lobbying groups (some like the AEI are now engaged in the climate change "controversy") funded by industry succeeded for decades in muddying the waters and making it look like the science wasn't yet settled.
Sure. So ignore the activists, outside of publishing stuff to make your point. My point is it'll all go adversarial and that'll be more heat than light. I am still waiting on the book 'AGW for Dummies' that people who want to make the point can use as a reference. There are a handful of places on the Web that are pretty good, but it's not enough.
I don't like the appeal to consensus. Give people the tools and let them make up their own minds.
Smoking is a terrible thing to use as an example. "Whoemever" is aiming at the lobbyists and hitting people who have no dog in the fight and just can't, or won't, quit smoking. The companies were not alone in this; they had millions of customers. Still do.
There was a component of the thing that was about truth. but that passed a long time ago. Now it's just about winning or losing. Here's hoping I'm wrong and AGW doesn't go the same way.
Aren't things divided enough yet? "When elephants fight, it is the grass gets trampled".
> So ignore the activists, outside of publishing stuff to make your point.
That's been tried, and it results in them getting their misinformation heard by the public (who simply don't have the scientific knowledge to figure out it's bullshit) without a counter-argument. See: anti-vaccination movement.
> I don't like the appeal to consensus. Give people the tools and let them make up their own minds.
One of the tools necessary is a graduate-level education in the topics at hand. I don't get to do my own cancer treatment or prescribe myself lab tests for the same reasons random yahoos shouldn't get to evaluate climate science - we don't have the requisite training and knowledge. That's why we have experts, who nearly unanimously agree.
> The companies were not alone in this; they had millions of customers. Still do.
And the taxes are intended, in part, to prevent new customers. Teenagers pause a bit at the idea of picking up a $10/day habit.
I actually "know" a guy ( old Usenet contact, current Facebook friend ) and he's savvy enough to explain the models to me. I don't understand them, but I can kinda sorta get a little bit about it - they depend on theorems and assumptions that, if I started now, I might get to the bottom of before I die. The knowledge gap here is staggering. I just don't have that kind of training and bandwidth.
Basically, I sort of have to trust him. That's not the same thing as "knowing".
No, he won't write That Book; I asked. He doesn't have the time. He has grad students that do have the time, but they're busy doing something else.
I am unusually lucky in that regard. And fossil fuels are pretty important as a replacement for animal - and human - muscle power, historically.
It's less activists than ordinary people going "Lol, whut?". And if, as I see it, there's a skirmish line between the industries that make carbon-causing things and ... "science", it's not reasonable to expect the carbon-people to all just get shot and lay down.
This is looking more and more like a "smoking" thing, and that didn't turn out so well. I know people of low income who smoke, and the taxes hurt them. They already live close to the edge. You and I don't get to tell them to quit; that's up to them.
I am not even a "doubter" but don't ask me to show my work. So I can hardly throw rocks at people who draw a different conclusion.