On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 4:02:00 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 5:48 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: real A.I. > > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 , 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List > > > Climate skepticism is more of a political phenomenon > > > That depends on what you mean by climate skepticism. I'm nor skeptical > that the world is warmer now than it was a century ago. And I'm not > skeptical that human activity is responsible for at least part of that > warming. > In the hypothetical there worrying developments in some empirical reading, regarding a profoundly complex dynamical system (say, it was the most complex system in the known universe, and the only one of its kind, known. About which almost nothing was understood.
What would be the enlightened, rational, productive steps humanity should collectively take? I think you think, just the same as I think and pretty much everyone else would think. We instruct our scientists to massive ramp up all viable types of of study, all things hatever the variable was. By and large, that's exactly what scientists were told to do, resourced to do, and what they almost immediately kicked off down avenues to do. Here we are, about 25 years into the era of heavily backed climate study. put aside for a moment your scepticism. Let's just say, what if you were right in all your concerns. Would that mean science had failed in its duty these last 25 years? No because that's not a way to measure. Knowledge of the climate system, new fields, new mathematical approaches, new approaches to handing massive datasets, new methods for reinforcing substantial extensions and backfill of enabler fields like statistics. Climate was like, this vague cloud of abstraction 25 years ago. Climatologists have accumulated an enormous body of knowledge, skills, specialisms et. Enormous. Tell me something. I suppose from what you say that you read the narrative of the think-tank clusters, the lobbying outfits, activists, on the sceptical side. It's not unreasonable to characterize the way things are presented, and what is presented, the apparent use of science they project they are doing. For the last few years the guide strategy has been to seek to discredit Science using the toolset used for doing that since time immemorial. While portraying themselves as the true champions of truth and science. Good influencers and activists adopted science like vocaboularly and presented arguments with sience-like referenecs at the bottom. They consistently they are the ones getting things right and being faithful to science. Do you entertain that this may be true, or at least partially true? ha If you do, even a tiny bit, then tell me this: What have they created in the process of doing this, of enduring scientific and human value. What robust new knowledge have the contributed? Because climatologists have accomplished multiple revolutions. They pioneered Big Data because they had to work with huge datasets. They pioneered new breed simulation technology. On whole new levels. The organized skeptic front, produced. nothing. Nothing. That's all you need to know. . But I am skeptical that climate warming is necessarily a bad thing. Who ever said global warming is a 'bad thing'. No one has said that. There are always winners and losers. Global warming will have some winners. And some losers. What those super-simulations are doing most, is what they they algorithmically do in the output of their highest frequency lowest scale subroutines. That's wholly about trying to get whatever we can get, of what the localized impacts will be. You say you're not convinced it's bad thing. Who knows. It's just that, as of now, all the very best efforts our scientists - a generation or two with a huge pile of accumulated knowledge - their very best efforts, with the very best solutions, that that we've been able to think of, for how to grapple with the most complex, mysterious dynamical system, in the universe. The only one of its kind, that we know. It's been an unprecedented scale of challenge The best they can do has the arrow of evidence all pointing the same way. Who knows, maybe they are wrong. That's always been the way, though. They represent the best we can do. And they are saying it's going to count as a major cost/negative. BUT you don't agree...you've got your own theory, your own research and body of knowledge perhaps. Aren't you the guy that was just over on the Relativity thread pouring scorn on those who enter the fray with little knowledge, yet reject the best science has been able to offer in that space? That was you. Isn't it a little ironic, that relativity....a stable fields not connected with any time critical urgencies, you should regard as imperative everyone get behind science and stop being so daft. But climate science....a situation where there is roughly 10 or 12% probability (something like) that warming will feedback nightmare, sending temperate upward 6 DEGREES. You should regard this as the right moment for everyone to have their own theory, and act out traitorously against Science when should have had its back. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
