Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[Poopadoop]

The idea that something needs to be done about it (so to speak) does exist before evidence of climate change, but not in a scientific sense. This is more about ideologies that have been around for a very long time, like the environmentalist anti-capitalist type that more or less assumes anything that alters the environment to benefit human consumption is bad. But that isn't what you're referring to, so I'll not mention it further, just wanted to point it out.

You're implying that if the typical climate scientist were anti-government involvement, pro-capitalist, he would say 'AGW is real but we should let it continue for reasons x, y and z'. But the issue isn't how the scientists feel about the government's response to AGW, the issue is whether or not AGW is real. We can formulate our own opinions on what should be done about it.

The evidence for global warming is enough that scientists can give their scientific opinion on it, but where is the evidence for the results of global warming in the future? It's very slim. Does there exist a credible climate scientist who would claim that any models in use today that predict things like crop behavior 30 years from now are credible? I doubt it.

They don't, because it's impossible to predict such things apart from in a very broad sense. If you want someone to build a model that predicts crop yields will be down 31.7% in 2046 or w/e, it's not going to happen. The predictions I have heard have been about rising sea levels, more extreme weather, more earthquakes, etc..

[wufwugy]

You're implying that if the typical climate scientist were anti-government involvement, pro-capitalist, he would say 'AGW is real but we should let it continue for reasons x, y and z'. But the issue isn't how the scientists feel about the government's response to AGW, the issue is whether or not AGW is real. We can formulate our own opinions on what should be done about it.

I don't mean to imply that. I mean only to say that only an opinion garnered from the scientific process is a scientific opinion. The data on global warming doesn't tell us what *should* be done about it.

They don't, because it's impossible to predict such things apart from in a very broad sense. If you want someone to build a model that predicts crop yields will be down 31.7% in 2046 or w/e, it's not going to happen. The predictions I have heard have been about rising sea levels, more extreme weather, more earthquakes, etc..

They're pretty general, and in general they're probably correct. But the effects and what it would take to counter the effects, the science on global warming doesn't much tell us (yet).

[Poopadoop]

They're pretty general, and in general they're probably correct. But the effects and what it would take to counter the effects, the science on global warming doesn't much tell us (yet).

I get what you mean - the predictions of climate scientists are necessarily vague and so it's hard to make concrete policy decisions based on them.

[OngBonga]

I get what you mean - the predictions of climate philosophists are necessarily vague and so it's hard to make concrete policy decisions based on them.

fyp