Scott Adams has been posting quite a bit on the subject recently. All of this of course from a persuasion outlook, and specifically, for calling out BS and when people don’t have the answers they claim they do.
Tucker then asked Nye a simple question about climate science. He asked how much of the warming is caused by human activity. Nye’s entire ego depended on knowing whether human activity is contributing to climate change in a big way, a medium way, or a small way. Tucker wanted some details. How much difference do humans make? After all, Nye had said this was settled science. Tucker just wanted to know what that settled science said.
Yes, I’m a “skeptic”. Not that the environment changes, nor that people affect it, but that it is being affected to the alarmist degree that is claimed – see an “inconvenient truth”, or now-downplayed claims that we would all freeze back in the 70’s and 80’s – and that it is of course uniformly bad for us – see elderly death rates in cold climes due to freezing, or growing seasons.
One reason why – and one unlikely to change – has been the example of the climate change catastrophists themselves.
Incidentally, this is one set of conclusions Taleb puts for in Antifragile (that AGW is a real problem) that I strongly disagree with, mostly because he’s operating at the wrong scope, and because of what I list out below.
Now, I know a fair bit of thermodynamics at an engineering level, and am NOT a climate expert. That said, I’m also a middling-fair programmer though it would take work to get to “making a living at it” levels again.
One skill I do have, beyond where the above apply, and one that almost anyone with sense can apply, or learn how to apply better courtesy of Stefan Molyneux and Scott Adams, is how to detect bullshit.
How do we know the climate scientists and promoters are bullshitting us? They talk like preachers. They cannot tell us basic concrete claims about the effects and how they got there. More importantly, they are not offering their work and their raw data up to be analyzed. That includes: adjustments made – and lack therof – for temperature monitoring stations that are subject to changing heat biases over the years. Assumptions of uniformity of temperature across large bodies of water. Assumptions for water vapor and other gas behaviors in computer models.
Most importantly, they aren’t offering up the raw data they’ve gathered. Why?
Because it might be used against them. Emails hacked and released from Hadley CRU discuss this.
That is not science.