Interbane wrote:So, based on all the information you've provided in the thread so far, what do you think we should do in response to the consensus? Or is the consensus meaningless? Does the consensus warrant a response in the form of policy?
That is a very good question regarding policy.
It's not likely that an international policy on emissions control can be implemented when rising economic powers like India and China are in full swing industrially. Their argument would be very basic -
It's our turn now (industrial revolution time)
If I had one of those Myther black belts in conspiracy theories I'd say a global warming alarmist campaign is motivated by a socialist goal of global taxation, global economy, and perhaps eventually a one world government.
How meaningful was the Euclidean space geometry consensus?
An entire re-conceptualization of space was needed. But we were able to empirically verify Einstein's theory by TESTING it. Its predictive power reconfirmed it.
What specific theories by meteorologists are testable in nature?
What is the predictive power of current models? Was the warming "pause" predicted?
What's the weather going to be like in a 100 years from now?
The Euclid consensus had meaning, of course. But if science was in the business of achieving a consensus Einstein would have stopped because the consensus agreed with Euclid.
How meaningful was the Aristotelean consensus?
The Ptolemaic consensus?
Our knowledge of nature vastly changed after the consensus was found to be wrong.
Bonus question: Is mankind any
wiser because of it?
Let me be clear again:
I believe the climate is changing, like it has many, many times in the past.
I believe our predictive power is not very good at all when it comes to climate change.
I believe we (meaning the U.S.A.) should substantially decrease the crap we pump into the air by the ton. We should be caring for our planet. This is our only home (for now).
(
it just makes sense).
I do not believe Man is the primary contributor to climate change. Consensus arguments are just a lot of political/scientific hand waving. Bandwagoners are just that - BANDWAGONERS - who ask little and are easily persuaded because they hear only what they want hear and READ only what they choose to read (confirmation bias at its best).
Thanks