climate denier in charge of EPA transition

[hollodero]

(11-11-2016, 01:24 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That graph just goes back to my point that it's using a 40 year sample size... for a 4.5 billion-year-old planet. It's like zooming in on 1/10,000th of a single slice of pepperoni to determine how flat an entire pizza is.

40 years is 0.00000089% of Earth's history.  (Provided I did my math right there.)

There just aren't any reliably large enough sample sizes of data to conclude it's anything other than a theory right now. Humans are always stuck on thinking of short term time scales because to a person, 100 years is a long time. To the Earth, 100 years is pretty much nothing.

Well, at some point in the debate facts turn into theories, that is correct. When scientists turn to predictions, there is a grain of salt, as in all honesty they can just talk about probabilities here.
But it's not like they would warn of the danger of invading space dragons. The danger of climate change is not just invented and pulled out of some asses, it has a very real foundation.

There might be a chance that predictions are exaggerated. But after all, you rationally have to admit there is a chance that they are not. After all, these come from people who have a much higher expertise than we do, and our everyday logic like your pizza one might really apply only up to some point. There ARE major changes in our CO2 concentration in a short period, it IS a human-induced one, there IS a global warming trend, there is the melting of glaciers, the sea level rise, there are a lot of real warning signs. And a lot of possible amplifying effects like a melting tundra or a lessened earth albedo. These are not just stupid arguments, but legitime possibilities. And I think it's not wise to ignore all them and take your chances with the probability the models of the scientists are wrong and these things are just natural or coincidental. It's an unjustifiable risk at this point, based on the facts that are there; and the models and predictions that were developed with - and that I believe - an open, scientific mind.

Only a few "believers" are all certain what exactly will happen. It's the doubters who are. They are certain - have to be - that there is no global risk. And I think that is not sustainable.

(And arguments like the volcano one are just bad arguments, refuted a thousand times now.)