Conversely it is of eminent importance to have all the facts before taking serious action based on limited facts on hand. The Freemont expedition was attacked by indians while encamped along the south shore of Klamath Lake. Three men were killed sending Kit Carson and company into a murderous rage. They circumvented the lake killing every Indian they encountered and engaging in the massacre of an entire village only to later find they had initially been attacked by Modocs and had taken their vengeance out on Klamaths who were bitter enemies of Modocs. Lesson is make sure you have all the facts before taking drastic action or your action may be harmful and counter productive.
What's counter-productive about cleaner air and cleaner water? We know what happens when an oil tankers ruptures or an oil refiner or well explodes. We know what happens when a solar panel tips over or malfunctions. We know who happens when manufactures are allowed to pollute the environment, we've seen it. We know what happens when young children with repository diseases are exposed to air pollution. We have cities in China, we have Mexico City, we saw what happened in Los Angeles ... we know how unrestricted pollution destroys lives.
I'm not arguing that oil is not a polluter, I am arguing that there's not enough evidence to blame it for climate change. If the current debate was strictly on fossil fuel pollution and the need for alternative energy based on that premise you would get no argument from me. At that point the debate would shift to cost to the environment of alternative fuels and their viability compared to fossil fuels and that is an honest debate unlike the AGW hypothesis which is not.
But you just reaffirmed the science on AGW when you called it - as scientists do, a hypothesis. If scientists claimed it was a fact, you could claim scientists have been untruthful - but as the scientific community regards it as a working hypothesis, your claims are inaccurate.
The evidence is clear and unequivocal Why will you not read the one document that summarises all of the evidence? https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Pages 11-12
I have no issues accepting AGW as a hypothesis. My issue is taking drastic action based on a hypothesis.
This is the fatal flaw with virtually all of charts and graphs and numerical evidence constantly put forth by AGS proponents. "The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia " Apparently it's easy to fool people such as yourself who are unaware of the trick here which is using the LIA as a baseline measurement in order to dramatize and amplify warming since then. Throw out the LIA era and warming today is in line with recent history.
Yeah the same magical green climate fairies that caused climate to change before the industrial revolution. Are you for real?
You kinda sound like a young-earth creationist. The examples you have are of very specific theories about very specific geographical areas. I am not sure there were even a lot of scientists who were experts in the formation of Scablands in Washington. There were probably a few scientists who did research in that area, and they turned out to be wrong. It wasn't like the entire scientific community in the world was wrong or that they had hundreds of research papers published like they do with climate change. Also, many of your examples are dated, many of them over 100 years old, and scientists today know a lot more than they did in 1900. Even if they were wrong, you can't expect them to be right 100% of the time. Experts in all fields get things wrong once in a while, the real question is how often.
But you have to be careful about what you call "science". One person, one paper, one news article does not make it a statement by science. There are still scientists who don't accept Relativity. It is a very small fringe group but they still exist. If they get attention, the next thing you'll hear is "Scientists reject Relativity!!!". When in fact they are extreme outliers. Einstein argued that God doesn't play dice with the universe because he didn't accept the indeterminate nature of Quantum Mechanics. He was wrong. But if taken in isolation, it might seem impressive that Einstein said Quantum Mechanics was wrong. "Einstein said" does not equal "science says". He was one man. He did great work but he wasn't always right either. He spent his last years still searching for a grand unified theory, but he was never able to connect the dots. Likewise, there are many renegades trying to push everything from fringe arguments to outright crackpottery. And "current thinking" does not make something a theory that is supported by a large quantity of evidence, as are climate change models.
And the same applies to your doctor. Your doctor is sometimes wrong so don't obey him unquestioningly. But his experience means he is likely right and you should listen to him.
Doesn't that immediately lead to the decision to stop teaching science in our education system, as it is a total waste of money? I can't respect that direction. Science has a stupendous record of informing us of how our universe works. NO other methodology has rivaled science in that effort.
Deciding to give up on information on the grounds that humans aren't omniscient hits me as about the most crazy idea imaginable. When did humans EVER have complete knowledge of ANYTHING? We ALWAYS use the information we have to make the best decisions we can.
Science is the foundation of modern society which is why it's so tragic to see it so corrupted and politicized with this AGW agenda.
Like burning coal for instance? Science and engineering made burning a simple fossil fuel into technology for trains which opened the American west and industry that changed the world. Today's scientists are trying to undo that technology because it's so polluting. Wooops
You are implying that there is a conspiracy. If you think there is a conspiracy, you need to provide some evidence of that. That evidence would have to include a description of this "agenda" and a reason that scientists from the world over are so corrupted that they are screwing up science in order to further it.
You're going to try to cause disbelief in science on the grounds that humans started using fossil fuel???
Merely pointing out scientists are not infallible gods as you seem to believe. Arguably their single biggest contribution to the world is nuclear fission which anyone should have apprehension and doubt about. Would the world be better off without that discovery? Oh and don't forget killer bees, lol. Then there's all the toxic chemicals destroying the environment scientists gave us which are causing cancer and who knows what else. Seen as a whole science and scientists are beneficial to the world but they have also caused a lot of damage and I myself don't put them on the pedestal you do. A group of them predicting Armageddon is not going to make me drop everything and fall to my knees crying for them to save us from ourselves with their omnipotent rulings.
Yes, doctors are wrong a lot of times. Individual doctors. However, the consensus opinion of the best doctors in the world is a lot less likely be wrong than Dr. Mike down the road. And even in the case of Dr. Mike, you really should respect and consider his opinion. At least get a second opinion or do a lot or research online if you are really skeptical. But remember that even if Dr. Mike has made mistakes, the vast majority of the time he has been right, and his suggestions are based on solid and tested science and research.
Your analogy also fails on the grounds that only a select group of scientists claim mans C02 contribution is the primary driver of climate change whereas doctors pretty much unanimously agree aspirin will ease a headache .
