Originally Posted by BilloutWest
From the co-founder of Greenpeace.
It just caught me that it seems worthy of pointing out models are not definitive science.
Skepticism is healthy in science. Its vital to its survival and conclusions. Its built into its basic empirical structure, especially those studies which use mathematical analysis as it begins with the assumption that the observations have "failed to support" the hypothesis. One former voice of Greenpeace alone does not carry enough evidence (none in fact) to overturn the scientific consensus. He had a PhD but show many any empirical research he has done in the last three decades. What I see is a paid lobbyist for special interest not an expert doing empirical studies in the relevant fields. He also loves false dichotomies and straw men which should be a red flag for most people:
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions [strawman]. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide[false dichotomy]
For the last statement....science is never fully "definitive" and is always ready for revision and even massive paradigm changes. But the burden of that reality rests on skeptics finding robust and multi-disciplinary evidence not the other way around. Just saying its wrong isn't science. The skepticism exhibited above regarding models fails to fully understand that scientists themselves recognize the limitations inherent to models. Ironically, the numbers modeled in the 90s regarding climate change were limited but not in favor of skeptics. They were conservative (by design as they are often averages of multiple models and approaches) compared to real-time observations over the past two decades.
Science never fully "proves" anything but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be charged with making decisions from the best possible science in the moment. Anti-science voices continue to exploit this fact as some sort of achilles heel when in fact its the very reason science is such a powerful tool to use for human societies. Unfortunately right now its playing into the wrong hands as Americans fail to fundamentally understand science and many choose to be anti-science. I don't think you fall into either of those categories myself but your comments definitely play into the rhetoric those crowds use. No matter the case, biological science does not support your statement regarding the benefits of global warming; with current knowledge and research you ideas are untenable.