Wilford_Brimley posted:

http://libertyhq.freeforums.org/post19000.html#p19000Climate science isn't actually rigorous. In hard sciences you don't make predictions unless you're absolutely certain of them. Every time you hear a climatologist saying "global warming is happening faster than expected", they're acknowledging that their model is wrong and they're not actually able to predict the climate.

on the other hand, you're not likely to hear "climate model works as expected, scientists neither flummoxed nor angry" on the front page of a tabloid, are you

getfiscal posted:

i once got into a debate with a policy director for an environmental institute that was dedicated to fighting climate change or whatever. anyway he posted an article about how you shouldn't use a discount rate for the effects of climate change. i guess there's a big environmental scientist arguing for this in england or something. and the idea is that there's such a big cataclysm coming that any mitigation of climate change (emissions reduction) is considered efficient.

so i was like well why don't we do this for other things. like why is the future cost of malaria health impacts discounted in most cases but then not for climate change deaths. and what would that possibly mean. like does it mean that there is an infinite present benefit from studying how to cure malaria or something. he had no idea how to answer and then he didn't change his views.

Not only that but you need to discount renewables use, since they involve using scarce rare earth materials at the expense of future generations.