Snowy 2.0 boss says NetZero is ‘bullsh*t’, page-114

First 114 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
zipperlip

30,330 Posts.

250

25/05/24

18:03

Post #: 74008200
Share

Originally posted by Parsifal ↑

I can’t answer all your questions but I can respond to one at least. The IPCC history is interesting and I don’t think it is a problematic organisation. One of my decades long friends was one of the Nobel prize winning team and while I followed his career he recently brought out a book which was an interweaving of biographical details and science they gave me even more insight. He and his cohort of scientists were decent, kind, smart and committed individuals who worked very collaboratively. He had enormous integrity and I really can’t imagine him being connected with corrupt science. The IPCC really stems from this early group of scientists.

I think the debate should not rest with whether CO2 levels are increasing but with what it means. And I don’t mean whether it’s from human activity.

I have the misfortune (well not really but it changes one’s perspective) of having two parent scientists -(both geology majors - with my mother also doing botany ). Geologists think in time scales that are unusually long so it has been hard to contemplate that any short time scale has meaning. It appears to however

should it matter? Maybe I’m a philistine on this. Humans are destructive in so any ways and we use stuff. Doesn’t matter how small you think your footprint is. And if you are curious about AI and technology development that’s going to add to the challenges. All the stuff uses resources.

but can’t really see most people wanting to revert to the bare bones grinding poverty of the past. So if we’re reached a tipping point we don’t really understand- in my view - what next.

but in any event species come and go and humans are just another species that have been and most likely will be a blip on the timeline of earth. When Gaia has had enough of us we will get spat out no matter what. The idea that we can do something about what we have created will, have its own unintended consequences.

those of my friends who are climate activists (other than the scientist) want to save the earth - but not just to save earth but to save humankind. I just think that’s species centric. It may just be we will do something else to destroy ourselves and the earth. Destruction being something we do very well

Expand

Individual scientists are not the problem, the “committee” nature of the IPCC is the issue.

The potential for Favouring a particular consensus that supports a Committee’s preferred position is however an issue.

“Vested Interests” are the antithesis of proper/truthful science.

That’s why defaming and deriding any scientific research that doesn’t support the preferred narrative is a Res Flag to me.

True scientific endeavours should be open to all possibilities until it can be proven that any one particular idea is true and can be proven “repeatedly” by peers.

That’s why computer models that predict possibilities are flawed and are not reliable, they use guesstimates based on a lack of quantifiable information.
2 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

Week 45 Wrap: Combat sports usher in Trump 2.0 – or is it male insecurity?; RBA boring; Propane suggests China alive

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

UBI

Universal Biosensors flat despite fresh deal with US medical product distributor

Trump is President Again: What Does This Mean for Crypto?

Trump Victory Sends Bitcoin Surging Above $75K – Is $100K Next?

FG1

Flynn Gold reaches milestone exploration target for Golden Ridge

MMI

Metro Mining inks bauxite offtake contracts into 2026 with Chinese m

HotCopper Highlights: Your most watched and most discussed stocks this week

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

IMU

Imugene kicks off Australian trial for blood cancer treatment