Avraham, I've already explained in many ways what my position on the science is, based on the science itself. I have examined the arguments, the evidence to support those arguments, and drawn my conclusion. Through that process I've concluded that climate change is real, it has always been real, and to some extent is additionally influenced by mankind. I find no good scientific evidence to support the claim that the global warming visible in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic, or that it can be mitigated by mankind. I find that climate science is immmature, is not progressing sufficietly and has in place no mechanisms to correct the issue. It does not itself recognise sufficiently that it has this problem, and because of this I see no prospect for improvement.
My answers may not suit you, but you have not said anything to change my mind. Moreover, respectfully, I don't think you are sufficiently versed in the subject to even begin to address the genuine and specific issues that I have with the state of the science. I am MUCH further along in my journey through climatology, and every talking point you LINK to, I have already worked through and resolved thoroughly for myself many years ago.
I am happy to discuss the science, in detail where necessary - from insolation and backradiation to the atmospheric CO2 cycle, from the Milankovich cycle to the NAO - but only with someone who has an open mind and who is interested in deepening their knowledge. Respectfully, this is not you.
That's exactly what I was talking about in my first comment, the coasts may be affected, but that doesn't mean that all people suddenly will be flooded by 1000 metres of water.
Also this map looks a bit strange, I set the flood level to 5 metres and nothing much changed. I thought the coasts would be affected mush more, about as much as the Netherlands. But such flooding turned out to be rare on the coasts. I even doubt if the floods are displayed correctly, I expected to see a worse situation. But maybe the different conditions of the coastal topography make this possible.
Why? Not for me. In my opinion this is completely normal.
It wasn't your link that made me laugh, it was the fact that such links annoy you and you think it's bad tone to do them, but you still do them yourself.
I was literally saying the same thing in that time and you didn't care about it. And you've some reason gone mad for those links. I still can't understand it. Moreover, you yourself do the same. I'm just wondering if that's your real principle, and you're as angry with yourself now as you were with me. Or what was it?
EDIT: Readers may not understand what we talking about, I'm talking about the strange exchanges in this thread.
I didn't say I had scientific hypotheses. I was talking about my thesis about presence GW, or about presence AGW, or about danger for humans and nature. And I was asking what exactly are you applying Occam's razor to, or maybe are you talking about something else. You must have mentioned Occam's razor for a reason, and you're referring to a some problem, but it's not clear what it is.
This topic has turned into psychotherapy sessions, guys I'm just glad that I recognized it early and backed out before I started to get angry. I'll leave it to you to keep discussing, there were some indeed good points from everyone.
In fact, on both sides, I see positive consequences of the actions taken. The scientific mainstream influences the political mainstream. And politics promotes the fight against climate change at the state level by developing various laws to reduce emissions and so on. The only one who is not affected by this is China. The rest of the big ones have been trying to reduce their emissions for a decade for now or even longer.
I mean, if we manage to keep the average temperature rise until 2 degrees Celsius, then even according to existing studies, people and nature will not suffer much, and at the same time it may have a positive impact on global cooling, and perhaps even delay it or reduce its strength. Because global cooling brings clear and serious danger to people and nature.
And it is good if we can strike a balance between the existing global warming and the coming global cooling without harming nature or people.
SamH, I completely understand your position regarding science and those who defend its conclusions. This may seem unfair to you, but it seems that you do not yet have a monopoly on scientific speech, and that your position is not in the overwhelming majority.
As for your considerations about open-mindedness, they seem taken from a Scientology dictionary (for Ron Hubbard himself "an open mind" is like a room with broken windows open to all winds, in the which nothing is fixed).
In my last message, I quoted you without addressing you. It's pretty clear that we won't agree on much. However, I appreciate that you suddenly adopt a less caricatured position and more audible comments (not all). I remind you that you to paint me red because I just relay some basic information. You don't want to get into a scientific debate with me, that's fine. This would indeed be of no use to anyone. And that wasn't my intention. I don't care if you change your mind or if you stick to your gospel lands. But what purpose do your words serve, exactly? What is useful en it ?
When you say "I find no strong scientific evidence to support the claim that visible global warming in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic, or that it can be mitigated by humanity." I agree with the end of the sentence. I don't think humanity is capable of mitigating the effects of global warming. Particularly because scientific recommendations are not heeded and the climate alibi essentially serves to create new markets, of which that of the electric car is emblematic of its absurdity.
But what force of mental obstruction dictates such inept remarks to you as: “…no solid scientific evidence to support the claim that visible global warming in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic”?
The rise in water levels does not need to be extreme or very significant to be catastrophic, particularly for Polder areas. These unimpressive coastal changes from your point of view will have phenomenal societal repercussions. “Disaster” should not be understood in the Hollywood sense of the word. The accumulation of these natural disasters will profoundly (and too quickly) modify the current fragile balances and cause significant social unrest. According to already obsolete estimates, more than 300 million people will be displaced by rising water levels by 2050. This is just one of the great catastrophes of global warming.
Regarding our confusion, it was not only the link on anthropomorphism (a concept extremely more trivial and common than Occam's razor, at least in my latitudes...). Here too it is the accumulation and the method which amused me more than annoyed me (the nitpicking over simple terms + the verbal inundation). I was telling you this morning that unfortunately, I have too little time to devote to our chats. But I hope this parenthesis is closed.
For your thesis, I notice that your positions are evolving towards rationalism and utilitarianism and tend to move away from the confusionist esotericism of SamH. It was to encourage this type of evolution that I mentioned Occam's Razor. Scientific rationalism would have allowed you, for example, to immediately dismiss the thesis of the pretty little green greenhouse which could result from global warming. Or, to rule on the fact that it is dangerous for nature and for man.
I'll ignore the majority of what you post, since it remains infused with insult and denigration. I'm disinclined to encourage it, because it's vacuous behaviour and not substantive.
Mankind is unable to mitigate it because mankind appears unable to overwhelm natural variability.
"Mental obstruction"? "Inept remarks"? This is not language worth engaging with.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without simply telling me that someone else, or a bunch of someone elses, claim it, YOU provide evidence to support this belief that humans have caused global warming that is catastrophic. Point to the data that supports it, and articulate in YOUR words, an example of actual catastrophic global warming which is PROVEN (you like to use that word, so live by it) to be unequivocally caused by humans. Let's actually get down to the science of climatology rather than just the narrative. Provide one example of a climate scientist's prediction that has come to pass. There's been 40+ years of these predictions so it shouldn't be too difficult to find one, right?
Alternatively, continue with your invective and/or condescending tone. As much as you direct it at me, it actually reflects on you.
Richard Tol's estimate of warming up to (IIRC) 2.3C or 2.4C in IPCC AR5 is net positive for humans and the planet. I haven't seen his revised estimate in AR6 yet, but I'm assuming it won't have changed much.
Regarding global cooling, I don't think this is within our capacity to mitigate against either. Glaciation will come no matter what we do. Our options are far less mitigation and far more along the lines of adaptation. In the event, I'm reasonably confident our options will be limited to something like equatorial migration. Obviously this is based on our current capabilities. The future is uncertain, including any limits on our ingenuity. History is quite clear, we will be more capable in the future than we can possibly conceive of today. How much more, I think there's no way to know. The future is mostly the other side of the event horizon ;-)
You were talking about "global disruption with multiple consequences. One of the devastating effects of this disruption is to amplify natural and known climatic phenomena exponentially (and often unpredictably), to the point of catastrophe."
If by that you mean that millions of people will have to leave their homes, then we have misunderstood each other. Because I'm not arguing with it.
I can assure you, so far during our dialogue my positions have not changed in any way because all I have done is ask for an reasoning. But instead I got different links that either don't say what I asked for or say the same thing I did in my argumentation.
If you understand what Occam's Razor is, tell me which explanation requires fewer entities?
The greenhouse explanation which is based on actual reality and can be verified.
Or one that is built on graphs, measurements of temperatures and levels of various emissions, correlations between those graphs, and on predictions with not always high confidence.
I'm not inherently arguing against the possibility of rising water levels with rising average temperatures, but global drought is still not a clear-cut topic for me.
You devoted almost the entirety of our exchanges to ironizing about my supposed blind faith. While I only reported known data. And are you offended? Is this a joke?
You have incomplete and/or paradoxical speech.
Your sentence, to which I was referring, made no causal link between global warming and human activity. You say you recognize global warming and deny its effects. As if this warming had no influence or effects on climatic phenomena? I imagine that for you, climate refugees do not exist any more than the anthropogenic cause of warming?
Now you speak of a beneficial warming of 2.4°. At what human cost?
Climate models are capable of simulating actual warming. They also make it possible to simulate what would have happened if man had not emitted greenhouse gases over the last 150 years. We observe with these models that without these human emissions, there would be no warming: this is unshakeable proof that current warming is linked to human emissions. You seem to be the only one who doesn't know this!
These are not my personal arguments but those of Camille Risi Researcher in meteorology at the CNRS (a sort of Carmelite, I imagine in your phantasmagorical pantheon ?)
You have Panglossian type reasoning. You seek to make reality correspond to your will.
The one thing you and I had in common at the beginning of this thread was on the cult of absolute faith in climate catastrophism. I explained it and you demonstrated it.
I don't say I recognise global warming and deny its effects. I refer to the science, wherein you can find a warming trend but can find no discernible catastrophic anthropogenic signal.
No negative consequence (net) up to 2.3/2.4C. It's in the IPCC report. Or do you dispute that? You did link to it.
This is grossly incorrect. By definition a simulation is a simulation, not to be regarded as real data. But if you knew this topic you would know that GCMs are known to fail to match observed temperatures. Despite improving on their abilities to hindcast, they continue to overestimate temperature increases in their forecasts. This is not even controversial, but suffice it to say you are absolutely wrong.
In fact one climate modeler, with whom I discussed this topic, put the truth very succinctly. She said: "The difference is that, in theory, reality and theory are the same. However, in reality, they are not."
I don't understand, are you every single time missing the bit where I say that I recognise that there is an anthropogenic component to the warming? Or are you walking back your claim that we are facing an apocalyptic catastrophe? Because without the apocalypse, where is the imperative for us to spend the $21 trillion that we simply don't have on achieving "Net Zero"?
I'm going to leave you to embarrass yourself with claims you can't substantiate. When you're able to deliver on a verifiable, falsifiable instance of catastrophic human-induced global warming, I'll be here to go over it with you. Until then, there is absolutely no point in me responding to you, and you seem to actively discourage it.
The problem with you is that you are of boundless bad faith and that you mix subjects with the sole aim of creating confusion in people's minds. Any objective person who follows this thread will be able to attest to this.
Just because you consider Action Rebellion to be a doomsday cult doesn't mean that everyone who trusts science more than your ramblings is in "the cult of absolute faith in climate catastrophism." spare us your sophisms.
I will undoubtedly seem a little emotional to you, but I find that 50 million displaced people after the latest floods in Pakistan constitutes, in itself and as an example, a perceptible catastrophe. Without giving in to the sirens of the apocalypse. That's about a quarter of the country's population.
According to François Gemenne, IPCC rapporteur, this episode is "in a certain way" an indicator of what awaits us in the coming years. He specifies: “We know that climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of extreme events, both drought and floods.” Today, climate change is one of the main factors of migration and population displacement: "each year, 2 to 3 times more people are displaced by extreme climatic events than by violence and Conflicts."
The absence of (net) negative consequences at 2.3/2.4C to which you refer in no way means: No repercussions on humans, fauna or flora. Even less on the rising water levels or the increase in humidity in the air, which will be fatal to some of the populations exposed to these brutal changes.
Here you are just repeating your gospel: namely the proposals of Philippe Herlin. (sorry for the Google translation, I don't have time to look for the source in English. The information comes from the AFP website).
Climate modeling, which makes it possible to understand how the climate works and predict its evolution over several decades, is based on robust physical equations.
Furthermore, climate change and its human origins are the subject of scientific consensus, and the last eight years have been the warmest recorded since pre-industrial times.
Climate modeling: robust physical equations
During his speech, Philippe Herlin affirms that global warming caused by human activities "is not a law of science". To support these remarks, he declares: “E = MC2 is an equation, it is verified […]. There is no equivalent equation between human CO2 emissions on the one hand and temperature increases on the other. »
This statement is false: "the climate models that we use to make climate projections and quantify the contribution of human activities to current global warming are models based on extremely well-established physical equations", explains to AFP a CNRS researcher at Dynamic Meteorology Laboratory. Camille Risi (archived link here), August 30.
"They are at least as well established as E = MC2. They are even much more fundamental equations. For example, the fundamental principle of dynamics, that is to say that the acceleration of an object is linked to the forces that apply to it. this object. Gravity, hydrostatic balance, the ideal gas law...", continues the specialist.
“Climate models are not statistical: they are physical models,” she adds. "A climate model used to make climate projections is a set of equations. Maybe not one equation, but hundreds of equations solved by a computer, because a human being could not solve that many at the same time. For make a climate projection of "The climate by 2100, for example, we simulate the weather every minute until 2100. The model solves the equations for every minute at all points on Earth until 2100."
Thus, these physical equations allow scientists to establish an undeniable link between CO2 emissions and the overall increase in temperature, by mathematical calculation.
“We know how to link cumulative CO2 emissions since the industrial era (1850) to the increase in temperature that we observe in the climate system,” confirms Roland Séférian (link archived here), climatologist and researcher at Météo France contacted by AFP in August. 30. "We know that for the warming attributed to CO2 alone, we have a mathematical relationship which tells us that for each thousand tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, the additional warming induced is 0.45 or 0.5 degrees on average", specifies the researcher. .
“This is an inviolable relationship of the climate system in the same way as “water wets” or “gravity governs the trajectory of masses on the planet”: we have evidence that they come from observations, model simulations or even mathematical theories. Proof of this is that we know that to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees by 2100, we must limit emissions to 500 billion tonnes of CO2,” he adds.
You recognize a component with no effects on global warming. It's an aberration. To stay in aberrations: I have already answered about the apocalypse.
As for the global cost, it means nothing about the anthropogenic origin of global warming that you dispute. Again, you are trying to cause confusion.
What the actual F. You literally don't read the text you quote, you incessantly conflate global warming with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and you're incapable of separating the real science from the emotionally charged political activism and the deliberately headline-grabbing media hype. The rest of your post is the same nonsense too. I don't know who Philippe Herlin is and I've never read his "gospel".
The difference between you and I, fundamentally, is that you are obsessed with the apocalyptic narrative and I am obsessed with the integrity of science. I KNOW that models do not produce real data and are tweaked by arbitrary variables to predict futures based on processes they don't sufficiently understand, and you don't know or care about anything but your baselessly claimed impending catastrophe.
You won't change, and neither will I. I've been here 18 years. I'll probably have to wait another 18 years or more for your ACTUAL evidence connecting global warming and CAGW.
I spoke of anthropogenic warming which would cause catastrophes, not of apocalyptic warming. The apocalypse is your invention and your fixation.
My ACTUAL evidence ? Are you kidding ? You stubbornly refuse to accept those of the entire scientific community because science is sick. You refuse to recognize the value of the tools used. By what magic can I convince you? Science has nothing to do here.
For Philippe Herlin, you belong by right to the same movement. Whether you know him or not. You have exactly the same speech as the army of trolls who have invaded the media for several months. This is where the real difference between you and me lies.
Don't worry, you'll have tired me out well before 18 years. And personally, in 18 years, I might already be underwater. Or will we be neighbours? I hesitate between fleeing to the Rock or joining the contingent of 6.5 million Flemings who are preparing to invade Wallonia.
I think I've found the problem. Anthropogenic warming does not de facto cause catastrophes. We know that it was at least as warm as today in medieval times, and at least as warm as today in Roman times, without any possible anthropogenic component. We also know that modern warming is in part a "bounce back" from what is known as the Little Ice Age - also not anthropogenically influenced. So we know that warming is not automatically catastrophic.
As for distinguishing catastrophe from apocalypse, would that mean you agree that this article is silly hyperbolic nonsense quoting Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, perpetuating a false apocalypse narrative that's since failed to materialise? Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 monthshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736
If you hold the belief that modern warming WILL be catastrophic, simply because it has an anthropogenic component, the historical record does not support your fears. If you do believe that the very fact that some (even all?) of the current warming is dangerous simply because it's human-caused... well, that's just not correct or rational.
SamH. We have no reason to fight like this, it's ridiculous. I accept your truce.
You know that the fundamental difference with the climatic events to which you refer is time. Previous warmings had natural causes that are now explained. Never in the history of humanity has warming been so sudden. According to some estimates, it could completely cancel out the effect of the next cooling.
For the last time, I never spoke of an apocalypse in the sense in which you pretended to understand it.
So we agree. However, it seems that I find this more catastrophic than you. Perhaps I am projecting myself too much into the humanitarian, sociological, economic and political consequences.
I'm going to give you a bit of the same kind of answer as to SamH, but lighter.
To the extent that current scientific evidence does not suit you in terms of justification or explanation of phenomena, what exactly are you waiting for? The warming thesis is a reasoning. To follow it, you will have to, like most scientists who have supported this hypothesis, perfect your knowledge of the subject, make your own observations and deductions.
This is not the place for confidences. But everyone at their own level can see the effects of warming. I'm on the front line. I have enough perspective to tell you that the changes are notable and rapid. Even if people remain largely in denial. This is mainly due to the fact that they have few escape routes. So they put their heads under the sand.
For me your explanation of the greenhouse would be (will be?) based on reality when it integrates temporal contingencies and a minimum of data (material, humanitarian, sociological, economic and political. Etc.). Who will live in your greenhouse, when and how?
On this more supported hypothesis, Occam's razor will be able to act. As it stands, this rationalism can only serve to rule out the greenhouse explanation completely, in favour of more constructed scientific theses.
The subject of drought is also scientifically documented.
I'll take any answer that has sufficient justification. Just as important to strengthening an argument are, verification, falsification, and adherence to Occam's razor. Which is part of the scientific method.
Reasoning is what the thesis is based on. In other words, you said that the thesis is based on the thesis.
So if the Most scientists jump off the roof of the building you will also jump off the roof of the building?
Most scientists back in the day believed in the existence of aether.
Most scientists in the USSR believed in Lysenkoism, i.e. that if you raise pig the right way she will give birth to a goat.
Most scientists back in the day did not believe in microorganisms. For centuries, surgeons believed that it was not necessary to wash their hands before surgery. This caused gangrene in patients.
Doctors blamed the imbalance between the four fluids they believed were in the body - blood, mucus, yellow bile juice and black bile juice - for the patients' deaths. It wasn't until the 1860s that Louis Pasteur proved that microbes were responsible for many diseases.
Appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy just like appealing to authority. This in itself cannot be an argument.
Scientists have often been wrong with their theories and hypotheses. And that's part of the scientific process. But excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge is scientism. Which is a not rational thing.
So instead of answering the question directly, you decided to ask your own questions.
Which, by the way, is indicative of an understanding of Occam's razor. "(material, humanitarian, sociological, economic and political. Etc.)" these are the new entities you're introducing unnecessarily.
It will be difficult to dialog when instead of answers to my question I get new questions, especially since they have nothing to do with the original question.
The fact that scientists have been wrong repeatedly throughout history makes little sense here. I mentioned it here, with the same example as you (Pasteur), in one of my responses to SamH.
Indeed, medicine became “scientific” from Pasteur onwards. That hasn't stopped this scientific medicine from still making major errors. But that makes little sense in the current situation.
My English formulation is often not very happy, despite my efforts. I agree with that. No need to play with words. Scientists did not start from the warming thesis to verify it empirically in a truncated manner in order to justify it through oriented studies.
Global warming is an observable reality that can be explained by human activity. Without human activity, the mathematical models used do not simulate global warming. While these models are reliable enough to accurately reproduce any previous climatic epoch. This is the scientific reality of the moment. It is from this reality that we must reason, methodically, to achieve a form of efficiency (at least economic).
A method of analysis that I like (but which is not a dogma) is to strike the idols with hammers. I would not make the affront of attaching links to this concept for a person as cultured as you, accustomed to higher level reasoning.
When I strike the blade of Occam's razor, what does it sing in my ear? It says to me to not take the place of scientists by adding new shaky hypotheses or more or less supported counter-hypotheses. And to avoid discrediting science on principle. This in the name of rationalism and utilitarianism (I will also spare you the references). Even though science is inherently fallible and must always be questioned.
Occam's razor blade suggests this to me in the name of the most elementary logical principle. It is not because science is constantly evolving (or even redefining) that it is always wrong. Otherwise the world today would be very different. We will not, for example, have the possibility of conversing in this way, you and I. Also we must think from tangible reality and not from dogmatic hypotheses which are only judgments on science.
What is the tangible reality? Global warming exists, even SamH agrees. This global warming is already having very real effects which are catastrophic on the natural, economic, societal, civilizational levels, etc. It is not catastrophism to note the sixth mass extinction, the anoxia of rivers and oceans, the destructive meteorological phenomena on a new scale which are displacing populations by the tens of millions. We are not in an apocalyptic projection, but in contemporary reality. The Amplification is also noted here.
The tangible reality is that the warming thesis is not up for debate. To find controversy there, you have to invent it (without proving anything, just by denigrating science on principle).Simple rationality here suggests trying to understand the scientific data, because that is the most plausible explanation. Even it is not an absolute truth.
The blade of Occam's razor also suggests to me to separate the issues of reality. To separate observable reality from the dominant thesis (which explains it today) and from the recommended solutions and their astronomical costs, the political problems that this poses, etc. In order to keep only what is useful for reasoning. Because that’s what it’s all about: pointless reasoning serves no purpose. It’s a truism. That's the general framework.
When I say that your greenhouse thesis must be supported, I am not adding any unnecessary entity. I tell you that from the point of view of rationality, any reasoning on the consequences of global warming must include a societal component. Who will your greenhouse be viable for? within what limits? how long ? at what human cost? On what new economic and political bases will the new human society that will result from these changes function?
To have a fair idea of what is at stake in this reasoning and since you recognize the phenomenon of rising water levels, start with a mental image. Coasts are the most populated places on earth. When the coasts are underwater, with all the economic, health and societal problems that this will cause, what do you see ? A small green planet enhanced by global warming? Or a global catastrophe? How do we live as a society in this new reality?
Formulate an objective hypothesis, and we'll talk about it if you want?
In the meantime, I'd like to find some time this weekend to test the D44 patch, and I have some work to catch up on.
What a mind game with strawman stuffed animals and mental dances. Instead of short and clear answers to questions, there are unnecessary longreads. The interlocutor starts proving global warming to us, although nobody here argues with it and he knows it. He invents his own Occam's razor. Instead of dialog there are monologues. In which I already have little sense of what's going on and why. Does not want to listen to each other and answer questions. I don't know how to talk with all of it anymore. In my opinion, the essence of dialog is disappearing.
The one thing this discussion manages to do well is highlight our inability to efficiently move beyond that sticky, dreadful zone of "us vs. them/me vs. you" to objectively tackle the bigger problems that are upon us. Keep at it guys, we'll get there someday
It turns out that a dialogue has a purpose. What's yours ? Is it to obtain reasoned answers to the initial questions?
Is global warming man-made? Is it dangerous for nature or humans?
If so, my answer is twice YES. And my thesis is that of rationalism. Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. The conspiracy scenario is of no use in understanding the problem of global warming. It is solely a denigration of science. Nothing else.
No one thinks scientifically from the denigration of science. The fact that the anthropogenic origin of warming has not been demonstrated is a lie. A warming of 2.4° will be catastrophic at all levels.
Without practicing SamH'ism, your belief in scientific truth leads you to doubt scientific evidence, even before giving yourself the means to know it. What additional evidence do you expect from your interlocutors if you doubt the science? What kind of theses do you expect from them? For what use? And if you don't get one, does that mean that the scientific community is wrong or lying to us, since no kindam on the internet will have been able to convince you of the validity of their arguments?
You will easily find mathematical demonstrations on the internet intended to prove the non-correlation between CO2 of anthropogenic origin and global warming. So what ? What do these demonstrations prove (or are worth) compared to the complex scientific models used to demonstrate the anthropogenic origin of warming? Many things can be proven by mathematics. Even the existence of God. The Bogdanoff brothers tried it. Peace to their souls. Do you believe in god though?
I have given you links to the information. What more do you want to do than read about it? Will you verify all of these theses? Go back to basics? Are you replacing the entire scientific community? Check the algorithms of the predictive models? Then check each of the North Sea beacons to look for any errors? Where is the use here? What vain fantasies is this based on?
If your project is to try to understand, from current data, what humanity might look like with climate change, that's another topic. In this case, I invite you to reformulate your thesis in such a way as to make it useful as a basis for reasoning. And to do this you will have to introduce a societal dimension.
I don't know how the basic principles of Occam's razor and basic philosophical knowledge are taught in Russia? I just hope that wasn't your specialty. Incidentally, not understanding what I am saying does not necessarily make my remarks abstruse. Too long, maybe ?
Everything above from Avraham Vandezwin just shows exactly what I'm talking about.
All I did was ask one question. But I only received his question in response to mine, and it was unrelated to mine. And when I pointed it out, I got a longreade with even more questions and straw man posts that he attacked.
Now I get a text with even more straw man fallacy and 20 questions. This isn't a joke. There are actually 20 questions. Why would my interlocutor ask 20 questions knowing that I won't answer all the questions? I dont know. Especially knowing that things will go back to the way they were.
If you're asked a question you don't know how to answer, here's a working tactic for you. You can use it.
I'm just glad that I recognized it early and backed out before I started to get angry. I'll leave it to you to keep discussing, there were some indeed good points from everyone.
