Future predictions are based on models, the effect off co2 on climate is mostly based on empiric data about the ice sheets and co2 levels in the past.
This coupled with models of the sun activity (also from empiric data and physics) results in a pretty strong relationship between these.
I do know a lot about the problems of peer review and not repeatable experiments. I mean, the reviewers can't simply try to repeat all the experiments before approving it, they simply don't have the time for that, they have to trust the data presented, in most cases its a question of reputation. Like, a professor at a university has a lot to lose when providing invalid data. He might lose his job easily if it comes out.
But not only that, we also have to rely on a system where other scientists after you published your study will try to repeat your experiments to try to "proof" your claims wrong.
I read many scientific studies in fields of my interest outside of computer science (as you said, Computer Science as Maths and big parts of Physics are easier since most things can be proven quite easily) and quite often I read several papers where they tried to repeat the data of another study and were not able to.
A possible way to fix the current system is by encouraging people to do so more often by rewarding this more strongly.
I agree. Since we are all 'peers' as far as humanity goes, more people, especially those not invloved in the scientific community should be encouraged to get involved where possible. For example, although it might be difficult for me to repeat some of the experiments done in the linked study due to lack of equipment/knowledge/skill, there is no reason why I could not find others who have the knowledge/skills/equipment that I lack. Everyone has something they can contribute and the way 'science' and 'scientists' are being portrayed as some sort of religion which cannot be questioned is dangerous. Greta is effectively telling people to not think for themselves or do any research for themselves because 'science' has settled it. This is dangerous in my opinion (and untrue) and even more so in this case because of where I believe the global warming hoax is designed to lead humanity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
For parts this is happening a lot already. Numerous studies get revoked every year because results where either not repeatable or even found incorrect. Especially in nutrition this is happening very strongly at the moment.
I somewhat agree and disagree, I think a lot of these kids are putting "their" scientists as "perfect". But, I agree on a lot of other points. From all the scientific evidence we have, man made climate change is currently the state of the art (and I'm not a specialist of the area to unproof it, but I invite anyone to go into this area, get a degree and do their own research and try to publish it through the process, and try to unproof all other related works).
Nevertheless, where do you think "this hoax" is leading humanity. To a more sustainable lifestyle?
I think it is not a matter of opinion that humans are taking more resources from our planet than our planet can sustain even on the mid term. With increasing industrialization other countries won't allow to be explored for their resources anymore and will want to spend their resources themselves which further intensifies this crisis.
We only have one planet (at least for quite a while) with a somewhat working ecosystem (or what is left from it). If we destroy that, we destroy the future of our species on this planet too.
What is really dangerous is where the fossil fuel lobby is taking us, short term profit thinking is destroying our nature and ecosystems and will make it for future generations very very difficult.
What we spend now, will not be left to spend for future generations.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit