I do find this odd. I have interacted with many climate deniers of the more sensible variety. And this is way back in the past. Like 20-odd years ago, before it became only too apparent that Man this isn't about decades in the future. This is like NOW NOW NOW!
What I remember about the folks (mostly NZ-based) I knew is that it was all science-based. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law was frequently cited. Because climate science is still comparatively new it took a long time for the Bleeding Obvious to sink in. Guys: it's all about the oceans. Really it is. Because Specific Heat in relation to hydrogen bonding???? really? Eight times as much as most metals? Oh.....
As a former denier (until about 15 years ago) I can be sympathetic up to a point. But when does the mountain of accumulating horror reach the point when you mumble into your beard and say OK it's looks as though I was horribly wrong?
I'd like to draw an analogy with heliocentrism. The 16thC Papacy thought they were on a winner. Because Look don't be silly. If the Sun's in the middle where's your stellar parallax? EWell, er. Maybe it's there but it's too small to measure??? And as it turned out, well yes. It is there, and with modern telescopes it's been measured. After Kepler reduced the Ptolemaic nightmare of epicycles, deferents and the like to actually, it's an ellipse with the Sun at one focus .... well. That was the moment to ditch Ptolemy. Because fewer postulates and William of Ockham and all that.
Back in the day, people knew when to abandon busted paradigms. Is that too hard today? I hope not :/
no subject
What I remember about the folks (mostly NZ-based) I knew is that it was all science-based. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law was frequently cited. Because climate science is still comparatively new it took a long time for the Bleeding Obvious to sink in. Guys: it's all about the oceans. Really it is. Because Specific Heat in relation to hydrogen bonding???? really? Eight times as much as most metals? Oh.....
As a former denier (until about 15 years ago) I can be sympathetic up to a point. But when does the mountain of accumulating horror reach the point when you mumble into your beard and say OK it's looks as though I was horribly wrong?
I'd like to draw an analogy with heliocentrism. The 16thC Papacy thought they were on a winner. Because Look don't be silly. If the Sun's in the middle where's your stellar parallax? EWell, er. Maybe it's there but it's too small to measure??? And as it turned out, well yes. It is there, and with modern telescopes it's been measured. After Kepler reduced the Ptolemaic nightmare of epicycles, deferents and the like to actually, it's an ellipse with the Sun at one focus .... well. That was the moment to ditch Ptolemy. Because fewer postulates and William of Ockham and all that.
Back in the day, people knew when to abandon busted paradigms. Is that too hard today? I hope not :/