Terremoto wrote:Evaluation wrote:Individual action ultimately has little weight, even if the result of the individual action is not zero.
This is the sum of non-zero action happens to do a little something.
One can only remain humble about his own power to make things happen.
Or act in a non-zero way in order to set an example and bring others to also act for the same good reasons, which can change our actions from "non-zero" to a significant fundamental movement.
Identifying yourself with a noble cause, "saving the planet", makes you feel less insignificant, it can justify an analysis bias on the climate issue.
Buying the latest model of an object of much covetousness can also make it possible to "feel less insignificant" and "to justify an analysis bias on question X", for example, the damage caused by thoughtless overconsumption.
I'm not saying that's the case, I do not know but it can.
Again the doubt, an escape route many times used in these threads to say: "I do not care what everyone says, I doubt and it is my right, because it is an attitude validated in science"!
If I have a question in general, is that I know quite well through the human being.
The doubtful component resulting from "human failings" is fairly well removed in science by the research evaluation method (validation by peers without conflict of interest, cross-checking of the results of multiple, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary research, etc. .)
There are groups of self-centered people, in agreement on one point (eg climate) and who think altruistic and selfless, as they are much to think and act for the good of all.
This grown up both by the cause to defend and the number.
Mass reassures, peers, all self justification.
I'm not saying 97% of climate scientists are wrong, or have reason, I just am not taking incompetence recognized on Climate subject and observation of human nature.
Logic would however want that, "by incompetence" in one area or another, we trust the mainstream when it is widely founded and accepted, and that we retain doubts when the arguments opposed to this current are strong, well supported by data, even by precautionary principles on fundamental aspects which have not yet received a credible answer. In the case of global warming, the opposition does not present "strong arguments, well supported by data, or even by precautionary principles on fundamental aspects which have not yet received a credible answer". But we can still have doubts about the reactions of nature, a system that we do not yet understand in all its complexity.
possible consensus 100% expected from me?
99.9% suffice.
I quoted Newton, perhaps he should hang unhinged critics but his physical perfectly describes what it applies. There is no doubt, like what the consensus is possible.
In terms of Newtonian physics, we are in the field of fundamental laws that apply successfully in our physical dimension, outside the field of relativity, of the infinitely large and the infinitely small. It therefore has indeed reached a consensus rate almost 100% but no 100%. It would probably be good to not confuse consensus and unanimity ...
Compare rates consensus Newtonian theories that climate theories, more complex (but still subject to Newtonian principles) and never will be new basic laws is false.
Let us rather compare the theories of climatic sciences to theories of the health sciences, there, we obtain rates of certainty and doubt roughly comparable to those of climatic sciences, manipulated on the one hand by industries of opposing interests, of the other by proponents of all kinds of theories and "therapies" more or less based on empiricism, etc. But we can have doubts about the body's reactions, a system that we do not yet understand in all its complexity.
If I'm wary about is the man because climate subject passes through it.
Man is quick to pack on a subject, to take sides, to identify with a cause rather forget his personal contradictions and its insignificance.
The best "therapy", in this case, would be to make personal choices according to criteria that the individual considers valid. It is not a question of tilting to one side or the other of the scales for comfort, but to inform oneself up to his own limit of comprehension, to make choices and to draw the consequences, this which leads everyone to make decisions while remaining on the lookout for reasons to doubt their own choices.
Climate science and especially the recent global warming, are less simple to describe and formalize more the man who is what he is, I'd wait a bit before packing it.
All the alarm bells are from, how long are you going to wait?
If I'm careful about the discourse of global warming, I am equally by following its recommendations to combat it.
I am not taking up the cause and yet I act, I do not have any problem, it is the minimum risk management in a world of uncertainty.
Please do to see a contradiction or a problem only you can handle this.
I am relieved to learn that without taking sides or "doing and doing", you are still acting in the direction of an unsatisfactory 97% consensus.
This is commendable, and this myself pledge to return once again question my drinking habits (already half the habits of my fellow citizens, but still getting excessive to me since they would require several planets be sustainable).
Can we think that by giving half the time for emitting habits CO2 and other pollution would reduce 50% of its share in many problems?
50% off! Makers we have elected do not even dream ... So why expect them to provide quick solutions to problems already obvious?
