Global Warming
Out of context: Reply #211
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- deathboy0
Occam's Razor works on smaller scale stuff. Say we have a greater understanding in the last 100 years, but for the last 10,000 we really dont know that much, nor all the factors. Even in the last few thousands we have differing views based on different evidence and priority given to evidence to support different hypothesis. Personally I havent found a way to slice away natural dynamics to give a high yield of probability. Like i said i think climate change is as dynamic as life, especially on smaller scale. If i used the razor on larger scale calculations id say we are likely to push the envelope of warming a few hundred years leading to a natural cold cycle. But that would be about as good as a weather man predicting the weather in a 2 month timeline.I just dont think with the varying factor you can have good predictions. I think it needs to be compared to a small scale but as many variables as a single human being. Their life, genetics and choices, random chance.
Im only arguing against our innate desire of security and our ignorance in thinking we control everything. And of the ability of men to exasperate the ill effects when thinking they can control things. A quick example is the ignorance of greenspan with a more localized economic policy. I dont know. I cant understand how others can take a few variables and time scales and think they know and take it as an absolute.
But hey let me predict climate will change warmer or colder or both on a timeline and there is nothing we can do except hedge it slightly a bit on the timeline, and theur will be costs. that im pretty certain of.