TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Science has not at present the intelligence or competence to predict the future in any matters including Climate Change

Scientists in large numbers are telling us that we humans are causing climate change and this may very well be true

But Scientists go on to develop a number of scenarios which they term the future, in fact, far into the future, by several hundred years. These scenarios are just that ideas and intellectual speculations

Now Scientists are in fact (and science must always work with facts to be Science and not superstition) working on the assumption or speculation (which is not scientific, that is not fact) that the Earth's population has increased exponentially with out interruption since humans first appeared on the Planet and will continue to increase like bacteria in the future.

I content that any estimates of the population of the Earth before the year 1300 to be guesswork or speculation, which is an opinion based on incomplete facts or information.

Likewise any estimate of the Earth's population in the next several centuries are to be based on opinion and incomplete facts or information.

Remembering of course that the Earth's population is only one variable in the scenarios for the future, scientists are giving themselves a holiday for many centuries and stating that no discoveries will be made to solve this problem in the next several centuries.

If humans are responsible for climate change then scientific advances (use of oil and coal etc) are the cause and so scientists are obliged to come up with a solution.

It is amazing to me that scientific speculation is taken so seriously and with so little thought, where is the Ice Age science predicted in the 1960's?

Science predicts e.g. that we will live to 150 years old, ensure that that logical thinking is always with you.

Share:
  • Comment deleted

    • May 9 2014: Carolyn

      I hate to assume, but it would appear that you are climate change theist. If that is the case. where is your evidence? The government is speaking about computer models. These models are engineered by people who first promote a political agenda, secondly are in the employee of government, on grants or grants to the university that employs them.
      I would be the first to defend and promote scientific inquiry and although I possess no scientific background in terms of education, I am not illiterate in the matter That said, provide your evidence and let us look at it with an open mind. Rhetoric and fear mongering not admissible.
      • Comment deleted

        • May 10 2014: carolyn

          Normally, when challenged, the climate change theist goes away. You are back and good for you. The problem is that you failed to return with any evidence, only fluff and puff rhetoric.
          I define truth this way---Truth is reason for the sake of reason without prejudice. This means that you provide what reasoned evidence you have that Man is causing climatic changes that threaten the planet and we will then objectively and reasonably dissect that evidence without prejudice to a particular finding. I believe that is called science. Let us not allow ourselves to be mired in bias, as a search for the proof of a god, a tree exists, therefore a god exists.
      • May 10 2014: Charles
        Allow me to jump in here. There's more evidence than you could read in a life time.
        http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence This is but one example. No rational person denies that the climate changes. Some would prefer to think humans do not impact it. Considering that past climate changes have resulted in the extinction of human life over vast geological areas, we had better hope we can influence climate change. Weather predictions may not be very reliable, but I'll still pack a raincoat just in case. Your thinking strikes me as the ostrich, who sees far in the distance and though capable of effectively attacking or running, chooses instead to stick it's head in a hole, or potty-train it's cat.
        • May 10 2014: Bradley

          I do not read links, especially from any government source. If you cannot articulate the argument, you do not have one.
          The Climate changes that is a fact. Earth has been a ball of lava and a snowball and everything in between. That is a fact too.
          Perhaps, you can enlighten me here; when specifically was humanity rendered extinct? Homo sapien-sapien has been around for about 200,000 years or so. During this 200,000 years when did we get zapped and when and how did we come back? If you can provide the facts here we can talk some more, otherwise you have no argument only bad manners.
      • May 10 2014: Charles
        The glaciations of ~20,000 yrs spread over much of north america and northern europe, would have significantly reduced populations there as well as in other areas turned to desert in the same period. Gene studies suggest the human population may have shrunk to as few as 10,000 individuals ~60,000 yrs ago. Please excuse my comments , if their tone seemed, "bad manners", they were only intended to reflect your own...
        • May 11 2014: Bradley

          "Considering that past climate changes have resulted in the extinction of human life---" This is precisely the intellect that is being employed in the fraud of man made climate change. Make wild and totally inaccurate statements. Keep repeating them as if they were the truth and somebody will, who fails to do proper research, believe them.
          I would suggest that you do your research before you make statements and you will not appear so foolish and uninformed. But then, if you did your own research we would not have had the pleasure of this encounter and you would not be parroting the idiocy of man made climate change.
          I wish you well.
      • May 11 2014: Charles
        I too wish you well.
        I should not have used the term extinction, for a regional event, as it has left an opportunity for a deft misquoted sound bite. As emotion seems to have led us to "make wild and totally inaccurate statements", I'll close our pertinent, if sadly unproductive, exchange, to ask you to consider whether, just possibly, your emotion, reflects the sense that your shell of denial, of the need for humanity to act proactively with regard to climate change, is being threaten by reasonable logic and massive amounts of factual evindence, and you like the rest of us aren't sure how best to deal with it...
    • thumb
      May 9 2014: Carolyn,
      I am not sure that there are many who really disbelieve that climate is not changing. Climate is a compulation of specific weather data points gathered from many locations all over the world. A rain storm here, and snow storm there and climate is in a constant state of flux. Since weather is relatively inconstant and not subject to finite scientific measurements, meteorology has been referred to as the SWAG science.
      Where I believe Charles has taken umbrage is by the pronouncements of politicians who have vested interests in focusing on an atmospheric component that is far down the list of atmospheric components.
      Their "scientific evidence" is centered on the proposition that unless this component is reduced in the atmosphere, catastrophic events will occur in 20 or 50 years. That pronunciation holds a touch of incredulity.
      On the other hand, this component is a vital component of photosynthesis, an increase would greatly expand the growth of vegetation. Unless the future threat is a world wide infestation of Kudzu.
  • thumb
    May 12 2014: You cannot reliably predict the future in any significant way considering the future is a product of the interaction between many individual factors each with its own element of chance.
  • May 11 2014: Vince

    The forefront of science is always fumbling a bit, but those generating it, have put a great deal of thought into it. We are well beyond the age of alchemy. I'll grant you there are a great many people putting forward pseudoscience fantasies, but climate change is acknowledged and supported by hundreds of well qualified experts in dozens of different fields of research. What we the people need to do is get past, whose fault it is and start adapting to it. Adaptation usually leads to new jobs. Lets try to flood proof our infrastructure. Lets build pipelines to move water from flood areas to drought areas. We pulled $800+ billion out of the national hat to bail out banks and more to wage war against a couple of hapless foreign countries. Disaster, homelessness and starvation are far more worthy causes. Lets throw a trillion at our own economy!
    • thumb
      May 13 2014: Mr. C;lark,
      You make some valid points I have considered the consequences of reducing the influences of the USA in world affairs and focusing our resources internally. I have come to believe that it would not be a bad thing. I guess I am annoyed by the waste that occurs in our desire to help others. Millions of people in parts of the world... sick....starving.... that the US could bring relief, if we pay off the current dictator, or ignore international law about interference in national affairs, or, or, or.
      But, and I am sorry to say...we have not gone beyond the age of alchemy and this political driven out cry about climate change and the pressing need to control it is our time's .... the earth is flat and the world is the center of the universe alchemy.

      The fact is that climate is a dynamic function in the constant state of flux and it is true that human activity can effect local weather conditions.... wind farms that suck energy out of prevailing winds and there are measureable effects noted. Large cities become heat sinks and change local weather patterns, but to say that the reduction of a minor atmospheric gas will bring an utopian climate state to the earth is a little stretch of credulity. To make matters worse, other studies have shown that this gas has been in differing concentrations over the millenniums without regard to the then current climate conditions.
      But, the convincing action to me was the vapid reaction to any criticism of climate science findings. A true scientist would welcome challenges to their findings. All true science theory is made valid by challenge.
      Not..."send those deniers to jail"... reactions.
      • May 13 2014: Mike
        I hear you. Terraforming the planet is a bit beyond the current tech and global culture. I guess my point of view is, if the climate is changing, we should try to adapt to the changes. Use the tech we have to survive better regardless of the causal influences.
        (I see suggestions of taking energy out of the gulf stream and think England might object.) I haven't seen much of the "send the deniers to jail" stuff but I can well imagine it's out there. I see the weather messing pretty seriously with lives and the national economy and think we ought to be able to confront that challenge somehow.
        • thumb
          May 13 2014: There is probably more we can do to mitigate warming, the loss of ice caps which could lower salinity, and rising tides.... although if NYC goes under 20 feet of water.... I am pondering the downside.... anyway, there has to be more we can do to address any shift in climate...
          But what do we hear.... "If we just cut use of fossil fuel"....(I would also like to cut fossil fuel use by replacing it with a new low cost source of continuous power.) " then the climate would be stable " More money has been wasted on this issue and more will be because of political policy.
  • May 11 2014: You have lots of ideas, which is good, it is carbon monoxide (CO) that is emitted in garages which is a toxic gas, CO2 is important to the body as we are carbon based.

    Obviously our atmosphere needs our attention I question the funds and level of attention.

    We have replaced some of our slaves with machines other slaves are now cheaper as slave owners had to house and feed them - now slaves are in other countries and have to feed and house themselves.

    I have never dieted or entered a gym
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      May 10 2014: I trust I wasn't the old men you were referring too! But, when you address the current energy model as prehistoric and outdated is the sort of oxymoronic comment of someone with an agenda not a pragmatic view of current energy requirements. The current debate is a political ploy for power and economic gain. In the US alone, so called green industries have made more money from the US taxpayer then the Wall Street Bankers.
      As far as my personal difficulties with new stuff....
      I sit in my modest south Texas home with 4KW solar panels on the roof, 2 sky lites. solar shades on my low E windows, a timer on my water heater, and all led or cfl bulbs. My house is cooled and heated with a HE heat pump.
      and yes, trees can never get enough CO2,
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          May 11 2014: My avatar is take on my baby photo, some 8 decades ago....if it was current, I'd be way ahead of my time. My solar interest was not in any noble cause, it proved economically viable.
          The current energy model is not our collective poison, it is the pragmatic solution to a common problem.
          I am sorry that the concept of a modern culture is based on youthful exuberance Our culture began when we came out of the forests to form villages and tend to farms All that has happened since then is a bigger variety of toys for our amusement.
  • May 10 2014: Thanks for taking the time to put forward your balanced view Martin.
    I just object to politicians who know less than I do about science using the word truth in their speeches.

    I think that since thousands of people die on the planet from pollution every day and many more bring our health care to a grinding halt with environmental illnesses such as cancer, air, water and soil pollution are, as an example, a much more important and necessary problem to solve.

    So thousands of deaths can occur and be ignored while no one may die from climate change, human life is obviously not important to this agenda.
    The diversion, as I call it of Climate Change is much more sexy to spend our limited resources on.
  • May 10 2014: Thanks Carolyn, no I am not a scientist although I have studied Computer Science for the last few years. We can confuse scientists with technicians, the computer I am using was built by a technician. They can build the technology that we can admire, but remember that science has its roots in the Catholic Church and Islam as such has a incredible arrogance, considers itself as the only path to knowledge.
    As science considers itself subconsciously to be infallible it is beyond criticism, so anyone who analyses science is an unbeliever.
    My Grandfather was born in 1876, so him and I have lived in three centuries and had philosophical discussions he was what is termed a Greeniee so definitely a forward thinker for his time ( before Rachel Carson the scientist) although I am not a Greeniee.
    Scientists have been imprisoned in mental hospitals when their conclusions were radically different from the democracy of science, Issac Newton spent most of his life trying to find a code in the Bible. While Einstein was searching for a formula that would explain the universe, not realizing that mathematics, in what ever form cannot be reality but only indicate it, and as such is illusion.
    The theories are problematic, when a scientist recently stated that the aim of human evolution was to kill bacteria and there have been many, many statements and theories that are similar.
    I make the analogy that the purpose of a car is to wear out the tires. This is a fact cars do wear out tires, but is it the car's purpose?
    I would need to write a bevy of books which would explain my position, I just think that because science states that there are no such things as meteors because there are no rocks in the sky (as science once proclaimed) should not be taken as an infallible statement
    A scientist is a theorist who is (in my view entrapped in scientific ideology)
  • May 9 2014: The climate is, has, and always will be changing. The problem is twofold: First, we have been in a very, very mild climate for about the past 500 years. Unfortunately that also coincides with pretty much the entire written history of man, so we think its normal. Therefore any deviation is something bad and Man's fault.

    Second, the implication that we therefore 'must do something' is never questioned. Yes, whereever possible, we should reduce pollution, conserve water, clean the environment, etc. But at what cost? Are we to build seawalls around Florida because we humans were stupid enough to build cities on a coast that is only a few feet above sea level and in the path of hurricanes? Ban all forms of combustion because the byproducts heat the earth? How are we, in the US, supposed to make China follow the same rules on pollution - go to War?

    Examples of Good Environmentalism are banning CFC's, reducing non-biodegradable items such as disposable diapers, recycling and planting trees. Examples of Bad Environmentalism are Green Tax credits, and...err....anything Al Gore does. Except ManBearPig...he's totally right about ManBearPig.

    Otherwise, yes scientists make models, theories and experiments that don't always work or have an agenda. That does not mean we should stop trying to predict hurricanes. 'A few hundred years' is not the 'distant future' in the cosmic scale of things. Sure, technology might save us, but is that any reason to do stupid things in the mean time? If the changes prove too costly they won't be done. Meanwhile, it might be a better investment to spend that money on finding other worlds, getting mankind off this one pitiful rock, developing new clean energy sources, etc.

    I feel Climate Change is indeed a problem. Its just that its #37 on my list of things to fix, right after convincing stupid people not to breed and toilet-training my pet cat. If I can only get him to flush every time, I'll devote more time to this.
  • May 8 2014: Vince

    I don't know if you are aware of this and I do not particularity like links.
    The assertion of a man made climate catastrophe has as much credibility as the United Nations and Obama's . "You can keep your doctor" or Bush's weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or Bill Clinton's , "I did not have sex." or Bush's "read my lips"

    Here is the link----http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • May 8 2014: I have the objection that like Al Gore ( who as a politician is highly and amazingly respected in America NOT in Australia) uses the term Truth (an Inconvenient Truth) science uses fact to describe a theory of a computer scenario.
    If science had been honest and came out with a theory I and all thinkers would have accepted this.
    however we are told that these flimsy theories are facts and more importantly those who questioned these theories - questioned not opposed - were termed deniers, that is unbelievers.
    As Al Gore said "Climate Change is not a political issue" so the Labor Party in Australia did not bribe voters with $990 dollars, sourced from The Carbon Tax.
    • May 8 2014: Vince

      Al Gore is a joke here too. The globalists like him though.
  • May 8 2014: 50 years back if weather man say that it will rain today and it may or may not. But today people know that it will come true. Scientists have made many prediction and they have come true. They can put a vehicle on the surface pf Mars at close to where they say and they do.

    Every one agrees that we are not cook sure. But it is one of the more likely possibilities of many, I can teach blind an how to walk with a stick and he does pretty well. However he will not do as well as normal seeing man. Blind man is more likely to lose his way then normal seeing who can lose way also;

    I will take my chances with a stick then one who tells me you do not know that is sure so reject it.

    Rain come when they say, hurricane comes when they say at high confidence level. I can put a food in a container they say will prevent the spoilage of food for longer time and it works.

    You are not giving me nothing. No way to tomorrow. You say that guy is wrong. But you do not say what is the right answer.

    Best wishes
  • May 7 2014: You'd sound a lot less lunatic if you didn't insist upon capitalizing "scientists".
  • thumb
    May 7 2014: You make several good points on how man predicts the future. I am most amused about the final predictability of the climate change conversations. The Global Climate is a compulation of weather data from around the world. So, the global climate is only good to the last posting of data. So, like you I am questioning how one can project climate status our many years when we can barely predict weather out 3 days. More over, if we just control CO2, then the climate will mellow out. However, if I remember my early science class, plants live on CO2. Trees, flowers, broccoli, so if we have a higher CO2, wouldn't plants grow better? In my later science class, we learned that in the days of the dinosaurs. CO2 was much higher then now and the flora grew to impossible heights and dinosaurs grew to eat them.

    Yes, all the reads of the future, here are mine and I can say with all honesty they are just as good as anybody's guess,
    I can say to anyone, if you knew the future why didn't you win the lottery?

    Population will cap at about 10 billion, if we don't have some disaster first.
    People won't live much past 100 even if they could do more. It is really boring to live too long.
    We are in a age of transition from and industrial age to a technological age. transitions go on for decades, not weeks as some believe.
    The previous sub species of humans liven for about 150 K years before they died out, our subspecies has been here for about 50K, maybe these scientists should work on when our days are done and better people will populate the earth.