Climate science, by its nature, is a multidisciplinary field. It marries the knowledge from oceanography, meteorology, geology, and yes, even astrophysics to some extent—given that solar radiation is a key driver of Earth's climate. However, the core of climate science revolves around Earth's atmospheric processes and how they interact with various terrestrial and oceanic systems.
Astrophysics, on the other hand, is the study of celestial bodies and phenomena occurring far beyond Earth's atmosphere. While it's true that astrophysical phenomena like solar cycles and cosmic radiation can have an effect on Earth's climate, these are often secondary or tertiary influences when compared to more proximate factors like greenhouse gas emissions and albedo changes.
Thus, dismissing climate models as "junk science" for not heavily featuring astrophysics is akin to dismissing the expertise of a cardiac surgeon because they don't also perform neurosurgery.
Lastly, to borrow a Pascal's Wager argument form, what exactly is the cost of being wrong in either case, here? Do you know it? Can you calculate it with any certainty?
Note: Every paragraph but the last one was selected by me from a ChatGPT4 answer regarding this. I strongly believe in the potential of LLM's to massively, and one day hopefully automatically, refute disinformation
It’s a field that considers the thermal radiation of the sun to be a constant. Additionally, variations in the Earth’s magnetosphere and the Sun’s heliosphere can cause big variations in how much thermal radiation is received by Earth. Things your “multidisciplinary field” is completely silent on/blind to, choosing only to focus on a gas that occupies 0.04% of our atmosphere. IOW 100% hogwash.
Well, "I'm right because carefully cherry-picked opinion and misleading statistics agree with me" is arguably worse.
Tell me, would you use the same "reasoning" applied to literally anything else? Will you be taking up a cigar habit in the defense of Ronald Fisher, literally the "father of modern statistics", who disputed the link between smoking and cancer? https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics... While doing this, will you turn a blind eye to the evidence that corporate interests had in maintaining doubt (in this case, it would be tobacco companies, but in the OP case, oil companies)? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2879177/ Or will you stop wearing seatbelts because of some niche cases of it preventing people from escaping submerged vehicles? https://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-reg...
What's the potential cost of you being right vs. the cost of you being wrong? Can you even calculate it with any certainty? Do you know which groups of people it might impact? Do you know what parts will be irreversible? Or are you just another armchair rabblerouser whose day job is... Not remotely connected to studying this stuff at least 8/5?
Yikes. You've gone totally off the rails. Have your handler review your prompting... 10 questions in a row with not a coherent thread connecting them does not a meaningful comment make.
Astrophysics, on the other hand, is the study of celestial bodies and phenomena occurring far beyond Earth's atmosphere. While it's true that astrophysical phenomena like solar cycles and cosmic radiation can have an effect on Earth's climate, these are often secondary or tertiary influences when compared to more proximate factors like greenhouse gas emissions and albedo changes.
Thus, dismissing climate models as "junk science" for not heavily featuring astrophysics is akin to dismissing the expertise of a cardiac surgeon because they don't also perform neurosurgery.
Lastly, to borrow a Pascal's Wager argument form, what exactly is the cost of being wrong in either case, here? Do you know it? Can you calculate it with any certainty?
Note: Every paragraph but the last one was selected by me from a ChatGPT4 answer regarding this. I strongly believe in the potential of LLM's to massively, and one day hopefully automatically, refute disinformation