As you said, who doesn't have an agenda ? I don't even think you have to be cynical to see the world that way. It's easy to see who might be pushing the "there's no climate change caused by humans" (or however you might want to summarize it) agenda. Big oil, "the establishment" etc. Who's pushing the other side ? It seems few could compete with the first, yet most news outlets appear to support the "climate change caused by humans" agenda. But I guess you could make that argument for the vaccination debate (big pharma vs ??), and thats real as well.
Why would "proof" be essential before considering action ? If there's a reasonable likelihood that the "climate change caused by humans" lobby is right and given the large amount of scientists that agrees with this hypothesis I think there is, should we not do something ? Maybe it's all a conspiracy but personally I don't want to take that risk.
If you can easily imagine that Big Oil, "the establishment" etc. is making money off it ... why not the "other" side? There's plenty of money in alternate stuff -- just ask the "non-GMO" folks, or the alt med crowd... Hopefully it's not something as petty as making sure your doctorate is topical... Tenure, bitches!
Climate change is not *caused* by humans, but *clearly* the industrial revolution has had a hand in tipping the scales of the natural progression.
But carbon offset credits tax whatever? No, that's just NOT a solution.
O, I accept that there is a possibility that the "Other side" might want to make money and distort the narrative. It's just not very convincing that this lies behind the "science" that claims that humans are causing problematic global warming. I don't want to make this any more political than necessary but 187 countries have ratified the Paris agreement, only Trump in his wisdom has pulled out because "he doesn't believe" in global warming (ok, and a bit more than that). 187 countries all fooled by the hippies, the commies, the non GMO lobby etc etc, only Trump has seen through it all ?? It is far far easier to believe that "big oil" etc are contaminating the narrative. But I think I'm open to listening to all arguments. I try to be anyway.
Carbon offset credits tax whatever ? Agreed that's probably not a solution, sounds more like something to get political brownie points, maybe something for (most of) the 187 climate accord ratifiers. But I think the "solution" starts at personal level. I really don't want to be telling people what they should or shouldn't do, however I do appreciate anybody that tries. Doing something is better than complaining at others and doing nothing.
these are honest..non-leading or pointed questions... (for anyone to answer)
#1 do you TRULY believe that humans will (or can) stop global warming?
and then....if you can accept that the planet has history of heating and cooling throughout its history....
#2 do you think there may be blowback or potential ramifications of breaking that natural cycle?
#3 do you feel humans as a whole are smarter than the lump of chemical/physical reactions that we call "mother nature"?
and then...
#4 what causeD the previous ice ages to start...and stop... the previous dozen plus times that happened?
(for background.. we have not have a true ice age since western industrialization)
Last edited by elguapo on Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you "doubt" and you think you are in the middle? You are not. You are on the fringe. Looking at two opinions as equal regardless of merit is a false equivalency. Systematic study and use of science is literally the only way we can figure this thing out.
If you feel sad because someone calls you out on your lack of scientific knowledge (yet call other people alarmists), then do not think you are being attacked. It is just a reasonable judgment of skill or lack thereof. It is fine we all have to work on something.
If you claim that a range of predictions means it is not valid, then you just proved that you do not, in fact, understand forecasts.
If you believe anyone can answer a complex scientific problem, despite having absolutely no background or expertise in an area you are delusional. Imagine someone coming into your job, with no experience or knowledge of your field and try to do your job..
These users thanked the author tautologies for the post (total 2):
Systematic study and use of science is literally the only way we can figure this thing out.
Agreed. Lets stop blacklisting those with contrary views and evidence. When data does not fit your narrative, investigate it instead of covering it up. Lets do science the way it is meant to be done - without the politics.
If you feel sad because someone calls you out on your lack of scientific knowledge (yet call other people alarmists), then do not think you are being attacked. It is just a reasonable judgment of skill or lack thereof. It is fine we all have to work on something.
If you claim that a range of predictions means it is not valid, then you just proved that you do not, in fact, understand forecasts.
If you believe anyone can answer a complex scientific problem, despite having absolutely no background or expertise in an area you are delusional.
Dunning-Kruger effect in full bloom here. If you do not understand scientific processes, you'd better get to it.
You do know it works both ways, right? In fact, the chief property of this effect is a unwavering belief that YOU would never be the subject of this effect. Now ask yourself, 'is it possible that you are the subject of this effect?'
Imagine someone coming into your job, with no experience or knowledge of your field and try to do your job..
That's what Bernie Madoff said when the feds raided him! The feds had no idea how to keep a Ponzi scheme going. But they still came in there and told him what to do. Heck, they even hauled Bernie off! Maybe that is what we need in the ScientifPolitico establishment. - See, I stooped to your level and now we are both guilty of a false equivalency. Then again, my analogy seems more accurate that not.
If you "doubt" and you think you are in the middle? You are not. You are on the fringe. Looking at two opinions as equal regardless of merit is a false equivalency. Systematic study and use of science is literally the only way we can figure this thing out.
If you feel sad because someone calls you out on your lack of scientific knowledge (yet call other people alarmists), then do not think you are being attacked. It is just a reasonable judgment of skill or lack thereof. It is fine we all have to work on something.
If you claim that a range of predictions means it is not valid, then you just proved that you do not, in fact, understand forecasts.
If you believe anyone can answer a complex scientific problem, despite having absolutely no background or expertise in an area you are delusional. Imagine someone coming into your job, with no experience or knowledge of your field and try to do your job..
Also, the 97% is the consensus in the climate science community, not the larger science community. I don't know what this number is and don't care to look it up.
O, I accept that there is a possibility that the "Other side" might want to make money and distort the narrative. It's just not very convincing that this lies behind the "science" that claims that humans are causing problematic global warming. I don't want to make this any more political than necessary but 187 countries have ratified the Paris agreement, only Trump in his wisdom has pulled out because "he doesn't believe" in global warming (ok, and a bit more than that). 187 countries all fooled by the hippies, the commies, the non GMO lobby etc etc, only Trump has seen through it all ?? It is far far easier to believe that "big oil" etc are contaminating the narrative. But I think I'm open to listening to all arguments. I try to be anyway.
Carbon offset credits tax whatever ? Agreed that's probably not a solution, sounds more like something to get political brownie points, maybe something for (most of) the 187 climate accord ratifiers. But I think the "solution" starts at personal level. I really don't want to be telling people what they should or shouldn't do, however I do appreciate anybody that tries. Doing something is better than complaining at others and doing nothing.
As usual, it's how some people present the science that makes the problem.
Paris Accord smacks of political window dressing to me, like the brownie points/guilt assuagement of carbon offsets.
According to ER, the solution both does and doesn't start at the personal level perhaps confusion is their agenda...
If you "doubt" and you think you are in the middle? You are not. You are on the fringe. Looking at two opinions as equal regardless of merit is a false equivalency. Systematic study and use of science is literally the only way we can figure this thing out.
If you feel sad because someone calls you out on your lack of scientific knowledge (yet call other people alarmists), then do not think you are being attacked. It is just a reasonable judgment of skill or lack thereof. It is fine we all have to work on something.
If you claim that a range of predictions means it is not valid, then you just proved that you do not, in fact, understand forecasts.
If you believe anyone can answer a complex scientific problem, despite having absolutely no background or expertise in an area you are delusional. Imagine someone coming into your job, with no experience or knowledge of your field and try to do your job..
This directed at me? I'll respond anyway.
Doubt is not skepticism. Systematic study and use of scientific method IS the only way to figure it out, and the beginning of that is skepticism. It's literally just asking the next question.
"Here is a fact."
"That's an interesting fact. How do we know that's a fact?" = a skeptic being skeptical.
Compare with what you seem to believe a skeptic is doing:
"Here is a fact."
"I don't believe you." = not a skeptic.
Pointing out the holes in the science or methodology is not being a denier.
Also, the 97% is the consensus in the climate science community, not the larger science community. I don't know what this number is and don't care to look it up.
Can't tell if that's satire or not...
Cook (the paper which originated the recent 97% meme) literally used papers outside the climate science community and is only a consensus at 97% within papers that endorsed the consensus opinion on AGW -- 2/3 of the papers Cook polled expressed no position. At all.
The problem there is the reductionist nature of the Cook statement -- there's none of the nuance from the actual papers studied or even the paper itself.
And there is still debate within the climate science community over the details ... ie. skepticism
Also, the 97% is the consensus in the climate science community, not the larger science community. I don't know what this number is and don't care to look it up.
Can't tell if that's satire or not...
Cook (the paper which originated the recent 97% meme) literally used papers outside the climate science community and is only a consensus at 97% within papers that endorsed the consensus opinion on AGW -- 2/3 of the papers Cook polled expressed no position. At all.
The problem there is the reductionist nature of the Cook statement -- there's none of the nuance from the actual papers studied or even the paper itself.
And there is still debate within the climate science community over the details ... ie. skepticism
I actually hadn't bothered. I assumed it would be close to the 97% figure in the bio and above sciences due my ancedotal findings (e.g., "hey fuckface, AGW - true or false?"). This is a limited sample size limited to my social circle, so not a great reference.
Out of curiosity, did you read the rest of the wikipedia article? I'm not sure it's a great example to support your argument, other than the bit about the Cook paper "controversy".
To be perfectly honest, I haven't read the full Cook paper or his followup, but the abstract method seemed a bit wonky when I read it a while ago, so I discounted it and went to do something else. I'd need to read it again to whether I would suggest using it as an example of the 97% consensus paper list. If you're interested in reading it yourself, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 8/2/024024.
Also, the 97% is the consensus in the climate science community, not the larger science community. I don't know what this number is and don't care to look it up.
Can't tell if that's satire or not...
Cook (the paper which originated the recent 97% meme) literally used papers outside the climate science community and is only a consensus at 97% within papers that endorsed the consensus opinion on AGW -- 2/3 of the papers Cook polled expressed no position. At all.
The problem there is the reductionist nature of the Cook statement -- there's none of the nuance from the actual papers studied or even the paper itself.
And there is still debate within the climate science community over the details ... ie. skepticism
I actually hadn't bothered. I assumed it would be close to the 97% figure in the bio and above sciences due my ancedotal findings (e.g., "hey fuckface, AGW - true or false?"). This is a limited sample size limited to my social circle, so not a great reference.
Out of curiosity, did you read the rest of the wikipedia article? I'm not sure it's a great example to support your argument, other than the bit about the Cook paper "controversy".
To be perfectly honest, I haven't read the full Cook paper or his followup, but the abstract method seemed a bit wonky when I read it a while ago, so I discounted it and went to do something else. I'd need to read it again to whether I would suggest using it as an example of the 97% consensus paper list. If you're interested in reading it yourself, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 8/2/024024.
My focus was on the Cook paper as the origin of the 97% meme and because it's clear that the conclusion relied on bad presentation of the data. A few of those other papers on that list appear guilty of the same reductionist statistical hedging too.
But even if mankind were 100% not guilty for GW, surely we'd want to do something to combat the change? I mean, aside from dancing in the streets, glueing yourself to the floor and doing fishy statistics...
perhaps confusion is their agenda...