AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM- as a trained astrophysicist, surely you should know all about consensus in science and how it doesn't work like that.
It does work like that actually. Science works by people creating papers (and 'letters') and publishing these in journals via a peer review process. Much of this research is wrong, either dropping out at the peer review stage, or proved wrong later by other papers. That's not a problem, it's just how the system works. As such, you can't figure out how something works by reading a single, or even a few, papers; especially not if it's not an area you're familiar with. You need to understand the topic to a very high level and be familiar with most of the research in that area - that is called expert consensus and it's how 'textbook' scientific knowledge is gained.One common problem with how the public interact with science is that because many papers are misleading or wrong, it's possible to read into a subject with an inherent bias and choose papers that support one's view; almost any view in fact. This is how creationists peddle their nonsense. This is why expert consensus is the only sensible way for laymen (as we all are on this thread) to figure out where the balance of evidence lies. As has been posted earlier, the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW is that it is true.
You kind of make it sound as if 'textbook' knowledge means it's the final piece of the puzzle. It's concrete, because it's in the textbook. Can you give me ONE single field of science (or anything) where 'textbook' knowledge is absolute? As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist.
Climate change, to which humanity does play a part, is real. It's true extent however is unknown. So, yes, AGW is true.
Do I agree with consensus? If the criteria is set as such that 'does humanity have some impact on the climate and environment', then yes.
But what most of us question though is the validity of some of the science involved, some of the practices by the scientists(in some cases they're not), blatant disregard for scientific method, the alarmist rhetoric peddled by the media and governments, and the obvious agenda driven nonsense.
stew-STR160 said:
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM- as a trained astrophysicist, surely you should know all about consensus in science and how it doesn't work like that.
It does work like that actually. Science works by people creating papers (and 'letters') and publishing these in journals via a peer review process. Much of this research is wrong, either dropping out at the peer review stage, or proved wrong later by other papers. That's not a problem, it's just how the system works. As such, you can't figure out how something works by reading a single, or even a few, papers; especially not if it's not an area you're familiar with. You need to understand the topic to a very high level and be familiar with most of the research in that area - that is called expert consensus and it's how 'textbook' scientific knowledge is gained.One common problem with how the public interact with science is that because many papers are misleading or wrong, it's possible to read into a subject with an inherent bias and choose papers that support one's view; almost any view in fact. This is how creationists peddle their nonsense. This is why expert consensus is the only sensible way for laymen (as we all are on this thread) to figure out where the balance of evidence lies. As has been posted earlier, the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW is that it is true.
You kind of make it sound as if 'textbook' knowledge means it's the final piece of the puzzle. It's concrete, because it's in the textbook. Can you give me ONE single field of science (or anything) where 'textbook' knowledge is absolute? As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist.
Climate change, to which humanity does play a part, is real. It's true extent however is unknown. So, yes, AGW is true.
Do I agree with consensus? If the criteria is set as such that 'does humanity have some impact on the climate and environment', then yes.
But what most of us question though is the validity of some of the science involved, some of the practices by the scientists(in some cases they're not), blatant disregard for scientific method, the alarmist rhetoric peddled by the media and governments, and the obvious agenda driven nonsense.
stew-STR160 said:
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM- as a trained astrophysicist, surely you should know all about consensus in science and how it doesn't work like that.
It does work like that actually. Science works by people creating papers (and 'letters') and publishing these in journals via a peer review process. Much of this research is wrong, either dropping out at the peer review stage, or proved wrong later by other papers. That's not a problem, it's just how the system works. As such, you can't figure out how something works by reading a single, or even a few, papers; especially not if it's not an area you're familiar with. You need to understand the topic to a very high level and be familiar with most of the research in that area - that is called expert consensus and it's how 'textbook' scientific knowledge is gained.One common problem with how the public interact with science is that because many papers are misleading or wrong, it's possible to read into a subject with an inherent bias and choose papers that support one's view; almost any view in fact. This is how creationists peddle their nonsense. This is why expert consensus is the only sensible way for laymen (as we all are on this thread) to figure out where the balance of evidence lies. As has been posted earlier, the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW is that it is true.
You kind of make it sound as if 'textbook' knowledge means it's the final piece of the puzzle. It's concrete, because it's in the textbook. Can you give me ONE single field of science (or anything) where 'textbook' knowledge is absolute? As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist.
Climate change, to which humanity does play a part, is real. It's true extent however is unknown. So, yes, AGW is true.
Do I agree with consensus? If the criteria is set as such that 'does humanity have some impact on the climate and environment', then yes.
But what most of us question though is the validity of some of the science involved, some of the practices by the scientists(in some cases they're not), blatant disregard for scientific method, the alarmist rhetoric peddled by the media and governments, and the obvious agenda driven nonsense.
kerplunk said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM- as a trained astrophysicist, surely you should know all about consensus in science and how it doesn't work like that.
It does work like that actually. Science works by people creating papers (and 'letters') and publishing these in journals via a peer review process. Much of this research is wrong, either dropping out at the peer review stage, or proved wrong later by other papers. That's not a problem, it's just how the system works. As such, you can't figure out how something works by reading a single, or even a few, papers; especially not if it's not an area you're familiar with. You need to understand the topic to a very high level and be familiar with most of the research in that area - that is called expert consensus and it's how 'textbook' scientific knowledge is gained.One common problem with how the public interact with science is that because many papers are misleading or wrong, it's possible to read into a subject with an inherent bias and choose papers that support one's view; almost any view in fact. This is how creationists peddle their nonsense. This is why expert consensus is the only sensible way for laymen (as we all are on this thread) to figure out where the balance of evidence lies. As has been posted earlier, the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW is that it is true.
You kind of make it sound as if 'textbook' knowledge means it's the final piece of the puzzle. It's concrete, because it's in the textbook. Can you give me ONE single field of science (or anything) where 'textbook' knowledge is absolute? As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist.
Climate change, to which humanity does play a part, is real. It's true extent however is unknown. So, yes, AGW is true.
Do I agree with consensus? If the criteria is set as such that 'does humanity have some impact on the climate and environment', then yes.
But what most of us question though is the validity of some of the science involved, some of the practices by the scientists(in some cases they're not), blatant disregard for scientific method, the alarmist rhetoric peddled by the media and governments, and the obvious agenda driven nonsense.
A point I've made several times that they ignore. Kind of convenient that these mistakes they're all accusing scientists of all add up in one direction isn't it? The truth of course is that science is very conservative and historically, AGW has been underestimated, not overestimated:https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/...
https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-conse...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/climate-changin...
https://www.uni-bonn.de/Press-releases/climate-cha...
Obviously the likes of Nature, Scientific American, Universities etc are really unreliable sources. No doubt someone will be along soon with some links to the Daily Mail.
Furthermore, there's actually a motive to cover up AGW, especially in the US where many climate scientists have recently lost their jobs for saying that AGW is real. This is the great irony in AGW denial: there is actually a cover up, in the US at least, but it's the opposite of what these denialists are claiming!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul...
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/trump_administ...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/31/trumps-shadow...
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 4th December 11:21
kerplunk said:
jinx is very open-minded - in an 'anything but CO2' type way 
I have frequently quoted I have no probelm with the theoretical 1 degree warming per doubling of CO2 concentration in dry air. I have far more objections to unsupported catastrophic doom mongering that isn't in the IPCC AR5 or likely to be in AR6. I'm not very keen on this post title to be honest. It suggests that only one viewpoint is scientific whereas actually opponents tend to also use science results and alternative theories , at least in specific examples. In fact the whole first post seemed to smack of "I'm right and they're wrong" whilst trying to make a political or religious connection, ie beliefs.
So ironically it was not very scientific.
Personally I generally favour AGW being an issue and something we need to reduce. I also think it is non-trivial. However I do take the estimates and models with a pinch of salt, it is an ongoing problem and difficult to actually quantify and model ; also both scientists and politicians have not helped themselves over time with predictions that have subsequently had to be corrected.
It's rather different now to when quantum mechanics was being worked out back in the day, that was rather a big discussion point but just done among scientists and mathematicians using letters etc, so the general great unwashed was not putting their tuppence in every day. Times change !
Finally AGW should not become such a focus that other issues, such as biodiversity and habitat loss are in effect ignored. No point having a nice cool planet if we are all alone on it.
So ironically it was not very scientific.
Personally I generally favour AGW being an issue and something we need to reduce. I also think it is non-trivial. However I do take the estimates and models with a pinch of salt, it is an ongoing problem and difficult to actually quantify and model ; also both scientists and politicians have not helped themselves over time with predictions that have subsequently had to be corrected.
It's rather different now to when quantum mechanics was being worked out back in the day, that was rather a big discussion point but just done among scientists and mathematicians using letters etc, so the general great unwashed was not putting their tuppence in every day. Times change !
Finally AGW should not become such a focus that other issues, such as biodiversity and habitat loss are in effect ignored. No point having a nice cool planet if we are all alone on it.
Chester35 said:
I'm not very keen on this post title to be honest. It suggests that only one viewpoint is scientific whereas actually opponents tend to also use science results and alternative theories , at least in specific examples. In fact the whole first post seemed to smack of "I'm right and they're wrong" whilst trying to make a political or religious connection, ie beliefs.
Smearing people who doubt your conclusions is "science" now. "Post normal".grumbledoak said:
Chester35 said:
I'm not very keen on this post title to be honest. It suggests that only one viewpoint is scientific whereas actually opponents tend to also use science results and alternative theories , at least in specific examples. In fact the whole first post seemed to smack of "I'm right and they're wrong" whilst trying to make a political or religious connection, ie beliefs.
Smearing people who doubt your conclusions is "science" now. "Post normal".Would be a good thing to do a a degree on, covers a lot of intertwining topics and areas.
I have a geographical bent on this, but you may be bored to tears, so I will save it for when most people on here have come back from the pub.
Edited by Chester35 on Wednesday 4th December 13:35
Chester35 said:
I don't recall such "enthusiasm"for other items such as acid rain or the ozone hole or various other issues which were caused / aggravated by humans when I was young, itwould be interesting to know why. Is it a case of the science is not as good, or the more prosaic "It's going to cost me money! "?
Would be a good thing to do a a degree on, covers a lot of intertwining topics and areas.
CO2 is a byproduct of life and commercial activity. CFC, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are only byproducts of specific commercial activities that substitutes can be found for. The solutions were limited in impact and were not more damaging than the symptoms. Unlike the AGW.Would be a good thing to do a a degree on, covers a lot of intertwining topics and areas.
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
As per the other posts, it would be that you can't argue against CAGW as you're not qualified to, but you can agree with it. How does that even make any sense?
It makes sense because I'm simply backing the expert consensus. You're making a statement that goes against the overwhelming majority of experts.This reminds of Brexit discussions. Because financial experts have been wrong a few times, let's say 1% of the time, that makes people assume they're going to be wrong about something in the future, purely because they want them to be. It's highly selective hindsight applied to the future with a bias.
TX.
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
RobM- as a trained astrophysicist, surely you should know all about consensus in science and how it doesn't work like that.
It does work like that actually. Science works by people creating papers (and 'letters') and publishing these in journals via a peer review process. Much of this research is wrong, either dropping out at the peer review stage, or proved wrong later by other papers. That's not a problem, it's just how the system works. As such, you can't figure out how something works by reading a single, or even a few, papers; especially not if it's not an area you're familiar with. You need to understand the topic to a very high level and be familiar with most of the research in that area - that is called expert consensus and it's how 'textbook' scientific knowledge is gained.One common problem with how the public interact with science is that because many papers are misleading or wrong, it's possible to read into a subject with an inherent bias and choose papers that support one's view; almost any view in fact. This is how creationists peddle their nonsense. This is why expert consensus is the only sensible way for laymen (as we all are on this thread) to figure out where the balance of evidence lies. As has been posted earlier, the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW is that it is true.
You kind of make it sound as if 'textbook' knowledge means it's the final piece of the puzzle. It's concrete, because it's in the textbook. Can you give me ONE single field of science (or anything) where 'textbook' knowledge is absolute? As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist.
Climate change, to which humanity does play a part, is real. It's true extent however is unknown. So, yes, AGW is true.
Do I agree with consensus? If the criteria is set as such that 'does humanity have some impact on the climate and environment', then yes.
But what most of us question though is the validity of some of the science involved, some of the practices by the scientists(in some cases they're not), blatant disregard for scientific method, the alarmist rhetoric peddled by the media and governments, and the obvious agenda driven nonsense.
TX.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
jinx is very open-minded - in an 'anything but CO2' type way
I have frequently quoted I have no probelm with the theoretical 1 degree warming per doubling of CO2 concentration in dry air. I have far more objections to unsupported catastrophic doom mongering that isn't in the IPCC AR5 or likely to be in AR6. Chester35 said:
I don't recall such "enthusiasm"for other items such as acid rain or the ozone hole or various other issues which were caused / aggravated by humans when I was young, itwould be interesting to know why. Is it a case of the science is not as good, or the more prosaic "It's going to cost me money! "?
Acid rain had a reasonably well understood local effect and we can, and did, change our behaviour to mitigate.I'm not sure the ozone hole has gone away. We made some changes but as I understand it the hole is still there, waxing and waning. Maybe it is natural and our actions never were causal? Who knows. The main changes seem to have been 1) when we discovered it, and 2) when the press stopped reporting on it.
Man Made Global Warming is different. The Global nature suggests global solutions. Politicians were quick to see it as a massive lever to massive power. I think they had been waiting for something like it for a while, and then along came a hypothesis. And it got ugly and tribal and corrupt, like everything else that attracts the interest of politics and politicians.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff