26 ms·

How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods? In the relevant

by acqq 11y ago

How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods? In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that all are "influenced" by just one person. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar findings, nobody would accept his work as serious: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them can't even make the basic assumptions right. So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international organization of scientists who work on these topics. See their procedures: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtm... Then see their last report, on the level you can probably understand, but with a lot of fine details: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Specifically, start from the summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FIN... Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.

lr4444lr 11y ago
You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.
- acqq 11y ago
  > What I see published for the general audience however, (...) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. Red herring, it's not about any person. It's about the scientific process. This is for general audience which was exposed to the claims "it's just sun" or the variations: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor... I agree that there are people who don't understand how science works (that is, they are effectively illiterate for basic scientific methods and facts), so I always try to explain them the basics of science first. Somebody who believes Earth existed for just 6000 years doesn't even know what science is all about, so you can't even expect him to plan more than until the imminent judgement day, oh happy day (sadly, there are actual influential US politicians who said such things). I start explaining such person that without using the same scientific principles, the mobile phone they carry around wouldn't be possible (just for GPS, the satellites have to carry atomic clocks and the formulas that are used every time have to consider both special and general relativity). Science works. Otherwise, how can you even talk about the fact that we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now (see the chart, max around 300, now we're already at 400 ppm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period And how we know? The same way we know how to make GPS. Science. And it's nothing US-based, there are other countries very capable of the best science. You know, countries able to send the probe to the comet. Once somebody understands the basics, the start about climate should be learning about IPCC, the process and conclusions.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > Science works. "Science" is not one thing. It works with very different accuracies and predictive powers in different disciplines. The science that makes your mobile phone and GPS work is nailed down by massive amounts of data and controlled experiments confirming theories to many decimal places. That's why those things work so well and so precisely. Climate science is nowhere near that accurate--not by many orders of magnitude. So if you are telling people that they should believe climate science with the same confidence that they should believe the science that makes their mobile phone and GPS work, you are giving them serious misinformation. > we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now Yes. And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the last few hundred million years were much higher than now. What we don't know is how the climate works to a sufficient accuracy to bet trillions of dollars on particular predictions about what effect rising CO2 levels now are going to have.
snickerdoodles 11y ago
Right, because no large group of people could ever be wrong...
reitanqild 11y ago
Thanks a whole lot. Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers to a report instead of handwaving about how 2500 scientists cannot be wrong. Now we are talking! Edit: still ain't completely sold. Anyone has pointers to why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago or can prove that this is wrong?
- acqq 11y ago
  > why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago That what you name "significantly" was during the change of the parts of degrees C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period Compare to IPPC estimates: two whole degrees change are the most optimistic expectations and assume almost no use of fossil fuels in future, compared to now. > Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers See my other comment here, I also give the link to the raw data and the programs of the models too. And the books that teach the basic formulas involved. It is all real, and the effective consensus of the scientists is not accidental. There's immense scientific work on one side, almost no scientific work on another, and people have the impression that it's 50:50 only because the other side gets so much "air time." See also how that other side is really the one which effectively lives from being there: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-c...
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    Thanks again. You did something right that I can't remember having seen before in the threads I have participated in. Now that I have hopefully established myself as an uninformed but intelligent sceptic, not denier, here are two pointers as to why the explanation kind of worked this time: * links to the actual report, and the intro part. Most people, even in technical forums, assumes malice right away, starts telling me how "2500 scientists can't be wrong" and that I should read the report, all while leaving me with a not-so-subtle feeling that they never read it themselves. * actually, to a degree at least, answer my question about Greenland instead of immediately assuming malice and bringing out the troll hunting gear. This is, IIRC, the first time I have seen a serious answer that partly covers that question. On my side I might read a bit more in the report, note one AGW person who isn't all torch and pitchforks and possibly change my mind. (I already live kind of carefully but because I don't like wasting resources, not because I have believed in AGW so far.)

by acqq 11y ago

lr4444lr 11y ago

You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.

acqq 11y ago
> What I see published for the general audience however, (...) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. Red herring, it's not about any person. It's about the scientific process. This is for general audience which was exposed to the claims "it's just sun" or the variations: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor... I agree that there are people who don't understand how science works (that is, they are effectively illiterate for basic scientific methods and facts), so I always try to explain them the basics of science first. Somebody who believes Earth existed for just 6000 years doesn't even know what science is all about, so you can't even expect him to plan more than until the imminent judgement day, oh happy day (sadly, there are actual influential US politicians who said such things). I start explaining such person that without using the same scientific principles, the mobile phone they carry around wouldn't be possible (just for GPS, the satellites have to carry atomic clocks and the formulas that are used every time have to consider both special and general relativity). Science works. Otherwise, how can you even talk about the fact that we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now (see the chart, max around 300, now we're already at 400 ppm). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period And how we know? The same way we know how to make GPS. Science. And it's nothing US-based, there are other countries very capable of the best science. You know, countries able to send the probe to the comet. Once somebody understands the basics, the start about climate should be learning about IPCC, the process and conclusions.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > Science works. "Science" is not one thing. It works with very different accuracies and predictive powers in different disciplines. The science that makes your mobile phone and GPS work is nailed down by massive amounts of data and controlled experiments confirming theories to many decimal places. That's why those things work so well and so precisely. Climate science is nowhere near that accurate--not by many orders of magnitude. So if you are telling people that they should believe climate science with the same confidence that they should believe the science that makes their mobile phone and GPS work, you are giving them serious misinformation. > we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower than now Yes. And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the last few hundred million years were much higher than now. What we don't know is how the climate works to a sufficient accuracy to bet trillions of dollars on particular predictions about what effect rising CO2 levels now are going to have.

snickerdoodles 11y ago

Right, because no large group of people could ever be wrong...

reitanqild 11y ago

Thanks a whole lot. Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers to a report instead of handwaving about how 2500 scientists cannot be wrong. Now we are talking! Edit: still ain't completely sold. Anyone has pointers to why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago or can prove that this is wrong?

acqq 11y ago
> why there was significantly less ice around Greenland about a 1000 years ago That what you name "significantly" was during the change of the parts of degrees C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period Compare to IPPC estimates: two whole degrees change are the most optimistic expectations and assume almost no use of fossil fuels in future, compared to now. > Finally someone gave me a link and some pointers See my other comment here, I also give the link to the raw data and the programs of the models too. And the books that teach the basic formulas involved. It is all real, and the effective consensus of the scientists is not accidental. There's immense scientific work on one side, almost no scientific work on another, and people have the impression that it's 50:50 only because the other side gets so much "air time." See also how that other side is really the one which effectively lives from being there: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-c...
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Thanks again. You did something right that I can't remember having seen before in the threads I have participated in. Now that I have hopefully established myself as an uninformed but intelligent sceptic, not denier, here are two pointers as to why the explanation kind of worked this time: * links to the actual report, and the intro part. Most people, even in technical forums, assumes malice right away, starts telling me how "2500 scientists can't be wrong" and that I should read the report, all while leaving me with a not-so-subtle feeling that they never read it themselves. * actually, to a degree at least, answer my question about Greenland instead of immediately assuming malice and bringing out the troll hunting gear. This is, IIRC, the first time I have seen a serious answer that partly covers that question. On my side I might read a bit more in the report, note one AGW person who isn't all torch and pitchforks and possibly change my mind. (I already live kind of carefully but because I don't like wasting resources, not because I have believed in AGW so far.)