4 ms·

The problem with "climate science" is that so many things about it set off my internal BS detector. But on specifics, it would be good to get a clear answer to

by Tycho 10y ago

The problem with "climate science" is that so many things about it set off my internal BS detector. But on specifics, it would be good to get a clear answer to the question - how come CO2 concentration was much higher in several past periods and it didn't turn the Earth into a desert?

woodandsteel 10y ago
>But on specifics, it would be good to get a clear answer to the question - how come CO2 concentration was much higher in several past periods and it didn't turn the Earth into a desert? So are you saying that if you got a persuasive answer to that question, you would then be persuaded that human activity is causing global warming, at least to a considerable degree?
- Tycho 10y ago
  If there is not a good answer to that question, then I would reject the hypothesis outright. If there is a good answer, then I would accept it as a working hypothesis, unless any other screaming contradictions come up. I would also find it persuasive to see people with skin-in-the-game make informed decisions. For instance, selling off desirable waterfront properties because they believe rising sea levels will make them worthless within a century. But let's say 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, we have not observed any additional warming or maybe we've even had cooling. I would not be surprised. Whereas I imagine there would be a lot of people walking around thinking "How could 97% of scientists have been so wrong? How could so much well funded research produce the wrong conclusion?" They would struggle to integrate it into their worldview. (although I guess they would probably just say it's a temporary pause or something)
  - Oletros 10y ago
    > If there is not a good answer to that question, then I would reject the hypothesis outright. If there is a good answer, then I would accept it as a working hypothesis, unless any other screaming contradictions come up. So, you won't accept it in any case
    - Tycho 10y ago
      Why should I accept any hypothesis that hasn't be proven either by controlled experiment or logical/mathematical deduction? The only appropriate stance in such situations is "I currently think this hypothesis is likely/unlikely to be true" and act accordingly (in a risk-adjusted way) but keep an open mind. I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis?
      - Oletros 10y ago
        > Why should I accept any hypothesis that hasn't be proven either by controlled experiment or logical/mathematical deduction? The problem is that it has been proven but you don't accept the data > I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis? A compelling theory that can de3al with the actual data.
        Tycho 10y ago
        Well I guess we just have different standards of what makes something proven. To me there is hierarchy 1. Mathematical or logical proof 2. Proof by controlled, reproducible experiment 3. Proof by predictions bourne out reliably by observations We certainly don't have the first two here, and for the third, given the time frames, we find that predictions (from computer models) from the past have been wrong compared to realised events. But I suppose if backfitting a model is proof enough for you then you already have all you need.

by Tycho 10y ago

woodandsteel 10y ago

>But on specifics, it would be good to get a clear answer to the question - how come CO2 concentration was much higher in several past periods and it didn't turn the Earth into a desert? So are you saying that if you got a persuasive answer to that question, you would then be persuaded that human activity is causing global warming, at least to a considerable degree?

Tycho 10y ago
If there is not a good answer to that question, then I would reject the hypothesis outright. If there is a good answer, then I would accept it as a working hypothesis, unless any other screaming contradictions come up. I would also find it persuasive to see people with skin-in-the-game make informed decisions. For instance, selling off desirable waterfront properties because they believe rising sea levels will make them worthless within a century. But let's say 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, we have not observed any additional warming or maybe we've even had cooling. I would not be surprised. Whereas I imagine there would be a lot of people walking around thinking "How could 97% of scientists have been so wrong? How could so much well funded research produce the wrong conclusion?" They would struggle to integrate it into their worldview. (although I guess they would probably just say it's a temporary pause or something)
- Oletros 10y ago
  > If there is not a good answer to that question, then I would reject the hypothesis outright. If there is a good answer, then I would accept it as a working hypothesis, unless any other screaming contradictions come up. So, you won't accept it in any case
  - Tycho 10y ago
    Why should I accept any hypothesis that hasn't be proven either by controlled experiment or logical/mathematical deduction? The only appropriate stance in such situations is "I currently think this hypothesis is likely/unlikely to be true" and act accordingly (in a risk-adjusted way) but keep an open mind. I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis?
    - Oletros 10y ago
      > Why should I accept any hypothesis that hasn't be proven either by controlled experiment or logical/mathematical deduction? The problem is that it has been proven but you don't accept the data > I think it would be interesting to turn the question back on you: what evidence, if any, would convince you that the broad scientific community has been seriously wrong about AGW and that we are not facing any real crisis? A compelling theory that can de3al with the actual data.
      - Tycho 10y ago
        Well I guess we just have different standards of what makes something proven. To me there is hierarchy 1. Mathematical or logical proof 2. Proof by controlled, reproducible experiment 3. Proof by predictions bourne out reliably by observations We certainly don't have the first two here, and for the third, given the time frames, we find that predictions (from computer models) from the past have been wrong compared to realised events. But I suppose if backfitting a model is proof enough for you then you already have all you need.