8 ms·

That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong. What I do wonder is what it

That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong. What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong?

geekpowa 9y ago
And what would it take for a climate alarmist to admit they are wrong? With respect, this sort of questioning is tedious and only serves to try and shutdown discussion. Mann's name against this synopsis is really remarkable given his relentless and unyielding rejection of anything that contradicts his held position on climate change being dangerous and imminent. Specifically this very claim that models to not replicate/overstate warming that is observed is something he has spoken out on often. e.g. a paper he co-authors (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abst...) seeks to square the circle between models and observations. I wonder to what extent the synopsis captures the content of the paper itself or if it is another paper that seeks to explain variation according to Mann's strong preference towards a more aggressive characterisation of climate change effects & impacts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Turing_Machine 9y ago
"That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong." Correct. Keep that in mind the next time you hear someone say "the science is settled".
danjoc 9y ago
>What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong? Mann is the fundamental reason "deniers" exist. He produced a model that produced hockey stick graphs with random data. Instead of distancing themselves from Mann, the community (IPCC) fanatically attacked anyone who pointed out the emperor had no clothes. The term "denier" popped out of that politicized controversy. You're still fighting the lost cause by using it. Mann is admitting he was wrong. You're unable to do the same. He should have just said "Oops" in 2003. He had a bug in his program. While it would have been a bit of egg on his face (and the IPCC for publishing), we all understand bugs in code. Instead, he clung to it, hoping observations would match his predictions anyway. This gave his political enemies all the ammunition needed to properly smear the entire scientific community who backed him. We fixed CFCs. We fixed acid rain. Mann, and the IPCC's refusal to disavow him, is the reason there is even a debate anymore. Dogma is the enemy, not the skeptics. Skeptics are a healthy part of the scientific process.

geekpowa 9y ago

And what would it take for a climate alarmist to admit they are wrong? With respect, this sort of questioning is tedious and only serves to try and shutdown discussion. Mann's name against this synopsis is really remarkable given his relentless and unyielding rejection of anything that contradicts his held position on climate change being dangerous and imminent. Specifically this very claim that models to not replicate/overstate warming that is observed is something he has spoken out on often. e.g. a paper he co-authors (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abst...) seeks to square the circle between models and observations. I wonder to what extent the synopsis captures the content of the paper itself or if it is another paper that seeks to explain variation according to Mann's strong preference towards a more aggressive characterisation of climate change effects & impacts.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Turing_Machine 9y ago

"That is the difference between religion and science. It is the very fundamental base of science to be able to be falsifiably wrong." Correct. Keep that in mind the next time you hear someone say "the science is settled".

danjoc 9y ago

>What I do wonder is what it would take for climate change deniers to admit being wrong? Mann is the fundamental reason "deniers" exist. He produced a model that produced hockey stick graphs with random data. Instead of distancing themselves from Mann, the community (IPCC) fanatically attacked anyone who pointed out the emperor had no clothes. The term "denier" popped out of that politicized controversy. You're still fighting the lost cause by using it. Mann is admitting he was wrong. You're unable to do the same. He should have just said "Oops" in 2003. He had a bug in his program. While it would have been a bit of egg on his face (and the IPCC for publishing), we all understand bugs in code. Instead, he clung to it, hoping observations would match his predictions anyway. This gave his political enemies all the ammunition needed to properly smear the entire scientific community who backed him. We fixed CFCs. We fixed acid rain. Mann, and the IPCC's refusal to disavow him, is the reason there is even a debate anymore. Dogma is the enemy, not the skeptics. Skeptics are a healthy part of the scientific process.