6 ms·

Everything today in "science" is just based off of pretty charts and cartoon graphics. That's their "proof". The hottest I've been in was in Sep. 2006 in Waco

by esaym 9y ago

Everything today in "science" is just based off of pretty charts and cartoon graphics. That's their "proof". The hottest I've been in was in Sep. 2006 in Waco Tx [0]. Mainly due to a hurricane in the gulf that pulled the humidity out of the air, but it wasn't so bad. Road my motorcycle to work that day. Summer 2007 was even stranger, rained almost every other day and temps never made it above 100 that year. Now I'm farther south. I was going to replace my A/C unit in 2015 because it couldn't keep up in the 104+ summer that year. But for the last two summers, it hasn't gotten above 101 and the A/C has been working fine, so here I sit. [0]http://i.imgur.com/Cgu3Vuc.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Cgu3Vuc.jpg

tstactplsignore 9y ago
This is mindboggling anti-intellectualism. There is absolutely zero substance to your claim. Scientific work is more rigorous and quantitative than ever, especially in climate science, and the fact that you are too lazy to learn the first thing about how modern science works doesn't change that reality. All I can say is I'd really, really wish that you'd educate yourself on how science works. Please start by reading some scientific journals, Nature Geoscience and Geophysical Research Letters are a good place to start.
- esaym 9y ago
  Why? So I can see more pretty charts and cartoons? I'm am not telling you my option, I am telling you my observation.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Then the problem is perhaps that you cannot read the data and understand what is behind those charts
  - tstactplsignore 9y ago
    So you can learn something about scientific findings. Their texts are quite thorough, and the data is there- it bewilders me why you're complaining about a figure for every 1000 words of text (normal ratio for a scientific paper). I don't think it's your opinion, or your observation- just some raw emotional feeling born out of a dislike for science and the people who do it. I will try to engage with you. Here is a typical paper from Nature Climate Change this week. Can you explain exactly why you think the text has not enough substance and is overly reliant upon figures? https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3351.html https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/n...
- kbenson 9y ago
  This isn't an effective way to engage with and change someone's point of view, and there's plenty of science on that. It may be intellectually satisfying to you personally, but that's no better than what you are denigrating here. If you actually care about the cause you profess to be for with your actions, please find a different way to express it, lest you hurt while trying to help.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Why? I don't know whether the person in question is trolling or not, but the stated unwillingness to study the data pretty much disqualifies any value that person's opinion might have. Expecting advocates of good environmental policy to convince every last intellectual holdout (who may or may not be sincere) is unreasonable. It's like demanding that NASA get buy-in from the flat earth crowd.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Because stating observations, whether true or not, isn't always an effective way forward. I was working under the assumption that the response was intended for the original commenter, which may have been assuming too much, but when it can be summarized neatly as "You're wrong. Your whole way of looking at this is wrong. Everyone else is right, and you need to just accept it." but with different words, I think it's not effective at engaging with that person. I think that the recipient of that might feel less inclined to accept an alternative point of view if that's how the interaction starts.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        There is no effective way forward with someone who insists that they're unwilling to be persuaded.
        kbenson 9y ago
        I don't think that's what we have here. We have someone that's not persuaded by what they've seen. Has anyone asked why? Even if someone is wrong, that doesn't mean they don't have something important to contribute. I'm just sad the the first response wasn't something along the lines of: "Why? What does the graphic being a cartoon have to do with how accurate the data and the point it's trying to express is? Why are your experiences in a specific region supposed to map directly towards the overall global scenario? Why are you using hottest days in summer in your observation instead of total hot days, which is actually what's being discussed, since it's possible for the average to be much hotter, even if the largest outlier isn't as high for that year, right?"
kbenson 9y ago
> Everything today in "science" is just based off of pretty charts and cartoon graphics. That's their "proof". I would say the pretty charts and "cartoon graphics" are in direct response to people not actually examining the numbers, and discounting the way it's expressed/reported in the media. To be fair, getting to what a paper is really saying in a media announcement is sometimes an exercise in dissecting the Pr to do away with the hyperbole, but these graphics are actually a way to combat that. As long as they are built using the core data, it's another way to express what's going on, and hopefully in a way that captures people's attention better than the headlines they are already dubious of do. Let's turn the premise around. Assuming the conclusions are correct and summers are getting hotter, how would you communicate that to someone like you who is rejecting that based on their personal experience, and has (presumably) already discounted the headline, the graphics meant to convey the same idea, and the underlying data they are presented from (whether through actual distrust of the data or distrust of the summarization to the point of not bothering to check it). If it's true, and we have data to show it, how should it be presented?

by esaym 9y ago

tstactplsignore 9y ago

This is mindboggling anti-intellectualism. There is absolutely zero substance to your claim. Scientific work is more rigorous and quantitative than ever, especially in climate science, and the fact that you are too lazy to learn the first thing about how modern science works doesn't change that reality. All I can say is I'd really, really wish that you'd educate yourself on how science works. Please start by reading some scientific journals, Nature Geoscience and Geophysical Research Letters are a good place to start.

esaym 9y ago
Why? So I can see more pretty charts and cartoons? I'm am not telling you my option, I am telling you my observation.
- Oletros 9y ago
  Then the problem is perhaps that you cannot read the data and understand what is behind those charts
- tstactplsignore 9y ago
  So you can learn something about scientific findings. Their texts are quite thorough, and the data is there- it bewilders me why you're complaining about a figure for every 1000 words of text (normal ratio for a scientific paper). I don't think it's your opinion, or your observation- just some raw emotional feeling born out of a dislike for science and the people who do it. I will try to engage with you. Here is a typical paper from Nature Climate Change this week. Can you explain exactly why you think the text has not enough substance and is overly reliant upon figures? https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3351.html https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/n...
kbenson 9y ago
This isn't an effective way to engage with and change someone's point of view, and there's plenty of science on that. It may be intellectually satisfying to you personally, but that's no better than what you are denigrating here. If you actually care about the cause you profess to be for with your actions, please find a different way to express it, lest you hurt while trying to help.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Why? I don't know whether the person in question is trolling or not, but the stated unwillingness to study the data pretty much disqualifies any value that person's opinion might have. Expecting advocates of good environmental policy to convince every last intellectual holdout (who may or may not be sincere) is unreasonable. It's like demanding that NASA get buy-in from the flat earth crowd.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Because stating observations, whether true or not, isn't always an effective way forward. I was working under the assumption that the response was intended for the original commenter, which may have been assuming too much, but when it can be summarized neatly as "You're wrong. Your whole way of looking at this is wrong. Everyone else is right, and you need to just accept it." but with different words, I think it's not effective at engaging with that person. I think that the recipient of that might feel less inclined to accept an alternative point of view if that's how the interaction starts.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      There is no effective way forward with someone who insists that they're unwilling to be persuaded.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        I don't think that's what we have here. We have someone that's not persuaded by what they've seen. Has anyone asked why? Even if someone is wrong, that doesn't mean they don't have something important to contribute. I'm just sad the the first response wasn't something along the lines of: "Why? What does the graphic being a cartoon have to do with how accurate the data and the point it's trying to express is? Why are your experiences in a specific region supposed to map directly towards the overall global scenario? Why are you using hottest days in summer in your observation instead of total hot days, which is actually what's being discussed, since it's possible for the average to be much hotter, even if the largest outlier isn't as high for that year, right?"

kbenson 9y ago

> Everything today in "science" is just based off of pretty charts and cartoon graphics. That's their "proof". I would say the pretty charts and "cartoon graphics" are in direct response to people not actually examining the numbers, and discounting the way it's expressed/reported in the media. To be fair, getting to what a paper is really saying in a media announcement is sometimes an exercise in dissecting the Pr to do away with the hyperbole, but these graphics are actually a way to combat that. As long as they are built using the core data, it's another way to express what's going on, and hopefully in a way that captures people's attention better than the headlines they are already dubious of do. Let's turn the premise around. Assuming the conclusions are correct and summers are getting hotter, how would you communicate that to someone like you who is rejecting that based on their personal experience, and has (presumably) already discounted the headline, the graphics meant to convey the same idea, and the underlying data they are presented from (whether through actual distrust of the data or distrust of the summarization to the point of not bothering to check it). If it's true, and we have data to show it, how should it be presented?