3 ms·

I agree with most of your points, and the info about the IPCC's inner workings is particularly interesting. And yes, we can't expect the larger part of the publ

by zeteo 16y ago

I agree with most of your points, and the info about the IPCC's inner workings is particularly interesting. And yes, we can't expect the larger part of the public to become sufficiently informed to properly evaluate even the bases of scientific discourse (at least until, as you point out, the educational system changes considerably). My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists consistently make verifiable predictions that come true.

nanairo 16y ago
If you are interested to know more about the IPCC inner workings and exactly what was wrong, here it's an article from a British newspaper (Guardian) from one of its members: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts-spin http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-error... The crucial bit: "The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out." and about the Himilayan glaciars mistake: "This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts"
joe_the_user 16y ago
My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists consistently make verifiable predictions that come true. An excellent point. I would further add that this means there's a great societal benefit to educating a large number of people up to the level of general mathematical and logical understanding and there's concomitant societal cost for failing to have such an educated public. When enough people are willing to believe nonsense, even those who don't believe it suffer.

by zeteo 16y ago

nanairo 16y ago

If you are interested to know more about the IPCC inner workings and exactly what was wrong, here it's an article from a British newspaper (Guardian) from one of its members: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-errors-facts-spin http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/ipcc-error... The crucial bit: "The IPCC does not carry out primary research, and hence any mistakes in the IPCC reports do not imply that any climate research itself is wrong. A reference to a poor report or an editorial lapse by IPCC authors obviously does not undermine climate science. Doubting basic results of climate science based on the recent claims against the IPCC is particularly ironic since none of the real or supposed errors being discussed are even in the Working Group 1 report, where the climate science basis is laid out." and about the Himilayan glaciars mistake: "This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts"

joe_the_user 16y ago

My point was directed more at the _intellectually curious_ laypersons (which is, I believe, a superset of HN's readership). It's practically impossible, in this age of extremely specialized science, for outsiders to understand exactly how various scientific conclusions are arrived at. Fortunately, the task of verification is much easier, and with a small amount of self-training it is possible, I believe, to judge whether or not a certain set of scientists consistently make verifiable predictions that come true. An excellent point. I would further add that this means there's a great societal benefit to educating a large number of people up to the level of general mathematical and logical understanding and there's concomitant societal cost for failing to have such an educated public. When enough people are willing to believe nonsense, even those who don't believe it suffer.