4 ms·

Or going the another way, why such faith in the climate fitters? Global warming skepticism has got almost nothing to do with “climate denial PR campaigns” and

by Tycho 8y ago

Or going the another way, why such faith in the climate fitters? Global warming skepticism has got almost nothing to do with “climate denial PR campaigns” and everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit: * lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data * argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community” * unseemly behaviour of said community revealed in “climategate” emails * second rate academic talent jumping on a career long gravy train * stipulations by leftist politicians for concentration of vast powers to control the economy to fix the problem * creeping attribution of all sorts of other problems as second order effects of warming * rebranding if the language from “global warming” to “climate change” * the ridiculous idea that “trusting science” is the same thing as trusting scientists. Nobody actually trusts scientists, they trust feedback loops and well-aligned incentives. Take those things away and the trust rightfully evaporates.

pas 8y ago
These are the same people who think Trump is always right. So maybe their BS detector is biased or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Tycho 8y ago
  Hoodwinked by Russian bots no doubt. Certainly nothing to do with the low credibility of the political establishment.
subsection1h 8y ago
> Global warming skepticism has [...] everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit: [...] LOL. Notice that none of your points address any specific studies. I've never met a self-identified climate change skeptic who reads the journals of the American Geophysical Union[1], like I have since the 1990s. But you people have "functioning BS detectors", "common sense", etc. -- just like all the creationists I've met. [1] https://publications.agu.org/journals/ https://publications.agu.org/journals/
- colllectorof 8y ago
  >LOL. Notice that none of your points address any specific studies. It doesn't matter. The post above gives a fairly good explanation of why there are so many people skeptical either about the climate change, or about its exact rate, or about the causes, or about the policies that should be enacted in its regard. It is not very scientific in most cases, but from average person's perspective it makes sense. So the notion that every "climate denier" out there is some kind of raving mad lunatic is itself patently absurd. Their position is completely understandable, even if it's scientifically incorrect. This is especially true when you get to the "policy" side of things. As a side not, let's not pretend that climate change "believers" (denier, believer - both are horrible labels) are always rational. Most of them are only vaguely inspired by research and driven by more mundane and "social" motives. For comparison, how much zeal have you seen around colony collapse disorder? It's a serious issues with potentially grave consequences for ecology and agriculture. Almost no one cares. There is no social signalling, no in-group/out-group dynamics, no vitriol. Because it hasn't been politicized. Yet.
flukus 8y ago
> lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data Models can be tested against history. > argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community” I doesn't rely on consensus, this is just a tool to show the extent of the certainty. Not sure why you feel the need to put consensus or community in quotes. > unseemly behaviour of said community revealed in “climategate” emails This is the ultimate exercise in cherry picking, there was one slightly nefarious sounding phrase in thousands of emails and you act like this negates a entire field of science. > rebranding if the language from “global warming” to “climate change” When exactly do you think this "rebranding" happened?

by Tycho 8y ago

pas 8y ago

These are the same people who think Trump is always right. So maybe their BS detector is biased or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tycho 8y ago
Hoodwinked by Russian bots no doubt. Certainly nothing to do with the low credibility of the political establishment.

subsection1h 8y ago

> Global warming skepticism has [...] everything to do with people having functioning BS detectors. To wit: [...] LOL. Notice that none of your points address any specific studies. I've never met a self-identified climate change skeptic who reads the journals of the American Geophysical Union[1], like I have since the 1990s. But you people have "functioning BS detectors", "common sense", etc. -- just like all the creationists I've met. [1] https://publications.agu.org/journals/ https://publications.agu.org/journals/

colllectorof 8y ago
>LOL. Notice that none of your points address any specific studies. It doesn't matter. The post above gives a fairly good explanation of why there are so many people skeptical either about the climate change, or about its exact rate, or about the causes, or about the policies that should be enacted in its regard. It is not very scientific in most cases, but from average person's perspective it makes sense. So the notion that every "climate denier" out there is some kind of raving mad lunatic is itself patently absurd. Their position is completely understandable, even if it's scientifically incorrect. This is especially true when you get to the "policy" side of things. As a side not, let's not pretend that climate change "believers" (denier, believer - both are horrible labels) are always rational. Most of them are only vaguely inspired by research and driven by more mundane and "social" motives. For comparison, how much zeal have you seen around colony collapse disorder? It's a serious issues with potentially grave consequences for ecology and agriculture. Almost no one cares. There is no social signalling, no in-group/out-group dynamics, no vitriol. Because it hasn't been politicized. Yet.

flukus 8y ago

> lofty claims of certainty based on computer models that can’t be effectively tested with out-of-sample data Models can be tested against history. > argument relying on “consensus” of the scientific “community” I doesn't rely on consensus, this is just a tool to show the extent of the certainty. Not sure why you feel the need to put consensus or community in quotes. > unseemly behaviour of said community revealed in “climategate” emails This is the ultimate exercise in cherry picking, there was one slightly nefarious sounding phrase in thousands of emails and you act like this negates a entire field of science. > rebranding if the language from “global warming” to “climate change” When exactly do you think this "rebranding" happened?