5 ms·

> I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else. Darwin did just fine in the Origin of Species ( https://en

by maratd 8y ago

> I disagree that evolution can be "understood" by one person readily explaining it to someone else. Darwin did just fine in the Origin of Species ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species ). > Short explanations between laypeople is essentially propaganda, no matter which side of the issue they are on. While this is correct, would you like to point out a long explanation that will overcome this? A book, perhaps? One that doesn't rely on computer models, all of which, in every field, are absolute trash because they can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say as demonstrated in the very article we're discussing. How is it that Darwin didn't need computer models to make his point, but climate science is empty without them?

dagss 8y ago
Origin of Species exists, yet somehow there's the Intelligent Design community arguing that evolution is BS. How do you properly evaluate? Would you say that Origin of Species constitutes a priori proof of the concept? No, you need a lot of context to evaluate that what is says is true. It is only a "proof" to those who are already convinced (including me BTW). The basic thesis of climate change is even simpler than evolution (greenhouse gases causes warming in lab + nature compensates within a window, ocean acidification etc => there is a tolerance level where nature can no longer compensate and you get the effect on earth that you observe in lab). Yet in the same way as with evolution there are opponents/deniers. It sounds like you insist that something must be "simple" in order to be "true". That because climate isn't "simple", climate science is wrong. But: You have lots of stuff like General Relativity which is complex yet (normally considered) true. Nature doesn't have to be simple just because you say so. The article we are discussing is illustrating statistical incompetence and says nothing about computer models at all. If you want to insist that computer modelling is garbage, say goodbye to most of the science you have previously accepted. My PhD is in astrophysics and we certainly did a lot of computer modelling and equation solving (since the 70s...take computers away and there is nothing left of cosmology as a field, the same holds for many other fields). If you don't trust computer modelling say goodbye to anything you think you know about the age of the universe, etc. etc. There is good science and bad science with the aid of computers just as there is good and bad science without the aid of computers. I don't have any book recommendation for you. I just know how to do science (from an astrophysics perspective) and from what I know, the climate "sceptics" seems to be making a lot of rookie mistakes when they crop out, and the climate scientists seem to make sound claims. But that is definitely just looking at the surface and applying my preconceptions. I don't have time to spend a year or two to go in depth; so I see no choice but to trust the climate scientists the way I would trust an oncologist if I got cancer and so on. Reading some "propaganda" about the subject (as defined in my previous post, i.e. popular science) from either camp won't make me much wiser anyway.

by maratd 8y ago

dagss 8y ago

Origin of Species exists, yet somehow there's the Intelligent Design community arguing that evolution is BS. How do you properly evaluate? Would you say that Origin of Species constitutes a priori proof of the concept? No, you need a lot of context to evaluate that what is says is true. It is only a "proof" to those who are already convinced (including me BTW). The basic thesis of climate change is even simpler than evolution (greenhouse gases causes warming in lab + nature compensates within a window, ocean acidification etc => there is a tolerance level where nature can no longer compensate and you get the effect on earth that you observe in lab). Yet in the same way as with evolution there are opponents/deniers. It sounds like you insist that something must be "simple" in order to be "true". That because climate isn't "simple", climate science is wrong. But: You have lots of stuff like General Relativity which is complex yet (normally considered) true. Nature doesn't have to be simple just because you say so. The article we are discussing is illustrating statistical incompetence and says nothing about computer models at all. If you want to insist that computer modelling is garbage, say goodbye to most of the science you have previously accepted. My PhD is in astrophysics and we certainly did a lot of computer modelling and equation solving (since the 70s...take computers away and there is nothing left of cosmology as a field, the same holds for many other fields). If you don't trust computer modelling say goodbye to anything you think you know about the age of the universe, etc. etc. There is good science and bad science with the aid of computers just as there is good and bad science without the aid of computers. I don't have any book recommendation for you. I just know how to do science (from an astrophysics perspective) and from what I know, the climate "sceptics" seems to be making a lot of rookie mistakes when they crop out, and the climate scientists seem to make sound claims. But that is definitely just looking at the surface and applying my preconceptions. I don't have time to spend a year or two to go in depth; so I see no choice but to trust the climate scientists the way I would trust an oncologist if I got cancer and so on. Reading some "propaganda" about the subject (as defined in my previous post, i.e. popular science) from either camp won't make me much wiser anyway.