4 ms·

These arguments are so tedious. The vast majority of scientists do agree that global warming is real and that humans are causing it. Yet the go-to argument fo

by abraae 8y ago

These arguments are so tedious. The vast majority of scientists do agree that global warming is real and that humans are causing it. Yet the go-to argument for deniers is to claim that the science is not there. Not being a scientist myself, I have to assume that you're talking out your ass, and the scientists are correct.

virmundi 8y ago
I agree. Most of the time when the science is settled, it’s settled. For example all scientists knew that once we figured out black body radiation Newtonian physicist is complete. Nothing new was required. Even Lord Kelvin proclaimed that simple outstanding problem was entirely explainable by the physics of his day.
- yongjik 8y ago
  Yeah, once physicists figured out quantum mechanics, cannon makers and bridge builders cried in dismay, because their previous measurements - based on previously trusted Newtonian mechanics - stopped working. "Serves them well!" people snickered. "Risking one's career on unsettled science!"
trowway 8y ago
You're not listening, and that is part of the problem. We cannot have discussions, because the politics have polarized us. I'm not arguing that the earth isn't warming. I'm not arguing that humans aren't involved. I'm saying that there is a detrimental feedback loop between politics and science. This feedback loop means that we can't have reasonable discussions. Dismissing dissenting views as "climate change deniers" is a problem for science. And FWIW, though I'm a nobody, I have had private dinners with people who are somebodies (also, I respect that I'm an anonymous user on the internet which definitely helps my credibility - but I'll try anyway) - the people who have written IPCC reports and been in climate science research for decades. They share the opinions that I'm expressing, but dare not say them because they need grants; it's a delicate balance. The political feedback loop is a problem. It gets in the way of good science. Using predictive models can give us insight, but nature is pretty good at making fools of humans, and it's arrogant to believe that we can predict the future of something like the weather given the nature of the problem - we can't run controlled experiments, the data is super noisy and difficult to wrangle, and
- cbkeller 8y ago
  > dare not say them because they need grants Without trying to get into a flame war here, this claim is very iffy. As a scientist myself, there's (for better or worse) nothing better to make a career out of than showing where other scientists have made a mistake.

by abraae 8y ago

virmundi 8y ago

I agree. Most of the time when the science is settled, it’s settled. For example all scientists knew that once we figured out black body radiation Newtonian physicist is complete. Nothing new was required. Even Lord Kelvin proclaimed that simple outstanding problem was entirely explainable by the physics of his day.

yongjik 8y ago
Yeah, once physicists figured out quantum mechanics, cannon makers and bridge builders cried in dismay, because their previous measurements - based on previously trusted Newtonian mechanics - stopped working. "Serves them well!" people snickered. "Risking one's career on unsettled science!"

trowway 8y ago

You're not listening, and that is part of the problem. We cannot have discussions, because the politics have polarized us. I'm not arguing that the earth isn't warming. I'm not arguing that humans aren't involved. I'm saying that there is a detrimental feedback loop between politics and science. This feedback loop means that we can't have reasonable discussions. Dismissing dissenting views as "climate change deniers" is a problem for science. And FWIW, though I'm a nobody, I have had private dinners with people who are somebodies (also, I respect that I'm an anonymous user on the internet which definitely helps my credibility - but I'll try anyway) - the people who have written IPCC reports and been in climate science research for decades. They share the opinions that I'm expressing, but dare not say them because they need grants; it's a delicate balance. The political feedback loop is a problem. It gets in the way of good science. Using predictive models can give us insight, but nature is pretty good at making fools of humans, and it's arrogant to believe that we can predict the future of something like the weather given the nature of the problem - we can't run controlled experiments, the data is super noisy and difficult to wrangle, and

cbkeller 8y ago
> dare not say them because they need grants Without trying to get into a flame war here, this claim is very iffy. As a scientist myself, there's (for better or worse) nothing better to make a career out of than showing where other scientists have made a mistake.