7 ms·

You want to know where this is the worst? Climate science. Everyone has an axe to grind on one side or the other and moderated opinions are flamed into oblivion

You want to know where this is the worst? Climate science. Everyone has an axe to grind on one side or the other and moderated opinions are flamed into oblivion. We can't even talk about the science because it becomes a discussion about destroying the planet.

Sharlin 8y ago
Isn’t the moderate position in climate science (regarding anthropogenic climate change) the mainstream consensus position? There are no two ”extreme views” with the truth somewhere in the middle. There’s the overwhelmingly supported by evidence scientific position and then there’s the pseudoscientific position.
- anotherthrow456 8y ago
  Yes, I suppose I've conflated two things. The first is the strident shrieking of politicians and those who echo what politicians say,for which I would argue there are two extreme sides. And neither of these sides actually has constructive discussionin my opinion. And then, there are the different sides of scientific discussion which produce the conclusions that the politicians warp and shriek about. Some of this is good science, and a rot of itis bad science. But whatever the politicians get to blather on about is what most people are aware of, regardless of whether it's good or bad. And your comment points to part of the problem. It's science, so if we believe that we know everything, we're wrong. If we don't know everything, then that means we need to have the lattitude to argue about things. The argument is obviously not "is the earth warming?" but "how and why is the earth warming?". If your immediate response is "well, it's obviously humans producing CO2", then you have fallen into the trap that I'm trying to explain. Yes, humans produce CO2, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the story is more complicated than that, and science needs room to wonder. The problem is the political shrieking dampens the curiosity and wonder that science is about.
  - jhanschoo 8y ago
    But if Earth in ancient prehistory was dominated by CO2 that was eventually sequestered by plants under the ground, and that today our oil reserves are running low, then wouldn't it make simple sense that human use of fossil fuels must have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels? In that case, it's pretty settled that there is a significant human impact on atmospheric CO2 levels; the space for room to wander are, say, the exact distribution of CO2 released. I mean, physicists don't wonder and revise basic kinematics since that science is pretty much settled that Newtonian kinematics are very good approximations of reality.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      Well, it does make sense yes, which is why that view has become accepted. There are some facts that seem to give pause for thought though, like it apparently being much warmer than today in medieval times. This can be hard to see because temperature records don't go back that far, but we know that the Romans appeared to once grow wine near Scotland, something totally impossible today (in fact it only became possible to grow wine in the south of England very recently, a "new" thing blamed on global warming). It's unclear how the Romans could have done that unless grapes were very different or the weather was very different.
    - tomsmeding 8y ago
      Of course a fair point, but I think it's worth considering that basic physics was conceived quite a bit longer ago than the idea of CO2 as a greenhouse gas began to spread. So physics has had quite a bit more time to settle and for people to prove it incorrect (which they haven't), while the reasoning for cause(s) of planetary warming is really still in its infancy, however sure many people think they are.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      >today our oil reserves are running low This argument is not quite up to snuff because, as it turns out, only a tiny fraction of the oil ever can be made to come out. The truth is that even after the wells have been abandoned most of the oil remains stuck in the rocks that it started in. I found this out while wondering whether or not it would be possible to burn all of the oxygen in the air (it's not, sadly ;) ) Also the oil reserves are not really running low, if they were that would be a lucky answer to carbon control.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Most of the impression of a mainstream consensus is formed when some kids polled a ton of scientists what they thought of global warming, but then restricted their published number to a small subset of those, climate scientists. Plenty of other scientists are like, hey, these guys are full of crap.
  - cultus 8y ago
    That's uhh, not true. At any rate, shouldn't we be listing to the climatologists on this matter, because their specialty is, you know, climate?
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Yes it is true. The often cited statistic comes from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/200... Counting climatologists is a bad idea because they shut critics and skeptics out of the field. We know that climate models are generally wrong. Trying saying that while having a career as a climatologist.
      - cultus 8y ago
        You're really veering off into conspiracy theory territory here. It's clear you haven't the faintest how climate models or any geophysics works. Don't mistake a facility for computers for expertise in all science. I actually have a PhD in a geophysics field, I know what I am talking about here. 1. That study is 10 years old at this point. The evidence for climate change has become vastly more undeniable since then. 2. Majorities of scientists from all categories believed in climate change, even back then, according to this study.
        SamReidHughes 8y ago
        I'm not disputing global warming. I am disputing the impression of a 97% consensus. And this is a great example of what I'm talking about, you're trying to call me a conspiracy theorist, and making up stuff about what you think I know.
crimsonalucard 8y ago
There is a definitive difference. Global warming has been confirmed across multiple different experiments that have been repeated... this study covers obscure results that are unlikely to be repeated.

Sharlin 8y ago

Isn’t the moderate position in climate science (regarding anthropogenic climate change) the mainstream consensus position? There are no two ”extreme views” with the truth somewhere in the middle. There’s the overwhelmingly supported by evidence scientific position and then there’s the pseudoscientific position.

anotherthrow456 8y ago
Yes, I suppose I've conflated two things. The first is the strident shrieking of politicians and those who echo what politicians say,for which I would argue there are two extreme sides. And neither of these sides actually has constructive discussionin my opinion. And then, there are the different sides of scientific discussion which produce the conclusions that the politicians warp and shriek about. Some of this is good science, and a rot of itis bad science. But whatever the politicians get to blather on about is what most people are aware of, regardless of whether it's good or bad. And your comment points to part of the problem. It's science, so if we believe that we know everything, we're wrong. If we don't know everything, then that means we need to have the lattitude to argue about things. The argument is obviously not "is the earth warming?" but "how and why is the earth warming?". If your immediate response is "well, it's obviously humans producing CO2", then you have fallen into the trap that I'm trying to explain. Yes, humans produce CO2, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the story is more complicated than that, and science needs room to wonder. The problem is the political shrieking dampens the curiosity and wonder that science is about.
- jhanschoo 8y ago
  But if Earth in ancient prehistory was dominated by CO2 that was eventually sequestered by plants under the ground, and that today our oil reserves are running low, then wouldn't it make simple sense that human use of fossil fuels must have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2 levels? In that case, it's pretty settled that there is a significant human impact on atmospheric CO2 levels; the space for room to wander are, say, the exact distribution of CO2 released. I mean, physicists don't wonder and revise basic kinematics since that science is pretty much settled that Newtonian kinematics are very good approximations of reality.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Well, it does make sense yes, which is why that view has become accepted. There are some facts that seem to give pause for thought though, like it apparently being much warmer than today in medieval times. This can be hard to see because temperature records don't go back that far, but we know that the Romans appeared to once grow wine near Scotland, something totally impossible today (in fact it only became possible to grow wine in the south of England very recently, a "new" thing blamed on global warming). It's unclear how the Romans could have done that unless grapes were very different or the weather was very different.
  - tomsmeding 8y ago
    Of course a fair point, but I think it's worth considering that basic physics was conceived quite a bit longer ago than the idea of CO2 as a greenhouse gas began to spread. So physics has had quite a bit more time to settle and for people to prove it incorrect (which they haven't), while the reasoning for cause(s) of planetary warming is really still in its infancy, however sure many people think they are.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >today our oil reserves are running low This argument is not quite up to snuff because, as it turns out, only a tiny fraction of the oil ever can be made to come out. The truth is that even after the wells have been abandoned most of the oil remains stuck in the rocks that it started in. I found this out while wondering whether or not it would be possible to burn all of the oxygen in the air (it's not, sadly ;) ) Also the oil reserves are not really running low, if they were that would be a lucky answer to carbon control.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
Most of the impression of a mainstream consensus is formed when some kids polled a ton of scientists what they thought of global warming, but then restricted their published number to a small subset of those, climate scientists. Plenty of other scientists are like, hey, these guys are full of crap.
- cultus 8y ago
  That's uhh, not true. At any rate, shouldn't we be listing to the climatologists on this matter, because their specialty is, you know, climate?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Yes it is true. The often cited statistic comes from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/200... Counting climatologists is a bad idea because they shut critics and skeptics out of the field. We know that climate models are generally wrong. Trying saying that while having a career as a climatologist.
    - cultus 8y ago
      You're really veering off into conspiracy theory territory here. It's clear you haven't the faintest how climate models or any geophysics works. Don't mistake a facility for computers for expertise in all science. I actually have a PhD in a geophysics field, I know what I am talking about here. 1. That study is 10 years old at this point. The evidence for climate change has become vastly more undeniable since then. 2. Majorities of scientists from all categories believed in climate change, even back then, according to this study.
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        I'm not disputing global warming. I am disputing the impression of a 97% consensus. And this is a great example of what I'm talking about, you're trying to call me a conspiracy theorist, and making up stuff about what you think I know.

crimsonalucard 8y ago

There is a definitive difference. Global warming has been confirmed across multiple different experiments that have been repeated... this study covers obscure results that are unlikely to be repeated.