5 ms·

There are literally no 2 sides. There is a ~97% scientific consensus, then there are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree

There are literally no 2 sides. There is a ~97% scientific consensus, then there are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagre.... John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

yters 8y ago
Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory
- Comevius 8y ago
  It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded literally on a daily basis. That's what the ~97% represents. It's like Newtonian physics. The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%. It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.
  - yters 8y ago
    It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself. A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
    - Comevius 8y ago
      Are you refering to the two email leaks from the University of East Anglia (Climategate), the one in 2009 and the 2011 one to Russian servers? There was no scientific misconduct there, only climate denialists taking messages out of context. Even then you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see anything into it. I don't think anyone ever stashed (or could stash) a whole century of research into a single Github repository, but around 95% of what you seek is out there. For the data source I would start with the Global Historical Climatology Network (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access).
      - yters 8y ago
        Yes, the 2009 leak. Did you look through the material yourself? And if this is such an important issue, and so many people remain to be convinced, wouldn't it behoove researchers to make their research as transparent, clear and reproducible as possible? Seems that can only help the debate move forward in a productive manner. UPDATE: I followed your link, and things that stand out to me: - Images showing station concentration shows only in fairly recent history that stations are global. Before then they're mostly concentrated in the US and Europe, and the station data only goes back to the mid 1800s, and is pretty sparse up until the last few decades. It is unclear how such sparse temperature data can give us a clear understanding of how world temperatures have changed over the past few centuries due to industrialization. - The unfiltered 'all' category is not easily accessible. I'd either have to download a whopping 2.9G tar, or visit the directory that does not seem to load very quickly. I'm thinking it is just a flat dump of the files without hierarchical organization, so FTP tries to fetch everything. - The accessible 'yearly' category readme.txt states the data is not raw, but 'merged together' and subjected to 'quality assurance review' just like the monthly counterpart, which I assume is the 'all' category. So, even if I did download the 2.9G tar, I cannot get the raw readings from the ground stations. This is the sort of lack of clarity and transparency that does not improve the skeptic's perception on the matter.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together" https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...
  - yters 8y ago
    A bit over half a century ago, the scientific consensus in Germany was that Jews were subhuman. They also believed in a mystical ice planet orbiting the earth that possessed all sorts of wonders, the knowledge of which was suppressed by the anti-Arian cabal. Consensus bears a funny sort of relationship with the truth.
    - seren 8y ago
      The scientific consensus in a single country is very different bar than a scientific consensus for the whole world. I am pretty sure that if you looked at North Korea today, you could find some weird scientific national consensus, which obviously does not mean anything.
      - yters 8y ago
        Is it true this is the consensus of the whole world? It seems to be the consensus of a portion of the scientific establishment, which is certainly not representative of the whole world. And, if, for sake of argument, we grant this scientific consensus represents the perspective of the world, it still does not follow this somehow precludes faulty reasoning and groupthink. "Science" is not a magic wand that automatically eliminates the normal sources of human bias, especially as recent news illustrates the rampant fraud and unreproducible results in the scientific establishment.
vladimirralev 8y ago
Please watch the video before commenting. All of this is addressed and you are missing the big picture with policy and costs. As you can see from the video there is a lot of agreement in terms of science. You have to be very careful defining the sides here. Christy is in the 97% for the actual poll that was made. It really comes down mostly to probabilities, what can be done about it and at what cost to human life. Because raising energy prices is not harmless either as recently seen in France.

yters 8y ago

Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory

Comevius 8y ago
It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded literally on a daily basis. That's what the ~97% represents. It's like Newtonian physics. The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%. It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.
- yters 8y ago
  It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself. A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
  - Comevius 8y ago
    Are you refering to the two email leaks from the University of East Anglia (Climategate), the one in 2009 and the 2011 one to Russian servers? There was no scientific misconduct there, only climate denialists taking messages out of context. Even then you have to be a conspiracy theorist to see anything into it. I don't think anyone ever stashed (or could stash) a whole century of research into a single Github repository, but around 95% of what you seek is out there. For the data source I would start with the Global Historical Climatology Network (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnd-data-access).
    - yters 8y ago
      Yes, the 2009 leak. Did you look through the material yourself? And if this is such an important issue, and so many people remain to be convinced, wouldn't it behoove researchers to make their research as transparent, clear and reproducible as possible? Seems that can only help the debate move forward in a productive manner. UPDATE: I followed your link, and things that stand out to me: - Images showing station concentration shows only in fairly recent history that stations are global. Before then they're mostly concentrated in the US and Europe, and the station data only goes back to the mid 1800s, and is pretty sparse up until the last few decades. It is unclear how such sparse temperature data can give us a clear understanding of how world temperatures have changed over the past few centuries due to industrialization. - The unfiltered 'all' category is not easily accessible. I'd either have to download a whopping 2.9G tar, or visit the directory that does not seem to load very quickly. I'm thinking it is just a flat dump of the files without hierarchical organization, so FTP tries to fetch everything. - The accessible 'yearly' category readme.txt states the data is not raw, but 'merged together' and subjected to 'quality assurance review' just like the monthly counterpart, which I assume is the 'all' category. So, even if I did download the 2.9G tar, I cannot get the raw readings from the ground stations. This is the sort of lack of clarity and transparency that does not improve the skeptic's perception on the matter.
Symmetry 8y ago
"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together" https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...
- yters 8y ago
  A bit over half a century ago, the scientific consensus in Germany was that Jews were subhuman. They also believed in a mystical ice planet orbiting the earth that possessed all sorts of wonders, the knowledge of which was suppressed by the anti-Arian cabal. Consensus bears a funny sort of relationship with the truth.
  - seren 8y ago
    The scientific consensus in a single country is very different bar than a scientific consensus for the whole world. I am pretty sure that if you looked at North Korea today, you could find some weird scientific national consensus, which obviously does not mean anything.
    - yters 8y ago
      Is it true this is the consensus of the whole world? It seems to be the consensus of a portion of the scientific establishment, which is certainly not representative of the whole world. And, if, for sake of argument, we grant this scientific consensus represents the perspective of the world, it still does not follow this somehow precludes faulty reasoning and groupthink. "Science" is not a magic wand that automatically eliminates the normal sources of human bias, especially as recent news illustrates the rampant fraud and unreproducible results in the scientific establishment.

vladimirralev 8y ago

Please watch the video before commenting. All of this is addressed and you are missing the big picture with policy and costs. As you can see from the video there is a lot of agreement in terms of science. You have to be very careful defining the sides here. Christy is in the 97% for the actual poll that was made. It really comes down mostly to probabilities, what can be done about it and at what cost to human life. Because raising energy prices is not harmless either as recently seen in France.