6 ms·

Papers were published in the 1800s about the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on temperature. The physics behind this is straightforward.

by skh 8y ago

Papers were published in the 1800s about the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on temperature. The physics behind this is straightforward. If the couple were truly worried about this at a young age wouldn’t that suggest some level of insight and a level of maturity on their part? That you think this most likely makes as extreme as a person can be says quite a bit about your own bias.

porpoisely 8y ago
Papers were published about global cooling a few decades ago. Papers were published about malthusian collapse. Papers were published saying tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. Also, the physics of carbon dioxide on temperature is understood, but the physics of climate isn't so well understood. Hence why we don't have as great a model of it as we'd like. You can understand the concept of a bit without understanding how a system ( like the OS ) works. Also, the fact that you think a 5 year old kid read papers published in 1800s about carbon dioxide and started worrying about climate change shows your bias, not mine. A 5 year old kid worried about climate change or anti-vaccination or abortion debate or any of the hot-button political issues is someone who has been brainwashed by their parents or environment. I agree that climate change exists ( with or without humans ). I agree that humans contribute somewhat to it, but to what degree and to what ends, I know we have no clue. The only people with evangelical and zealous fervor ( on either side ) are pretty much anti-science agenda peddlers. I'm open to both sides and most importantly to fact and science. I have a feeling that you and these authors "converted" a long time a ago.
- devonkim 8y ago
  While I can agree with your sentiment, the problem thus remains - what do we do in the face on uncertainty? If we aren’t really responsible terribly much we would be potentially wasting a lot of effort on the wrong problems (we’ll need to do this one anyway IMO - that climate change is happening and it’s a big deal) or do we spend capital and political effort on reducing our climate footprint? I don’t like either/or scenarios but laypersons in a lot of the US are increasingly frustrated with science (probably due to poor science education by default in the US) and are seeking more clearly communicated, stable answers from pop deacons.
- skh 8y ago
  Also, the fact that you think a 5 year old kid read papers published in 1800s about carbon dioxide and started worrying about climate change shows your bias, not mine. Nothing I wrote suggests that I think a 5 year old read papers published in the 1800s. I think you did not fully comprehend what I wrote. This conclusion of mine is further evidenced with your last two sentences. It’s been known for quite a while that temperatures are increasing due to man made causes. This is established science as far as these things can be established. One does not convert to accepting scientific fact if the starting point is that scientific facts ought to be believed.
  - nilkn 8y ago
    As an outsider to this exchange, I think porpoisely intended to highlight the "since I was 5 years old" part in his/her original quote, so that's why your response was interpreted in that context.
    - skh 8y ago
      What you say is reasonable and seems correct from my perspective. I’ll elaborate a bit more on my perspective of the exchange. From the article it’s hard to come to the conclusion that the couple are extremists. That they had this concern at a young age speaks to the influence of their parents. But they are now philosophers of science and professors. Presumably they are well informed and well read at this point in their life. They are devoted to the study of scientific misinformation. I find it odd that porpoisely focuses on the fact that at a young age they were concerned about climate change. I think it says a lot about porpoisely that he/she focuses on this. Specifically that he/she is looking at superficial reasons to discredit the couple and ignores what expertise they have. This shows the bias porpoisely has.
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  > I agree that humans contribute somewhat to it, but to what degree and to what ends, I know we have no clue. You said that you agree the physics of carbon dioxide is well understood. Human activity has drastically altered the net amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere annually (all carbin emissions minus all carbon sink absorptions). We emit a relatively small amount compared to nature, but nature was fairly balanced before by also storing most of that in carbon sinks. Do you not think this is true for some reason? This fact makes it seem pretty apparent to me that we are driving much of the changing temperatures and thus also the changing climate.
- SethMurphy 8y ago
  > A 5 year old kid worried about climate change or anti-vaccination or abortion debate or any of the hot-button political issues is someone who has been brainwashed by their parents or environment. At a young age it is a parents and the community's role to shape their values. Brainwashing is a very harsh term. If taught correctly based on these values learned young it would make sense that they would come to a similar conclusion. I do admit however their is a fine line between teaching an opinion vs. teaching core values. For example, political affiliation in my opinion is not a value. However, the fundamental issues are. It is unfortunate that as a society the two are so closely intertwined which leads to a very binary choice and not insight and learning of the actual issues. Let's take vaccination. Teaching a child that it is important for their health could be constructive. However teaching a child that there are crazy people who who don't vaccinate their children would not be a lesson I would teach. If you instead stated that there are people with another point of view, but it currently lacks scientific evidence, but their is a possibility they are correct and we should have an open mind and continue to try to understand medicine and vaccinations would lead to a adult with an open mind who would make their own decisions without bias. In a decade we may have scientific proof that both sides had a point. In short, don't look for judgement, but understanding.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    You would teach your kid to be accepting of any random belief anyone would ever have and to apply no filter? To engage with every ridiculous and proven wrong or not even wrong belief in the world? Tremendous waste of time and most importantly invalid way to approach current complexity of the world. You would get instantly tangled within insanity of you actually did that. Never learn anything because the opposite may in some alternate universe be true. Most people who progress open mind actually use availability heuristic instead or more complicated filters on top of that. At some point, you have to rely on at least pools of experts. There is no way anyone who isn't immortal can even come close to understanding enough about basic physics, biology, much less everything relevant to life. The world is too big and complex for that. How do you know who is an expert and even if they are one, when they're incorrect? That is a billion dollar plus question. As it is, for simple small area practical questions the proof is in doing. For complex and wide ranging ones? Who knows. Perhaps the most trustworthy experts are the ones who know their and the field's limits. But then, every field had its stages where it failed badly at interpreting world while everyone believed the predictions to be true and they were, given the context... Some multiple times. The rules I found is to distrust simplicity, simple explanations and prefer data with known methodology to credentials. Distrust higher order sources and especially direct opinions. (But not experience. That's data.)
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  You make it sound like any kind of information a child absorbs or is taught could be interpreted as brainwashing.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Also, the physics of carbon dioxide on temperature is understood, but the physics of climate isn't so well understood. Hence why we don't have as great a model of it as we'd like. You can understand the concept of a bit without understanding how a system ( like the OS ) works. You're engaging here in a disinformation tactic that one of the interviewees in the OP described: > Weatherall: In the 1960s, the scientific consensus had become clear that there was a link between tobacco products and cancer. The tobacco industry recognized a number of things very quickly. One, this was almost certainly true—their own scientists were getting the same results. Two, it was disastrous for them. Three, they were not going to be able to come up with a compelling evidence-based argument that tobacco was safe or beneficial. But they realized they didn’t need to. All they needed to do was emphasize the uncertainty present in any kind of scientific endeavor. They made the case the evidence isn’t in yet and it’s rash to act. It’s too soon for individuals to give up smoking. It’s too soon for the government to intervene.

by skh 8y ago

porpoisely 8y ago

Papers were published about global cooling a few decades ago. Papers were published about malthusian collapse. Papers were published saying tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. Also, the physics of carbon dioxide on temperature is understood, but the physics of climate isn't so well understood. Hence why we don't have as great a model of it as we'd like. You can understand the concept of a bit without understanding how a system ( like the OS ) works. Also, the fact that you think a 5 year old kid read papers published in 1800s about carbon dioxide and started worrying about climate change shows your bias, not mine. A 5 year old kid worried about climate change or anti-vaccination or abortion debate or any of the hot-button political issues is someone who has been brainwashed by their parents or environment. I agree that climate change exists ( with or without humans ). I agree that humans contribute somewhat to it, but to what degree and to what ends, I know we have no clue. The only people with evangelical and zealous fervor ( on either side ) are pretty much anti-science agenda peddlers. I'm open to both sides and most importantly to fact and science. I have a feeling that you and these authors "converted" a long time a ago.

devonkim 8y ago
While I can agree with your sentiment, the problem thus remains - what do we do in the face on uncertainty? If we aren’t really responsible terribly much we would be potentially wasting a lot of effort on the wrong problems (we’ll need to do this one anyway IMO - that climate change is happening and it’s a big deal) or do we spend capital and political effort on reducing our climate footprint? I don’t like either/or scenarios but laypersons in a lot of the US are increasingly frustrated with science (probably due to poor science education by default in the US) and are seeking more clearly communicated, stable answers from pop deacons.
skh 8y ago
Also, the fact that you think a 5 year old kid read papers published in 1800s about carbon dioxide and started worrying about climate change shows your bias, not mine. Nothing I wrote suggests that I think a 5 year old read papers published in the 1800s. I think you did not fully comprehend what I wrote. This conclusion of mine is further evidenced with your last two sentences. It’s been known for quite a while that temperatures are increasing due to man made causes. This is established science as far as these things can be established. One does not convert to accepting scientific fact if the starting point is that scientific facts ought to be believed.
- nilkn 8y ago
  As an outsider to this exchange, I think porpoisely intended to highlight the "since I was 5 years old" part in his/her original quote, so that's why your response was interpreted in that context.
  - skh 8y ago
    What you say is reasonable and seems correct from my perspective. I’ll elaborate a bit more on my perspective of the exchange. From the article it’s hard to come to the conclusion that the couple are extremists. That they had this concern at a young age speaks to the influence of their parents. But they are now philosophers of science and professors. Presumably they are well informed and well read at this point in their life. They are devoted to the study of scientific misinformation. I find it odd that porpoisely focuses on the fact that at a young age they were concerned about climate change. I think it says a lot about porpoisely that he/she focuses on this. Specifically that he/she is looking at superficial reasons to discredit the couple and ignores what expertise they have. This shows the bias porpoisely has.
dwaltrip 8y ago
> I agree that humans contribute somewhat to it, but to what degree and to what ends, I know we have no clue. You said that you agree the physics of carbon dioxide is well understood. Human activity has drastically altered the net amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere annually (all carbin emissions minus all carbon sink absorptions). We emit a relatively small amount compared to nature, but nature was fairly balanced before by also storing most of that in carbon sinks. Do you not think this is true for some reason? This fact makes it seem pretty apparent to me that we are driving much of the changing temperatures and thus also the changing climate.
SethMurphy 8y ago
> A 5 year old kid worried about climate change or anti-vaccination or abortion debate or any of the hot-button political issues is someone who has been brainwashed by their parents or environment. At a young age it is a parents and the community's role to shape their values. Brainwashing is a very harsh term. If taught correctly based on these values learned young it would make sense that they would come to a similar conclusion. I do admit however their is a fine line between teaching an opinion vs. teaching core values. For example, political affiliation in my opinion is not a value. However, the fundamental issues are. It is unfortunate that as a society the two are so closely intertwined which leads to a very binary choice and not insight and learning of the actual issues. Let's take vaccination. Teaching a child that it is important for their health could be constructive. However teaching a child that there are crazy people who who don't vaccinate their children would not be a lesson I would teach. If you instead stated that there are people with another point of view, but it currently lacks scientific evidence, but their is a possibility they are correct and we should have an open mind and continue to try to understand medicine and vaccinations would lead to a adult with an open mind who would make their own decisions without bias. In a decade we may have scientific proof that both sides had a point. In short, don't look for judgement, but understanding.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  You would teach your kid to be accepting of any random belief anyone would ever have and to apply no filter? To engage with every ridiculous and proven wrong or not even wrong belief in the world? Tremendous waste of time and most importantly invalid way to approach current complexity of the world. You would get instantly tangled within insanity of you actually did that. Never learn anything because the opposite may in some alternate universe be true. Most people who progress open mind actually use availability heuristic instead or more complicated filters on top of that. At some point, you have to rely on at least pools of experts. There is no way anyone who isn't immortal can even come close to understanding enough about basic physics, biology, much less everything relevant to life. The world is too big and complex for that. How do you know who is an expert and even if they are one, when they're incorrect? That is a billion dollar plus question. As it is, for simple small area practical questions the proof is in doing. For complex and wide ranging ones? Who knows. Perhaps the most trustworthy experts are the ones who know their and the field's limits. But then, every field had its stages where it failed badly at interpreting world while everyone believed the predictions to be true and they were, given the context... Some multiple times. The rules I found is to distrust simplicity, simple explanations and prefer data with known methodology to credentials. Distrust higher order sources and especially direct opinions. (But not experience. That's data.)
happytoexplain 8y ago
You make it sound like any kind of information a child absorbs or is taught could be interpreted as brainwashing.
ardy42 8y ago
> Also, the physics of carbon dioxide on temperature is understood, but the physics of climate isn't so well understood. Hence why we don't have as great a model of it as we'd like. You can understand the concept of a bit without understanding how a system ( like the OS ) works. You're engaging here in a disinformation tactic that one of the interviewees in the OP described: > Weatherall: In the 1960s, the scientific consensus had become clear that there was a link between tobacco products and cancer. The tobacco industry recognized a number of things very quickly. One, this was almost certainly true—their own scientists were getting the same results. Two, it was disastrous for them. Three, they were not going to be able to come up with a compelling evidence-based argument that tobacco was safe or beneficial. But they realized they didn’t need to. All they needed to do was emphasize the uncertainty present in any kind of scientific endeavor. They made the case the evidence isn’t in yet and it’s rash to act. It’s too soon for individuals to give up smoking. It’s too soon for the government to intervene.