3 ms·

What makes you think it's 'advocacy' science? How would climate science have to change to convince you otherwise?

by deogeo 8y ago

basurihn 8y ago
I'll gladly respond - once someone stops deleting comments from other posters that they don't like. Manipulating the forum is WRONG.
cazum 8y ago
All science is 'advocacy science' when you deny the conclusions.
- basurihn 8y ago
  I deny creation science. I am a denier.
  - cazum 8y ago
    You can't deny creation science, as creation science hasn't yet formed a coherent hypothesis capable of being denied. Climate science has testable hypotheses that continue to give reliable, observable and consistent results. Claiming that its conclusions are wrong requires denial, as no one has yet been able to demonstrate that that they are wrong. Creation science hasn't even yet been able to form a framework that can be tested, let alone denied. I'd argue it doesn't even qualify as a science. Yes I'm being pedantic. Yes I will die on this hill.
austincheney 8y ago
The science isn’t the problem. The evidence and research are solid. It’s the communication. Science comes in two flavors: research and experiments. Other things, even if attempting to sound scientific, are probably not science. One example is consensus, which itself isn’t science unless we are talking about behavioral sciences. The average person is not a scientist, certainly not a climatologist, but is generally decent at perceiving the basics of interpersonal communication and can discern if something is science or not regardless of their agreement or bias. That is problematic, how do you talk to those people? They won’t understand the science, but alternate means of communication results in potential for arguments that are manipulative or far out of scope. The idea is that climate change is a big deal. It is disruptive and that disruption will be very expensive and damaging, possibly catastrophic. Bad stuff. So, you want to convince people it is bad in order to change policy. Here is where the challenge begins, because policy discussions are generally political and not scientific even if all the supporting evidence is science and that evidence is overwhelming. The goal of science is advancing knowledge according to the scientific model, which is different than the goal of a policy conversation. Knowing nothing about climate or research a person can still detect that shift in conversation from science to policy/persuasion. Accounting for that without losing your message is delicate. You can be good at science and less good at communication. If the conversation is purely fact and research based it isn’t emotionally compelling, but if it isn’t emotionally compelling there is no drive for policy change. At the same time if it is emotionally compelling it is open to falsification by irrational and illogical means. That is a hard problem to solve.
- basurihn 8y ago
  RCP 8.5 is, even according to the IPCC, highly highly unlikely. One could say the evidence for that scenario is... not overwhelming, or even whelming. Evidence for "just what" is overwhelming... you find out the "just what" is nothing much, really. There's a correlation between CO2 rise and a very small temperature increase, tht may or may not be a big deal. We don't know.

What makes you think it's 'advocacy' science? How would climate science have to change to convince you otherwise?

by deogeo 8y ago

What makes you think it's 'advocacy' science? How would climate science have to change to convince you otherwise?

I'll gladly respond - once someone stops deleting comments from other posters that they don't like. Manipulating the forum is WRONG.

cazum 8y ago

All science is 'advocacy science' when you deny the conclusions.

basurihn 8y ago
I deny creation science. I am a denier.
- cazum 8y ago
  You can't deny creation science, as creation science hasn't yet formed a coherent hypothesis capable of being denied. Climate science has testable hypotheses that continue to give reliable, observable and consistent results. Claiming that its conclusions are wrong requires denial, as no one has yet been able to demonstrate that that they are wrong. Creation science hasn't even yet been able to form a framework that can be tested, let alone denied. I'd argue it doesn't even qualify as a science. Yes I'm being pedantic. Yes I will die on this hill.

austincheney 8y ago

The science isn’t the problem. The evidence and research are solid. It’s the communication. Science comes in two flavors: research and experiments. Other things, even if attempting to sound scientific, are probably not science. One example is consensus, which itself isn’t science unless we are talking about behavioral sciences. The average person is not a scientist, certainly not a climatologist, but is generally decent at perceiving the basics of interpersonal communication and can discern if something is science or not regardless of their agreement or bias. That is problematic, how do you talk to those people? They won’t understand the science, but alternate means of communication results in potential for arguments that are manipulative or far out of scope. The idea is that climate change is a big deal. It is disruptive and that disruption will be very expensive and damaging, possibly catastrophic. Bad stuff. So, you want to convince people it is bad in order to change policy. Here is where the challenge begins, because policy discussions are generally political and not scientific even if all the supporting evidence is science and that evidence is overwhelming. The goal of science is advancing knowledge according to the scientific model, which is different than the goal of a policy conversation. Knowing nothing about climate or research a person can still detect that shift in conversation from science to policy/persuasion. Accounting for that without losing your message is delicate. You can be good at science and less good at communication. If the conversation is purely fact and research based it isn’t emotionally compelling, but if it isn’t emotionally compelling there is no drive for policy change. At the same time if it is emotionally compelling it is open to falsification by irrational and illogical means. That is a hard problem to solve.

basurihn 8y ago
RCP 8.5 is, even according to the IPCC, highly highly unlikely. One could say the evidence for that scenario is... not overwhelming, or even whelming. Evidence for "just what" is overwhelming... you find out the "just what" is nothing much, really. There's a correlation between CO2 rise and a very small temperature increase, tht may or may not be a big deal. We don't know.