3 ms·

Clearly this is a fluff piece of journalism. He said - she said. "5 sigma". Sounds great. What does it mean? 2 out of 3 satellites reported data that gave

Clearly this is a fluff piece of journalism. He said - she said. "5 sigma". Sounds great. What does it mean? 2 out of 3 satellites reported data that gave the 5 sigma conclusion by 2005, the third by 2016. Great. What does it mean? It doesn't really say, other than a 95 percent chance that global warming since 1950 is caused by humans. Somebody said they would like to notch that up to 99% chance. Another person wouldn't go so far. I think it's totally fair to criticise this virtually content free article. I don't think it's fair to so glibly criticise the science. This article isn't the science. I think we, as members of a community that is generally educated to a higher level than other communities should be calling out this nonsense that gets printed because it gives real ammunition to people (among whom it is possible you are a member) who deride climate science on the basis of bad journalism. It's a massive shame because it's an issue with potentially dire consequences.

basurihn 8y ago
I deride it based on bad journalism AND bad science. Not all climate science is bad, of course. The kind that takes an RCP of 8.5 with zero chance of happening and uses it as an input to policy recommendations is bad science. Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science. Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media) is bad science.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science. I'm pretty sure the general conclusion is that, on average, the climate is warming, which makes weather extremes worse. > Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media) What are these predictions, and where are they being ripped apart?
- mikekchar 8y ago
  To be fair, the linked article contains no science ;-) It certainly contains none of the science that you are describing. It's an appeal to authority. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing gum after dinner. You're taking a particularly bad article and using it as a launching pad for describing your own issues which are only related by topic. I'm writing this not to slap your hand, but in hopes that you can get to a point where all your posts aren't down voted ;-). Your message is not cohesive enough to follow. If you pick and choose which thing to talk about more carefully, I think you will find that you will get a much more responsive audience. For example, in this case, the original article was absolutely rubbish. The only apparent reason one can see for it being on the front page is because it had the "right" headline. Nobody needs that kind of thing. People like me who feel that the science shows that we need to change our lifestyles for our future prosperity don't need this. People like you who (seemingly) feel that the science shows that we don't need to change our lifestyles don't need it. We're on the same side. Don't waste that opportunity! A rant against the world is very satisfying, but it's not very effective. You will possibly pick up other disenfranchised people, but I don't think it will go much further. Instead, I recommend trying to respond with laser precision and discuss individual problems without bringing in all the other baggage. This time would be a good time to talk about how they are quoting scientists who are talking about conclusions with virtually nothing to explain what those conclusions are about. Perhaps you can say that we shouldn't be using such terrible journalism as input into important political dialog. Such an insight will be valuable for everybody. Another time, if real science is described, you can discuss problems with statistical techniques, etc, etc. Again, it will benefit everyone. Ideally, I would suggest that you attempt to downplay your own political agenda (everyone has one!). You have your own preferred outcome, but if you don't stress it, you have a much better chance that people with the opposite viewpoint will feel welcome enough to read what you have to write. From there, they may start to think that they should revisit their own position. Anyway, I hope that proves helpful to you. I was reading your posts and really felt bad for your situation, which is why I decided to reply. Maybe the advice won't be good for you, but I hope it's worth thinking about.

basurihn 8y ago

I deride it based on bad journalism AND bad science. Not all climate science is bad, of course. The kind that takes an RCP of 8.5 with zero chance of happening and uses it as an input to policy recommendations is bad science. Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science. Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media) is bad science.

saagarjha 8y ago
> Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science. I'm pretty sure the general conclusion is that, on average, the climate is warming, which makes weather extremes worse. > Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media) What are these predictions, and where are they being ripped apart?
mikekchar 8y ago
To be fair, the linked article contains no science ;-) It certainly contains none of the science that you are describing. It's an appeal to authority. 4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing gum after dinner. You're taking a particularly bad article and using it as a launching pad for describing your own issues which are only related by topic. I'm writing this not to slap your hand, but in hopes that you can get to a point where all your posts aren't down voted ;-). Your message is not cohesive enough to follow. If you pick and choose which thing to talk about more carefully, I think you will find that you will get a much more responsive audience. For example, in this case, the original article was absolutely rubbish. The only apparent reason one can see for it being on the front page is because it had the "right" headline. Nobody needs that kind of thing. People like me who feel that the science shows that we need to change our lifestyles for our future prosperity don't need this. People like you who (seemingly) feel that the science shows that we don't need to change our lifestyles don't need it. We're on the same side. Don't waste that opportunity! A rant against the world is very satisfying, but it's not very effective. You will possibly pick up other disenfranchised people, but I don't think it will go much further. Instead, I recommend trying to respond with laser precision and discuss individual problems without bringing in all the other baggage. This time would be a good time to talk about how they are quoting scientists who are talking about conclusions with virtually nothing to explain what those conclusions are about. Perhaps you can say that we shouldn't be using such terrible journalism as input into important political dialog. Such an insight will be valuable for everybody. Another time, if real science is described, you can discuss problems with statistical techniques, etc, etc. Again, it will benefit everyone. Ideally, I would suggest that you attempt to downplay your own political agenda (everyone has one!). You have your own preferred outcome, but if you don't stress it, you have a much better chance that people with the opposite viewpoint will feel welcome enough to read what you have to write. From there, they may start to think that they should revisit their own position. Anyway, I hope that proves helpful to you. I was reading your posts and really felt bad for your situation, which is why I decided to reply. Maybe the advice won't be good for you, but I hope it's worth thinking about.