5 ms·

Yeah, it turns out destabilizing the climate is a big fucking deal.

umvi 8y ago
I agree but, come on. It's a cop out. Anyone can retroactively fit a model. It's much harder to have a model that makes good predictions. It's tiring when everything from insect populations, to depression in humans, to polar vortexes are all retroactively attributed to AGW. Of course, existing models would never predict these things, they are simply observed, and then a climate related cause is sought out and pinned on.
- zemvpferreira 8y ago
  Why would you expect us to have good models for unprecedented events of unprecedented scale? I’m all for high standards but this isn’t exactly a simple thing you’re pining for.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- sneakernets 8y ago
  But AGW is why those things are happening.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    But how do we know that as opposed to just assuming AGW is the cause for all those things, as opposed to there being other causes?
- pard68 8y ago
  Agreed. My main concern is things are not going to be better researched because climate change is the simple answer, why look further? I work at a university, talk to lots of scientists and academics in my free me, these researchers are just as human as anyone else and simple answers are just as appealing and knee-jerk reactions are just as common
  - umvi 8y ago
    Yes! This is what I was trying to convey, but I was having a hard time articulating it. Instead of the process being: - Observe problem - Ask "Hmm, how could AGW have caused this?" (easy) - Find plausible way AGW could have caused it - Publish, adding another mostly uninteresting dire AGW article to the stack It would be nice if the process were: - Observe problem - Ask "Is it possible something other than AGW caused this?" (harder) - Find plausible alternative to AGW ("hmm, looks like there's some sort of fungus killing the frogs") - Publish, leading to further investigations Obviously some things really are caused by AGW, but I fear it's becoming easy, and indeed popular to attribute problems to AGW, rightfully or not.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Actually neither of those scenarios seems right to me. At some point scientists should generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then test to falsify that hypothesis. You are correct that this step seems to be omitted in much popular writing about science.
      - abalone 8y ago
        This is a sciency-sounding position that actually misrepresents science. Since scientists are not gods, just as with macroeconomics and astrophysics and paleontology, climate science cannot readily “test to falsify a hypothesis.” We are restricted to observing the universe and hoping to come across useful data we can compare and contrast. Thus to imply that the inability to regularly cleanly isolate and test variables in these disciplines is unscientific is itself a disservice to science.
        CamperBob2 8y ago
        No, that pretty much is the definition of modern (Popperian) science. At least the sort of science that we should require in order to justify rewiring trillion-dollar economies.
        8y ago
- arcticfox 8y ago
  I agree that it's lazy to just say "AGW" for any problem. But I also think it's lazy to dismiss theories that point to AGW as a cause simply because no model predicted it in advance. There are an infinite number of possible effects (including amphibian funguses), modeling each specific one and knock-on effects is an exercise in futility. It's much more reasonable to simply be responsible about the attribution of any effects we do observe, and only focus on modeling the most devastating predicted effects of AGW rather than every potential one (including amphibian funguses).

umvi 8y ago

I agree but, come on. It's a cop out. Anyone can retroactively fit a model. It's much harder to have a model that makes good predictions. It's tiring when everything from insect populations, to depression in humans, to polar vortexes are all retroactively attributed to AGW. Of course, existing models would never predict these things, they are simply observed, and then a climate related cause is sought out and pinned on.

zemvpferreira 8y ago
Why would you expect us to have good models for unprecedented events of unprecedented scale? I’m all for high standards but this isn’t exactly a simple thing you’re pining for.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sneakernets 8y ago
But AGW is why those things are happening.
- goatlover 8y ago
  But how do we know that as opposed to just assuming AGW is the cause for all those things, as opposed to there being other causes?
pard68 8y ago
Agreed. My main concern is things are not going to be better researched because climate change is the simple answer, why look further? I work at a university, talk to lots of scientists and academics in my free me, these researchers are just as human as anyone else and simple answers are just as appealing and knee-jerk reactions are just as common
- umvi 8y ago
  Yes! This is what I was trying to convey, but I was having a hard time articulating it. Instead of the process being: - Observe problem - Ask "Hmm, how could AGW have caused this?" (easy) - Find plausible way AGW could have caused it - Publish, adding another mostly uninteresting dire AGW article to the stack It would be nice if the process were: - Observe problem - Ask "Is it possible something other than AGW caused this?" (harder) - Find plausible alternative to AGW ("hmm, looks like there's some sort of fungus killing the frogs") - Publish, leading to further investigations Obviously some things really are caused by AGW, but I fear it's becoming easy, and indeed popular to attribute problems to AGW, rightfully or not.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Actually neither of those scenarios seems right to me. At some point scientists should generate a falsifiable hypothesis and then test to falsify that hypothesis. You are correct that this step seems to be omitted in much popular writing about science.
    - abalone 8y ago
      This is a sciency-sounding position that actually misrepresents science. Since scientists are not gods, just as with macroeconomics and astrophysics and paleontology, climate science cannot readily “test to falsify a hypothesis.” We are restricted to observing the universe and hoping to come across useful data we can compare and contrast. Thus to imply that the inability to regularly cleanly isolate and test variables in these disciplines is unscientific is itself a disservice to science.
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        No, that pretty much is the definition of modern (Popperian) science. At least the sort of science that we should require in order to justify rewiring trillion-dollar economies.
        8y ago
arcticfox 8y ago
I agree that it's lazy to just say "AGW" for any problem. But I also think it's lazy to dismiss theories that point to AGW as a cause simply because no model predicted it in advance. There are an infinite number of possible effects (including amphibian funguses), modeling each specific one and knock-on effects is an exercise in futility. It's much more reasonable to simply be responsible about the attribution of any effects we do observe, and only focus on modeling the most devastating predicted effects of AGW rather than every potential one (including amphibian funguses).