4 ms·

Seconded -- I know little about climate science, but I have faith that the people who have PhDs in in and have dedicated their working lives to learning more ar

Seconded -- I know little about climate science, but I have faith that the people who have PhDs in in and have dedicated their working lives to learning more are aware of Milankovitch cycles. Yet over and over some other internet dummy who is no more educated on the subject than me will dismiss the IPCC report and triumphantly say something like, "AGW is a hoax. The climate changes cyclically because of Milankovitch cycles", as if climate scientists had never heard of it or hadn't factored that into their models already. Another good one is when they will trot out some statistic, say, 30M years ago the CO2 levels were at 4000ppm and we are doing just fine. What they seem to fail to recognize is that the only reason they have that knowledge is due to climate researchers. Somehow the deniers will accept climate research if they think it supports their position, but then will decry the researches as ignorant, as if the climatologists weren't aware of the very facts they have amassed.

chrisweekly 7y ago
Speaking of PhD's, a little more than 20 years ago I was an undergrad at the University of Virginia (the top-ranked public university at the time, top-20 overall in the US). I took a class on atmospheric environment, and the instructor was (he claimed, and I had no reason to doubt) the first and only person in the US with a PhD in the subject. I remember being a bit disenchanted with his take on anthropogenic global warming; he seemed to take it as a given that the students all believed AGW to be a real and serious problem, and all semester long espoused a very fossil-fuel-industry-friendly perspective. I was unhappy to learn that funding for his position came in large part directly from said industry. (What's that quote about people having trouble understanding something if their livelihood depends on not understanding it?)
danioli 7y ago
It's not that I'm sceptical of climate science, it's just that the discussion is now... entrenched. The random person will not debate the wisdom of human-induced changes to the weather, but also will probably not understand the Milankovitch cycles, or know the ocean water levels rise and fall on geological timescales by about 130 meters?, that we know this because (IIRC) of Wallace (I think, in tandem with Darwin?) who also noted that the divergence between different variants of the same species across the islands of an an archipelago varied more with the depth of the water between islands, than with just the distance. What about the PET (Paleocene-Eocene transition)? I'm sure that climate scientists are doing their jobs, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many (including "activists") who are willing to debate the matter without this key. Why doesn't this ever come up? (both the cycles, and the lack of depth in the discussions) If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now. And personally, I am even more sceptical when I hear talk of climate justice, but that is an entirely different issue.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anewguy9000 7y ago
  The average IQ is 100. Do you know what someone with an IQ of 100 is capable of? Just about anything except science. The random person has no idea what they know or why and how they know it. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
- Kadin 7y ago
  > If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now. We probably should, or take other similar-scale approaches (multiple, as it wouldn't do to put all our eggs in one basket). The lack of response shouldn't be taken as any indication that the problem isn't dire. That would be placing a truly ridiculous amount of faith in human civilization to tackle collective-action problems, which there is little evidence we are especially good at doing. In fact, what you see in the world is exactly consistent with an extremely dire problem and a very insufficient response. Why the response to such a dire problem is so lukewarm is left as an exercise for the reader.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    I think it's notable that he's saying "I don't believe in this, but I'd belive it if you did X" where X has been considered and dismissed by most relevant experts (nuclear is simply too slow to build and and too expensive to fix the problem) exactly like these cycles have been discounted as an explanation of global warming. So if someone keeps bringing these things up, then it's likely they're acting in bad faith or they've been duped by someone else doing likewise. Enthusiastic nuclear support while downplaying other sensible solutions (carbon fees, renewables, insulation and efficiency) is basically the socially acceptable face of climate change denial at this point.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  If I said human activity doesn't affect the stock market -- it just operates on cycles. It goes up for awhile, then it goes down for awhile, you'd rightfully laugh at me. But that is exactly what you are doing about AGW. Yes, the climate has changed in the past. But that doesn't mean the driver of those historical changes is driving the current change. People have always died, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't require safety devices in automobiles. Second, "cycles" is just way too blithe of a summary, as if there was a clockwork mechanism driving things. The gaps between the ups and downs is irregular. > Why doesn't this [Milankovich cycles] ever come up? I'm 100.00% sure climatologists are well aware of it and it has been modeled and found unable to explain the trends we are seeing.
krona 7y ago
False equivalence? Research about things which happened in the past are empirical, and it matters little who discovered them. Predictions about future events are not empirical, since they have not happened.
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Extrapolations from data measured in the present to assume the state of the past is not empirical in the same way as actively measuring the state of the past empirically.

chrisweekly 7y ago

Speaking of PhD's, a little more than 20 years ago I was an undergrad at the University of Virginia (the top-ranked public university at the time, top-20 overall in the US). I took a class on atmospheric environment, and the instructor was (he claimed, and I had no reason to doubt) the first and only person in the US with a PhD in the subject. I remember being a bit disenchanted with his take on anthropogenic global warming; he seemed to take it as a given that the students all believed AGW to be a real and serious problem, and all semester long espoused a very fossil-fuel-industry-friendly perspective. I was unhappy to learn that funding for his position came in large part directly from said industry. (What's that quote about people having trouble understanding something if their livelihood depends on not understanding it?)

danioli 7y ago

It's not that I'm sceptical of climate science, it's just that the discussion is now... entrenched. The random person will not debate the wisdom of human-induced changes to the weather, but also will probably not understand the Milankovitch cycles, or know the ocean water levels rise and fall on geological timescales by about 130 meters?, that we know this because (IIRC) of Wallace (I think, in tandem with Darwin?) who also noted that the divergence between different variants of the same species across the islands of an an archipelago varied more with the depth of the water between islands, than with just the distance. What about the PET (Paleocene-Eocene transition)? I'm sure that climate scientists are doing their jobs, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many (including "activists") who are willing to debate the matter without this key. Why doesn't this ever come up? (both the cycles, and the lack of depth in the discussions) If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now. And personally, I am even more sceptical when I hear talk of climate justice, but that is an entirely different issue.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anewguy9000 7y ago
The average IQ is 100. Do you know what someone with an IQ of 100 is capable of? Just about anything except science. The random person has no idea what they know or why and how they know it. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/occupations.aspx
Kadin 7y ago
> If it's as dire as some seem to imply, we should all switch to nuclear right now. We probably should, or take other similar-scale approaches (multiple, as it wouldn't do to put all our eggs in one basket). The lack of response shouldn't be taken as any indication that the problem isn't dire. That would be placing a truly ridiculous amount of faith in human civilization to tackle collective-action problems, which there is little evidence we are especially good at doing. In fact, what you see in the world is exactly consistent with an extremely dire problem and a very insufficient response. Why the response to such a dire problem is so lukewarm is left as an exercise for the reader.
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  I think it's notable that he's saying "I don't believe in this, but I'd belive it if you did X" where X has been considered and dismissed by most relevant experts (nuclear is simply too slow to build and and too expensive to fix the problem) exactly like these cycles have been discounted as an explanation of global warming. So if someone keeps bringing these things up, then it's likely they're acting in bad faith or they've been duped by someone else doing likewise. Enthusiastic nuclear support while downplaying other sensible solutions (carbon fees, renewables, insulation and efficiency) is basically the socially acceptable face of climate change denial at this point.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
If I said human activity doesn't affect the stock market -- it just operates on cycles. It goes up for awhile, then it goes down for awhile, you'd rightfully laugh at me. But that is exactly what you are doing about AGW. Yes, the climate has changed in the past. But that doesn't mean the driver of those historical changes is driving the current change. People have always died, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't require safety devices in automobiles. Second, "cycles" is just way too blithe of a summary, as if there was a clockwork mechanism driving things. The gaps between the ups and downs is irregular. > Why doesn't this [Milankovich cycles] ever come up? I'm 100.00% sure climatologists are well aware of it and it has been modeled and found unable to explain the trends we are seeing.

krona 7y ago

False equivalence? Research about things which happened in the past are empirical, and it matters little who discovered them. Predictions about future events are not empirical, since they have not happened.

Fellshard 7y ago
Extrapolations from data measured in the present to assume the state of the past is not empirical in the same way as actively measuring the state of the past empirically.