5 ms·
I've gone from just sort of blankly accepting that, of course, global warming is true + catastrophic, to now wondering if it's over-hyped or uncertain. The kind
by dilap 7y ago
I've gone from just sort of blankly accepting that, of course, global warming is true + catastrophic, to now wondering if it's over-hyped or uncertain. The kinds of arguments around it make it seem more like a moral or even religious hysteria than a well-supported belief. Science should invite skepticism and questioning, not try to shut it down w/ shouts of someone being a "denier".
A little bit of warming seems certain; the catastrophic scenarios, not so certain.
https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-climate-change.html https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2017/06/epistemic-caution-and-...
Reducing fossil fuel use is still the prudent thing to do, of course.
- Brakenshire 7y agoYou need to distinguish between the scientific base, and activism through a particular political lens. The latter can be hysterical, that doesn’t have any relevance to the former.
- GarrisonPrime 7y agoOf course it has relevance to the former. Today’s science is highly politicized, and driven by ideology rather than objective observation. What else can be expected in a government-grant-driven system.
- Brakenshire 7y agoThe hysterical reactions you see mostly come from the radical wing of left wing parties, they are rarely in power, and certainly are nowhere near making grant decisions.
- Oletros 7y ago> Today’s science is highly politicized, and driven by ideology rather than objective observation. Are you accusing all cliamte scientists of fraud?
- GarrisonPrime 7y agoAgreed. Their fanaticism makes it hard to view some of these zealots with any credence. At one point, it was common for exasperated speakers to claim “there’s no point discussing it further; the science is settled”. Which is about the least scientific thing that could ever be said.
- michaelmrose 7y agoIt's easy to utter when the opposition rarely has anything to do with actual science. Ever had a conversation with someone who didn't believe in evolution. Get ready to discuss at length why it being the "theory" of evolution means even scientists know it's less credible than the "law" of gravity. It's easy to share truths that only know nothings would believe so your opponent knows 78 of them. Debunking them will require knowledge of 17 fields and taking a week to debate the matter
- kaybe 7y agoMeanwhile, the scientists start joining Extinction Rebellion. That should tell you something.
- akvadrako 7y agoThat they’re actually fanatics?
- kaybe 7y agoAbout as fanatic as someone who sees a small fire in their apartment building and tries to get the firefighters and/or the other residents to remove the danger I suppose. Bad comparisons aside, it should tell you they (we) trust our data and conclusions enough to panic. Someone in it for just the money wouldn't do that, someone inflating the importance of the issue for grant money wouldn't either. (And the argument about doing that to keep a job is ridiculous, as if no other jobs existed that would either pay far more money or would be similarly interesting and important.) And of course you have more moderates that only go to the Fridays for Future protests and give talks etc.