3 ms·

We may have a pretty good idea that CO2 is driving some degree of change, the nature of the change, impact etc. is not remotely settled. Case and point: the Me

by jariel 7y ago

We may have a pretty good idea that CO2 is driving some degree of change, the nature of the change, impact etc. is not remotely settled. Case and point: the Met graph time scales are all cherry picked to maximise the 'visible trend' for a given activity - a rather unscientific and propagandistic approach, however good their intentions might be. In short - the charts are 'Bad Science'. Ironically whenever I see such cherry-picking, or serious people asking 16 year old Swedish girls about 'what we should do about Nuclear Energy' - I can only be made skeptical. We have to balance the needs of truth and actual science with the need to communicate this information into the commons.

fdsonvbno 7y ago
> or serious people asking 16 year old Swedish girls about 'what we should do about Nuclear Energy' Don't hide behind weasily language, you can use her name. What makes Greta Thunberg unserious? Why isn't her opinion valuable? Why is it impossible she has read the relevant sources? You're skeptical because acknowledgment of the problem would mean a compulsion to do something about it, so it's easier to hide under a veneer of 'rational disagreement' and pretend like the science is less definitive than it is.
tempguy9999 7y ago
> the Met graph time scales are all cherry picked to Any evidence for this?
- 0-_-0 7y ago
  I think they simply show the period for which the data is reliable, but I'd like to know if that assumption is wrong.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    If they showed data for a period where it was unreliable then I'm sure it would be hedged around with strong caveats and error bars. As you assume it is for reliable for the period, perhaps it's good data. It does seem to be within the last century (earliest 1940s from what I can see) where decent scientific measurements would be valid and direct, rather than from centuries past where it would be necessarily indirect and inferred.

by jariel 7y ago

fdsonvbno 7y ago

> or serious people asking 16 year old Swedish girls about 'what we should do about Nuclear Energy' Don't hide behind weasily language, you can use her name. What makes Greta Thunberg unserious? Why isn't her opinion valuable? Why is it impossible she has read the relevant sources? You're skeptical because acknowledgment of the problem would mean a compulsion to do something about it, so it's easier to hide under a veneer of 'rational disagreement' and pretend like the science is less definitive than it is.

tempguy9999 7y ago

> the Met graph time scales are all cherry picked to Any evidence for this?

0-_-0 7y ago
I think they simply show the period for which the data is reliable, but I'd like to know if that assumption is wrong.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  If they showed data for a period where it was unreliable then I'm sure it would be hedged around with strong caveats and error bars. As you assume it is for reliable for the period, perhaps it's good data. It does seem to be within the last century (earliest 1940s from what I can see) where decent scientific measurements would be valid and direct, rather than from centuries past where it would be necessarily indirect and inferred.