4 ms·

Confirmation bias muddies the discussion around what the changing weather patterns are actually doing immensely.

ggggtez 7y ago
The reason science is an improvement over previous types of thought is that it is both explanative and predictive. Denying that climate change exists at all is what muddies the conversation. All serious scientists in this field believe in climate change, and only debate about which models are most predictive and accurate.
- fhbdukfrh 7y ago
  Isn't the real debate about the cause of climate change, and hence the best addressed aspects? I would hope all true scientists can agree on what they see but still debate there underlying phenomena and this the predictive models
  - avip 7y ago
    The scientific "debate" about the cause of climate change (not to be confused with insects population drop, which is a much more involved issue) at this point is similar in spirit to the "debate" about natural selection or the health impact of smoking. In other words, there is no debate at all. We (the human race) have known about the GHG mechanism for over 50 years. We've had the instruments to validate our understanding for well over 20 years now. There is some disagreement between projections, the models definitely don't converge to the same point in 20-100 years, but they just don't agree on the breadth and depth of the catastrophe or the timeframe we have left to take action. There is also disagreement wrt proposed solutions. Some things (like mass afforestation) are really too complex for us to predict the impact.
    - dlp211 7y ago
      We've known about GHG effect for over a century now. https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen...
      - avip 7y ago
        Sure. But if you spent some time in "climate debates" (which I do not recommend btw), you'd develop the habit of staying well within a safety margin of 30% for any stated fact (the US, a country of over 100mm people...)
    - JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
      I'd rather have unanswerable questions then unquestionable answers; Climate science has become far too unquestionable. There is always room for debate, especially in the face of consensus. Without it astronomers burn and science dies.
      - ebiester 7y ago
        Fine. Debate it. Debate creation science while you're at it. However, it's time to figure out ways to mitigate the problem. We have a working hypothesis that has enough evidence on which to act.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - praxulus 7y ago
        There's room for debate, but that doesn't mean there's any actual debate going on. I.e. scientists are free to publish papers showing evidence that climate change isn't happening or not caused by human activity. Where there isn't room for debate is the claim that there's actually an ongoing debate within the scientific community about the basics of climate change. That's just not true at the moment, and claiming otherwise is mistaken at best, and corporate propaganda at worst.
      - youareostriches 7y ago
        “The shape of the earth has become far too unquestionable. There is always room for debate as to whether the earth is flat.”
        hutzlibu 7y ago
        There is actually room for that. Beginners philosophy classes.. And it is a interesting philosophic question. How do we know, what we etc.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    the real debate is where the turning point is in cost Vs opportunity in battling climate change, it would be unwise to dump trillions now only for a couple large countries to judge the risk differently and use the added margin to boost their economy, especially in the current recession that's still looming around Europe, it would cost the continent it's last manufacturing jobs and then that's it, it would have to be shaken up from it's foundation to battle wto and protect its internal market from external pressure and internal fragmentation to have a chance to avoid collapsing into itself

The reason science is an improvement over previous types of thought is that it is both explanative and predictive. Denying that climate change exists at all is what muddies the conversation. All serious scientists in this field believe in climate change, and only debate about which models are most predictive and accurate.

fhbdukfrh 7y ago
Isn't the real debate about the cause of climate change, and hence the best addressed aspects? I would hope all true scientists can agree on what they see but still debate there underlying phenomena and this the predictive models
- avip 7y ago
  The scientific "debate" about the cause of climate change (not to be confused with insects population drop, which is a much more involved issue) at this point is similar in spirit to the "debate" about natural selection or the health impact of smoking. In other words, there is no debate at all. We (the human race) have known about the GHG mechanism for over 50 years. We've had the instruments to validate our understanding for well over 20 years now. There is some disagreement between projections, the models definitely don't converge to the same point in 20-100 years, but they just don't agree on the breadth and depth of the catastrophe or the timeframe we have left to take action. There is also disagreement wrt proposed solutions. Some things (like mass afforestation) are really too complex for us to predict the impact.
  - dlp211 7y ago
    We've known about GHG effect for over a century now. https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen...
    - avip 7y ago
      Sure. But if you spent some time in "climate debates" (which I do not recommend btw), you'd develop the habit of staying well within a safety margin of 30% for any stated fact (the US, a country of over 100mm people...)
  - JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
    I'd rather have unanswerable questions then unquestionable answers; Climate science has become far too unquestionable. There is always room for debate, especially in the face of consensus. Without it astronomers burn and science dies.
    - ebiester 7y ago
      Fine. Debate it. Debate creation science while you're at it. However, it's time to figure out ways to mitigate the problem. We have a working hypothesis that has enough evidence on which to act.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - praxulus 7y ago
      There's room for debate, but that doesn't mean there's any actual debate going on. I.e. scientists are free to publish papers showing evidence that climate change isn't happening or not caused by human activity. Where there isn't room for debate is the claim that there's actually an ongoing debate within the scientific community about the basics of climate change. That's just not true at the moment, and claiming otherwise is mistaken at best, and corporate propaganda at worst.
    - youareostriches 7y ago
      “The shape of the earth has become far too unquestionable. There is always room for debate as to whether the earth is flat.”
      - hutzlibu 7y ago
        There is actually room for that. Beginners philosophy classes.. And it is a interesting philosophic question. How do we know, what we etc.
        throwaway2048 7y ago
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  the real debate is where the turning point is in cost Vs opportunity in battling climate change, it would be unwise to dump trillions now only for a couple large countries to judge the risk differently and use the added margin to boost their economy, especially in the current recession that's still looming around Europe, it would cost the continent it's last manufacturing jobs and then that's it, it would have to be shaken up from it's foundation to battle wto and protect its internal market from external pressure and internal fragmentation to have a chance to avoid collapsing into itself