4 ms·

No we shouldn't! You don't give up the principles of science just to expedite your political ideals. If you were going to do that, why bother with science in th

No we shouldn't! You don't give up the principles of science just to expedite your political ideals. If you were going to do that, why bother with science in the first place? Just declare it so and shout it until everyone believes you! I have memories of world 30 years ago being hotter than it is today. I don't credit it to "global cooling" because I'm not that silly. You shouldn't be either. You'll never notice a degree C of average temperature change. You regulate your body's environment's temperature with clothing, housing, heating, etc. And it varies much more dramatically hour-by-hour than over decades. If you simply changed your bedtime a little, you could experience global warming or cooling of the same magnitude as what actually happened.

leto_ii 7y ago
Is there any level or consistency of anecdotal evidence that you would find acceptable?
- lopmotr 7y ago
  No. See the enormous volume and consistency of anecdotal evidence for ineffective medicine. Most of China has believed and recreated the same false anecdotes about their TCM for thousands of years! Remember bloodletting? astrology? praying to God? If you don't apply methods for protecting yourself from human bias, then you're bound to fall victim to human bias.
  - leto_ii 7y ago
    Ok, so what standard of evidence for anthropogenic climate change would you accept?
    - lopmotr 7y ago
      I don't know, but I would reject all anecdotes. If somebody measured the temperatures around the world for many decades, I could accept that shows global temperature rise. Turns out they did and I do. That's data, not anecdotes. As for proving the cause, I don't know enough to understand how reliable that is. But climate scientists seem pretty sure of themselves so I accept their conclusions as much as any well studied science conclusions.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
If you understood science you'd understand why "you'll never notice a degree C of average temperature change" is wholly, irrevocably, unarguably, objectively, and absolutely scientifically incorrect. The scientific reality is that climate models have made decently accurate predictions so far. The whole point of the models is that 1C or 2C of change is not just about your own personal subjective experience of how warm it is. The predictions are about everyone's personal subjective experience of having their home flooded, or destroyed in a fire, tornado or hurricane - all of which become more likely as temperatures rise. This has literally been understood for decades now - by climate scientists, by the fossil fuel industry, and also by insurers. Those are the obvious first order effects. The longer term second order effects - water shortages, crop failure, economic instability - are at least as important, if harder to model. And the third order consequences - homelessness, resource wars, mass migration - even more so. Just because you have failed to educate yourself properly, while persuading yourself that your subjective opinion about "clothing and heating" is as credible scientifically as that of thousands of climate science PhDs working full-time on modelling, and don't understand that these are specific, actionable predictions doesn't mean they won't affect you personally.
- lopmotr 7y ago
  You can't notice it personally without doing science. You can't just remember how hot it was when you were a kid and know that global warming is happening. That's what the GP was talking about and what I'm responding to. Obviously scientists can measure it with suitable instruments and techniques but casual observers can't. I think you're arguing with a strawman by bringing floods and fires into it. But even if you want to go there, experiencing one flood in your life doesn't tell you that the frequency is higher than it was 30 years ago. There just isn't enough data or valid statistics in one person's personal experience and feelings.

leto_ii 7y ago

Is there any level or consistency of anecdotal evidence that you would find acceptable?

lopmotr 7y ago
No. See the enormous volume and consistency of anecdotal evidence for ineffective medicine. Most of China has believed and recreated the same false anecdotes about their TCM for thousands of years! Remember bloodletting? astrology? praying to God? If you don't apply methods for protecting yourself from human bias, then you're bound to fall victim to human bias.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  Ok, so what standard of evidence for anthropogenic climate change would you accept?
  - lopmotr 7y ago
    I don't know, but I would reject all anecdotes. If somebody measured the temperatures around the world for many decades, I could accept that shows global temperature rise. Turns out they did and I do. That's data, not anecdotes. As for proving the cause, I don't know enough to understand how reliable that is. But climate scientists seem pretty sure of themselves so I accept their conclusions as much as any well studied science conclusions.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

If you understood science you'd understand why "you'll never notice a degree C of average temperature change" is wholly, irrevocably, unarguably, objectively, and absolutely scientifically incorrect. The scientific reality is that climate models have made decently accurate predictions so far. The whole point of the models is that 1C or 2C of change is not just about your own personal subjective experience of how warm it is. The predictions are about everyone's personal subjective experience of having their home flooded, or destroyed in a fire, tornado or hurricane - all of which become more likely as temperatures rise. This has literally been understood for decades now - by climate scientists, by the fossil fuel industry, and also by insurers. Those are the obvious first order effects. The longer term second order effects - water shortages, crop failure, economic instability - are at least as important, if harder to model. And the third order consequences - homelessness, resource wars, mass migration - even more so. Just because you have failed to educate yourself properly, while persuading yourself that your subjective opinion about "clothing and heating" is as credible scientifically as that of thousands of climate science PhDs working full-time on modelling, and don't understand that these are specific, actionable predictions doesn't mean they won't affect you personally.

lopmotr 7y ago
You can't notice it personally without doing science. You can't just remember how hot it was when you were a kid and know that global warming is happening. That's what the GP was talking about and what I'm responding to. Obviously scientists can measure it with suitable instruments and techniques but casual observers can't. I think you're arguing with a strawman by bringing floods and fires into it. But even if you want to go there, experiencing one flood in your life doesn't tell you that the frequency is higher than it was 30 years ago. There just isn't enough data or valid statistics in one person's personal experience and feelings.