5 ms·

If you're interested in a healthy dose of climate change skepticism, there's also Richard Lindzen, but he's also derided by the climatologist community. I've fo

If you're interested in a healthy dose of climate change skepticism, there's also Richard Lindzen, but he's also derided by the climatologist community. I've found the most intelligent of the entire community is skeptical, but the rest of them are convinced of their mission for ethical means, and are willing to forecast doomsday scenarios based on essentially what boils down to linear regression or maybe some very simplified model that has no chance of being reality. The more complex models are still extremely rudimentary, with fluid sims in movies and games being more robust than GCM in terms of simulation size which has a massive effect on the prediction quality. And there are gaping holes--the ocean's fluid flow effects and clouds. (edit: apparently there are some simulations with these now, but they are very rudimentary, see below) Listen to him if you're interested though, his videos are all around YouTube. > Typical AGCM resolutions are between 1 and 5 degrees in latitude or longitude: HadCM3, for example, uses 3.75 in longitude and 2.5 degrees in latitude, giving a grid of 96 by 73 points (96 x 72 for some variables); and has 19 vertical levels. From Wikipedia. I don't think clouds fit into such a coarse grid. Climate is exceptionally chaotic and there are definitely processes that can't be approximated with such a low-parameter model. I dunno if the latest models are more refined, but six months ago they were still dealing with water vapor.

onion2k 6y ago
I've found the most intelligent of the entire community is skeptical... I'd be interested to know how you measured that.
- solinent 6y ago
  Let's just say a combination of a few essentially computational factors--memory, conscientiousness, and scholarship and/or expertise through experience over a significant period of time in varied contexts. But really it's just my intuition, and I'm not the most intelligent person in the world so maybe I'm wrong. I don't really mean intelligence in the technical or usual sense, just in the sense that it applies to a climatologist that makes good predictions in this context. Anyways, I'm just here to deliver the message, I don't really pretend to know either way--but I do tend to agree with certain experts over others because their arguments are much more robust, given my math background it appeals to my reasonable side. edit: I thought about it some more. I think I can boil it down to one thing--high information entropy in their written work.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    But really it's just my intuition So you're really just using "intelligent" as a proxy for "says things I agree with", with no real basis for the claim. That's not a good look.
    - solinent 6y ago
      Yes, it's my opinion, and I've presented it as such, but it's entirely based on his point of view. I think the opinions of non-experts are very valuable due to the effects of group-think. The basis for my claim I could lay down, but this is not the ground for that battle. Do you have any reason to disbelieve certain experts over others? When they are the foremost in their field, consistently? No one is denying climate change. In any case, I don't claim its truth, just its existence. It's obviously important to any scientific process to consider alternative theories which have better predictive power, and to criticize our existing ones, however close to reality they ultimately are. In any case, if reasonable discussion is not permitted here maybe it's not the place for me. edit: > That's not a good look. Maybe I'm just in the wrong neighborhood. Okay maybe I'll stay, seems like there's a mixed response.
      - roelschroeven 6y ago
        > Do you have any reason to disbelieve certain experts over others? What is important, I think, is that we shouldn't believe anyone just because they're an expert. What we believe or not should not be based on who says it, but ultimately on the data that supports it (or not). So find the studies that (are supposed to) support a given opinion, have a look them, and have a look at how other studies in the field react to it. That last point is very important: it often reveals flaws in the study that a layman could never spot. > In any case, I don't claim its truth, just its existence. It's obviously important to any scientific process to consider alternative theories which have better predictive power, and to criticize our existing ones, however close to reality they ultimately are. If you go look at the climate science literature, you'll find that all different kinds of models and explanations have been proposed and studied. Those alternatives have been looked at in detail by people in the field, just like any other study. None of them have been found to better match the data.
kossTKR 6y ago
>The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus. from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_clima... Straight up evil in my eyes, anti science.
- solinent 6y ago
  Have you verified the other experts who are part of this "consensus" everyone always talks about but never measures? I would guarantee they're connected directly to the journalism / media industry, in fact it's blatantly obvious, the sources for all of those claims are not scientific in that Wikipedia section. I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either. The cycle goes [University PR] -> [Funding for the University] -> [Funding for anti-C02 efforts] -> [Paper] -> [University PR]. The process doesn't exist without the PR component which supports an entire industry. No wonder they have a consensus. Also, I wouldn't trust the Guardian on something like this, as they're directly connected to these climatologists. You could probably prove it, but I'll have to sleep so no one will, and I'm not likely to come back here, I prefer to exist in reality, goodbye! Enjoy the coming economic doom in Silicon Valley. > "healthy dose of climate scepticism". Beyond embarrassing and straight up evil in my eyes. I don't take any point of view here ultimately, I keep having to reiterate that, there's a certain uncertainty to science. If it's evil in your eyes, maybe you're caught up in the middle of it. I think skepticism is important in any context as it's the opposite of dogmatism. Anyways, I do have credentials, but it's a Friday night, if you're still interested in having a reasonable discussion I'd be happy to learn why I'm wrong.
  - jsilence 6y ago
    'I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either.' Sure they would. Sorry, but this argument is simply void, and to be frank, stupid. Do you really think these people are so dumb that the only job they can do is program massive climate models?
derriz 6y ago
You can find articulate and sometimes convincing “skeptics” to suit any scientific viewpoint you want - for example evolution denialism or Holocaust denialism - but that’s just an example of using selection bias to confirm your belief. No reasonable person, I believe, approaching the subject with an honest desire to learn about a subject would chose to ignore the 95%+ scientific consensus in order to form a balanced opinion of it.
- solinent 6y ago
  Well evolution is really not entirely certain so it's important to take that point of view scientifically just in-case we've made a mistake. Of course it's obviously true but who knows, I'm sure humanity has said that before. Holocaust denialism is another topic completely unrelated to science, and this discussion. You can't deny all denialism just by lumping it all in a big category. Skepticism is the foundation of science.
  - derriz 6y ago
    I’m talking about non-experts approaching a subject with genuine curiosity and an honest desire to form a balanced perspective. I don’t have a PhD in climate science nor biology nor history so I believe the most reasonable starting point is to try to understand the expert consensus. Scientific skepticism on the part of non-experts is just a form of cynicism or - more generally - a form of confirmation bias.
    - solinent 6y ago
      Fair enough, I don't think it's a good way to convince people to simply claim your excellence however. I'm not interested in arguments from authority. If there's a big spat in a scientific field, usually you get this distribution. It's hard to be a skeptic in science, but that's where all the action is. Typically useful scientific fields are based in the hard sciences where this doesn't happen, I guess. How can you even know what the consensus is?

onion2k 6y ago

I've found the most intelligent of the entire community is skeptical... I'd be interested to know how you measured that.

solinent 6y ago
Let's just say a combination of a few essentially computational factors--memory, conscientiousness, and scholarship and/or expertise through experience over a significant period of time in varied contexts. But really it's just my intuition, and I'm not the most intelligent person in the world so maybe I'm wrong. I don't really mean intelligence in the technical or usual sense, just in the sense that it applies to a climatologist that makes good predictions in this context. Anyways, I'm just here to deliver the message, I don't really pretend to know either way--but I do tend to agree with certain experts over others because their arguments are much more robust, given my math background it appeals to my reasonable side. edit: I thought about it some more. I think I can boil it down to one thing--high information entropy in their written work.
- onion2k 6y ago
  But really it's just my intuition So you're really just using "intelligent" as a proxy for "says things I agree with", with no real basis for the claim. That's not a good look.
  - solinent 6y ago
    Yes, it's my opinion, and I've presented it as such, but it's entirely based on his point of view. I think the opinions of non-experts are very valuable due to the effects of group-think. The basis for my claim I could lay down, but this is not the ground for that battle. Do you have any reason to disbelieve certain experts over others? When they are the foremost in their field, consistently? No one is denying climate change. In any case, I don't claim its truth, just its existence. It's obviously important to any scientific process to consider alternative theories which have better predictive power, and to criticize our existing ones, however close to reality they ultimately are. In any case, if reasonable discussion is not permitted here maybe it's not the place for me. edit: > That's not a good look. Maybe I'm just in the wrong neighborhood. Okay maybe I'll stay, seems like there's a mixed response.
    - roelschroeven 6y ago
      > Do you have any reason to disbelieve certain experts over others? What is important, I think, is that we shouldn't believe anyone just because they're an expert. What we believe or not should not be based on who says it, but ultimately on the data that supports it (or not). So find the studies that (are supposed to) support a given opinion, have a look them, and have a look at how other studies in the field react to it. That last point is very important: it often reveals flaws in the study that a layman could never spot. > In any case, I don't claim its truth, just its existence. It's obviously important to any scientific process to consider alternative theories which have better predictive power, and to criticize our existing ones, however close to reality they ultimately are. If you go look at the climate science literature, you'll find that all different kinds of models and explanations have been proposed and studied. Those alternatives have been looked at in detail by people in the field, just like any other study. None of them have been found to better match the data.

kossTKR 6y ago

>The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus. from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_clima... Straight up evil in my eyes, anti science.

solinent 6y ago
Have you verified the other experts who are part of this "consensus" everyone always talks about but never measures? I would guarantee they're connected directly to the journalism / media industry, in fact it's blatantly obvious, the sources for all of those claims are not scientific in that Wikipedia section. I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either. The cycle goes [University PR] -> [Funding for the University] -> [Funding for anti-C02 efforts] -> [Paper] -> [University PR]. The process doesn't exist without the PR component which supports an entire industry. No wonder they have a consensus. Also, I wouldn't trust the Guardian on something like this, as they're directly connected to these climatologists. You could probably prove it, but I'll have to sleep so no one will, and I'm not likely to come back here, I prefer to exist in reality, goodbye! Enjoy the coming economic doom in Silicon Valley. > "healthy dose of climate scepticism". Beyond embarrassing and straight up evil in my eyes. I don't take any point of view here ultimately, I keep having to reiterate that, there's a certain uncertainty to science. If it's evil in your eyes, maybe you're caught up in the middle of it. I think skepticism is important in any context as it's the opposite of dogmatism. Anyways, I do have credentials, but it's a Friday night, if you're still interested in having a reasonable discussion I'd be happy to learn why I'm wrong.
- jsilence 6y ago
  'I mean, if there's nothing we can do about climate change and CO2 has no effect, none of them have a job either.' Sure they would. Sorry, but this argument is simply void, and to be frank, stupid. Do you really think these people are so dumb that the only job they can do is program massive climate models?

derriz 6y ago

You can find articulate and sometimes convincing “skeptics” to suit any scientific viewpoint you want - for example evolution denialism or Holocaust denialism - but that’s just an example of using selection bias to confirm your belief. No reasonable person, I believe, approaching the subject with an honest desire to learn about a subject would chose to ignore the 95%+ scientific consensus in order to form a balanced opinion of it.

solinent 6y ago
Well evolution is really not entirely certain so it's important to take that point of view scientifically just in-case we've made a mistake. Of course it's obviously true but who knows, I'm sure humanity has said that before. Holocaust denialism is another topic completely unrelated to science, and this discussion. You can't deny all denialism just by lumping it all in a big category. Skepticism is the foundation of science.
- derriz 6y ago
  I’m talking about non-experts approaching a subject with genuine curiosity and an honest desire to form a balanced perspective. I don’t have a PhD in climate science nor biology nor history so I believe the most reasonable starting point is to try to understand the expert consensus. Scientific skepticism on the part of non-experts is just a form of cynicism or - more generally - a form of confirmation bias.
  - solinent 6y ago
    Fair enough, I don't think it's a good way to convince people to simply claim your excellence however. I'm not interested in arguments from authority. If there's a big spat in a scientific field, usually you get this distribution. It's hard to be a skeptic in science, but that's where all the action is. Typically useful scientific fields are based in the hard sciences where this doesn't happen, I guess. How can you even know what the consensus is?