3 ms·

To you, the fact that their methods section didn't loudly announce they're cherrypicking might be enough evidence to trust them. To me, the fact that climate s

To you, the fact that their methods section didn't loudly announce they're cherrypicking might be enough evidence to trust them. To me, the fact that climate science has made its fair share of vast, vast mispredictions, such as the prestigious Club of Rome's 1972 model saying we'd run out of petroleum in ~2000, means that the default assumption is mistrust, not trust. You can call me a tinfoil hatter, but I think if one wants conclusive evidence on the accuracy of climate models they'd have to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. That's obviously way too much effort for a snide internet discussion, but the point is that if the field is mostly bullshit, that's just not refutable by pointing to the same people saying they're not bullshitting.

pmiller2 6y ago
Okay, well, go ahead and put your head in the sand. Just don't fuck it up for the rest of us, k? > to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  > You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? The very point I was making is you should do it yourself. Good job ignoring it. > Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view? You're mistaken, this paper fits my world view perfectly. It's saying climate science is mostly accurate, if you look at a set of accurate models. This is obviously sound reasoning. It's just not saying anything.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? As far as fitting your worldview, you contradict yourself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.

pmiller2 6y ago

Okay, well, go ahead and put your head in the sand. Just don't fuck it up for the rest of us, k? > to go over the body of research from that time and judge for themselves whether the researchers chose a representative sample. You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view?

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
> You do realize that's what "literature survey" means, right? You know, the thing the researchers already did? The very point I was making is you should do it yourself. Good job ignoring it. > Do you insist on personally replicating every research paper you read, or just the ones that don't fit your world view? You're mistaken, this paper fits my world view perfectly. It's saying climate science is mostly accurate, if you look at a set of accurate models. This is obviously sound reasoning. It's just not saying anything.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? As far as fitting your worldview, you contradict yourself here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25540504 So, which is it? Do you believe climate change is an existential threat to humanity in the near term, as the models predict, and as climate science predicts, or no?
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.