4 ms·

Guessing? How so, by whom, and about what? The scientific consensus is that humans have had a significant, adverse impact on the global climate -- this conclus

Guessing? How so, by whom, and about what? The scientific consensus is that humans have had a significant, adverse impact on the global climate -- this conclusion is presented with scientific certainty. There is a complete lack of significant dissent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  > Consensus, although comforting, is irrelevant in hard science. Particularly so when uncertainty is high, as in climate change modelling. When you say "irrelevant," do you mean to say that the attempts of thousands of scientists to use the scientific method to repeat findings which constitute the body of research -- and consequently fail to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming -- do you mean to say that this is irrelevant? Consensus is not merely opinion -- it's opinion informed by the results of experimental and observational science. I'm not sure what else you consider to be "hard" science. EDIT: okay, this guy mrvc deleted everything he posted here, which were quite a few comments to the effect that the theory of global warming is comprised of guesses, drastic underestimation of uncertainty in the data, and propaganda.
  - ars 15y ago
    He's probably getting downmodded, which isn't right. Don't downmod someone just because you disagree. Upmod what you agree with, and leave what you disagree with alone. Reserve downmods for stupid comments.
    - rimantas 15y ago
      There is "flag" for stupid comments. If I turn the steering wheel to the right to make the right turn I'd expect to make the left turn when turning it to the left, not stopping the car. Symmetrical controls imply symmetrical actions.
      - ars 15y ago
        No, flag is for spam. The moderation is not symmetrical - it only goes to -4, but has no limit in the other direction. And it doesn't matter what you think it implies. The reality is that the custom here is not to downmod comments you disagree with. It wasn't always so, even pg at one time thought differently. But experience shows that the discussion is much better when this custom is followed.
        rimantas 15y ago
        Symmetry is symmetry, no matter what I do think of it. If you make symmetrical actions for asymmetrical intents, that is just bad UI. I've had enough comments downvoted purely on disagreement (including the one above. Or was it "stupid"?) to not to buy your "custom" argument.
        ars 15y ago
        I gave you an upvote to try to undo that. I've also had downvotes like that - it doesn't make it right.
devijvers 15y ago
"Scientific certainty" is not a popularity contest as you describe. Everybody can agree and still be wrong. Einstein's work is a good example of that.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  I didn't say anything about popularity mattering. In the absence of any better way of ascertaining objective truth about the world than the scientific method, I choose to accept the fact of consensus -- that a large number of scientists have failed to falsify the theory -- as being a meaningful indication about the truth of global warming. EDIT -- I assume with your reference to Einstein, you mean that the whole world was wrong about the motion of physical bodies, with their notions from Newtonian models, until relativity came along? If so, you may care to read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm It's about the difference between a wrong theory and an incomplete one.
  - PakG1 15y ago
    Just curious, how is climate change falsifiable? What we have is a lot of data and a lot of models. We don't have any way to test this data and models, no? Furthermore, we don't know if we know everything about the subject, although we would appear to know a lot. So the only way to falsify it is if new data comes out? But for something so complicated, future data is likely a crapshoot? We can only estimate future data based on current models, which may or may not be able to model reality well, given how complex and nonlinear the entire system is? It seems really difficult to falsify the idea of global warming.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      The only way I could see it being falsified is if we got access to a new source of historical data that somehow was more accurate than all existing sources (which seems unlikely) or by waiting to see what happens and obtaining new data that way (which might give an unpleasant answer). I'm not sure how the concept of a theory being falsifiable applies when you can't really run repeated controlled experiments.
oelewapperke 15y ago
In real science you don't get to use the word "adverse". That's a value judgement and it has no place in exact sciences, which are (supposed to be) value-free, purely descriptive.
praxeologist 15y ago
"It has been often said that the science is settled on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false. The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements. Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive. We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it." http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/HaydenToJackson.pdf http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Ha...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jessedhillon 15y ago
> Consensus, although comforting, is irrelevant in hard science. Particularly so when uncertainty is high, as in climate change modelling. When you say "irrelevant," do you mean to say that the attempts of thousands of scientists to use the scientific method to repeat findings which constitute the body of research -- and consequently fail to falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming -- do you mean to say that this is irrelevant? Consensus is not merely opinion -- it's opinion informed by the results of experimental and observational science. I'm not sure what else you consider to be "hard" science. EDIT: okay, this guy mrvc deleted everything he posted here, which were quite a few comments to the effect that the theory of global warming is comprised of guesses, drastic underestimation of uncertainty in the data, and propaganda.
- ars 15y ago
  He's probably getting downmodded, which isn't right. Don't downmod someone just because you disagree. Upmod what you agree with, and leave what you disagree with alone. Reserve downmods for stupid comments.
  - rimantas 15y ago
    There is "flag" for stupid comments. If I turn the steering wheel to the right to make the right turn I'd expect to make the left turn when turning it to the left, not stopping the car. Symmetrical controls imply symmetrical actions.
    - ars 15y ago
      No, flag is for spam. The moderation is not symmetrical - it only goes to -4, but has no limit in the other direction. And it doesn't matter what you think it implies. The reality is that the custom here is not to downmod comments you disagree with. It wasn't always so, even pg at one time thought differently. But experience shows that the discussion is much better when this custom is followed.
      - rimantas 15y ago
        Symmetry is symmetry, no matter what I do think of it. If you make symmetrical actions for asymmetrical intents, that is just bad UI. I've had enough comments downvoted purely on disagreement (including the one above. Or was it "stupid"?) to not to buy your "custom" argument.
        ars 15y ago
        I gave you an upvote to try to undo that. I've also had downvotes like that - it doesn't make it right.

devijvers 15y ago

"Scientific certainty" is not a popularity contest as you describe. Everybody can agree and still be wrong. Einstein's work is a good example of that.

jessedhillon 15y ago
I didn't say anything about popularity mattering. In the absence of any better way of ascertaining objective truth about the world than the scientific method, I choose to accept the fact of consensus -- that a large number of scientists have failed to falsify the theory -- as being a meaningful indication about the truth of global warming. EDIT -- I assume with your reference to Einstein, you mean that the whole world was wrong about the motion of physical bodies, with their notions from Newtonian models, until relativity came along? If so, you may care to read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm It's about the difference between a wrong theory and an incomplete one.
- PakG1 15y ago
  Just curious, how is climate change falsifiable? What we have is a lot of data and a lot of models. We don't have any way to test this data and models, no? Furthermore, we don't know if we know everything about the subject, although we would appear to know a lot. So the only way to falsify it is if new data comes out? But for something so complicated, future data is likely a crapshoot? We can only estimate future data based on current models, which may or may not be able to model reality well, given how complex and nonlinear the entire system is? It seems really difficult to falsify the idea of global warming.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    The only way I could see it being falsified is if we got access to a new source of historical data that somehow was more accurate than all existing sources (which seems unlikely) or by waiting to see what happens and obtaining new data that way (which might give an unpleasant answer). I'm not sure how the concept of a theory being falsifiable applies when you can't really run repeated controlled experiments.

oelewapperke 15y ago

In real science you don't get to use the word "adverse". That's a value judgement and it has no place in exact sciences, which are (supposed to be) value-free, purely descriptive.

praxeologist 15y ago

"It has been often said that the science is settled on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false. The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements. Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive. We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it." http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/HaydenToJackson.pdf http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Ha...