5 ms·

There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate sc

by syops 5y ago

There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts. Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. The overwhelming majority of the people most knowledgeable about climate science believe the massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are largely responsible for the disruption of the weather system. Is X sufficiently high to discount the previous two facts? Scientists are studying perturbations of Earth’s orbit to see the effect that has on climate. Some study the effects of solar dynamics on Earth’s climate. It’s not that CO2 is the sole culprit. It’s that CO2 is the one we can control. It’s not that climate doesn’t change it’s that we are changing it faster than nature can change. It’s changing fast enough that there will be dire consequences to the current world political system. Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government.

aww_dang 5y ago
>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never arriving at the zenith of truth. >Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government. This assumes one accepts the doomsayer's premises. These are the issues being disputed. 1)That men and their CO2 emissions are solely responsible for climate and weather. 2)That there is an optimal climate and fallible men can identify it. Separate is the issue of "Free riders" and how that relates to the necessity of government mandates. The EPA sets standards for pollution. Those who are within the confines of those standards can do harm with their pollutants. Later they can claim they were within the established guidelines, absolving them of responsibility. In this case the government regulators have created a scenario where polluters can "ride freely". Consider how this differs from the premises of natural law. If each individual owns himself and his body, those who's industrial factors damage the property of another should be liable for damages - regardless of EPA standards.
- syops 5y ago
  It’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    You hit the nail on the head with question about morality. The climate apocalypse is presented as a strictly scientific issue. It becomes scientism when the moral questions are ignored. IMHO, if we are to examine the moral question we need to ask not just about the premises of the doomsayers, but the potential outcomes of the favored solutions. Even where I disagree with their premises, I can appreciate the questions and arguments around the mechanisms for warming. However, the proposed solutions are plainly harmful. Where empirical observations required for climate science, apriori knowledge about human nature, reason and logic can be applied to their carbon credit central banking schemes. We know humans are flawed and greedy. We know the world is a complex place. Allowing the further privilege of centrally planning the world's energy consumption invites not just moral hazard, but catastrophic tyranny. Therefore, if you disagree about the specifics of AGW, fine. That is a separate issue. Consider the moral hazards of the doomsayer's proposals. Finally, avoid the trap of false alternatives. There are options besides inaction or adopting the warmist's proposals. Reforestation, forestry management and carbon storage through use of wood products is a viable alternative. Ask why this profitable solution is not given precedence over violent, government mandates.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  I am not saying smoking kills, all I am saying that there is not enough evidence that they do. So relax and have a cigarette...
flavius29663 5y ago
> 97+% of climate scientists People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number. 97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming - how large the positive feedback effects are (without these, there is little warming from CO2 alone) - how bad global warming will be - what are the right policies to address it What happens in public discourse is that people just dangle the 97% to justify anything, literally anything they say. You don't want diesel engines? but 97%....why do you hate polar bears? You don't want to ban plastic straws? 97% of scientists want to ban them You don't want to live in a small house? but 97%...why do you hate the planet? You don't think *this* hurricane is caused by global warming? 97% of scientists disagree Thermometer shows 100F today in Arizona, it's because of global warming, 97% of scientists agree. It's getting ridiculous, to be honest. It's the pinnacle of appeal to authority.
- syops 5y ago
  The fallacy to which you alluded is actually the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. It is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the knowledge of experts in their area of expertise. A large majority of everything you believe to be true has not been independently verified by yourself. You have and continue to rely on the knowledge of others. The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    it is a fallacy to appeal to authority (97%) for anything other than "humans do cause global warming". Look at your link on NASA's page, the statements from societies are something like this: > The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Which is what the 97% covers, maybe a bit more. I haven't seen any further statements based on the 97%: for weather events, for policies, for gravity - this is where the fallacy happens. And you did it too in your post, the OP was calling for nuance in regards to gravity, weather and policies, and as a reply you just pulled out the 97%

by syops 5y ago

aww_dang 5y ago

>Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. That's a bit of survivor's bias isn't it? Where science hasn't "corrected" people disparage dissent or are unaware. If you're game, we might observe that humans are flawed and unable to make perfect observations. Thus empirical knowledge is always flawed and will continuously be "correcting", but never arriving at the zenith of truth. >Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government. This assumes one accepts the doomsayer's premises. These are the issues being disputed. 1)That men and their CO2 emissions are solely responsible for climate and weather. 2)That there is an optimal climate and fallible men can identify it. Separate is the issue of "Free riders" and how that relates to the necessity of government mandates. The EPA sets standards for pollution. Those who are within the confines of those standards can do harm with their pollutants. Later they can claim they were within the established guidelines, absolving them of responsibility. In this case the government regulators have created a scenario where polluters can "ride freely". Consider how this differs from the premises of natural law. If each individual owns himself and his body, those who's industrial factors damage the property of another should be liable for damages - regardless of EPA standards.

syops 5y ago
It’s sort of a survivorship bias. I say sort of since generally speaking new evidence or contrary evidence without explanation has a history of being convincing in science. We won’t have perfect knowledge but one can make decisions based on the best available knowledge. Lack of perfect knowledge is not a moral justification for inaction in the face of looming major disruption.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  You hit the nail on the head with question about morality. The climate apocalypse is presented as a strictly scientific issue. It becomes scientism when the moral questions are ignored. IMHO, if we are to examine the moral question we need to ask not just about the premises of the doomsayers, but the potential outcomes of the favored solutions. Even where I disagree with their premises, I can appreciate the questions and arguments around the mechanisms for warming. However, the proposed solutions are plainly harmful. Where empirical observations required for climate science, apriori knowledge about human nature, reason and logic can be applied to their carbon credit central banking schemes. We know humans are flawed and greedy. We know the world is a complex place. Allowing the further privilege of centrally planning the world's energy consumption invites not just moral hazard, but catastrophic tyranny. Therefore, if you disagree about the specifics of AGW, fine. That is a separate issue. Consider the moral hazards of the doomsayer's proposals. Finally, avoid the trap of false alternatives. There are options besides inaction or adopting the warmist's proposals. Reforestation, forestry management and carbon storage through use of wood products is a viable alternative. Ask why this profitable solution is not given precedence over violent, government mandates.
me_me_me 5y ago
I am not saying smoking kills, all I am saying that there is not enough evidence that they do. So relax and have a cigarette...

flavius29663 5y ago

> 97+% of climate scientists People should understand what that 97% number means. It means that from the papers that addressed the global warming or any effect AND made a position on it, 97% acknowledged that at least to some degree that humans do indeed contribute to global warming. That is the bar for the 97% number. 97% does not address: - how much humans contribute to global warming - how large the positive feedback effects are (without these, there is little warming from CO2 alone) - how bad global warming will be - what are the right policies to address it What happens in public discourse is that people just dangle the 97% to justify anything, literally anything they say. You don't want diesel engines? but 97%....why do you hate polar bears? You don't want to ban plastic straws? 97% of scientists want to ban them You don't want to live in a small house? but 97%...why do you hate the planet? You don't think *this* hurricane is caused by global warming? 97% of scientists disagree Thermometer shows 100F today in Arizona, it's because of global warming, 97% of scientists agree. It's getting ridiculous, to be honest. It's the pinnacle of appeal to authority.

syops 5y ago
The fallacy to which you alluded is actually the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. It is not an argumentative fallacy to appeal to the knowledge of experts in their area of expertise. A large majority of everything you believe to be true has not been independently verified by yourself. You have and continue to rely on the knowledge of others. The 97% I alluded to is not what you claim it to mean. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-clima...
- flavius29663 5y ago
  it is a fallacy to appeal to authority (97%) for anything other than "humans do cause global warming". Look at your link on NASA's page, the statements from societies are something like this: > The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Which is what the 97% covers, maybe a bit more. I haven't seen any further statements based on the 97%: for weather events, for policies, for gravity - this is where the fallacy happens. And you did it too in your post, the OP was calling for nuance in regards to gravity, weather and policies, and as a reply you just pulled out the 97%