4 ms·

Climate Scientists Reach ‘Unequivocal’ Consensus on Human-Made Warming

6 points by montalbano 5y ago

yosito 5y ago
Unequivocal and consensus are two words that cannot be used to describe science.
- sumosudo 5y ago
  Scientism. Where consensus and big money meet.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  "Earth not being flat" is both consensual and unequivocal, isn't it?
  - yosito 5y ago
    The only way scientists can claim that earth is not flat, scientifically, is to prove it. Consensus has nothing to do with it. And the whole point of science is that our knowledge of the world is never unequivocal, we always need to prove things. We don't know that the earth is round because scientists agree and they're really sure. We know it's round because anyone can do an experiment that proves it.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      We can both prove something and be consensual/unequivocal about it. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (page 41) Unequivocal means all scientists get to the same conclusion (we all measure the Earth being not flat). Consensual means that they all agree on expressing their mutual understanding (e.g issue a report saying they agree on the Earth not being flat). You're opposing the science itself and who people do science IRL. That's weird.
      - yosito 5y ago
        > You're opposing the science itself and who people do science IRL. That's weird. No, I'm not opposing the science itself. I'm opposing confusing consensus with science. Science is the process of verifying truth through experimentation. If you skip the experimentation, and just say "trust us, we're Authorities, we all agree and we are sure beyond a doubt", that's not science, it's an ideological appeal to authority. Science is an important process, it's how humanity left the Dark Ages and entered the Enlightenment. Insisting that people cannot question the Official Consensus is backwards progress. FWIW, I think the data supports much of the consensus in this report. But the consensus is not science, and confusing the two is detrimental to public trust in science and to the process of science itself. There's a reason so many people are anti-science, and it's not because science is a bad process. It's because there's a culture that labels conclusions as science and says that they can't be questioned.
dang 5y ago
Related ongoing thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28113821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28113821
actually_a_dog 5y ago
https://archive.is/2021.08.09-080930/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-09/ipcc-report-human-caused-climate-change-unequivocal https://archive.is/2021.08.09-080930/https://www.bloomberg.c...

6 points by montalbano 5y ago

yosito 5y ago

Unequivocal and consensus are two words that cannot be used to describe science.

sumosudo 5y ago
Scientism. Where consensus and big money meet.
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
"Earth not being flat" is both consensual and unequivocal, isn't it?
- yosito 5y ago
  The only way scientists can claim that earth is not flat, scientifically, is to prove it. Consensus has nothing to do with it. And the whole point of science is that our knowledge of the world is never unequivocal, we always need to prove things. We don't know that the earth is round because scientists agree and they're really sure. We know it's round because anyone can do an experiment that proves it.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    We can both prove something and be consensual/unequivocal about it. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (page 41) Unequivocal means all scientists get to the same conclusion (we all measure the Earth being not flat). Consensual means that they all agree on expressing their mutual understanding (e.g issue a report saying they agree on the Earth not being flat). You're opposing the science itself and who people do science IRL. That's weird.
    - yosito 5y ago
      > You're opposing the science itself and who people do science IRL. That's weird. No, I'm not opposing the science itself. I'm opposing confusing consensus with science. Science is the process of verifying truth through experimentation. If you skip the experimentation, and just say "trust us, we're Authorities, we all agree and we are sure beyond a doubt", that's not science, it's an ideological appeal to authority. Science is an important process, it's how humanity left the Dark Ages and entered the Enlightenment. Insisting that people cannot question the Official Consensus is backwards progress. FWIW, I think the data supports much of the consensus in this report. But the consensus is not science, and confusing the two is detrimental to public trust in science and to the process of science itself. There's a reason so many people are anti-science, and it's not because science is a bad process. It's because there's a culture that labels conclusions as science and says that they can't be questioned.

dang 5y ago

Related ongoing thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28113821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28113821

actually_a_dog 5y ago

https://archive.is/2021.08.09-080930/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-09/ipcc-report-human-caused-climate-change-unequivocal https://archive.is/2021.08.09-080930/https://www.bloomberg.c...