3 ms·

On a quick glance I see numbers 1 ,43,44,48,90,96, of the climate change deniers list (1), and that's just from a 30 second skim. You are doing the classical pl

On a quick glance I see numbers 1 ,43,44,48,90,96, of the climate change deniers list (1), and that's just from a 30 second skim. You are doing the classical playbook of "just asking questions" which either can't be settled (but what really is climate change?) or have been settled and you are willfully ignoring them (the IPCC has a clear definition of climate change, anthropogenic climate change etc.), in order to make it appear that the debate is ongoing and there is substantial doubt. There isn't. Like a sister comment pointed out, there is more consensus on climate change than on evolution. I expect you to wine about being downvoted and "silenced" as the next move of this playbook 1. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

lettergram 5y ago
I’m pointing out the papers in the linked study literally have different definitions. Highlighting how this stuff really isn’t credible. It’s junk. Regarding your link, those counter points are... very unscientific or well reasoned. Take point #1, we all agree climate changes, it snows half the year in the northern hemisphere. What caused the snow isn’t anything we did. But I’m 100% sure you could find correlations, which is all these papers do. Just like humans likely didn’t cause the earth to heat 20,000 years ago when the North American ice sheet melted. But that correlates to when humans arrived in North America. The problem with correlations are that you need a large volume of data to suggest causation. We don’t have that. Because of those claims of causation, the field has lost significant credibility
- finite_jest 5y ago
  I think seasons aren't really a relevant example of climate changing. Here's the Wikipedia definition of climate: "Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in an area, typically averaged over a period of 30 years." [1] You do have a point on credibility though, in that over-politicization causes the field to look much less credible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate&oldid=1049943343 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate&oldid=104...
  - lettergram 5y ago
    I was simply trying to illustrate -- assume we didn't know about earths tilt; one would suspect something like the moon or stars causes the seasons (as they did historically). IMO as we don't have accurate data measuring far enough back we're effectively shooting in the dark. It's fine to say, these two things could be correlated, it's another to say these things are correlated AND to fix it we have to force everyone to stop traveling, be less healthy (eating a worse diet), etc.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  > The problem with correlations are that you need a large volume of data to suggest causation. We don’t have that. Just based on this sentence I have a hard time believing you really are a scientist as you claim. There is no requirement on large volume of data to suggest causation. In fact no amount of data and correlation by itself can establish causation, because they are very different concepts (Hence the correlation!=causation). You need mechanisms to explain the causations, and you need to verify the mechanisms. This has been done extensively for climate change. > Because of those claims of causation, the field has lost significant credibility I would say your claims lost you a lot of credibility just now.
  - lettergram 5y ago
    That's fair and I understand that. My point, is we have trouble even suggesting causation. We have one event (industrialization) and one suspected effect (warming temps). Without another time-series of data for comparison we don't know what the natural state of the world even is given the margin of error (we're only talking 1-2 degrees C). We don't have the full dataset so effectively we're seeing two lines go up at the same time and claiming one is causing the other. We can't even really make a correlation case, besides to say these two time series loosely correlate. Put another way, we suspect one event causes another, which are tracked via a time series. Normally, when you're discussing causality you'd looking for multiple instances of said event causing another. We don't have that. Hence, we're effectively shooting in the dark.
- igorkraw 5y ago
  You are creating an impossible burden of proof (causation, which in the Pearlian sense can maybe only be established when observing interventional data, which we can't have) while ignoring the balance of probabilities and possible harm done. This comic illustrates the scale of previous deviations, including the ice age one you keep harping on about https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ If you drink a bunch of methanol and then go blind without knowing the exact biochemistry, you don't say "eh, there's no causation proven yet" and keep drinking, you stop the things which correlate until you can show they are safe. Where's your credibility? What have you done to give an alternative explanation to anthropogenic climate change? If you don't have one, you aren't acting in good faith here
adamrezich 5y ago
enumerating numbered passages from codified documents as a response in a discussion comes across as very religious. taking it a step further and assuming bad faith and acting in accordance with a "playbook" though, that's something else entirely.
native_samples 5y ago
This is a very weak response of the type that creates climate change skeptics. 1. Numbering your opponents arguments isn't a response to them. 2. He isn't asking questions, he's making a variety of statements that have a factual basis and can be debated to determine to what extent they're right or wrong. You're straw-manning to claim these are questions. 3. Asserting there's no debate when someone is telling you there is debate, is exactly the kind of strategy that makes neutral onlookers more likely to agree with him, not you, especially as one of his claims is that journals etc block any alternative viewpoint.
- igorkraw 5y ago
  1. The point of numbering them is to highlight all of them have been answered already, but he's not interested in the answers. Otherwise, a good faith skeptic would have found the anders to his "concerns" 2. The debate you are alluding to has been done, see point 1. But he ignores this, because as long as the debate don't stop, his position is unchanged 3. Asserting there is a debate until someone who has done 0 to engage with an overwhelming scientific consensus agrees there isn't is false neutrality. That one random guys opinion (and mine, for the record) is worth jack shit compared to the IPCC ans the 97-99% of experts who have come to a consensus based on the data they spend their whole career studying. To go against their consensus is perfectly valid but needs to be done in a manner which integrates all the data collected in the consensus explanation at least as well, or better. Not just by listing context free gotchas and claiming the debate hasn't been finished yet As for the question of creating climate skeptics: I'm much more interested in pointing out to readers that a rhetorical playbook is being used and provide a counter voice than to argue with someone who isn't themselves arguing in food faith. See point 1
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The website you give that numbers the arguments provides answers to each one, but some of these answers are so poor as to effectively be doing work for the other side. For example, point 43 is "CO2 is plant food". No such point is made anywhere in the post you're replying to, so you must be reading it into something else he said. Point 44 is "there is no empirical evidence". Again, the person you're responding to didn't say that. This time I can't even see anywhere you might be reading an implication of it. Regardless, the given answers are often not really answers at all; e.g. point 90 "Q: Peer review process was corrupted" is answered by "A: An Independent Review concluded the CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review". I recall reading those emails and they were very explicitly doing exactly that. The "independent review" in question is actually organized and the website is hosted by the University of East Anglia itself. The answer is basically saying everyone should trust academics when they clear themselves of wrongdoing, and if you don't you're a conspiracy theorist. I looked into this one a bit more and there's a response written by the climate skeptics themselves to this review here, which is far more convincing: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... Russell's inquiry was slated by MPs, apparently for good reasons: "The Muir Russell inquiry held no public hearings and did not interview any CRU critics ... Although Muir Russell had been appointed in December 2009 and was due to report in spring 2010, as of the start of April, nobody at CRU had been interviewed on anything to do with the Hockey Stick or IPCC" An MP said: "In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again." "Subsequently, it turned out that Vice Chancellor Action’s reassurances that nothing had been deleted were untrue. Following up on that supposed reassurance, one of us (McIntyre) submitted an FOI request for the attachments to the emails which Jones had sought to destroy, attachments which contained the surreptitious and hidden edits to the IPCC report by Mann’s associates after close of external review. The University reported that the documents about which Acton had reassured the Committee did not exist after all."

lettergram 5y ago

I’m pointing out the papers in the linked study literally have different definitions. Highlighting how this stuff really isn’t credible. It’s junk. Regarding your link, those counter points are... very unscientific or well reasoned. Take point #1, we all agree climate changes, it snows half the year in the northern hemisphere. What caused the snow isn’t anything we did. But I’m 100% sure you could find correlations, which is all these papers do. Just like humans likely didn’t cause the earth to heat 20,000 years ago when the North American ice sheet melted. But that correlates to when humans arrived in North America. The problem with correlations are that you need a large volume of data to suggest causation. We don’t have that. Because of those claims of causation, the field has lost significant credibility

finite_jest 5y ago
I think seasons aren't really a relevant example of climate changing. Here's the Wikipedia definition of climate: "Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in an area, typically averaged over a period of 30 years." [1] You do have a point on credibility though, in that over-politicization causes the field to look much less credible. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate&oldid=1049943343 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate&oldid=104...
- lettergram 5y ago
  I was simply trying to illustrate -- assume we didn't know about earths tilt; one would suspect something like the moon or stars causes the seasons (as they did historically). IMO as we don't have accurate data measuring far enough back we're effectively shooting in the dark. It's fine to say, these two things could be correlated, it's another to say these things are correlated AND to fix it we have to force everyone to stop traveling, be less healthy (eating a worse diet), etc.
cycomanic 5y ago
> The problem with correlations are that you need a large volume of data to suggest causation. We don’t have that. Just based on this sentence I have a hard time believing you really are a scientist as you claim. There is no requirement on large volume of data to suggest causation. In fact no amount of data and correlation by itself can establish causation, because they are very different concepts (Hence the correlation!=causation). You need mechanisms to explain the causations, and you need to verify the mechanisms. This has been done extensively for climate change. > Because of those claims of causation, the field has lost significant credibility I would say your claims lost you a lot of credibility just now.
- lettergram 5y ago
  That's fair and I understand that. My point, is we have trouble even suggesting causation. We have one event (industrialization) and one suspected effect (warming temps). Without another time-series of data for comparison we don't know what the natural state of the world even is given the margin of error (we're only talking 1-2 degrees C). We don't have the full dataset so effectively we're seeing two lines go up at the same time and claiming one is causing the other. We can't even really make a correlation case, besides to say these two time series loosely correlate. Put another way, we suspect one event causes another, which are tracked via a time series. Normally, when you're discussing causality you'd looking for multiple instances of said event causing another. We don't have that. Hence, we're effectively shooting in the dark.
igorkraw 5y ago
You are creating an impossible burden of proof (causation, which in the Pearlian sense can maybe only be established when observing interventional data, which we can't have) while ignoring the balance of probabilities and possible harm done. This comic illustrates the scale of previous deviations, including the ice age one you keep harping on about https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ If you drink a bunch of methanol and then go blind without knowing the exact biochemistry, you don't say "eh, there's no causation proven yet" and keep drinking, you stop the things which correlate until you can show they are safe. Where's your credibility? What have you done to give an alternative explanation to anthropogenic climate change? If you don't have one, you aren't acting in good faith here

adamrezich 5y ago

enumerating numbered passages from codified documents as a response in a discussion comes across as very religious. taking it a step further and assuming bad faith and acting in accordance with a "playbook" though, that's something else entirely.

native_samples 5y ago

This is a very weak response of the type that creates climate change skeptics. 1. Numbering your opponents arguments isn't a response to them. 2. He isn't asking questions, he's making a variety of statements that have a factual basis and can be debated to determine to what extent they're right or wrong. You're straw-manning to claim these are questions. 3. Asserting there's no debate when someone is telling you there is debate, is exactly the kind of strategy that makes neutral onlookers more likely to agree with him, not you, especially as one of his claims is that journals etc block any alternative viewpoint.

igorkraw 5y ago
1. The point of numbering them is to highlight all of them have been answered already, but he's not interested in the answers. Otherwise, a good faith skeptic would have found the anders to his "concerns" 2. The debate you are alluding to has been done, see point 1. But he ignores this, because as long as the debate don't stop, his position is unchanged 3. Asserting there is a debate until someone who has done 0 to engage with an overwhelming scientific consensus agrees there isn't is false neutrality. That one random guys opinion (and mine, for the record) is worth jack shit compared to the IPCC ans the 97-99% of experts who have come to a consensus based on the data they spend their whole career studying. To go against their consensus is perfectly valid but needs to be done in a manner which integrates all the data collected in the consensus explanation at least as well, or better. Not just by listing context free gotchas and claiming the debate hasn't been finished yet As for the question of creating climate skeptics: I'm much more interested in pointing out to readers that a rhetorical playbook is being used and provide a counter voice than to argue with someone who isn't themselves arguing in food faith. See point 1
- native_samples 5y ago
  The website you give that numbers the arguments provides answers to each one, but some of these answers are so poor as to effectively be doing work for the other side. For example, point 43 is "CO2 is plant food". No such point is made anywhere in the post you're replying to, so you must be reading it into something else he said. Point 44 is "there is no empirical evidence". Again, the person you're responding to didn't say that. This time I can't even see anywhere you might be reading an implication of it. Regardless, the given answers are often not really answers at all; e.g. point 90 "Q: Peer review process was corrupted" is answered by "A: An Independent Review concluded the CRU's actions were normal and didn't threaten the integrity of peer review". I recall reading those emails and they were very explicitly doing exactly that. The "independent review" in question is actually organized and the website is hosted by the University of East Anglia itself. The answer is basically saying everyone should trust academics when they clear themselves of wrongdoing, and if you don't you're a conspiracy theorist. I looked into this one a bit more and there's a response written by the climate skeptics themselves to this review here, which is far more convincing: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climategate.10yearsafter.pdf https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat... Russell's inquiry was slated by MPs, apparently for good reasons: "The Muir Russell inquiry held no public hearings and did not interview any CRU critics ... Although Muir Russell had been appointed in December 2009 and was due to report in spring 2010, as of the start of April, nobody at CRU had been interviewed on anything to do with the Hockey Stick or IPCC" An MP said: "In a situation that is almost beyond parody Muir Russell stated that he didn’t ask Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails because they would have had to interview Jones under caution. What was the solution then? The Vice Chancellor asked Jones whether he had deleted the e-mails. This rather negated the purpose of having an independent Inquiry when the only person to ask the crucial question was the Vice Chancellor who saw his prime responsibility to the good name of the University. The accused investigating themselves again." "Subsequently, it turned out that Vice Chancellor Action’s reassurances that nothing had been deleted were untrue. Following up on that supposed reassurance, one of us (McIntyre) submitted an FOI request for the attachments to the emails which Jones had sought to destroy, attachments which contained the surreptitious and hidden edits to the IPCC report by Mann’s associates after close of external review. The University reported that the documents about which Acton had reassured the Committee did not exist after all."