4 ms·

Scientists have had a pretty good record on this, compared to the general public, industry, and policymakers. I am happy to not throw them under the bus.

mistrial9 5y ago
I echo this -- since when does "cautious, high-training writers timidly announce massive change" become worse than "cynical, manipulative industry experts conceal worst outcomes" or "distracted, low-skill readers dismiss unpopular warning" ?
- rglover 5y ago
  The IPCC report—again, just like last year—put a major emphasis on implausible scenarios throughout the report over more likely, realistic scenarios. https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866 https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866 Similar to last year, too, the media takes that emphasis, reports it as absolute reality, and then starts the campaign of fear ("red alert") on the public, arguably, to whittle down their critical thinking skills for the sake of political gain. The whole thing is circuitous to a painstaking degree.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr. Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis" Source: http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneiders-criticism-of-roger-pielke-jr-a-self-aggrandizer-trickster-and-careerist http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneide... The IPCC has consistently understated the risks to prevent general panic. That is actually what this submitted article is about.
    - rglover 5y ago
      Read what he (Pielke) actually said and backs up with citations. The character-attack-as-argument defense just makes you look unintelligent.
      - throwaway5752 5y ago
        "makes you look unintelligent" I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.
        harpersealtako 5y ago
        did you vet Dr. Stephen Schneider as well?
  - hall0ween 5y ago
    Comparing what you wrote with the quotes below, I get the sense that you and Pielke Jr., might have different opinions on climate change: Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12] From his wikipedia page
    - rglover 5y ago
      No, I agree with those statements (generally speaking). I also believe in investment in proven solutions like nuclear being implemented/invested in now so that, by the end of the century, we're more likely to be in a better position. What I _don't_ agree with is intentionally distorting the truth to scare people which, despite the claims that it motivates people, accomplishes nothing (objectively, as those "nudges" are rarely backed by concrete steps/plans—just more hyperbole and fearmongering to stoke the political fire).
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    Orwellian theories are fun and all, but the media emphasizes the most extreme scenarios because those headlines and stories get the most clicks.
    - rglover 5y ago
      Great, but being the ones responsible for informing the public, that's not a justification for the behavior. If that continues (which it's likely to do), you end up with a highly-reactionary population that's going to do anything but solve the problem. We're crossing the point of no return as the younger kids have no concept of a world where "doing it for the clicks" wasn't a thing. Once they become adults, all hell will break loose because they don't know how to think, only emote.
atlantas 5y ago
> The report also references for the first time “historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism” Unfortunately these are not scientists. This just one example, but they are ideologues and activists first who wear science as a skin and bully scientists into submission. We saw how disastrous this was for Covid response with how science was treated as religion ("Believe Science"). The first thing we must do is eject the ideologues and re-establish the scientific method and rigor if we are to have any chance of actually solving climate change.
- mbg721 5y ago
  Science, like religion, seems to generate martyrs, but religions treat their martyrs better. Everyone cheers Ignaz Semmelweis because his viewpoint about hygiene eventually won, but nobody wants to apply the lesson about trying out the experiments of kooks.
- badRNG 5y ago
  > Unfortunately these are not scientists. Are we really at the point where we are going to claim that the IPCC aren't scientists? This seems to be little more than reactionary backlash at a sound observation of the social impact of climate change on communities (and the report does a great job of elaborating which communities and what impacts.) Must we "eject" every scientist who observes a social impact that someone disagrees with? Should the IPCC stop the discussion the human impact of climate change to avoid offending certain sensibilities?
  - _skel 5y ago
    Do you want people who are not left-wing to listen to scientists? When you are trying to convince people to believe in something they don’t want to believe in, it’s a bad move to insult them or inject inflammatory political views into the discussion. This kind of language about colonialism, inequity, etc. is going to alienate a lot of people — just like the smug self-righteousness of “I believe in science” (which implies that anyone who disagrees with the speaker doesn’t believe in science) alienated millions of people and made the anti-vax movement stronger.
president 5y ago
You seem to treat scientists as an infallible group of people unable to be corrupted by biases (corporate funding, personal idealogy, etc).
- acdha 5y ago
  Not in the slightest: the difference is that while individual scientists are just as human as the rest of us, the scientific process is built around public review and validation. In the case of climate change, you can look at things like the IPCC reports from the early 90s and see that they hold up quite well 30 years later whereas the various professional deniers have shifted from each spurious claim to another as the previous one becomes nonviable.

mistrial9 5y ago

I echo this -- since when does "cautious, high-training writers timidly announce massive change" become worse than "cynical, manipulative industry experts conceal worst outcomes" or "distracted, low-skill readers dismiss unpopular warning" ?

rglover 5y ago
The IPCC report—again, just like last year—put a major emphasis on implausible scenarios throughout the report over more likely, realistic scenarios. https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866 https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1498317086157774866 Similar to last year, too, the media takes that emphasis, reports it as absolute reality, and then starts the campaign of fear ("red alert") on the public, arguably, to whittle down their critical thinking skills for the sake of political gain. The whole thing is circuitous to a painstaking degree.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr https://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Pielke_Jr. Dr. Pielke's work on climate change effects has been criticized by Dr. Stephen Schneider, who said that with Pielke "one consistent pattern emerges-he is a self-aggrandizer who sets up straw men, knocks them down, and takes credit for being the honest broker to explain the mess-and in fact usually adds little new social science to his analysis" Source: http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneiders-criticism-of-roger-pielke-jr-a-self-aggrandizer-trickster-and-careerist http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2012/07/31/stephen-schneide... The IPCC has consistently understated the risks to prevent general panic. That is actually what this submitted article is about.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Read what he (Pielke) actually said and backs up with citations. The character-attack-as-argument defense just makes you look unintelligent.
    - throwaway5752 5y ago
      "makes you look unintelligent" I will have to live with that, I'm sorry you are disappointed. I can't vet every source and if someone is a known bad source, there are usually many, many alternatives to invest my limited time reading.
      - harpersealtako 5y ago
        did you vet Dr. Stephen Schneider as well?
- hall0ween 5y ago
  Comparing what you wrote with the quotes below, I get the sense that you and Pielke Jr., might have different opinions on climate change: Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12] From his wikipedia page
  - rglover 5y ago
    No, I agree with those statements (generally speaking). I also believe in investment in proven solutions like nuclear being implemented/invested in now so that, by the end of the century, we're more likely to be in a better position. What I _don't_ agree with is intentionally distorting the truth to scare people which, despite the claims that it motivates people, accomplishes nothing (objectively, as those "nudges" are rarely backed by concrete steps/plans—just more hyperbole and fearmongering to stoke the political fire).
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  Orwellian theories are fun and all, but the media emphasizes the most extreme scenarios because those headlines and stories get the most clicks.
  - rglover 5y ago
    Great, but being the ones responsible for informing the public, that's not a justification for the behavior. If that continues (which it's likely to do), you end up with a highly-reactionary population that's going to do anything but solve the problem. We're crossing the point of no return as the younger kids have no concept of a world where "doing it for the clicks" wasn't a thing. Once they become adults, all hell will break loose because they don't know how to think, only emote.

atlantas 5y ago

> The report also references for the first time “historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism” Unfortunately these are not scientists. This just one example, but they are ideologues and activists first who wear science as a skin and bully scientists into submission. We saw how disastrous this was for Covid response with how science was treated as religion ("Believe Science"). The first thing we must do is eject the ideologues and re-establish the scientific method and rigor if we are to have any chance of actually solving climate change.

mbg721 5y ago
Science, like religion, seems to generate martyrs, but religions treat their martyrs better. Everyone cheers Ignaz Semmelweis because his viewpoint about hygiene eventually won, but nobody wants to apply the lesson about trying out the experiments of kooks.
badRNG 5y ago
> Unfortunately these are not scientists. Are we really at the point where we are going to claim that the IPCC aren't scientists? This seems to be little more than reactionary backlash at a sound observation of the social impact of climate change on communities (and the report does a great job of elaborating which communities and what impacts.) Must we "eject" every scientist who observes a social impact that someone disagrees with? Should the IPCC stop the discussion the human impact of climate change to avoid offending certain sensibilities?
- _skel 5y ago
  Do you want people who are not left-wing to listen to scientists? When you are trying to convince people to believe in something they don’t want to believe in, it’s a bad move to insult them or inject inflammatory political views into the discussion. This kind of language about colonialism, inequity, etc. is going to alienate a lot of people — just like the smug self-righteousness of “I believe in science” (which implies that anyone who disagrees with the speaker doesn’t believe in science) alienated millions of people and made the anti-vax movement stronger.

president 5y ago

You seem to treat scientists as an infallible group of people unable to be corrupted by biases (corporate funding, personal idealogy, etc).

acdha 5y ago
Not in the slightest: the difference is that while individual scientists are just as human as the rest of us, the scientific process is built around public review and validation. In the case of climate change, you can look at things like the IPCC reports from the early 90s and see that they hold up quite well 30 years later whereas the various professional deniers have shifted from each spurious claim to another as the previous one becomes nonviable.