6 ms·

You actually can, there's just a gigantic mountain of evidence showing that you are wrong. So there's not really an argument to be made there.

by alexb_ 4y ago

systemvoltage 4y ago
Strawman. What if a scientist finds real evidence that goes against the zeitgeist. They'd have a hard time doing anything on today's climate tolatitarianism, no journal would publish them, they'd be outsed by the academic group think. Your argument is dismissive and similar to flat earthers and hoaxers. I am not referring to climate deniers. I just want people to feel that there is room for questioning climate science with science. The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area. Strangely, the issue is similar to COVID.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  > What if a scientist finds real evidence that goes against the zeitgeist They'd be a fucking hero. I know a few atmospheric science faculty. They are hyper distraught at the data. They'd love nothing more than to find out that actually we are going to be fine. Being able to keep burning coal for centuries would be a huge boon for reducing poverty worldwide. It'd be amazing. This hypothetical researcher would have among the most positive influences on human prosperity of any human to ever live. Journals select for novel results that upend prior work. Strong analysis that demonstrated that the existing research is wrong would be front page cover of Science or Nature shit. By declaring that there is a cabal that will silence quality research it allows people to dismiss the entire professional community without actually doing any work whatsoever. > The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area. What do you mean by fake? Could you throw together a bunch of fake numbers that match existing expectations and get that published? Sure, so long as it didn't get rejected for lack of novelty. But this is true for everything. I could read that falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s2 in a book and decide to make up some observations that match this and submit that to a journal. This doesn't demonstrate that gravity is hokey. It just demonstrates that paper reviewers aren't especially well equipped to identify fraudulent observations. Also, the number of grad students working their ass off trying to get their research published and getting their work rejected demonstrates pretty clearly that it is not "remarkably easy" to publish whatever you want as long as it aligns with the existing best thinking.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    I don't think they'd be a fucking hero. They'd be hung by the media, strangled by the academic peers and rejected by the society. Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged.
    - UncleMeat 4y ago
      Who have you spoken to who is deranged?
    - pstuart 4y ago
      If what climate scientists are saying is true, then there's every reason to be deranged about it. The bonus is that there's so many other wins from transitioning away from fossil fuels.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >I don't think they'd be a fucking hero. They'd be hung by the media, strangled by the academic peers and rejected by the society. I agree completely. >Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged. I disagree completely. The old saying, "science advances one funeral at a time" is still as true today as when it was coined.
  - TurkishPoptart 4y ago
    Have you heard about Ignaz Semmelweis? He went against the medical establishment to demonstrate that surgeons hand-washing between operation is a disease prevention system. tl;dr he died alone and poor in an insane asylum for being a science "heretic". Same freaking story as all the doctors who were silenced during this "pandemic". [1] >Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. His findings earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, giving Semmelweis' observations a theoretical explanation, and Joseph Lister, acting on Pasteur's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
- beej71 4y ago
  This is science, though, isn't it? There's a mountain of evidence for X, and someone finds a little evidence for Y. No one accepts it, naturally, since there's relatively little evidence for it. But over decades, perhaps the evidence grows and Y reaches acceptance parity, and then maybe goes on to exceed X and be the dominant theory. E.g. plate tectonics and continental drift.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  > Strangely, the issue is similar to COVID. It would have been career suicide to go against the narrative with covid. Witness what happens to any paper published that suggests things in covid-land might not be as bad as claimed. They first get discredited as "not peer reviewed" and their authors get thrown to the wolves. Same with anything that shows masks don't really work very well. Or lockdowns don't work well. "Not peer reviewed" and "authors are bozos". These same people have absolutely no problem accepting papers that are based on crazy computer models using garbage data or "studies" that don't mimic anything real with very small sample sizes. Anything that goes with the narrative that covid is the worst thing ever and that masks are awesome was cheered on. It didn't matter how flimsy the research was. As long as it supported the cause it was golden.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
puffoflogic 4y ago
This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point.
- naasking 4y ago
  > This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point. But such evidence didn't exist for COVID. Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance.
  - calculatte 4y ago
    - naasking 4y ago
      In principle, HCQ can be effective against some coronaviruses and not others. Ditto for masks. So I'm not convinced we knew anything specific about COVID-19 just due to prior research, but the precautionary principle suggests being overly conservative in most assumptions. Fauci actually did mislead the public about masks, but he actually believed they were effective, so he lied to the public claiming their ineffectiveness at first due to fears of shortages.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    > Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. You don't get to make broad, highly disruptive mandates with almost zero evidence they would even work. For the mandates to actually be worth it, you should be able to show the data to any reasonable person and they'd immediately see an order of magnitude difference between test & control. The fact you can barely tell florida apart from california is pretty damning. If you need fancy math to see a difference, it wasn't worth it.
    - naasking 4y ago
CWuestefeld 4y ago
Some time back there was definitely a loud "denier" voice, but I think this is gone from all but the fringe. The disagreement today isn't about the science, but about policy - what should be done about it, what's the cost/benefit analysis, and so forth. There's a sizable faction that wants to avoid this conversation by yelling about "Science(tm)!", which cuts off the actual policy discussion before it can get started. edit: typo
- alexb_ 4y ago
  I definitely do agree with this. This is a very important issue that quite obviously can have many different viewpoints.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  I think the disagreement is about the extent to which these events will be damaging first and foremost, and policy discussions stem from that. I know plenty of people who concur "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" and all that comes with that, but don't believe that humans are going to destroy the planet within 8 years or whatever the doomsday date is nowadays. That's the big driver for climate change denial, not science skepticism, but over the top fearmongering rhetoric by the public figures championing climate change. The people actually trying to solve this problem are doing a disservice with their dramaticism. They discredit themselves with it, and unfortunately their cause will suffer because of it.
calculatte 4y ago
With enough funding, you can find evidence for anything. With climate change's funding of $632B anually, I could provide you with a mountain of evidence that Cheez Wiz effectively fights lung cancer. Show me the research grants available for disproving man-made climate change. If researchers want to make a paycheck, they find evidence for what they are paid to find or next year they find a new job. There is a real crisis. But it starts with the crisis of science and the rise of scientism.
- greedo 4y ago
  Considering that the energy companies have been funding counter-research against climate change for most of my life, I think you're looking in the wrong direction.
  - calculatte 4y ago
    This is a fear-based issue that has only proven to be a infinite source of money for those involved. The only incentive is to spread more fear to keep increasing their payday. One needs only to look at the "solutions" provided to combat it. A carbon tax? Do what you like, push any additional costs onto the customer. As long as we get our money, climate change is solved! Grossly simplified, but still accurate.
rglover 4y ago
The evidence is all based on models, controlled by the very people who have incentive for those models to support their claims (scientists receiving grants, corporate kickbacks, etc and NGOs/politicians doing the same). For decades, the very people who support these models have been telling people we're just a few short years away from the demise of the species...only for nothing to happen (and for the very things they claim to be getting worse, actually getting better). Again, and again, and again. First it was global warming, then it was "climate change" (hint: the climate always changes—the real subtext here is Malthusian discontent for humanity, not a desire to protect nature). Those very same people, too, go out of their way to dismiss technology like nuclear energy and carbon capture which can solve the problem they claim to wish to solve (reducing and/or eliminating emissions). Why? Because if they solve the problem, they can't milk subsidies from the government and will actually have to find real work to do. Not just parading around (in f*cking private jets pouring out emissions) and self-flagellating at conferences and "summits." The whole thing is a gigantic self-defeating farce, that, when looked at through the lens of objectivity makes about as much sense as Scientology (the comparison to a religion, here, being purposeful). The parallels to the COVID groupthink are apt, correct, and the exact same candy bar in a different wrapper.
- praxulus 4y ago
  The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing?
  - rglover 4y ago
    > The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. No, but the things actually being cited—namely, the IPCC annual reports—as the pretext for a lot of the foolish policy we're seeing, are based on models. > I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing? No, that rhetoric often comes from misinterpretations/misrepresentations of scientific papers and statistics (by politicians, the media, and leaders of NGOs) which is then used to justify the aforementioned foolish policy. Which is frustrating as the papers often denote a problem existing, but not as one without remedy. And this is the crux of the problem: the argument is framed as being whether or not climate change exists (anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative whole is automatically a "climate denier") and not "given that it exists—and we know the cause—why are we ignoring viable solutions to those causes in favor of less-viable half-solutions that exacerbate the problem?"

You actually can, there's just a gigantic mountain of evidence showing that you are wrong. So there's not really an argument to be made there.

by alexb_ 4y ago

You actually can, there's just a gigantic mountain of evidence showing that you are wrong. So there's not really an argument to be made there.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Strawman. What if a scientist finds real evidence that goes against the zeitgeist. They'd have a hard time doing anything on today's climate tolatitarianism, no journal would publish them, they'd be outsed by the academic group think. Your argument is dismissive and similar to flat earthers and hoaxers. I am not referring to climate deniers. I just want people to feel that there is room for questioning climate science with science. The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area. Strangely, the issue is similar to COVID.

UncleMeat 4y ago
> What if a scientist finds real evidence that goes against the zeitgeist They'd be a fucking hero. I know a few atmospheric science faculty. They are hyper distraught at the data. They'd love nothing more than to find out that actually we are going to be fine. Being able to keep burning coal for centuries would be a huge boon for reducing poverty worldwide. It'd be amazing. This hypothetical researcher would have among the most positive influences on human prosperity of any human to ever live. Journals select for novel results that upend prior work. Strong analysis that demonstrated that the existing research is wrong would be front page cover of Science or Nature shit. By declaring that there is a cabal that will silence quality research it allows people to dismiss the entire professional community without actually doing any work whatsoever. > The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area. What do you mean by fake? Could you throw together a bunch of fake numbers that match existing expectations and get that published? Sure, so long as it didn't get rejected for lack of novelty. But this is true for everything. I could read that falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s2 in a book and decide to make up some observations that match this and submit that to a journal. This doesn't demonstrate that gravity is hokey. It just demonstrates that paper reviewers aren't especially well equipped to identify fraudulent observations. Also, the number of grad students working their ass off trying to get their research published and getting their work rejected demonstrates pretty clearly that it is not "remarkably easy" to publish whatever you want as long as it aligns with the existing best thinking.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I don't think they'd be a fucking hero. They'd be hung by the media, strangled by the academic peers and rejected by the society. Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged.
  - UncleMeat 4y ago
    Who have you spoken to who is deranged?
  - pstuart 4y ago
    If what climate scientists are saying is true, then there's every reason to be deranged about it. The bonus is that there's so many other wins from transitioning away from fossil fuels.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    >I don't think they'd be a fucking hero. They'd be hung by the media, strangled by the academic peers and rejected by the society. I agree completely. >Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged. I disagree completely. The old saying, "science advances one funeral at a time" is still as true today as when it was coined.
- TurkishPoptart 4y ago
  Have you heard about Ignaz Semmelweis? He went against the medical establishment to demonstrate that surgeons hand-washing between operation is a disease prevention system. tl;dr he died alone and poor in an insane asylum for being a science "heretic". Same freaking story as all the doctors who were silenced during this "pandemic". [1] >Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. His findings earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, giving Semmelweis' observations a theoretical explanation, and Joseph Lister, acting on Pasteur's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
beej71 4y ago
This is science, though, isn't it? There's a mountain of evidence for X, and someone finds a little evidence for Y. No one accepts it, naturally, since there's relatively little evidence for it. But over decades, perhaps the evidence grows and Y reaches acceptance parity, and then maybe goes on to exceed X and be the dominant theory. E.g. plate tectonics and continental drift.
spookthesunset 4y ago
> Strangely, the issue is similar to COVID. It would have been career suicide to go against the narrative with covid. Witness what happens to any paper published that suggests things in covid-land might not be as bad as claimed. They first get discredited as "not peer reviewed" and their authors get thrown to the wolves. Same with anything that shows masks don't really work very well. Or lockdowns don't work well. "Not peer reviewed" and "authors are bozos". These same people have absolutely no problem accepting papers that are based on crazy computer models using garbage data or "studies" that don't mimic anything real with very small sample sizes. Anything that goes with the narrative that covid is the worst thing ever and that masks are awesome was cheered on. It didn't matter how flimsy the research was. As long as it supported the cause it was golden.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

puffoflogic 4y ago

This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point.

naasking 4y ago
> This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point. But such evidence didn't exist for COVID. Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance.
- calculatte 4y ago
  - naasking 4y ago
    In principle, HCQ can be effective against some coronaviruses and not others. Ditto for masks. So I'm not convinced we knew anything specific about COVID-19 just due to prior research, but the precautionary principle suggests being overly conservative in most assumptions. Fauci actually did mislead the public about masks, but he actually believed they were effective, so he lied to the public claiming their ineffectiveness at first due to fears of shortages.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  > Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. You don't get to make broad, highly disruptive mandates with almost zero evidence they would even work. For the mandates to actually be worth it, you should be able to show the data to any reasonable person and they'd immediately see an order of magnitude difference between test & control. The fact you can barely tell florida apart from california is pretty damning. If you need fancy math to see a difference, it wasn't worth it.
  - naasking 4y ago

CWuestefeld 4y ago

Some time back there was definitely a loud "denier" voice, but I think this is gone from all but the fringe. The disagreement today isn't about the science, but about policy - what should be done about it, what's the cost/benefit analysis, and so forth. There's a sizable faction that wants to avoid this conversation by yelling about "Science(tm)!", which cuts off the actual policy discussion before it can get started. edit: typo

alexb_ 4y ago
I definitely do agree with this. This is a very important issue that quite obviously can have many different viewpoints.
betwixthewires 4y ago
I think the disagreement is about the extent to which these events will be damaging first and foremost, and policy discussions stem from that. I know plenty of people who concur "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" and all that comes with that, but don't believe that humans are going to destroy the planet within 8 years or whatever the doomsday date is nowadays. That's the big driver for climate change denial, not science skepticism, but over the top fearmongering rhetoric by the public figures championing climate change. The people actually trying to solve this problem are doing a disservice with their dramaticism. They discredit themselves with it, and unfortunately their cause will suffer because of it.

calculatte 4y ago

With enough funding, you can find evidence for anything. With climate change's funding of $632B anually, I could provide you with a mountain of evidence that Cheez Wiz effectively fights lung cancer. Show me the research grants available for disproving man-made climate change. If researchers want to make a paycheck, they find evidence for what they are paid to find or next year they find a new job. There is a real crisis. But it starts with the crisis of science and the rise of scientism.

greedo 4y ago
Considering that the energy companies have been funding counter-research against climate change for most of my life, I think you're looking in the wrong direction.
- calculatte 4y ago
  This is a fear-based issue that has only proven to be a infinite source of money for those involved. The only incentive is to spread more fear to keep increasing their payday. One needs only to look at the "solutions" provided to combat it. A carbon tax? Do what you like, push any additional costs onto the customer. As long as we get our money, climate change is solved! Grossly simplified, but still accurate.

rglover 4y ago

The evidence is all based on models, controlled by the very people who have incentive for those models to support their claims (scientists receiving grants, corporate kickbacks, etc and NGOs/politicians doing the same). For decades, the very people who support these models have been telling people we're just a few short years away from the demise of the species...only for nothing to happen (and for the very things they claim to be getting worse, actually getting better). Again, and again, and again. First it was global warming, then it was "climate change" (hint: the climate always changes—the real subtext here is Malthusian discontent for humanity, not a desire to protect nature). Those very same people, too, go out of their way to dismiss technology like nuclear energy and carbon capture which can solve the problem they claim to wish to solve (reducing and/or eliminating emissions). Why? Because if they solve the problem, they can't milk subsidies from the government and will actually have to find real work to do. Not just parading around (in f*cking private jets pouring out emissions) and self-flagellating at conferences and "summits." The whole thing is a gigantic self-defeating farce, that, when looked at through the lens of objectivity makes about as much sense as Scientology (the comparison to a religion, here, being purposeful). The parallels to the COVID groupthink are apt, correct, and the exact same candy bar in a different wrapper.

praxulus 4y ago
The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing?
- rglover 4y ago
  > The evidence includes the actual record of rising temperatures, rising CO2 levels, and laboratory experiments that confirm that the greenhouse effect exists. None of those are just models. No, but the things actually being cited—namely, the IPCC annual reports—as the pretext for a lot of the foolish policy we're seeing, are based on models. > I'm extremely surprised that even a single scientific paper predicted the demise of the species due to climate change within a few years. Could you point me to such a thing? No, that rhetoric often comes from misinterpretations/misrepresentations of scientific papers and statistics (by politicians, the media, and leaders of NGOs) which is then used to justify the aforementioned foolish policy. Which is frustrating as the papers often denote a problem existing, but not as one without remedy. And this is the crux of the problem: the argument is framed as being whether or not climate change exists (anyone who doesn't swallow the narrative whole is automatically a "climate denier") and not "given that it exists—and we know the cause—why are we ignoring viable solutions to those causes in favor of less-viable half-solutions that exacerbate the problem?"