6 ms·

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

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.

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.