2 ms·

Correlation is not causation. If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slidesh

Correlation is not causation. If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. A lot of people will then, when they see a few such examples, assume that all climate-change reporting is like that.

lukeschlather 4y ago
If you're bringing up the question of what causes global climate change in response to an article that is pretty narrowly focused on local climate change in Norway, a lot of people will assume that you know that global climate change is generally understood to be caused by human behavior, but are looking for ways to cast doubt on that fact without actually arguing the point.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- realworldperson 4y ago
  [dead]
notahacker 4y ago
> If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. If you're determined to imagine that even stuff like literal temperature changes aren't sensible proof of climate change, that hypotheses linking the weather in Norway to the weather in the rest of the world or temperature changes to changes in flora and fauna need to be thoroughly explained to be plausible, and don't trust that quoted academics have actually done the research unless the journalists hyperlink their original papers, then yeah, maybe the acknowledgement that climate isn't the only factor affecting flora and fauna in Norway (no shit!) is the clincher that it's all a big con. But then, if you're determined to imagine that entire fields of scientific research and thousands of actual published scientific papers must all be irredeemably flawed because a pop science article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a list of things observed in Norway takes a less rigorous approach, I'm not sure improving the article is going to change matters. It's not like news articles opposing the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change or global warming in general are renowned for reading like academic studies...

lukeschlather 4y ago

If you're bringing up the question of what causes global climate change in response to an article that is pretty narrowly focused on local climate change in Norway, a lot of people will assume that you know that global climate change is generally understood to be caused by human behavior, but are looking for ways to cast doubt on that fact without actually arguing the point.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
realworldperson 4y ago
[dead]

notahacker 4y ago

> If you're indicating causation without any sensible proof, citation, or well-reasoned hypothesis, and just give a "scary" slideshow with "yeah, that might be climate change... or it might not, idk", then that will help people who are trying to show that "climate-change reporting is a bunch of BS" support their narrative. If you're determined to imagine that even stuff like literal temperature changes aren't sensible proof of climate change, that hypotheses linking the weather in Norway to the weather in the rest of the world or temperature changes to changes in flora and fauna need to be thoroughly explained to be plausible, and don't trust that quoted academics have actually done the research unless the journalists hyperlink their original papers, then yeah, maybe the acknowledgement that climate isn't the only factor affecting flora and fauna in Norway (no shit!) is the clincher that it's all a big con. But then, if you're determined to imagine that entire fields of scientific research and thousands of actual published scientific papers must all be irredeemably flawed because a pop science article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than a list of things observed in Norway takes a less rigorous approach, I'm not sure improving the article is going to change matters. It's not like news articles opposing the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change or global warming in general are renowned for reading like academic studies...