3 ms·
> However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, p
by slibhb 4y ago
> However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic
I think climate change is a problem (not a crisis) but it's important to note that if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah. In such an environment, it's hard to know how much confidence we should have in consensus.
> Models have for a long time shown that the overall global temperature will rise and observations over the years have proved the models reflect reality. Are all models 100% correct with predictions? No, but the trend the models show is proven, even if there is a margin of error which is typically always acknowledged during modelling.
My understanding is that we observe some climate trend over N years and then select the best model proposed in the past. This is where the "oil companies knew about climate change!" accusation comes from. But it's much harder to select the model before taking the measurements and climate models have obviously performed much worse at that.
- jarenmf 4y ago> if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend. As climate science is mostly atmospheric physics, biology and chemistry, it's pretty much very easy to disagree with anyone if you have a good argument supported by data. If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. On the contrary, this will likely make you famous and secure your career. Scientists (at least the curios ones) love to be proven wrong. EDIT: spelling
- fooker 4y ago> If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. That’s a nice idealistic thing to say. Academia has shown this to be false again and again. Most groundbreaking ideas or arguments which go against the current wisdom get buried in the best case, and the proponents scorned and driven out of research in the worst case. It has been like this since the beginning of organized scientific communities, which is understandable. Scientists are humans with the usual shortcomings like ego and pride.
- adammarples 4y agoAccording to your logic then, science should not have been able to advance at all from the very beginning
- slibhb 4y agoThe idealistic view of scientists as unbiased arbiters is just not true. Science advances because: 1. Some of the time, scientists behave in an objective manner 2. Theories that are correct have predictive power and are therefore useful (i.e. get results, enable new technologies) and therefore tend to win out 3. "Science advances one funeral at a time" -Max Planck
- fooker 4y agoThere’s a cynical notion that science advances one funeral at a time, attributed to Max Planck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
- revelio 4y ago>> As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend Other climatologists say otherwise: https://reason.com/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry/ https://reason.com/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-jud... There's also a long list of people who were listed as IPCC reviewers, who claim they pointed out serious flaws in the research, were ignored, and whose names were then put on the final report anyway.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoI hope you do know that reason.com is a right wing think tank funded by David Koch foundation, and thus have serious conflict of interest? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/
- revelio 4y ago1. The article is simply a summary and repetition of Judith Curry's announcement, and Curry is/was an academic climatologist. 2. Given (1) I don't really care what reason.com is, but at any rate, I think right wing think tanks are far less biased and far more reliable than universities, government agencies and left wing think tanks, so that's not a useful or convincing response. Climatology is flooded with money due to their claims of doom, so they're as biased by money and profit as it is possible to be. My experience was that their opponents are barely funded at all and object due to a belief that things labelled as scientific should actually be so.
- Acebulf 4y ago> I think climate change is a problem (not a crisis) but it's important to note that if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah. People who have never done science really like this idea of the general scientific community being some sort of secret society that agrees to support eachothers ideas. If you put 5 scientists in a room, you can't get them to agree on >anything<. The idea that disagreement is enough to get you outcast from "science" is complete nonsense.
- slibhb 4y agoI know scientists who are climate change skeptics. However, what gets published ("the consensus") isn't the same as "what scientists think". This isn't only true in science, it's true in virtually all parts of human societies. It's hard to go against the grain and you're naive if you think doing so doesn't blight careers.
- jarenmf 4y agoWho is preventing the skeptics from posting their arguments anonymously to arxiv for us to see how the arguments hold?
- slibhb 4y agoWell for one thing it's a waste of time to work on research that won't advance your career. Also, I'm not saying "heterodox scientists have secret, bulletproof analyses to disprove climate change," I'm saying that there are significant incentives against publishing climate-crisis-skeptical research. I'm unsure how anyone can disagree with that. Acknowledging it doesn't mean denying climate change is real or accepting that its risks are exaggerated.
- sjducb 4y agoIf you're a climate sceptic scientist then the oil companies will give you a lot of money to do research.
- 4y ago