5 ms·

So reject the scientific data he's bringing into the discussion?

by bitshiftfaced 3y ago

uniqueuid 3y ago
No, weight the scientific data by its credibility and importance, as one does with all scientific data.
- lumb63 3y ago
  You and the other commenter above are speaking as if the post is full of citations to obscure cranks who are fabricating data and on rogue missions. He’s citing the International Panel on Climate Change and other large government organizations specializing in climate change and weather patterns. As to what “agenda” the author has, I’m unsure. Does the above commenter think the author holds shares in Carrier, and will benefit from the sale of air conditioners?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  someone earned a PhD in Science in the USA in this topic, but the casual reader is the judge of credibility ? edit I have never heard of this person before today
  - defrost 3y ago
    Roger Pielke Jr. earned a Ph.D. in Political Science (and water polo) at the University of Colorado in 1994. That's not a STEM science degree. Many people have interacted with him at length over the past decades and he bends actual science results to cast as much shade as he can get away with over AGW while continuously claiming he accepts the science. If anything the desmog link above is too kind.
synetic 3y ago
The father is a meteorologist and has studied climate science. The son, jr., is a political scientist. I don’t know if he, the son, is really qualified to understand the science.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  Luckily he doesn't need to. We can see the data for ourselves and draw our own conclusions about what it means. Unless... you believe that only certain experts are able to understand what a chart about extreme weather events means?
  - synetic 3y ago
    I’ve taught mathematics at the college level for over 20 years. The vast majority of the people can not draw proper conclusions from the charts without some coursework. Most people, including myself, don’t know enough statistics to know whether or not the data presented is statistically significant. This is particularly true since I’m not well enough versed in the field of climate science to know if the data has been cherry picked or if the presentation is in some other way deceptive. A person with training in climate science could easily write an essay that sounds plausible to me that is entirely deceptive and easily debunked by experts. I wouldn’t know because I don’t know enough about climate science. Long ago Freakonimics wrote that arctic ice had grown the past few years. They didn’t let their readers know about time series statistics and this information was completely deceptive. People are easily duped. Just look at all the morons who are now anti-vax. Yes, I need to rely on the consensus expert opinion in areas I have no training in.
    - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
      It's one thing to value intellectual humility and be able to say "I don't know enough about this." I believe we should listen to the content of what an expert has found and think about the evidence and reasoning that they provide. But what you're describing sounds incompatible with the spirit of human curiosity. No one is saying that the average Joe will have a better understanding of the truth than a PhD researcher, but there's nothing wrong with Joe trying to understand the evidence for himself. Denying people the right to think for themselves, even if they come to the wrong conclusion, is paternalistic and anti-science in my view.
      - synetic 3y ago

So reject the scientific data he's bringing into the discussion?

uniqueuid 3y ago

No, weight the scientific data by its credibility and importance, as one does with all scientific data.

lumb63 3y ago
You and the other commenter above are speaking as if the post is full of citations to obscure cranks who are fabricating data and on rogue missions. He’s citing the International Panel on Climate Change and other large government organizations specializing in climate change and weather patterns. As to what “agenda” the author has, I’m unsure. Does the above commenter think the author holds shares in Carrier, and will benefit from the sale of air conditioners?
mistrial9 3y ago
someone earned a PhD in Science in the USA in this topic, but the casual reader is the judge of credibility ? edit I have never heard of this person before today
- defrost 3y ago
  Roger Pielke Jr. earned a Ph.D. in Political Science (and water polo) at the University of Colorado in 1994. That's not a STEM science degree. Many people have interacted with him at length over the past decades and he bends actual science results to cast as much shade as he can get away with over AGW while continuously claiming he accepts the science. If anything the desmog link above is too kind.

synetic 3y ago

The father is a meteorologist and has studied climate science. The son, jr., is a political scientist. I don’t know if he, the son, is really qualified to understand the science.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago
Luckily he doesn't need to. We can see the data for ourselves and draw our own conclusions about what it means. Unless... you believe that only certain experts are able to understand what a chart about extreme weather events means?
- synetic 3y ago
  I’ve taught mathematics at the college level for over 20 years. The vast majority of the people can not draw proper conclusions from the charts without some coursework. Most people, including myself, don’t know enough statistics to know whether or not the data presented is statistically significant. This is particularly true since I’m not well enough versed in the field of climate science to know if the data has been cherry picked or if the presentation is in some other way deceptive. A person with training in climate science could easily write an essay that sounds plausible to me that is entirely deceptive and easily debunked by experts. I wouldn’t know because I don’t know enough about climate science. Long ago Freakonimics wrote that arctic ice had grown the past few years. They didn’t let their readers know about time series statistics and this information was completely deceptive. People are easily duped. Just look at all the morons who are now anti-vax. Yes, I need to rely on the consensus expert opinion in areas I have no training in.
  - bitshiftfaced 3y ago
    It's one thing to value intellectual humility and be able to say "I don't know enough about this." I believe we should listen to the content of what an expert has found and think about the evidence and reasoning that they provide. But what you're describing sounds incompatible with the spirit of human curiosity. No one is saying that the average Joe will have a better understanding of the truth than a PhD researcher, but there's nothing wrong with Joe trying to understand the evidence for himself. Denying people the right to think for themselves, even if they come to the wrong conclusion, is paternalistic and anti-science in my view.
    - synetic 3y ago