4 ms·

Claiming a consensus when there isn't one is a classic bluff.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

kristopolous 3y ago
The satellite measurements of Antarctic sea ice are not in dispute. Nobody is putting forth a device with a different measurement. The submarine surveys agree with the Buoy measurements agree with the satellite measurements which agree with the microwave remote sensing measurements. There was 1 (one) (singular) study from 8 years ago that had a different interpretation of the numbers by Jay Zwally. People who don't understand science love attaching themselves to it like pulling out Andrew Wakefield's vaccine autism paper. They are quick to discredit 99.99% of the science and then parade around with the 0.01% cause celebre calling it irrefutable evidence. Here's the 157 citations to that paper, as you can see, it doesn't look like any of them support the findings https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945271910746936446 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945... For instance: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y or https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082182 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... But some people will cling on to these tiny crumbs like a toddler with a comfort blanket. I get it.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  You're strawmanning, please don't do that. The original claim was about long term ice trends/projections and what they do or don't mean, but now you're trying to claim there's a dispute over satellite measurement accuracy (there isn't). As for your claims of consensus, please just stop. Almost nothing about the climate has a consensus outside of the physical absorption bands of various gases. Constantly claiming you don't need to respond to people's points because there's a "consensus" when there obviously isn't is an illegitimate tactic. Engage with the point or don't, but don't try and pretend you're in the right to ignore it.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    That's not the claim. It's almost invariably political ideology propagated by conservative intellectual dark web conspiracy peddlers like Sam Harris, Weinsteins or Rush Limbaugh type characters using rhetorical tricks to create FUD and blow smoke in order to support a political agenda. They're propagandists and liars. I'm tired of that game and I've got no time for their tricks. I've seen them all before and it's just feeding the trolls. They're being insincere frauds. The chemistry works. The physics works. There's no dispute on the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. No dispute on the current measurements or the physics of it. Nobody is saying the ph levels of the ocean are not being measured accurately or that certain biological chemistry doesn't only work at specific levels. There's no rogue satellite returning different data. Even the American Petroleum Institute doesn't dispute any actual data. Very fundamental chemistry and physics would have to foundationally change for climate change to be fake. I've yet to find anyone with a scintilla of evidence to show how this alternative model actually works. That's because it doesn't. It's all rhetorical hand waving nonsense by internet celebrities and talk show yappers who can't balance a chemical equation yet alone propose an alternate GCM. Their criticisms are just uninformed bullshit.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      What are you talking about? Do you really think all you need to accurately predict global climate trends hundreds of years into the future is the chemical properties of a single gas? If you do actually believe that then your knowledge of climatology is very poor indeed. The problems with the science here are legion, starting with the fact that the climate is far too complicated to predict given only knowledge of the chemical properties of CO2! Consider the thousands of factors you need to also fully understand. Climate models don't properly handle the effects of clouds, they don't understand how energy is absorbed by the ocean, and they aren't even calibrated against reliable temperature measurements which is one reason estimates of the core ECS variable (the key to the whole thing) have been getting wider over time, not narrower. As in, literally, the constant you want to see scientists agree on has been losing consensus, not gaining it. Your problem is that you think reality is very simple, and that's why you struggle to understand why anyone could possibly disagree with your views. Go spend a few months trying to explain why the models are diverging both from observation and each other - a scientific fact - and then you may start to find it possible to understand "talk show yappers" or whoever else you imagine is your enemy.

Claiming a consensus when there isn't one is a classic bluff.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

Claiming a consensus when there isn't one is a classic bluff.

The satellite measurements of Antarctic sea ice are not in dispute. Nobody is putting forth a device with a different measurement. The submarine surveys agree with the Buoy measurements agree with the satellite measurements which agree with the microwave remote sensing measurements. There was 1 (one) (singular) study from 8 years ago that had a different interpretation of the numbers by Jay Zwally. People who don't understand science love attaching themselves to it like pulling out Andrew Wakefield's vaccine autism paper. They are quick to discredit 99.99% of the science and then parade around with the 0.01% cause celebre calling it irrefutable evidence. Here's the 157 citations to that paper, as you can see, it doesn't look like any of them support the findings https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945271910746936446 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=17945... For instance: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y or https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082182 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201... But some people will cling on to these tiny crumbs like a toddler with a comfort blanket. I get it.

nvm0n2 3y ago
You're strawmanning, please don't do that. The original claim was about long term ice trends/projections and what they do or don't mean, but now you're trying to claim there's a dispute over satellite measurement accuracy (there isn't). As for your claims of consensus, please just stop. Almost nothing about the climate has a consensus outside of the physical absorption bands of various gases. Constantly claiming you don't need to respond to people's points because there's a "consensus" when there obviously isn't is an illegitimate tactic. Engage with the point or don't, but don't try and pretend you're in the right to ignore it.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  That's not the claim. It's almost invariably political ideology propagated by conservative intellectual dark web conspiracy peddlers like Sam Harris, Weinsteins or Rush Limbaugh type characters using rhetorical tricks to create FUD and blow smoke in order to support a political agenda. They're propagandists and liars. I'm tired of that game and I've got no time for their tricks. I've seen them all before and it's just feeding the trolls. They're being insincere frauds. The chemistry works. The physics works. There's no dispute on the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. No dispute on the current measurements or the physics of it. Nobody is saying the ph levels of the ocean are not being measured accurately or that certain biological chemistry doesn't only work at specific levels. There's no rogue satellite returning different data. Even the American Petroleum Institute doesn't dispute any actual data. Very fundamental chemistry and physics would have to foundationally change for climate change to be fake. I've yet to find anyone with a scintilla of evidence to show how this alternative model actually works. That's because it doesn't. It's all rhetorical hand waving nonsense by internet celebrities and talk show yappers who can't balance a chemical equation yet alone propose an alternate GCM. Their criticisms are just uninformed bullshit.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    What are you talking about? Do you really think all you need to accurately predict global climate trends hundreds of years into the future is the chemical properties of a single gas? If you do actually believe that then your knowledge of climatology is very poor indeed. The problems with the science here are legion, starting with the fact that the climate is far too complicated to predict given only knowledge of the chemical properties of CO2! Consider the thousands of factors you need to also fully understand. Climate models don't properly handle the effects of clouds, they don't understand how energy is absorbed by the ocean, and they aren't even calibrated against reliable temperature measurements which is one reason estimates of the core ECS variable (the key to the whole thing) have been getting wider over time, not narrower. As in, literally, the constant you want to see scientists agree on has been losing consensus, not gaining it. Your problem is that you think reality is very simple, and that's why you struggle to understand why anyone could possibly disagree with your views. Go spend a few months trying to explain why the models are diverging both from observation and each other - a scientific fact - and then you may start to find it possible to understand "talk show yappers" or whoever else you imagine is your enemy.