3 ms·

No it isn't. It's more akin to denying phrenology, phlogiston, leeches or almost anything that psychology has claimed in the past 20 years. Bad science is every

by nvm0n2 3y ago

No it isn't. It's more akin to denying phrenology, phlogiston, leeches or almost anything that psychology has claimed in the past 20 years. Bad science is everywhere and has always existed throughout history. You can't just pick some random bits of science that are agreed to be not bad and state that they're the same: they aren't. > More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree According to the same people who literally put in writing that they would "redefine the peer reviewed literature if we have to" to stop disagreement getting published. Please. Nobody who wants to know what's true gives a shit about what's said in the forums the academics under fire themselves control, that's obviously stupid. “Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of engineers, medical doctors, and petroleum geologists and almost no actual climate scientists,” said Zeke Hausfather, Are you aware you're citing a known climate change denier who agrees with the signatories that there's no climate emergency? https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520 It's a bit eye opening how many time I, a climate scientist, have been called a denier in the last 24 hours for having the temerity to say our children are not necessarily consigned to an apocalyptic hellscape of a future. Doomism is a disease, and a self-fulfilling prophesy. which is in response to the lashing he got for this: https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1533480022559772673 https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1533480022559772673 “I unequivocally reject, scientifically and personally, the notion that children are somehow doomed to an unhappy life”. Even Hausfather knows that, but other people say the same thing suddenly he's upset that they're just a bunch of Nobel Prize winning physicists, cofounders of Greenpeace, professors of atmospheric physics, climate researchers, meteorologists, experts on rainfall and flooding, earth scientists and ugh engineers.

myshpa 3y ago
Well, it's a rich tapestry of viewpoints you've got there, isn't it? On one hand, we've got the "bad science is everywhere" narrative, which, sure, science has had its misses. But you're conflating isolated missteps with a comprehensive understanding developed over decades. Saying they're the same is like comparing apples to an apple pie that one time had a bad slice. As for the critique on peer-reviewed literature, you're essentially saying we can't trust the vetting system that underpins all of scientific discovery because it's run by - shock horror - scientists? That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors. And ah, Zeke Hausfather - a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change but arguing against extreme doomism - the belief that catastrophic outcomes related to issues like climate change are not only inevitable but also imminent, to the point where mitigation efforts are considered futile. Finally, the credentials you're listing - Nobel Prize winners, Greenpeace co-founders, and the like - are impressive, sure. But they aren't a substitute for a wide body of evidence. Anomalies don't negate the rule; they make us scrutinize it. Which, last I checked, is what good science is all about.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  I think modern science rides off the back of the good reputation developed by earlier researchers. In modern fields of "science" it's common to find failure to replicate rates of more than 50%, or even higher. Other fields don't even accept that replicability matters at all, or they blatantly misrepresent their own findings. So yeah, modern science (as opposed to say, pre-WW2 science) is more like a barrel of bad apples with a few good ones, rather than the other way around. People have started noticing in recent years. We can't trust peer review, correct. Climate peer review isn't run by generic disinterested scientists, it's run by climatologists specifically - the very people whose income and influence directly depends on the perception that it's a very important field. If they were to be exaggerating as a group, how would the peer review process fix that? It wouldn't, which is why the many scientists and engineers who have peer reviewed climate science and think it's no good have to resort to public declarations. That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors. That's a major critique of the entire US medical system isn't it? That doctors over-medicalize things because they're financially incentivized to do so. We can debate to what extent that's true but you're depicting this as an obviously absurd idea when it's actually taken pretty seriously by lots of people, partly because there have been cases in the past where doctors appear to have (accidentally) created fake epidemics, like the wave of multiple personality disorder diagnoses that appeared and then disappeared within the last 50 years. a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change Right! In fact nobody given that label actually denies that the climate changes, which is why it's a slur. The climate has always changed. Yet as Hausfather discovered, the monster they've given birth to doesn't care about minor details like that. You're either a doomer or a denier and there's nothing in between. The people signing this declaration are saying that there is warming, but it's caused by both natural and artificial factors. They don't even deny humans create warming. But they criticize specific claims made by climatologists, and thus get described by people who haven't read the document - and by you - as "denying anthropogenic climate change".
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Your argument touches on several points, each of which deserves a nuanced response. So let's dive in. First, about the decline of science's "good reputation" and the issue of replicability: Failure to replicate is an inherent part of the scientific process that helps it self-correct. While it's true that some modern scientific fields face replication crises, using that to dismiss entire disciplines, especially well-established ones like climatology, is a broad brush that does more to muddy the waters than clarify them. As for peer review being flawed because it's "run by climatologists" — experts in the field being criticized — your argument sounds perilously close to a conspiracy theory. The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical; it misunderstands how academic tenure and prestige work. Scientists gain notoriety and respect by overturning existing paradigms, not by conforming to them. You're right that challenges like over-prescription of opioids continue to be serious issues within the medical system. However, these issues are met with ongoing scrutiny, calls for reform, and targeted actions to address the problem, rather than a dismissal of the entire field of medicine. The existence of flaws doesn't invalidate the enterprise; it emphasizes the need for continuous oversight and adjustment. Just as we wouldn't discard the entire medical field because of specific issues, it's reductive to discredit the bulk of climate science due to criticisms of the peer-review process or other perceived shortcomings. As for the "doomer or denier" binary, you've created a false dichotomy. There is a wide range of opinion within climate science, from the degree of human influence to the best methods of mitigation. But the majority opinion, backed by empirical data, leans toward significant anthropogenic impact. Lastly, the "climate changes naturally" argument. While it's a factual statement, it's also an incomplete one when discussing the current situation. The speed and impact of recent changes are what concern climatologists, and numerous studies attribute this to human activity. You seem to want room for nuance and complexity in this discussion, which is commendable. But you can't then turn around and use sweeping generalizations to dismiss the bulk of scientific consensus. EDIT: I think that all points from that document are thoroughly debunked and explained at skepticalscience.com. I suggest spending some time there instead.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

myshpa 3y ago

Well, it's a rich tapestry of viewpoints you've got there, isn't it? On one hand, we've got the "bad science is everywhere" narrative, which, sure, science has had its misses. But you're conflating isolated missteps with a comprehensive understanding developed over decades. Saying they're the same is like comparing apples to an apple pie that one time had a bad slice. As for the critique on peer-reviewed literature, you're essentially saying we can't trust the vetting system that underpins all of scientific discovery because it's run by - shock horror - scientists? That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors. And ah, Zeke Hausfather - a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change but arguing against extreme doomism - the belief that catastrophic outcomes related to issues like climate change are not only inevitable but also imminent, to the point where mitigation efforts are considered futile. Finally, the credentials you're listing - Nobel Prize winners, Greenpeace co-founders, and the like - are impressive, sure. But they aren't a substitute for a wide body of evidence. Anomalies don't negate the rule; they make us scrutinize it. Which, last I checked, is what good science is all about.

nvm0n2 3y ago
I think modern science rides off the back of the good reputation developed by earlier researchers. In modern fields of "science" it's common to find failure to replicate rates of more than 50%, or even higher. Other fields don't even accept that replicability matters at all, or they blatantly misrepresent their own findings. So yeah, modern science (as opposed to say, pre-WW2 science) is more like a barrel of bad apples with a few good ones, rather than the other way around. People have started noticing in recent years. We can't trust peer review, correct. Climate peer review isn't run by generic disinterested scientists, it's run by climatologists specifically - the very people whose income and influence directly depends on the perception that it's a very important field. If they were to be exaggerating as a group, how would the peer review process fix that? It wouldn't, which is why the many scientists and engineers who have peer reviewed climate science and think it's no good have to resort to public declarations. That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors. That's a major critique of the entire US medical system isn't it? That doctors over-medicalize things because they're financially incentivized to do so. We can debate to what extent that's true but you're depicting this as an obviously absurd idea when it's actually taken pretty seriously by lots of people, partly because there have been cases in the past where doctors appear to have (accidentally) created fake epidemics, like the wave of multiple personality disorder diagnoses that appeared and then disappeared within the last 50 years. a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change Right! In fact nobody given that label actually denies that the climate changes, which is why it's a slur. The climate has always changed. Yet as Hausfather discovered, the monster they've given birth to doesn't care about minor details like that. You're either a doomer or a denier and there's nothing in between. The people signing this declaration are saying that there is warming, but it's caused by both natural and artificial factors. They don't even deny humans create warming. But they criticize specific claims made by climatologists, and thus get described by people who haven't read the document - and by you - as "denying anthropogenic climate change".
- myshpa 3y ago
  Your argument touches on several points, each of which deserves a nuanced response. So let's dive in. First, about the decline of science's "good reputation" and the issue of replicability: Failure to replicate is an inherent part of the scientific process that helps it self-correct. While it's true that some modern scientific fields face replication crises, using that to dismiss entire disciplines, especially well-established ones like climatology, is a broad brush that does more to muddy the waters than clarify them. As for peer review being flawed because it's "run by climatologists" — experts in the field being criticized — your argument sounds perilously close to a conspiracy theory. The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical; it misunderstands how academic tenure and prestige work. Scientists gain notoriety and respect by overturning existing paradigms, not by conforming to them. You're right that challenges like over-prescription of opioids continue to be serious issues within the medical system. However, these issues are met with ongoing scrutiny, calls for reform, and targeted actions to address the problem, rather than a dismissal of the entire field of medicine. The existence of flaws doesn't invalidate the enterprise; it emphasizes the need for continuous oversight and adjustment. Just as we wouldn't discard the entire medical field because of specific issues, it's reductive to discredit the bulk of climate science due to criticisms of the peer-review process or other perceived shortcomings. As for the "doomer or denier" binary, you've created a false dichotomy. There is a wide range of opinion within climate science, from the degree of human influence to the best methods of mitigation. But the majority opinion, backed by empirical data, leans toward significant anthropogenic impact. Lastly, the "climate changes naturally" argument. While it's a factual statement, it's also an incomplete one when discussing the current situation. The speed and impact of recent changes are what concern climatologists, and numerous studies attribute this to human activity. You seem to want room for nuance and complexity in this discussion, which is commendable. But you can't then turn around and use sweeping generalizations to dismiss the bulk of scientific consensus. EDIT: I think that all points from that document are thoroughly debunked and explained at skepticalscience.com. I suggest spending some time there instead.