4 ms·

I've read a version of this line of thinking many times. You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central c

I've read a version of this line of thinking many times. You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central climate change theories that they would be set for life under a cavalcade of fossil fuel sponsorships. Not to mention that they would be a hero to most of the planet. They would be singlehandedly responsible for major policy shifts on the part of entire countries. There's a massive incentive for someone to convincingly disprove the negative effects of climate change. If there is such a complete and totalizing suppression of actual inquiry in climate science, then why are there climate skeptics with positions in major universities? Why are major journalistic publications skeptical? It seems to me that there is quite a bit of a forum for debate on climate science, because everyone, including, probably, many climate scientists, would love for it to be wrong. Your argument is based on your being completely convinced that a very large swath of people, many if not most of whom are parents like yourself, are acting in utter bad faith. Certainly any academic field, like any human endeavor, is subject to group think, but if you look at the very real scientific progress that's happened in the last several hundred years, you can see that the scientific approach, empirically, does lead to success, or at least disproves the notion that groupthink is likely to wholly capture a scientific field. The politicization of the whole thing ("liberal morality") is also intriguing. I'm an unabashed liberal. If you put a convincing argument about how the climate would be fine in front of me, I would thank you a thousand times over. As it stands, I've read so many arguments from climate skeptics, and they roughly follow the following templates: * a wholesale belief that climate science is operating under a special kind of bad faith * misunderstandings of things like the second law of thermodynamics (e.g. ignoring the atmosphere itself acting as a heat sink) * belief that Professor Q is somehow right and all the other professors are wrong (probably because of the bad faith part), ignoring that Professor Q might also be subject to such things * belief in government or corporate control over the discussion, ignoring the truly massive financial incentive to ignore climate science * citations, usually exaggerations, of how many "climate predictions" have gone wrong, ignoring that science journalism and activists will often simplify and/or incorrectly cite studies in any field, because the public doesn't, in the end, understand the language of probability

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central climate change theories that they would be set for life under a cavalcade of fossil fuel sponsorships. You don't understand scientists then. They don't want to be "set for life". They want status within their own bizarre little community. While no doubt Exxon would be more than happy to bankroll them at any level, the left made sure to poison that... anyone even hinted at to be accepting their money is a "fossil fuel shill". So no, they're not interested in taking that money. If there are any such people out there now, they do the easy thing... they go find something else to research where they can be honest without it ruining their career, they publish, and we can't even know how many of them are. If they self-identify, careers are over. > If there is such a complete and totalizing suppression of actual inquiry in climate science, Why would it have to be "complete and total"? You still think I'm talking about some conspiracy. I'm talking about fools and halfwits doing this accidentally, by instinct, and so when they pipe up "but we're not suppressing!", in their own way they're even honest about it. They genuinely believe they aren't. > Your argument is based on your being completely convinced that a very large swath of people, many if not most of whom are parents like yourself, are acting in utter bad faith. I don't posit any bad faith in any of this. Stupidity and incompetence, and a complete lack of immunity for groupthinking tendencies suffice. Right now, you believe you're very righteous in even typing out your comment. > but if you look at the very real scientific progress that's happened in the last several hundred years, You don't get to appeal to the scientific progress, without taking credit for all of the regress that happens too. It's slow, accidental, and there's no way for you to know, one way or the other whether you're a plate tectonicist or continental fixist in all of this. > or at least disproves the notion that groupthink is likely to wholly capture a scientific field. The history of science is replete with examples of entire fields being captured by groupthink. Sure, so far, it seems that eventually it fades away. But without a better understanding of the sociology of groupthink, we don't know that's a universal feature. And besides, even if it does... seems the only sure fix is to wait for the old guard to die out. Meaning I'd have to wait another 40 or 50 years minimum. > belief that Professor Q is somehow right and all the other professors are wrong (probably because of the bad faith part), And not because it's a recurring theme in science? Not because, you don't need consensus if you're actually correct? > belief in government or corporate control over the discussion, In what part of my comment did I even hint that I believed this? Or are you just talking about the other skeptics because they're easier to attack than I am?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> You do realize that if a scientist could put up a reputable set of studies that disprove the central climate change theories that they would be set for life under a cavalcade of fossil fuel sponsorships. You don't understand scientists then. They don't want to be "set for life". They want status within their own bizarre little community. While no doubt Exxon would be more than happy to bankroll them at any level, the left made sure to poison that... anyone even hinted at to be accepting their money is a "fossil fuel shill". So no, they're not interested in taking that money. If there are any such people out there now, they do the easy thing... they go find something else to research where they can be honest without it ruining their career, they publish, and we can't even know how many of them are. If they self-identify, careers are over. > If there is such a complete and totalizing suppression of actual inquiry in climate science, Why would it have to be "complete and total"? You still think I'm talking about some conspiracy. I'm talking about fools and halfwits doing this accidentally, by instinct, and so when they pipe up "but we're not suppressing!", in their own way they're even honest about it. They genuinely believe they aren't. > Your argument is based on your being completely convinced that a very large swath of people, many if not most of whom are parents like yourself, are acting in utter bad faith. I don't posit any bad faith in any of this. Stupidity and incompetence, and a complete lack of immunity for groupthinking tendencies suffice. Right now, you believe you're very righteous in even typing out your comment. > but if you look at the very real scientific progress that's happened in the last several hundred years, You don't get to appeal to the scientific progress, without taking credit for all of the regress that happens too. It's slow, accidental, and there's no way for you to know, one way or the other whether you're a plate tectonicist or continental fixist in all of this. > or at least disproves the notion that groupthink is likely to wholly capture a scientific field. The history of science is replete with examples of entire fields being captured by groupthink. Sure, so far, it seems that eventually it fades away. But without a better understanding of the sociology of groupthink, we don't know that's a universal feature. And besides, even if it does... seems the only sure fix is to wait for the old guard to die out. Meaning I'd have to wait another 40 or 50 years minimum. > belief that Professor Q is somehow right and all the other professors are wrong (probably because of the bad faith part), And not because it's a recurring theme in science? Not because, you don't need consensus if you're actually correct? > belief in government or corporate control over the discussion, In what part of my comment did I even hint that I believed this? Or are you just talking about the other skeptics because they're easier to attack than I am?