3 ms·

An article talking about a complex system [1] (the Earth's climate system coupled to human industrial/farming systems) with few hard numbers, no mathematical mo

An article talking about a complex system [1] (the Earth's climate system coupled to human industrial/farming systems) with few hard numbers, no mathematical models and graphs of their behavior, and no links to any such discussions, is not objective in any sense of the word. It's all the author's uncited subjective views. This is the kind of stuff one should take in from one ear, and let it out through the other ear without letting it touch the brain. [1] complexity in the sense of mathematics.

claytongulick 11mo ago
It sort of depends on the expertise of the author, right? In this case, it seems like an actual climate scientist that has moderated his opinion over time, at least that was my takeaway. That makes it at least as valuable to me as any given "we're all going to die" article that pops up endlessly in these kinds of discussions. I agree though, that a big problem with these conversations is dealing with complex systems, small signals and potentially large impacts and communicating all that in an effective way. Most people (myself included) are simply not equipped to understand the details, so we rely on others to explain it to us. My point was just that I enjoy a more balanced take on the issue.
- abdullahkhalids 11mo ago
  > It sort of depends on the expertise of the author, right? In a well-established field like Physics or Biology, if an expert is talking about the established part of their field, they can just say things and you can trust that they are correct. If they saying things about the unestablished parts of their field - say a physicist talking about string theory - they need to properly cite stuff. In a not so well established field like Climate Science, where there is a lot of disagreement, every expert needs to cite their sources so people in adjacent fields can verify what they are saying.
  - tpm 11mo ago
    > In a not so well established field like Climate Science, where there is a lot of disagreement Is there? In the actual science, not in the I'm-a-contrarian-because-fossil-pays-well scene.
    - Daishiman 11mo ago
      There are broad differences of opinion about the validity of BAU projections a few decades out, AMOC collapse, etc. But the climate denialists like the author don't talk about that. They attack settled science and handwave away legitimate, serious concerns by saying that risk is incalculable.
      - tpm 11mo ago
        In other words it's the same as the OP says about established vs not-yet-settled parts of physics.

claytongulick 11mo ago

It sort of depends on the expertise of the author, right? In this case, it seems like an actual climate scientist that has moderated his opinion over time, at least that was my takeaway. That makes it at least as valuable to me as any given "we're all going to die" article that pops up endlessly in these kinds of discussions. I agree though, that a big problem with these conversations is dealing with complex systems, small signals and potentially large impacts and communicating all that in an effective way. Most people (myself included) are simply not equipped to understand the details, so we rely on others to explain it to us. My point was just that I enjoy a more balanced take on the issue.

abdullahkhalids 11mo ago
> It sort of depends on the expertise of the author, right? In a well-established field like Physics or Biology, if an expert is talking about the established part of their field, they can just say things and you can trust that they are correct. If they saying things about the unestablished parts of their field - say a physicist talking about string theory - they need to properly cite stuff. In a not so well established field like Climate Science, where there is a lot of disagreement, every expert needs to cite their sources so people in adjacent fields can verify what they are saying.
- tpm 11mo ago
  > In a not so well established field like Climate Science, where there is a lot of disagreement Is there? In the actual science, not in the I'm-a-contrarian-because-fossil-pays-well scene.
  - Daishiman 11mo ago
    There are broad differences of opinion about the validity of BAU projections a few decades out, AMOC collapse, etc. But the climate denialists like the author don't talk about that. They attack settled science and handwave away legitimate, serious concerns by saying that risk is incalculable.
    - tpm 11mo ago
      In other words it's the same as the OP says about established vs not-yet-settled parts of physics.