3 ms·

The title is inaccurate. From the first paragraph of the article: There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most

The title is inaccurate. From the first paragraph of the article: There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. The consensus is that the planet continues to warm, not cool.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
shawndumas 13y ago
the title is very accurate; the consensus on how much it was supposed to heat up is eroding (the use of the word 'cooling' is a play on words). FTA "In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity." and "The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."
- batbomb 13y ago
  If you are a scientist, especially one who deals with statistics, and you don't utter the word "uncertainty" on a daily basis then you don't deserve to be a scientist. Using that as a criticism, especially given the word has very technical meanings in terms of distributions and fits, is silly.
  - shawndumas 13y ago
    the argument that that word is aimed at is not a scientific argument but a political argument. FTA : "This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus."
- vannevar 13y ago
  the title is very accurate No, it's not. As the article notes up front, there is no serious doubt that the climate is warming. So not only is the climate not cooling, neither is the consensus. Estimates of the long-term rate of warming have always varied, but the consensus remains that the rate is significant and even the lower estimates will result in environmental changes that will impact millions of people.
  - baak 13y ago
    It's a pun... cooler heads prevailing doesn't mean peoples' heads are actually cooling down. The title was a play on words about the upset about global warming dying down.
  - shawndumas 13y ago
    but the consensus on how much it is heating up is 'cooling'.
- hristov 13y ago
  Nope it is inaccurate. There never was a consensus about exactly how much the earth would warm up in the future. Scientists always had different models showing different projections. The consensus was that (1) the earth is warming (2) if not stopped this will have catastrophic effects on the human race soon. Both of those things are still true and there is still the same consensus about them.
  - shawndumas 13y ago
    wow, guys, the argument that the article is aimed at is not a scientific argument but a political argument. FTA : "This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus."
sur 13y ago
The title sounds like it's saying that the consensus is cooling, not that there's a consensus that the planet is cooling.
- shawndumas 13y ago
  exactly; it's a play on words
- vannevar 13y ago
  It's wrong either way.
  - 300bps 13y ago
    No, it's not wrong. You are reading it at its simplest level. Further, you have 3 replies saying the exact same thing. The quantity of saying something by the same person does not increase its quality. As of right now, you have 30% of the comments in this submission. It really seems like you have a strange bias here to argue over something so trivial.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - shawndumas 13y ago
    vannevar, could you take a moment to explain why you are so intent on understanding this article as an attack on science instead of what it really is (namely, an attack on politics)?
    - vannevar 13y ago
      Because the article's premise is based on the author's skewed interpretation of the science. Ironically, if you look at the article they site for the claim that warming has slowed[1], you'll see that the rate of warming is still within the margin of error for the estimates. If anything, it should reinforce our confidence in the models that the actual curve matches so well with the prediction. And that's just surface temperature, ignoring ocean temperature and the simple fact that during this supposed 'hiatus' there has been a massive net ice melt[2]. 1. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446... 2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10847.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature1...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

shawndumas 13y ago

the title is very accurate; the consensus on how much it was supposed to heat up is eroding (the use of the word 'cooling' is a play on words). FTA "In the end, the so-called scientific consensus on global warming doesn’t look like much like consensus when scientists are struggling to explain the intricacies of the earth’s climate system, or uttering the word “uncertainty” with striking regularity." and "The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal."

batbomb 13y ago
If you are a scientist, especially one who deals with statistics, and you don't utter the word "uncertainty" on a daily basis then you don't deserve to be a scientist. Using that as a criticism, especially given the word has very technical meanings in terms of distributions and fits, is silly.
- shawndumas 13y ago
  the argument that that word is aimed at is not a scientific argument but a political argument. FTA : "This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus."
vannevar 13y ago
the title is very accurate No, it's not. As the article notes up front, there is no serious doubt that the climate is warming. So not only is the climate not cooling, neither is the consensus. Estimates of the long-term rate of warming have always varied, but the consensus remains that the rate is significant and even the lower estimates will result in environmental changes that will impact millions of people.
- baak 13y ago
  It's a pun... cooler heads prevailing doesn't mean peoples' heads are actually cooling down. The title was a play on words about the upset about global warming dying down.
- shawndumas 13y ago
  but the consensus on how much it is heating up is 'cooling'.
hristov 13y ago
Nope it is inaccurate. There never was a consensus about exactly how much the earth would warm up in the future. Scientists always had different models showing different projections. The consensus was that (1) the earth is warming (2) if not stopped this will have catastrophic effects on the human race soon. Both of those things are still true and there is still the same consensus about them.
- shawndumas 13y ago
  wow, guys, the argument that the article is aimed at is not a scientific argument but a political argument. FTA : "This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus."

sur 13y ago

The title sounds like it's saying that the consensus is cooling, not that there's a consensus that the planet is cooling.

shawndumas 13y ago
exactly; it's a play on words
vannevar 13y ago
It's wrong either way.
- 300bps 13y ago
  No, it's not wrong. You are reading it at its simplest level. Further, you have 3 replies saying the exact same thing. The quantity of saying something by the same person does not increase its quality. As of right now, you have 30% of the comments in this submission. It really seems like you have a strange bias here to argue over something so trivial.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- shawndumas 13y ago
  vannevar, could you take a moment to explain why you are so intent on understanding this article as an attack on science instead of what it really is (namely, an attack on politics)?
  - vannevar 13y ago
    Because the article's premise is based on the author's skewed interpretation of the science. Ironically, if you look at the article they site for the claim that warming has slowed[1], you'll see that the rate of warming is still within the margin of error for the estimates. If anything, it should reinforce our confidence in the models that the actual curve matches so well with the prediction. And that's just surface temperature, ignoring ocean temperature and the simple fact that during this supposed 'hiatus' there has been a massive net ice melt[2]. 1. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/2157446... 2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10847.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature1...