3 ms·

Like how all of our models of the universe were confirmed by probes like Voyager 1, and we learned nothing new. You're right. Models have no uncertainty (and sc

by pyre 13y ago

Like how all of our models of the universe were confirmed by probes like Voyager 1, and we learned nothing new. You're right. Models have no uncertainty (and scientists are always expert statisticians, while we're at it ;). I'll at least say that the politicization of the issue hasn't helped the media to accurately report things about global warming.

DanBC 13y ago
There's a big difference between scientists calmly discussing problems with models and the paid shills of various companies who spread lies about the science. There's no doubt that some people are paid by corporations to distort the truth, and that some of those people are using similar tactics to the ones used during tobacco discussions. Your comment is true, but not particularly relevant to the "lay person" that parent comment was talking about. Scientists making mistakes with statistics is bad, but paid scientists deliberately distorting the statistics is worse, and it's those people who manage to get their tripe in op-ed piece in mainstream media.
scarmig 13y ago
It's important to put out that the politicization wasn't two sided: it neither started political nor is inherently political, but was made political by a campaign of disinformation by corrupting special interests. Of course, now that politicization does exist, and that corruption has worsened the quality of discourse among legitimate scientists. They're still functioning decently, but it'd be nice to know how to build a stronger scientific ecosystem.
- pyre 13y ago
  | politicization wasn't two sided Maybe at the start, but nowadays there are plenty of people on the opposite end of the spectrum spewing things like: - Hurricane Katrina is proof of Global Warming. - "There wasn't enough snow last winter. Global Warming!" - "There was more snow this year than last year. Global Warming!" - "There was a drought this year. Global Warming!" - "There was too much rain this year. Global Warming!" There's also this idea that the climate has ever reached any sort of equilibrium state. With as many variables go into something like the global climate, I find it hard to believe that we can say anything with any certainty. E.g. How do deep sea methane pockets affect the climate? Do we know how often any of these might be released into the atmosphere? Do we know if any of these had any affect on any sort of ancient climate change that we only know about from ice core samples?
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Yes, the "it's a hot day in summer therefore climate change" annoys me as much as "it's a cool day in winter therefore no climate change." Any given year, or even span of a couple years, isn't enough, let alone a day in a particular region. As for your questions, dealing with them individually with some level of certainty isn't too bad: I've certainly read convincing discussions of them. It's when dealing with things not in isolation that things become tricky. Most (though not all) feedbacks point in the positive direction, so all together they are almost certainly positive, even if that's not mathematical proof. But the magnitude of that positivity is very much up in the air.
snowwrestler 13y ago
Computerized climate models are useful tools for studying the detailed implications of global warming. But the theory of global warming does not depend on models. The theory is so simple that it was first proposed over 100 years ago, almost as soon as the greenhouse effect was discovered.

by pyre 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

There's a big difference between scientists calmly discussing problems with models and the paid shills of various companies who spread lies about the science. There's no doubt that some people are paid by corporations to distort the truth, and that some of those people are using similar tactics to the ones used during tobacco discussions. Your comment is true, but not particularly relevant to the "lay person" that parent comment was talking about. Scientists making mistakes with statistics is bad, but paid scientists deliberately distorting the statistics is worse, and it's those people who manage to get their tripe in op-ed piece in mainstream media.

scarmig 13y ago

It's important to put out that the politicization wasn't two sided: it neither started political nor is inherently political, but was made political by a campaign of disinformation by corrupting special interests. Of course, now that politicization does exist, and that corruption has worsened the quality of discourse among legitimate scientists. They're still functioning decently, but it'd be nice to know how to build a stronger scientific ecosystem.

pyre 13y ago
| politicization wasn't two sided Maybe at the start, but nowadays there are plenty of people on the opposite end of the spectrum spewing things like: - Hurricane Katrina is proof of Global Warming. - "There wasn't enough snow last winter. Global Warming!" - "There was more snow this year than last year. Global Warming!" - "There was a drought this year. Global Warming!" - "There was too much rain this year. Global Warming!" There's also this idea that the climate has ever reached any sort of equilibrium state. With as many variables go into something like the global climate, I find it hard to believe that we can say anything with any certainty. E.g. How do deep sea methane pockets affect the climate? Do we know how often any of these might be released into the atmosphere? Do we know if any of these had any affect on any sort of ancient climate change that we only know about from ice core samples?
- scarmig 13y ago
  Yes, the "it's a hot day in summer therefore climate change" annoys me as much as "it's a cool day in winter therefore no climate change." Any given year, or even span of a couple years, isn't enough, let alone a day in a particular region. As for your questions, dealing with them individually with some level of certainty isn't too bad: I've certainly read convincing discussions of them. It's when dealing with things not in isolation that things become tricky. Most (though not all) feedbacks point in the positive direction, so all together they are almost certainly positive, even if that's not mathematical proof. But the magnitude of that positivity is very much up in the air.

snowwrestler 13y ago

Computerized climate models are useful tools for studying the detailed implications of global warming. But the theory of global warming does not depend on models. The theory is so simple that it was first proposed over 100 years ago, almost as soon as the greenhouse effect was discovered.