7 ms·

Not sure why you're downvoted. That's bad science regardless of how you look at it. The use of the word "climate" in a quote is a big indicator of bad science a

Not sure why you're downvoted. That's bad science regardless of how you look at it. The use of the word "climate" in a quote is a big indicator of bad science as it happens to pay the bills and make a good quote in the press before all other concerns at the moment. If it turns up in a paper at the end and is peer reviewed, then it has some credence but before that, nada. Feynman is rolling in his grave again... Edit: if you downvote, explain yourself or you're a coward and a hypocrite.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's bad, irresponsible science. And it's bad, irresponsible journalism to make it a giant orange pull quote. "I think it's X. But I don't have any evidence yet." If you don't have any evidence, you shouldn't be talking about it to a journalist. Who, quite predictably, is going to make a big deal out of it. This sort of thing actively hurts the climate change cause. It's bad, and shouldn't be done.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Yes, actually, particularly when talking to a journalist about possible climate change effects that's precisely what scientists should do. If you need proof this kind of thing hurts the climate change cause, look at this thread, which is nearly entirely a debate over her one statement and nothing about any actual science.
    - gd1 12y ago
      Nothing hurts the climate change 'cause' more than it being a 'cause' in the first place. Activism dressed up as science smells, and plenty of people who would otherwise be sympathetic can smell it.
      - badgersandjam 12y ago
        This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories. To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion. That's not acceptable.
        Gravityloss 12y ago
        I disagree completely. Thought experiment: An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions. He wants to prevent those deaths. He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever. Seems logical and humane to me.
        debacle 12y ago
        That's engineering, not science.
        badgersandjam 12y ago
        There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope... All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"
        Gravityloss 12y ago
        We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty. Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.
        badgersandjam 12y ago
        Problem is we have about 50% certainty...
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  By that standard, Einstein should have not talked to journalists about his 1905 relativity paper until the first prediction that wasn't null was experimentally verified in 1938.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    That's simply not a comparable situation.
    - anon1385 12y ago
      Somewhat amusingly, it was actually a remarkably comparable situation. There was a significant populist anti-relativity movement in Germany in the 1920s: http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7 http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7 >Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science. >Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible. And from a review of the book ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf ) >Nevertheless, anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play—and some anti-relativists were convinced that the co-conspirators were Jewish. Jews were held to dominate both the newspaper business and the new discipline of theoretical physics; they could thus easily advertize one of their own (Einstein) and his fallacious work (relativity). Gehrcke, for instance, kept emphasizing that the successes of relativity could only be explained by a state of “mass hypnosis”, brought about by excessive and one-sided reporting. Hmm…

waterlesscloud 12y ago

It's bad, irresponsible science. And it's bad, irresponsible journalism to make it a giant orange pull quote. "I think it's X. But I don't have any evidence yet." If you don't have any evidence, you shouldn't be talking about it to a journalist. Who, quite predictably, is going to make a big deal out of it. This sort of thing actively hurts the climate change cause. It's bad, and shouldn't be done.

Gravityloss 12y ago
I guess there was a too high expectation of the audience, and it would better to just stick to what there is evidence of already.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Yes, actually, particularly when talking to a journalist about possible climate change effects that's precisely what scientists should do. If you need proof this kind of thing hurts the climate change cause, look at this thread, which is nearly entirely a debate over her one statement and nothing about any actual science.
  - gd1 12y ago
    Nothing hurts the climate change 'cause' more than it being a 'cause' in the first place. Activism dressed up as science smells, and plenty of people who would otherwise be sympathetic can smell it.
    - badgersandjam 12y ago
      This is exactly the problem. There should be no activism and no causes in science. Each of them implies bias and results in less than ethical practice and unreliable theories. To ask for rationality and the application of the scientific method results in claims of denialism and instant burying of the opinion. That's not acceptable.
      - Gravityloss 12y ago
        I disagree completely. Thought experiment: An astronomer sees a comet approaching earth, that will kill billions. He wants to prevent those deaths. He starts campaigning for methods to prevent that: comet deflection, shelter building, whatever. Seems logical and humane to me.
        debacle 12y ago
        That's engineering, not science.
        badgersandjam 12y ago
        There's a pretty big assumption in there. That the comet is approaching earth and not going to miss it by half a parsec or that the comet is infact a bit of dirt on the lens of the telescope... All of which need testing first before you start waving your hands around and start saying "WE'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE - RUN!"
        Gravityloss 12y ago
        We operate in an uncertain world. In many cases it is hard to obtain 99.999% certainties, and we must act with less certainty. Not acting is a choice as well, and everyone bears the responsibility for that too.
        badgersandjam 12y ago
        Problem is we have about 50% certainty...
lotsofmangos 12y ago
By that standard, Einstein should have not talked to journalists about his 1905 relativity paper until the first prediction that wasn't null was experimentally verified in 1938.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  That's simply not a comparable situation.
  - anon1385 12y ago
    Somewhat amusingly, it was actually a remarkably comparable situation. There was a significant populist anti-relativity movement in Germany in the 1920s: http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7 http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7 >Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science. >Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible. And from a review of the book ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.2181.pdf ) >Nevertheless, anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed. Indeed, many believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at play—and some anti-relativists were convinced that the co-conspirators were Jewish. Jews were held to dominate both the newspaper business and the new discipline of theoretical physics; they could thus easily advertize one of their own (Einstein) and his fallacious work (relativity). Gehrcke, for instance, kept emphasizing that the successes of relativity could only be explained by a state of “mass hypnosis”, brought about by excessive and one-sided reporting. Hmm…