4 ms·

>It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100%

>It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100% convinced that they sometimes get personal messages from angels. Their idiotic worldviews do not arise as a result of Bayesian discounting based on having received bad advice, but from intellectual laziness and an inability (or unwillingness) to look in the mirror and see a possible problem there. Way to character assassinate man! Bravo! This "If you don't agree with me you must be an idiot" kind of mentality does little to address the reality of the world, and rather than advancing science, hinders it. I'm a bit skeptical of global warming, anthropogenic climate change, etc not because I want to bury my head in the sand, but because from my point of view there's a HUGE echo chamber. I've read tons of papers which all basically confirm the theory but precious little which tries to look for alternative explanations. That feels awfully similar to the whole "fat is bad for you" advice from the medical community and thus, I think Adams isn't too far off base. For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-hea... That's a substantial part of the theory to be missing and yet still proclaim that the original theory was totally great and not problematic at all. Like you said: Cynicism, in some cases, is warranted.

shanusmagnus 12y ago
First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense. But speaking of standards of evidence: >>>> For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why <<<< The fact that you can't write down a model that predicts an extraordinarily complicated system down to the last detail is a very poor standard of evidence to require. It's the same flavor of argument that Big Tobacco used for all those years to squirm through legal loopholes about whether or not they knew that smoking killed people. I don't follow this literature but I'm not surprised that nobody can explain the handful of 100 year old ladies who smoked their whole lives and are as healthy as horses. The 'can you explain _this_ then???' defense isn't much of a defense when viewed in context.
- msandford 12y ago
  I've heard phrases like "the science is settled" on global warming. If you can't write down a VERY detailed model on global warming, then it seems to me pretty arrogant to suggest that in fact "the science is settled." The fact that "Big Tobacco" hid behind that argument doesn't make it wrong! That kind of thinking isn't terribly sound, all kinds of folks use various argumentation strategies to advance various theories; not all of them are right. By your logic that should eliminate all argumentation strategies from all pursuits because all have been used in service of incorrect ideas. Since this is an obviously ridiculous conclusion I would instead assume that your maxim isn't valid. Experts have been wrong in the past and will be again in the future. Economists -- whose sole job it is to understand the economy -- do no better than chance at predicting what will happen to GDP. You're making an appeal to authority and it's not terribly convincing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-better-than-a-random-walk/4499098 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-... The science is largely settled on gravity and we've got an equation that tells us how it works in excruciating detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_o... When climate science reaches that level of predictive ability then it won't be terribly contentious to say that the science is settled. Until then, it may well be.
  - shanusmagnus 12y ago
    How about this: let's nobody ever say 'the science is settled' about anything. I'm fine with that. What about instead we use confidence interval logic, and say things like: 'With extremely high confidence we think that carbon emissions from humans are causing climate change.' You might not agree with that statement either, but it gets us over this non-productive pedantry and into an actionable discussion. Let's try it out: is human nutrition and metabolism settled? Nope. Do you want to feed your child a diet of 100% JIF peanut butter and candy corns until it is? I'm guessing not. We don't need to get to settled. We just need to stop reasoning backward from the conclusion we want to be true. Especially when the consequences for things are as high as they are.
    - 12y ago

shanusmagnus 12y ago

First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense. But speaking of standards of evidence: >>>> For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why <<<< The fact that you can't write down a model that predicts an extraordinarily complicated system down to the last detail is a very poor standard of evidence to require. It's the same flavor of argument that Big Tobacco used for all those years to squirm through legal loopholes about whether or not they knew that smoking killed people. I don't follow this literature but I'm not surprised that nobody can explain the handful of 100 year old ladies who smoked their whole lives and are as healthy as horses. The 'can you explain _this_ then???' defense isn't much of a defense when viewed in context.

msandford 12y ago
I've heard phrases like "the science is settled" on global warming. If you can't write down a VERY detailed model on global warming, then it seems to me pretty arrogant to suggest that in fact "the science is settled." The fact that "Big Tobacco" hid behind that argument doesn't make it wrong! That kind of thinking isn't terribly sound, all kinds of folks use various argumentation strategies to advance various theories; not all of them are right. By your logic that should eliminate all argumentation strategies from all pursuits because all have been used in service of incorrect ideas. Since this is an obviously ridiculous conclusion I would instead assume that your maxim isn't valid. Experts have been wrong in the past and will be again in the future. Economists -- whose sole job it is to understand the economy -- do no better than chance at predicting what will happen to GDP. You're making an appeal to authority and it's not terribly convincing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-better-than-a-random-walk/4499098 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-... The science is largely settled on gravity and we've got an equation that tells us how it works in excruciating detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_o... When climate science reaches that level of predictive ability then it won't be terribly contentious to say that the science is settled. Until then, it may well be.
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  How about this: let's nobody ever say 'the science is settled' about anything. I'm fine with that. What about instead we use confidence interval logic, and say things like: 'With extremely high confidence we think that carbon emissions from humans are causing climate change.' You might not agree with that statement either, but it gets us over this non-productive pedantry and into an actionable discussion. Let's try it out: is human nutrition and metabolism settled? Nope. Do you want to feed your child a diet of 100% JIF peanut butter and candy corns until it is? I'm guessing not. We don't need to get to settled. We just need to stop reasoning backward from the conclusion we want to be true. Especially when the consequences for things are as high as they are.
  - 12y ago