• projectd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Of course morality is important. I would like to think if I had no understanding of psychology, genetics, or any other scientific field, I would still want to weigh in on letting homosexual people live their lives without consequence in times when it was illegal, since wishing punishment upon them for doing no harm to anybody is clearly a question of morality, not science. On most of the things you have said, I understand where you are coming from, but here I simply don’t get it - could you elaborate please? Do you understand my perspective?

    If you publish on psychological topics, that’s great, though clearly not relevant to climate science (except, that I’d expect it’d afford you a better-than-most understanding of the scientific method at least).

    Where we disagree, is that I think consensus is the gotcha in a discussion about climate change with non-climate scientists - again, in the same way that it is in any other field. If somebody disagreed with expert consensus on any very complicated technical topic, I’d just think they were simple - you said it best - it’s best to stick to your expertise. This doesn’t mean it’s not OK to form opinions on subjective things, less technical things, or to ask questions about technical fields, but deviating from the default on very technical things is just a very long winded way of being most likely wrong. You’ll be right once in a blue moon because experts don’t know everything, but statistically not about the thing you deviated on.

    I will concede one important point here - you’re right that my 99.9% figure isn’t very useful at all, since it would indeed include people in the relevant fields, so I’ve overstated my point by a large amount. A more useful number for my point is 97%, which is the proportion of actively publishing climate scientists who understand it to be man-made (https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/). Again, a big enough proportion for people outside of climate science to form a sensible default of “yes, we’re doing it”.

    As to whether it being man-made is a useful point of argument (aside from helping to signpost people forming opinions outside of their expertise), we’ll have to agree to disagree - you believe not, I believe it’s important, as it would help us model the outcomes better. For example, if humans weren’t causing it, some may further believe that it is inevitable and thus there may be less point in trying to fix it.

    In any case, I’ve enjoyed this so far and no hostility intended - I enjoy talking with people I don’t entirely agree with, as it helps me to either cement or change my opinions - at least those for which I feel qualified to deviate from scientific consensus on ;).

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      A more useful number for my point is 97%, which is the proportion of actively publishing climate scientists who understand it to be man-made

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=6061013b3f9f

      I actively encourage you to read more on the 97% to understand the debate about it.

      Where we disagree, is that I think consensus is the gotcha in a discussion about climate change with non-climate scientists - again, in the same way that it is in any other field

      It isn’t the gotcha in a good way. It can mean there is an actual agreement, people are worried about being canceled, or it means where the money is. Read the above article, and it will explain that the consensus isn’t what you think it means. Also, I could call myself a climate scientist and publish on the topic. Some people unethically publish on whatever the hot topic is to keep their funding going.

      thus there may be less point in trying to fix i

      Either way we have to work with the issue. We have to store more water, etc for growing crops, maybe change crops or other things to adapt to the changing world.

      I think instead of focusing on carbon fuel is killing everyone; we focus on things like better air, better water, etc. The Greta shit fit has turned people off. We need to focus on the benefits and not focus on taking people’s gas cars away. As the rhetoric has went up, people have tuned out. The one saving grace is I think people are actually noticing it more. It isn’t so much it went up 1.5 degrees. It is summer is so damn hot, I almost died.

      • projectd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s an article in Forbes magazine by a guy with a degree in philosophy who rejects climate change in its entirety, and runs a company paid by the Kentucky Coal Association, (indirectly) employees of Alliance Coal, and by other fossil fuel companies.

        The article has also aged comically badly: “The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half”.

        Lastly, that article is from 9 years ago. There is a pretty comprehensive rebuttal from the respected scientist who this guy has taken exception to, which I’d suggest reading: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

        I think your suggested solutions of focusing on air and water quality are great, though phasing out fossil fuels is a must. They are equivalent to the tobacco industry in this debate in their lobbying for terrible outcomes capacity and will distort reality and ruin our collective futures for profit, and this is where your talent for cynicism is best directed.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think your suggested solutions of focusing on air and water quality are great, though phasing out fossil fuels is a must

          That’s how you get to cleaner air.

          The article has also aged comically badly: “The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half”

          If you notice several authors the cook cited said he was wrong on their study or view. I get it’s easy dismiss the author because you don’t agree with his statement but trying to say the authors of the studies don’t know their own work is odd rebuttal

          • projectd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I can’t disagree with you there with regards to phasing out fossil fuels being a good path to clean air - plenty we agree on.

            I’d encourage reading the rebuttal I linked, as it directly references the people contesting the figures (heading “Confused Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%”).

            I did read the Forbes article and spent some time down some rabbit holes, but it just doesn’t seem a strong case to combat what appears to be a very strong consensus that climate change is man made.

            Not so academic, but this xkcd on the subject is brilliant https://xkcd.com/1732/

              • projectd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                Yes, it’s his own response to explain the criticism. More impartially, I’ve checked out the Wikipedia article too on the consensus, which speaks of the Cook study, but really puts into perspective how weak the criticism is in the face of the absolute epic mass of agreement (again, also bearing in mind that Cook’s is not the only report of its type.

                Given the overwhelming isolation of disagreement and the clear conflicts of interest from the fossil fuel industry in promoting the overly sponsored-by-fossil-fuel hacks that generally appear in opinion pieces in outlets looks Forbes and Fox, it really is a big stretch to go against the grain.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You can Google and see many other people came to the same conclusion as the Forbes article. You will also see other authors arguing about about how he miss cited their works.

                  • projectd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    With all due respect, I’ve hunted down rabbit holes and everything I’ve seen so far has been discredited. Taking Richard Tol as an example (since he’s the first on the Forbes article by the philosophy degree guy who gets paid by fossil fuel groups), Cook’s analysis of his criticism sounds completely valid and I haven’t managed to find anything by Tol which contradicts it https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm.

                    Googling to try and cherry pick these morsels of criticism from unqualified people just seems like really heavy duty lifting to try and reach the wrong wrong position. Shutting down the absolute masses of evidence which disagree with you in a refusal to align with scientific consensus in a technical field just seems intellectually futile… But here’s a challenge: given that Wikipedia is a community effort, pick the most valid sounding critic you can on the topic and edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change article to include it, and people much closer to the topic than I am will follow that chain if it’s missing, with others providing their retorts until eventually the truth is reached. Spoiler alert: there are so many vocal, but ultimately wrong climate sceptics, that this will be routinely attempted, and what’s left is the pages and pages of truth (Tol is indeed included and that chain has been followed).

                    I guess we could go around in circles, but you’ve got to the point of just telling me to do some Googling to disprove the very strong global scientific consensus, which sounds a little like the “do your research” trope you hear from the antivaxers. I simply haven’t seen a compelling reason to believe that the climate scientists are wrong, and the onus is on the relevant experts who disagree to chip away at that consensus if they feel it’s wrong. The fact they have been failing should draw reasonable people to conclude that climate change is real and is man-made.