SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Claims that the "the science isn't settled" with regard to climate change are symptomatic of a large body of ignorance about how science works.
The first thing to understand is that there is no one method in science, no one way of doing things. This is intimately connected with how we reason in general.
[...] Those who demand the science be "settled" before we take action are seeking deductive certainty where we are working inductively. And there are other sources of confusion.
One is that simple statements about cause and effect are rare since nature is complex. For example, a theory might predict that X will cause Y, but that Y will be mitigated by the presence of Z and not occur at all if Q is above a critical level. To reduce this to the simple statement "X causes Y" is naive.
Another is that even though some broad ideas may be settled, the details remain a source of lively debate. For example, that evolution has occurred is certainly settled by any rational account. But some details of how natural selection operates are still being fleshed out.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @10:44AM
Yes, that's what religions do. They believe things on faith.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Friday September 16 2016, @04:55PM
That's not even remotely the same thing.
Scientists actively probe the various sacred cows and replicated findings. There's been times when they threw out entire areas of study because they proved to be twattle. Phrenology is no longer a thing and alchemy eventually became chemistry.
Scientists tend to be concerned with truth and applications and neither of those is served by attaching to a dogma and sticking to it in spite of evidence to the contrary. Incorrect truths tend to be found out as the contrarians in their midst love to disprove sacred beliefs.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @05:09PM
I agree. So you're saying Climate Change is not science? I agree again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Friday September 16 2016, @06:36PM
Absolutely not. I'm saying that the best available science points towards global warming. Given the lack of a second planet with which to experiment, we have little choice but to assume that the research data is accurate and take positive steps to reduce emissions.
If at that point, the climate continues to change in ways that aren't reflected by the theory, then we can probably draw a conclusion that there was something fundamentally flawed in the analysis.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @08:11PM
And why should we assume the research data that says the sky is falling is more accurate than the research data that says the sky is not falling? Rampant political bullshitery abounds on both sides of the disagreement, so neither side is remotely credible at this point.
Now if you want to say it's prudent to reduce carbon emissions just in case or it's otherwise generally better for the environment, fine. I could even go along with that. Just don't claim something as Truth that you can't factually know.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Friday September 16 2016, @10:01PM
That's a ridiculous strawman. The sky isn't a thing that can fall. We've sent countless satellites and missions into the space surrounding the Earth and we know definitively that it isn't possible for it to fall.
As for climate change, we have records going back many millions of years about what the atmosphere was like and we've got tree rings and fossils going back a long ways as well. Arguing about the semantics of it isn't really helpful. We also have computer simulations of the environment that are getting rather good.
Bottom line here is that the question isn't whether or not humans are causing climate change, the question really is more about how bad it's going to be, how much we have to change and how long we have in order to do it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @11:24PM
See, faith. You lack real, definitive proof and yet you believe anyway. Don't argue science if you're not going to be scientific about it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:41PM
Absolutely not. I'm saying that the best available science points towards global warming. Given the lack of a second planet with which to experiment, we have little choice but to assume that the research data is accurate and take positive steps to reduce emissions.
"Points towards global warming" is still a far cry from "take positive steps to reduce emissions" which is in a far cry from the proposals to massively reduce fossil fuel usage currently bandied about in treaty. Where's the evidence to support the assertions that global warming is important enough that we have to greatly curtail the activities of our societies and switch over at great cost to alternate means of generating power and transportation?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 16 2016, @05:37PM
If by faith you mean mountains of evidence then yeah, it's the exact same thing.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @05:52PM
By faith I mean believing something because the majority of scientists believe it, evidence be damned. Which is exactly what is going on in the Climate Change arena.
Science demands that you NEVER believe something just because others do. Science demands reproducible proof. If you're incapable of providing said proof to back up your assertions, you have no place in a scientific conversation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 16 2016, @06:17PM
Science demands reproducible proof. If you're incapable of providing said proof to back up your assertions, you have no place in a scientific conversation.
So why are you talking, then? Where is your reproduceable proof that C02 doesn't affect the atmosphere?
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @08:02PM
I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone taking an opposing position. I'm not. I'm saying your position lacks ground to stand on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by anfieldsierra on Sunday September 18 2016, @11:48PM
You've also forgotten the NULL hypothesis. The burden is on you to back up your claim that CO2 *is* catastrophically affecting the climate AND that humans are responsible.