SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-don't-want-knowledge-I-want-certainty dept.
Jeremy P. Shapiro, a professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University, has an article on The Conversation about one of the main cognitive errors at the root of science denial: dichotomous thinking, where entire spectra of possibilities are turned into dichotomies, and the division is usually highly skewed. Either something is perfect or it is a complete failure, either we have perfect knowledge of something or we know nothing.
Currently, there are three important issues on which there is scientific consensus but controversy among laypeople: climate change, biological evolution and childhood vaccination. On all three issues, prominent members of the Trump administration, including the president, have lined up against the conclusions of research.
This widespread rejection of scientific findings presents a perplexing puzzle to those of us who value an evidence-based approach to knowledge and policy.
Yet many science deniers do cite empirical evidence. The problem is that they do so in invalid, misleading ways. Psychological research illuminates these ways.
[...] In my view, science deniers misapply the concept of “proof.”
Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.
I have observed deniers use a three-step strategy to mislead the scientifically unsophisticated. First, they cite areas of uncertainty or controversy, no matter how minor, within the body of research that invalidates their desired course of action. Second, they categorize the overall scientific status of that body of research as uncertain and controversial. Finally, deniers advocate proceeding as if the research did not exist.
Dr. David "Orac" Gorski has further commentary on the article. Basically, science denialism works by exploiting the very human need for absolute certainty, which science can never truly provide.
(Score: 5, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:23AM (6 children)
Investors are always seeking that hockey stick growth curve, slow at first followed by a sustained fast upward movement.
Well, literally millions of companies later, their influence has rubbed off on the environment and it's doing the same thing. Best evidence being collected in the last 5 years indicates that we are something like 3 sigma above the mean predicted temperature rise curves - it's here, and it's moving faster than anyone dared to predict 40 years ago.
https://www.miamidade.gov/global/economy/resilience/sea-level-rise-flooding.page [miamidade.gov]
https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/sea-level-rise-will-make-most-of-atlantic-city-uninhabitable/article_75ad1a41-644a-5577-aee2-ecd0d2de1edd.html [pressofatlanticcity.com]
https://www.businessinsider.com/un-report-devastating-arctic-temperature-rise-locked-in-2019-3 [businessinsider.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/13/arctic-temperature-rises-must-be-urgently-tackled-warns-un [theguardian.com]
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08042019/arctic-climate-change-temperature-permafrost-sea-ice-wildilfe-ecology-study [insideclimatenews.org]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @03:51AM (2 children)
"3 sigma above the mean predicted temperature rise curves"
Wow that sounds bad.
Until,
"40 years ago."
The mean prediction from 40 years ago is probably negative. Forty years ago many climate scientists were predicting an imminent ice age.
So what is this "mean" and how much is a "sigma" ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @02:15PM (1 child)
So fun explaining science to people that don't understand statistics...
A mean is what you probably think of as an average, that is add all the things, and divide by the number of things (unless we are talking geometric mean). In statistics, there are many averages, and mean is one of them, you may also have heard of median (the data point at the 50th percentile) and mode (the region of the data space that most things seem to fall into).
A sigma is a measure of the "tightness" of the data around that mean, I wont get all mathy on what it means, but 93% of the data will be within 3 sigma (assuming a normal, or bell-curve, distribution) of the mean.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @04:14PM
For a pedantic little turd you have very poor reading comprehension.
The question was What is this mean. Requires a numerical answer.
How much is a "sigma"? is a quantitative question. Also requires a numerical answer.
The obvious inability to quantitatively answer a simple question about data you are quoting is just another reason people don't believe your hype.
So I'll ask again. What was this mean of the predicted temperature rise 40 years ago? And what is the value of the sigma that we are three of above that mean? Answer in degrees please, and specify fahrenheit or celsius.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @08:02AM (2 children)
I don't know about 40 years ago, but we have numerous predictions from the 30 years ago and the temperatures have been increasing far more slowly than predicted. 1990 is the year the IPCC released their first climate report. [wikipedia.org] Their self declared "best" prediction expected a per-decade warming of 0.2 - 0.5 degrees with an expectation of 0.3. Here [nasa.gov] are the global temperature deltas from NASA where you can cross reference what actually happened:
1990 = baseline (all below temperatures in degrees celsius)
2000 = -0.04 change
2010 = +0.3 change
2018 = +0.1 change
Expected = +0.9 change, with a minimum of 0.6 and a maximum of 1.5
Reality = 0.36 change.
---
The Wiki page quotes the actual report as well as links to it. Quoting the IPCC:
The models have been refined over time, but are not fundamentally different. They continue to dramatically overestimate the heating. You are being rather severely misled by a media who makes profit each time you click on one of their links. And what better way for the paper boy to get you to hand him your quarter than, "The world is ending! The world is ending! Read all about it!"
And for some flavor here [apnews.com] is an article from AP, about the same time in 1989. Good stuff in there and one of the earliest references of a tipping point I'm aware of:
Lots of other great stuff in there. One other [wikipedia.org] crucial and recommended bit of reading to truly get a grasp on the nature of climate change.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @12:32PM (1 child)
I don't know what you are smoking, but here is the real data,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ [nasa.gov]
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ [nasa.gov]
We are at +0.5C since 1990 and this is accelerating. At about +1C since 1970s. But this entire discussion misses the main point - the warming that is still to come because this is not exactly a state system. It's a dynamic system and earth has inertia. That's the only reason why we are alive on this planet.
And he was RIGHT. Nations WILL be erased. Now the question is not whether they will be erased, but how many and how many hundreds of millions of people will migrate as result of AGW.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z [nature.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @06:54PM
I'm unsure what series you're referring to. Looking at the "Global Mean Estimates based on Land and Ocean Data" on the link [nasa.gov] you provided gives substantively the exact same data. Ends up with +0.4 instead of the +0.36 from NASA's other data. In either case even whatever source you're drawing from ends up completely outside the 0.6C-1.5C (with an expectation of +0.9C) warming predicted by the IPCC. And the person I responded to was claiming that not only have we hit warming expectations but claimed, quote:
Suffice to say that's, to put it mildly, unsupported by reality.
You do realize by trying to accept what our UN guy was saying, that it means there's absolutely no point in trying to mitigate climate change since it would be impossible? He said, literally, that if climate change is not solved by 1999 then it will have gone beyond human control. Suffice to say we did little more than ramp up our emissions pretty substantially after he chose to go all-in on the hyperbole. By refusing to reject even the most insane and obviously false of premises, let alone one that would contradict your own position, you show little more than an absolute lack of ability to consider the issue as presented by the facts.