You might not be able to convince the deniers that have other interests in mind... but you might be able to enlighten the less informed among them, or the people that feel they don't have enough information.
From my experience, when talking about issues like global warming, people tend to form an opinion first and only then selectively seek out data to support it.
It's called the search for "corroborative evidence", where the latter is an oxymoron. Labels a non-scientist like nothing else, although we scientists catch ourselves doing that mistake just about every day.
There are two kinds of people on the issue: those who are certain of their position, and those who say they're not conclusively convinced one way or the other. "Those who are certain" are far louder and more idiotic on both sides. This headline is an example.
It's interesting that people on the sky-is-falling side of climate change feel that science is unassailable -- at least by the common man. Paid professionals make consensus decisions, and the rest of us should sit down and be quiet.
I have no idea what man's involvement with climate change is, or what the moral ramifications are (I doubt much, but I'm willing to listen) But I think I know what science is supposed to be: provisional, tentative, and falsifiable. And it's not being treated this way. To me that's why this issue is at the top of my list of cultural things to complain/argue about. It's destroying the essence of what science really means.
This doesn't even come close to conclusive proof:
"Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence."
You've updated your excel spreadsheet and your python program and that's conclusive proof?
Science is only science if it can be tested and proven false. Computer models fall short.
You wonder why people don't believe this theory? If this is conclusive proof what would I need to do to convince you of the tooth fairy's existence?
I don't know anything about these particular models, but the models that have been used to raise the global warming alarm over the last 10 years have consistently failed to predict outcomes. Upper atmosphere temperatures in particular, which are key to the premise of the models.
Well, if property q is important enough, it's wise to adjust expected outcome on it to some degree even if you don't yet know if the rest of set X has that property.
What absolute crap. The reference is nothing but word for word crap that says nothing and gives no proof. Only that somewhere they have proof. Craptastic.
It's absolutely amazing how these advanced computer models can tell us how the climate naturally varies over years. It won't be long until they can accurately predict if it will rain next weekend.
21 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 42.1 ms ] thread* It's Jesus who makes the weather
* Minnesota needs some warming up
* Polar warming creates a lucrative new northern shipping passage
I have no idea what man's involvement with climate change is, or what the moral ramifications are (I doubt much, but I'm willing to listen) But I think I know what science is supposed to be: provisional, tentative, and falsifiable. And it's not being treated this way. To me that's why this issue is at the top of my list of cultural things to complain/argue about. It's destroying the essence of what science really means.
Science is only science if it can be tested and proven false. Computer models fall short.
You wonder why people don't believe this theory? If this is conclusive proof what would I need to do to convince you of the tooth fairy's existence?
And yet, you can prove that the predictions made by a computer model are (or aren't) false.
Really.
Press Ctrl+F to search entirety of text on the page.
Enter "sun" nothing found.
Enter "sunspot" nothing found.
Enter "solar" (as in "solar activity") nothing found.
Hmmmmm.