In Christian circles, you get creation science.
It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
I don't think it's fair to so glibly criticise the science. This article isn't the science. I think we, as members of a community that is generally educated to a higher level than other communities should be calling out this nonsense that gets printed because it gives real ammunition to people (among whom it is possible you are a member) who deride climate science on the basis of bad journalism. It's a massive shame because it's an issue with potentially dire consequences.
Not all climate science is bad, of course.
The kind that takes an RCP of 8.5 with zero chance of happening and uses it as an input to policy recommendations is bad science.
Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science.
Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media) is bad science.
I'm writing this not to slap your hand, but in hopes that you can get to a point where all your posts aren't down voted ;-). Your message is not cohesive enough to follow. If you pick and choose which thing to talk about more carefully, I think you will find that you will get a much more responsive audience.
For example, in this case, the original article was absolutely rubbish. The only apparent reason one can see for it being on the front page is because it had the "right" headline. Nobody needs that kind of thing. People like me who feel that the science shows that we need to change our lifestyles for our future prosperity don't need this. People like you who (seemingly) feel that the science shows that we don't need to change our lifestyles don't need it. We're on the same side. Don't waste that opportunity!
A rant against the world is very satisfying, but it's not very effective. You will possibly pick up other disenfranchised people, but I don't think it will go much further. Instead, I recommend trying to respond with laser precision and discuss individual problems without bringing in all the other baggage. This time would be a good time to talk about how they are quoting scientists who are talking about conclusions with virtually nothing to explain what those conclusions are about. Perhaps you can say that we shouldn't be using such terrible journalism as input into important political dialog. Such an insight will be valuable for everybody. Another time, if real science is described, you can discuss problems with statistical techniques, etc, etc. Again, it will benefit everyone. Ideally, I would suggest that you attempt to downplay your own political agenda (everyone has one!). You have your own preferred outcome, but if you don't stress it, you have a much better chance that people with the opposite viewpoint will feel welcome enough to read what you have to write. From there, they may start to think that they should revisit their own position.
Anyway, I hope that proves helpful to you. I was reading your posts and really felt bad for your situation, which is why I decided to reply. Maybe the advice won't be good for you, but I hope it's worth thinking about.
I'm pretty sure the general conclusion is that, on average, the climate is warming, which makes weather extremes worse.
> Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media)
What are these predictions, and where are they being ripped apart?
Science comes in two flavors: research and experiments. Other things, even if attempting to sound scientific, are probably not science. One example is consensus, which itself isn’t science unless we are talking about behavioral sciences. The average person is not a scientist, certainly not a climatologist, but is generally decent at perceiving the basics of interpersonal communication and can discern if something is science or not regardless of their agreement or bias.
That is problematic, how do you talk to those people? They won’t understand the science, but alternate means of communication results in potential for arguments that are manipulative or far out of scope.
The idea is that climate change is a big deal. It is disruptive and that disruption will be very expensive and damaging, possibly catastrophic. Bad stuff. So, you want to convince people it is bad in order to change policy. Here is where the challenge begins, because policy discussions are generally political and not scientific even if all the supporting evidence is science and that evidence is overwhelming. The goal of science is advancing knowledge according to the scientific model, which is different than the goal of a policy conversation. Knowing nothing about climate or research a person can still detect that shift in conversation from science to policy/persuasion. Accounting for that without losing your message is delicate.
You can be good at science and less good at communication. If the conversation is purely fact and research based it isn’t emotionally compelling, but if it isn’t emotionally compelling there is no drive for policy change. At the same time if it is emotionally compelling it is open to falsification by irrational and illogical means. That is a hard problem to solve.
Evidence for "just what" is overwhelming... you find out the "just what" is nothing much, really.
There's a correlation between CO2 rise and a very small temperature increase, tht may or may not be a big deal. We don't know.
Climate science has testable hypotheses that continue to give reliable, observable and consistent results. Claiming that its conclusions are wrong requires denial, as no one has yet been able to demonstrate that that they are wrong.
Creation science hasn't even yet been able to form a framework that can be tested, let alone denied. I'd argue it doesn't even qualify as a science.
Yes I'm being pedantic. Yes I will die on this hill.
That market would reveal humanities unbiased view of climate change predictions. It would give us a great tool to put things in perspective.
Personally, I'd rather bet on temperatures at single stations than what these observatories calculate.
Here are some details: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/sur... (scroll to "What do other groups do differently?")
How typical that it's the first comment on the story.
Scientific fraud is not a thing of the past. It's not even rare.
Karl Popper is turning over in his grave.
Sure, but even accusations of scientific fraud require evidence to back them up. Can you provide some credible evidence to show that the majority of the scientific community is engaging in fraud?
Climate science has a clear physical mechanism (CO2 traps more solar energy than N2, O2, etc.) and quite a bit of observation confirming the effect. It's simple to do an experiment showing that increasing CO2 increases a primary mechanism of the greenhouse effect. It's really pretty simple. The only debate is just how significant the effect will be, how rapid, and whether it's linear or there are thresholds.
The only reason this is a politicized issue is that the fossil fuel industry is wealthy and powerful and aligned with numerous interests including major nation states where petroleum makes up a huge percentage of export revenue. If it were not such an economically significant issue there wouldn't be any debate.
If fossil power is phased out it will just increase demand for other sources of energy. These will at first be more expensive, but high demand causes investments in scaling which reduces unit cost as in virtually every industrial process. Look at the cost curves for solar and wind for the past 20 years. It's almost like Moore's Law.