Starship Asterisk*

So Mr. Hawking said that, and I quote, that he "will pay to send climate change deniers to Venus". And yes, that offended all the climate change deniers. I'm curious as to whether or not it's real. I did a search and it came up with polarizing results: "It is real", "it is fake", etc.

I personally say it is and people are being stupid, but I want to be sure.

Source for his quote: https://t.co/1rRH9baOSL

You can easily find polarized results about anything if you're looking on the internet. (You can find flat earthers on the internet too, but nobody takes seriously the claim that there's a difference of opinion about the shape of the Earth.) The scientific consensus is that climate change -- by which I assume you mean the current warming trend -- is real, and that human activities are largely to blame for it.

Rob

The most obvious and predictable effect of global warming is the recent decline in Arctic Sea Ice.

Besides it's detrimental effect on the arctic ecosystem, lack of Arctic Sea Ice directly results in devastating droughts & flooding throughout the Northern Hemisphere.

The problem with your search is that you are looking at a false dichotomy. Among climate experts, there isn't really a question whether it's real, or whether the forcing is primarily driven by human emissions, or whether it's bad. The discussion is currently about how bad, who will be most affected, and what, if anything, we can do about it. There are economic debates to be had and policy debates, but the idea that we still need to debate whether or not it is real is just stalling the inevitable.

geckzilla wrote:
Among climate experts, there isn't really a question whether it's real, or whether the forcing is primarily driven by human emissions, or whether it's bad. The discussion is currently about how bad, who will be most affected, and what, if anything, we can do about it.

Essentially every country in the world is now committed by the year 2020 to both the metric system and The Paris Agreement reducing greenhouse emissions...
... except for the United States of America.

geckzilla wrote:The problem with your search is that you are looking at a false dichotomy. Among climate experts, there isn't really a question whether it's real, or whether the forcing is primarily driven by human emissions, or whether it's bad.

Well, "bad" is a much more subjective issue. Climate scientists tend to avoid that claim. The actual societal impact of climate change is an area analyzed by public policy experts, infrastructure designers, and others.

A scientist says "Consuming 1 mg of potassium cyanide will reduce your ability to bind oxygen and probably result in your death; whether that is "good" or "bad" is left to philosophers to debate. I'm just telling you what will happen."

I kind of follow Michael Mann's lead on this and keep it simple, Chris. (I left out the merciless taunts at his enemies and rivals, though.)

geckzilla wrote:I kind of follow Michael Mann's lead on this and keep it simple, Chris. (I left out the merciless taunts at his enemies and rivals, though.)

Mann, of course, isn't your typical climate scientist, as he is very involved in the politics and public policy side of things, as well.

Anyway, I was just making the observation that when you read papers about the science of climate change, they virtually never make any subjective claims of good or bad consequences. They simply itemize consequences. Which is, I think, a generally good thing.

He is a typical climate scientist in many regards, but a whole lot more committed to advocacy than many others. It's understandable as advocacy tends to be a heavy burden that requires a lot of sacrifice. But are his opinions shared by many? Likely.

geckzilla wrote:He is a typical climate scientist in many regards, but a whole lot more committed to advocacy than many others. It's understandable as advocacy tends to be a heavy burden that requires a lot of sacrifice. But are his opinions shared by many? Likely.

Most of his opinions about the social and economic consequences of climate change are probably shared by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. They're just careful not to voice those opinions in scientific papers. Even Mann. Some are also activists, and voice their opinions openly elsewhere, and there is a broad movement within the scientific community for more scientists to make their voices heard outside of papers and journals. That's a tricky business, though, since it can be difficult to keep the objective science separate from the subjective advocacy in the minds of much of the public (a problem we certainly see with Mann, whose solid science is repeatedly challenged based on his political opinions).

I think that asking and answering the question "how bad is it" can also motivate science work, whether they ever touch on such a subjective question or not in the literature. Furthermore, I think that a lot of people are finally realizing the fallacy that objective truth will always win over opinion pieces in the end. In striving to maintain order, dispassion, and isolate science from politics, especially the corrupting factor that getting involved in political popularity contests brings, it seems to me that the appearance of a dichotomy has been maintained for much longer than it should have.

geckzilla wrote:...it seems to me that the appearance of a dichotomy has been maintained for much longer than it should have.

That's not going to change so long as there is political advantage to be had in maintaining it.

Of course, the dichotomy is important at times. I do think it is critical that scientists not say things are "bad" or "good" when they're formally reporting on the science itself. That just serves to confuse the issue. There is an objective aspect, and a subjective one. It is perfectly reasonable for a scientist to be involved with both, but not always in the same forums.

It's just such a shame that all that noble neutrality has resulted in a void filled with misguided fools and truly evil people.

geckzilla wrote:It's just such a shame that all that noble neutrality has resulted in a void filled with misguided fools and truly evil people.

I'm pretty sure that the void filled with misguided fools and truly evil people would look the same regardless of what scientists have had to say. If people refuse to accept objective fact, I doubt they're going to be swayed by subjective opinion. Their biases are an extreme impediment.

Chris Peterson wrote:

geckzilla wrote:
It's just such a shame that all that noble neutrality has resulted in a void filled with misguided fools and truly evil people.

I'm pretty sure that the void filled with misguided fools and truly evil people would look the same regardless of what scientists have had to say. If people refuse to accept objective fact, I doubt they're going to be swayed by subjective opinion. Their biases are an extreme impediment.

The lack of having a ready definitive answer for everything is seen as a weakness.

neufer wrote:The lack of having a ready definitive answer for everything is seen as a weakness.

Unless the definitive answer conflicts with strong biases. In that case, having a definitive answer is seen as the weakness. With some people, you can't win.

joeycummens wrote:So Mr. Hawking said that, and I quote, that he "will pay to send climate change deniers to Venus". And yes, that offended all the climate change deniers. I'm curious as to whether or not it's real. I did a search and it came up with polarizing results: "It is real", "it is fake", etc.

I personally say it is and people are being stupid, but I want to be sure.

Source for his quote: https://t.co/1rRH9baOSL

Good topic and question Joey. For me what's happening to the ice coverage in nearly all the cold areas of our planet clinches the debate on the it is real side, and very strongly so. Deniers use regional cold snaps to bolster their case, but that is small scale thinking.

Bruce

BDanielMayfield wrote:Deniers use regional cold snaps to bolster their case, but that is small scale thinking.

It's also just another level of denialism, since the sort of strong regional cold snaps that we've seen in northern temperate latitudes in recent winters are expected behavior of global warming based on most current models.

rstevenson wrote:The scientific consensus is that climate change -- by which I assume you mean the current warming trend -- is real, and that human activities are largely to blame for it.

Rob

In the face of all the evidence of warming the fall-back position many deniers take is that this trend isn't being caused by human activities. This secondary claim denies proven greenhouse gas chemistry physics however.

Bruce

Just this afternoon, while playing pool, an acquaintance who is known for his, um, alternative viewpoints, mentioned scientific evidence that the Sun is entering a cooler phase. I asked if this wouldn't mean that the Earth should also cool off. Oh it is, he said. No, it's not, I said, and then held up my hand when he started to debate it. Talk to a scientist, I said, and left it at that. Of course, he won't.

He gets all his ideas from certain alternative web sites, the kind that publish 10,000 word essays on pseudo-science, with lots of large yellow headlines and plenty of exclamation points. For example, he thinks war is coming this year. (He thought that last year too, but doesn't learn from his errors.) He invests by following "cycles" after studying hundreds of charts that show such cycles in relation to, among other irrelevant things, the movement of the Earth through the plane of the galaxy.

I once asked him where he gets these ideas and why they attract him. What do you mean, he said.

[sigh]

Rob

rstevenson wrote:Just this afternoon, while playing pool, an acquaintance who is known for his, um, alternative viewpoints, mentioned scientific evidence that the Sun is entering a cooler phase.

You get this strange selective use of data. Yes, there's evidence the Sun may be entering a less active stage. Yes, the last time this was observed the Earth (or the northern hemisphere, anyway) experienced a long period of cooling. But the uncertainty in the future behavior of the Sun, as well as the causative connection between solar activity and the Maunder minimum, are beset with much greater unknowns than the well understood increase in global temperature due to human activities. But some people will readily accept the first while denying the latter.

rstevenson wrote:
An acquaintance who is known for his, um, alternative viewpoints, mentioned scientific evidence that the Sun is entering a cooler phase.

Sunspot activity and it's associated enhanced UV activity hit a maximum during the 1957/8 International Geophysical Year.

If all the global warming observed since 1958 has actually been significantly held in check by the decline in UV activity that would pose a real concern for the future.

When talking about something as fundamental and scientific as climate change or vaccination - there seems to be a widespread demography that denies vehemently. Since the discovery of vaccines, a lot of people have protested the idea of vaccinating kids as it might make them ill, both physically and mentally.

The same goes for climate change as well.

Psychologists have studied this phenomenon and have realized that many amongst us show such tendencies (anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers etc) owing to something called as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

As per the definition of this effect, people who have zero to negligible knowledge about a certain area of knowledge or expertise tend to remain under the misconception that they have exceeding skills/knowledge in that area.

Simply put, people who are bad at something are the ones who think they are good.

To read more on how this particular phenomenon has led to a number of false-belief and pseudoscience, you can refer to

DocCosmos wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 10:48 am When talking about something as fundamental and scientific as climate change or vaccination - there seems to be a widespread demography that denies vehemently. Since the discovery of vaccines, a lot of people have protested the idea of vaccinating kids as it might make them ill, both physically and mentally.

The same goes for climate change as well. :!:

Psychologists have studied this phenomenon and have realized that many amongst us show such tendencies (anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers etc) owing to something called as the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

As per the definition of this effect, people who have zero to negligible knowledge about a certain area of knowledge or expertise tend to remain under the misconception that they have exceeding skills/knowledge in that area.

Simply put, people who are bad at something are the ones who think they are good. :lol2:

To read more on how this particular phenomenon has led to a number of false-belief and pseudoscience, you can refer to

Science denialism and conspiracy theory beliefs represent their own category of intellectual failure, largely unrelated to Dunning-Kruger.

Climate Change is Real, but I don't think we as humans actually contribute to changing the climate. It's all natural.

Jacob