If Mort Divine ruled the world

[rms]

guess variance isn't cool enough

 

[Dak]

Can you imagine how meteorologists would have handled the end of the last glaciation?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't understand people's objection to the idea behind that study, regardless of any objections to the study itself. The world is getting warmer. It's doubtful a NYT study can effectively convey that point, but a vast majority of scientists agree on it.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Sorry, i haven't been following up here so i might have missed some stuff. But who in the world thinks it's not getting warmer? I know that's how one side loves to spin it but the argument has never been about if it's getting warmer or not, it's about how and why.

 

[Dak]

Consensus =/= fact but- I don't really have any sort of ideological issue with the potentiality or likelihood that the earth is currently in a wamring pattern. My issue is with the religious hysteria surrounding the warming, its causes, and its dire consequences.

 

[Einherjar86]

Consensus =/= fact but- I don't really have any sort of ideological issue with the potentiality or likelihood that the earth is currently in a wamring pattern. My issue is with the religious hysteria surrounding the warming, its causes, and its dire consequences.

Well its causes are almost certainly partially influenced by humans, and the consequences will likely be significant for near-future generations.

I know that consensus doesn't equal fact, but that's a pretty pointless comment.

 

[Dak]

Well its causes are almost certainly partially influenced by humans, and the consequences will likely be significant for near-future generations.

It probably is partially influenced, but the world has been hotter and has been much, much colder. We still attach too much significance to ourselves. I'd rather call them effects than consequences, at least as far as warming goes. This isn't ozone-killing emissions or plastic in the oceans, which have pretty clear connections with significant consequences.

I know that consensus doesn't equal fact, but that's a pretty pointless comment.

Well so is the constant trotting out of consensus as a justification by every hack in media.

 

[Einherjar86]

It probably is partially influenced, but the world has been hotter and has been much, much colder. We still attach too much significance to ourselves.

It's not a competition with ancient epochs. So what if it's been hotter in the past? That's not the point. The point is that it's been warming since humans have started industrializing, and maybe we can do something to combat the consequences.

Saying it's been hotter in the far distant past has no practical bearing on the argument at hand.

I'd rather call them effects than consequences, at least as far as warming goes. This isn't ozone-killing emissions or plastic in the oceans, which have pretty clear connections with significant consequences.

I'm confused, because these things are connected to global warming...

Well so is the constant trotting out of consensus as a justification by every hack in media.

No, it's really not.

 

[Dak]

It's not a competition with ancient epochs. So what if it's been hotter in the past? That's not the point. The point is that it's been warming since humans have started industrializing, and maybe we can do something to combat the consequences.

Saying it's been hotter in the far distant past has no practical bearing on the argument at hand.

There is no coherent, explicit argument at hand other than one bound together between naked primarily coastal self interest and a climate stasis cult.

I'm confused, because these things are connected to global warming...

Plastic in the water makes the earth warmer? CFCs did contribute but have been widely curbed. The hole in the ozone has, by all accounts, very clear culprits and consequences. Carbon emissions much less so.

No, it's really not.

Why do you protect shit journalism so? I certainly don't do so for shit psychology (which is probably most psychological "science"), and I theoretically have a tribal interest in doing so.

 

[CiG]

http://www.vulture.com/2018/08/louis-ck-comedy-cellar-women-describe-rape-whistle-joke.html

“It felt like he was being thrust upon the audience without telling them,” one woman, who asked to remain anonymous, told Vulture.

Basically comedy-rape.

 

[Dak]

Sad, sad little man.

Get back in the PoundMeToo basement.

 

[Einherjar86]

There is no coherent, explicit argument at hand other than one bound together between naked primarily coastal self interest and a climate stasis cult.

Argument for what? That the planet is warming? Because if so, then yes there is.

Plastic in the water makes the earth warmer?

Very likely, yes.

CFCs did contribute but have been widely curbed. The hole in the ozone has, by all accounts, very clear culprits and consequences. Carbon emissions much less so.

I don't understand. Are you saying it's unclear whether increased carbon emissions are the result of industry? Because if so, I highly disagree. It's quite clear that human industry has contributed to increased emissions.

Why do you protect shit journalism so? I certainly don't do so for shit psychology (which is probably most psychological "science"), and I theoretically have a tribal interest in doing so.

Is that what I'm doing?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

https://twitter.com/Siobhan_ODwyer/status/1035490124589674496

 

[CiG]

[swoops in]

https://twitter.com/whereisdaz/status/1036446125820002305

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My gen chem professor nearly had to give a trigger warning before describing degenerate orbitals. Academia is so full of pussies. If there's ever a class revolt between a communist working proletariat and a liberal academic bourgeois, I'm joining the commies.

 

[CiG]

They disgust me more than words can really describe.

 

[The Ozzman]

https://twitter.com/Siobhan_ODwyer/status/1035490124589674496

Thot patrolled lmao

Academia is so full of pussies

This board is representative of that

 

[Dak]

Argument for what? That the planet is warming? Because if so, then yes there is.

"The earth is warming" is not the end of it though. There's a religion and associated cottage industry surrounding the meaning of the possible warming and all that is associated with the possibility that the earth is warming.

Very likely, yes.

I don't understand. Are you saying it's unclear whether increased carbon emissions are the result of industry? Because if so, I highly disagree. It's quite clear that human industry has contributed to increased emissions.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that microplastics in the ocean contribute to warming.

What I mean is that CFCs were a specific, artificial carbon form which had a specific effect on the ozone. Trying to determine the effect of human contributions to carbon on climate effects though involves a significant amount of caveats and confounds.

Is that what I'm doing?

Here and often, yes. I'm not sure if it's in reaction to Trump's bashing of journalists or what.

 

[Einherjar86]

"The earth is warming" is not the end of it though. There's a religion and associated cottage industry surrounding the meaning of the possible warming and all that is associated with the possibility that the earth is warming.

The Arrhenius equation and Keeling curve both point to the impact of industrialization and other human factors in continual global warming. Those were before any religion or associated cottage industry. Honestly, denying the influence of the human population bomb is pretty outrageous at this point in history.

That doesn't automatically lead to arguments about blame or fault, but it should direct us toward certain regulatory principles.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that microplastics in the ocean contribute to warming.

There have been studies suggesting that water magnifies or intensifies the rate of plastic decay due to its exposure to sunlight (similar to why having wet skin makes us more prone to sunburn).

What I mean is that CFCs were a specific, artificial carbon form which had a specific effect on the ozone. Trying to determine the effect of human contributions to carbon on climate effects though involves a significant amount of caveats and confounds.

I don't know what else to say other than that's not really true anymore. Or if it's true, the consensus pretty much outweighs the caveats. At some point it has to.

Here and often, yes. I'm not sure if it's in reaction to Trump's bashing of journalists or what.

I'm not defending journalists though. I am defending appeals to scientific consensus, because if consensus isn't enough to justify widespread assumptions and expectations about climate change, then we're stuck in a stalemate.

This is why the principle of falsification isn't the be-all end-all of cutting edge science. When it comes to complex systems like climate there will always be data and factoids that don't play by linear rules. We've reached a point in the development of climatological studies where such anomalies are too inconsistent to represent any significant challenge to the overwhelming evidence that climate change is experiencing a warming trend and that human industry plays a significant role in that warming.

For what it's worth, if we're taking ideological jabs, I don't think your skepticism of human influence in climate change has anything to do with some triumph of reason or intellect, and everything to do with your political objections to regulatory measures. I don't see how you can largely ignore the wealth of literature on climate change and privilege the something like two or three percent of outliers, many of whom are backed by special interest groups that oppose policies to combat global warming.

 

[Dak]

On the outset I apologize for the cutting and pasting for simplicity of reply if you feel that it created some false presentation or understanding of your intent.

I don't know what else to say other than that's not really true anymore. Or if it's true, the consensus pretty much outweighs the caveats. At some point it has to.

I'll more fully try to explain my position below, but I want to address this in saying that by caveats I mean the variation in contribution and effects as well as the distance between predictions and outcomes.

The Arrhenius equation and Keeling curve both point to the impact of industrialization and other human factors in continual global warming. Those were before any religion or associated cottage industry. Honestly, denying the influence of the human population bomb is pretty outrageous at this point in history.

That doesn't automatically lead to arguments about blame or fault, but it should direct us toward certain regulatory principles.

I'm not defending journalists though. I am defending appeals to scientific consensus, because if consensus isn't enough to justify widespread assumptions and expectations about climate change, then we're stuck in a stalemate.

This is why the principle of falsification isn't the be-all end-all of cutting edge science. When it comes to complex systems like climate there will always be data and factoids that don't play by linear rules. We've reached a point in the development of climatological studies where such anomalies are too inconsistent to represent any significant challenge to the overwhelming evidence that climate change is experiencing a warming trend and that human industry plays a significant role in that warming.

For what it's worth, if we're taking ideological jabs, I don't think your skepticism of human influence in climate change has anything to do with some triumph of reason or intellect, and everything to do with your political objections to regulatory measures. I don't see how you can largely ignore the wealth of literature on climate change and privilege the something like two or three percent of outliers, many of whom are backed by special interest groups that oppose policies to combat global warming.

I want to be clear that I don't have significant doubt that the earth is in a warming trend, nor that human activity has some contribution. My doubt is somewhat in the clear causality or contingency, and definitely regarding the hysteria surrounding it.

As someone living and operating within the religiosity of academia, and knowing what the file-drawer problem is, I have extreme skepticism across science that can't produce reliable predictions or replication, which is what climate science is unable to do on both counts for different reasons. Before you respond with "well it predicts warming, which is what we have", note that predicting warming vs cooling is winning a coin flip.

You are correct that I have an ideological, likely geneti-cultural aversion to policy "solutions". This is where my point comes in about my ho-humming of warming. Not that it isn't occuring, not that it may not have human contributions, but that it A. Is SUPER BAD and B. CAN BE SOLVED WITH TYRANNY(tyranny used for dramatic effect).

There have been studies suggesting that water magnifies or intensifies the rate of plastic decay due to its exposure to sunlight (similar to why having wet skin makes us more prone to sunburn).

I'm not sure what this has to do with warming, but I have no reason to doubt this.