550
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
550 points (96.3% liked)
World News
32316 readers
529 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Is it just me who thinks we should act as if it is going to collapse soon, even if a few scientists aren't sure?
Well, all their predictions were wrong so far
Citation?
https://thenewamerican.com/print/climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything/
A scientific source. Not y'all'quida magazine...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
No thanks. Considering they don't support the consensus on climate change and are a far right, anti-government, anti-immigration group. I doubt their articles on climate change are factually sound. So miss us with your bullshit.
I wouldn't dismiss an article just because a fact check website down rates it.
In this instance, though, it's not far off. "The famous scientists at the Newsweek lab got things wrong a few decades ago, so all scientists today must be wrong."
They are not far right, just right. And very credible. I'll look for another source I guess.
"And very credible." Lol. These are opinion pieces you are linking to. Let us know when you have a scientific article (ie Science, PNAS, Nature) to support your climate denial.
I would never deny the existence of the climate.
So deflection is your response to looking like a fool. You should go back to your echo chamber. 
"Just right" is no more credible than "far right." Right-wing politics is a pack of lies and absolutely nothing else.
Ring wing news sources actually value the truth, unlike establishment and left wing news sources.
Right-wing ideology only exists to protect power and privilege, Clyde - it exists to hide the truth and nothing else.
But hey... maybe all that ivermectin you've been drinking will actually start working one of these days instead of slowly killing you, eh?
Hey, ivermectin worked for Rogan. And as a right wing unvaccinated gigachad I certainly don't need it. Got through 4 COVID infections with just basic flu medicine.
And brain damage worked for Jordan Peterson - will you be having a go at that next?
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
That's already been addressed.
So do you have a better citation?
Are you okay now? I had to sit down after about six paragraphs. Metaphorically, of course; I wouldn't stand up to read a dissertation on climate denial.
There are much newer wrong predictions as well. Point is though, that you can't find a correct prediction.
Most predictions are generalized statements like "the world as a whole will be hotter" or "extreme weather will be more common". I'd bet good money that you could verify both of those predictions using only your own personal experience and that of the people you know. You're not being honest with yourself if you say the climate isn't changing at all. If your point is that predicting the future is hard and therefore there's no point in trying to understand what's happening then that's an idiotic point of view that shouldn't require a rebuttal.
I can tell from the way you're speaking that you have your mind made up and none of these responses will make any difference to you but they may help someone else reading them.
The funny thing is, with that sentiment, when the AMOC stops, the average temps are going to plummet.
I meant more specific predictions. But you also saw the predictions about global cooling.
No, that's it
Not exactly a news source known for it's unbiased and trustworthy reporting.
Even if it were credible, the article is almost 10 years old.
You need to do better than use a far-right organization's outlet. Go to the true scientists, not reporters with a political agenda.
Reputable sources such as NASA, the United Nations, and the National Geographic Society, which base their conclusions on scientific evidence and rigorous research are much more reliable.
It is understandable to feel unhappy with the current reality. However, ignoring the situation and trying to find evidence that it is not real will not benefit anyone. In fact, it may even cause harm. As the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry.
It is important to face the reality and take appropriate actions to improve the situation. How else will a difference ever be made?
Edit: I named American websites (apart from the UN), because I assume by your source that you are American. This is a global issue, though. European reputable institutions:
Okay, acknowledged
That article was the epitome of the old saying "figures don't lie, but liars can figure". They cherry picked studies and statistics to support the conclusion they wanted to reach, absolute garbage "science".
Journalistic sealioning, that.
Your right, they said we had way longer before the climate would start collapsing, they should have warned us HARDER
We should have been dead by now, 20 times, according to the scientists
What is your honest opinion - do you think the climate is not warming due to increased CO2 that humans are releasing into the atmosphere?
I think yes, but there's no accurate model on how much exactly the greenhouse gasses are affecting the average temperatures.
But if it's non-zero, shouldn't we be working to fix that problem regardless?
I suppose, but the urgency factor may be wildly different.
You are on some heavy street drugs, I can tell.
Meth induced psychosis is real, please seek help.
Well yes we keep finding it's getting worse quicker than anticipated
This is just demonstrably false.
Genuine question: What do you understand by scientific 'prediction'?
Make a prediction model, plug in the data and release the results to the public. Prediction turns out to be wrong, rinse and repeat
That's not far off liberal scientific methodology, to be fair, but it seems to put the cart before the horse. You might want to look up 'falsifiability', 'confidence factors', and, if you have the time and inclination, Karl Popper's Objective Knowledge.
This won't give you everything but it should go some way to explaining the scientific method in more detail.
The process is roughly as follows:
The more times the hypothesises is not disproved, the more likely it is too be correct, the more confident the prediction. According to this theory, it's impossible to prove anything; we can only be confident that knowledge is objectively true if we have tried and failed to disprove it. This is a bit of a blunt summary.
If you don't trust this method, I wouldn't ever get on a plane or take any medication.
The key point being that a prediction won't become the consensus until it has a fairly high confidence factor (i.e. lots of people have tried and failed to disprove the prediction). Climate change is one of those things. Every time someone conducts another experiment, the new data strengthens the view that global warming cannot be disapproved.
Just to put all my cards on the table, I think Popper is wrong. But he sets the scene for a lot of liberal conceptions of science. It's his ideas that underpin many of the kinds of predictions that you're talking about, I think. (When I say liberal, I'm referring to the main ideology of capitalism, not to the 'left' brand of US politics.)
That is, climate change about as 'true' as things can get, and so it is predicted. But even 'prediction' in this sense, makes it seem as if we're taking about something in the future (I couldn't help but challenge the Popperian model just a little bit, I'm afraid). But climate change is already here. It's the present. The prediction only concerns how bad it's going to get.
Thanks for this write up and the Popper reference!
You're welcome.
Feel free to come back if you want to talk about Popper more. His work can be quite difficult to read. Some paragraphs/chapters read smoothly, then others are very technical. It might be worth having a quick look into 'hypothetical deductive methodology' for an overview of Popper's main idea before tackling him directly.
It might also help to know that his theory comes from his anti-communism. So when he's talking about the problems of prediction and historicism, he's challenging the Marxist method (poorly, IMO, but I won't get into why, here, unless you want to talk about it).