How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[BernardLanguillier]

But a decade or so before that the "scientific consensus" agreed that we were on the verge of an ice age. So it's not as fake as Fab makes it sound.

If your aunt was “the scientific community” then yes.

Otherwise it looks like a fake news aimed at discrediting the scientific work on climate.

But, even if that were true, I am sure you must be aware about the progress made by science during the course of the past 50 yeats in terms of:
- chaos theory and non linear systems
- fluid dynamics
- simulation
- computer science progress. The speed of computers have increased a trillion times btw 1956 and 2015 and that power has been democratized tremendously, meaning that tens of thousands of scientists get access to hugely powerful computers
- the speed of information exchanges and its quality has increased exponentially thanks to internet and rich media

Cheers,
Bernard



Cheers,
Bernard

[RSL]

Your memory is impaired. There was no scientific consensus of a coming ice age in the decade before the 1977 Time magazine cover.

Global Cooling

Fab, I was there. I'm pretty sure you weren't since your age is N/A.

[RSL]

If your aunt was “the scientific community” then yes.

Cheers,
Bernard

She wasn't "the scientific community," but she was at the heart of it, joined by plenty of others. But at least you were "brave" enough to post your age. At the time I'm talking about, you were what? Two?

[faberryman]

Fab, I was there. I'm pretty sure you weren't since your age is N/A.

You usual fallback when you have no facts. Conflating age with wisdom.

[RSL]

All you have to go on, Fab, is what you read, and you're reading in the wrong places.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the progress made by science during the course of the past 50 years...

Which, of course, make science today infallible.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It's a ridiculous question, Robert, but to answer: it's always wrong. The climate is changing. The climate is always changing. Get over it. Fifty years from now we'll probably be on the verge of a new ice age again.

Make that 16000 years from now (if we get a grip on things). And it's not the change, it's the rate of change that's unprecedented.

Cheers,
Bart

[BernardLanguillier]

Which, of course, make science today infallible.

No, it doesn’t make science infallible.

Nor the dominant science that sees global warming as being man caused, nor the strongly minority science claiming it isn’t.

But the odds are increasing dramatically that they are right thanks to the progress mentioned above.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

If your aunt was “the scientific community” then yes.

Otherwise it looks like a fake news aimed at discrediting the scientific work on climate.

But, even if that were true, I am sure you must be aware about the progress made by science during the course of the past 50 yeats in terms of:
- chaos theory and non linear systems
- fluid dynamics
- simulation
- computer science progress. The speed of computers have increased a trillion times btw 1956 and 2015 and that power has been democratized tremendously, meaning that tens of thousands of scientists get access to hugely powerful computers
- the speed of information exchanges and its quality has increased exponentially thanks to internet and rich media

Cheers,
Bernard



Cheers,
Bernard

But human behavior has not changed, nor has the press.  Fake news then, fake news now. 

[BernardLanguillier]

But human behavior has not changed, nor has the press.  Fake news then, fake news now.

Human error has a pretty high probability of happening when one person works on a task, less when two people work on a task,... we are talking here about tens of thousands of highly trained scientists.

Coming from these same top schools thanks to whom we have F22’s, Nuclear weapons, a better understanding of Aids, AI algos that can beat the best chess and Go players in the world, self driving cars,...

As far as the fake news go, we have a lot more now. As this thread proves beautifully.

I would advise Ken Wilber’s “Trump and a post-truth world”.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Coming from these same top schools thanks to whom we have F22’s, Nuclear weapons, a better understanding of Aids, AI algos that can beat the best chess and Go players in the world, self driving cars,...

Which are all positive sciences. Climate science is a speculative "science" when it embarks on predictions.

[Peter McLennan]

You usual fallback when you have no facts. Conflating age with wisdom.

Old people have always done exactly that: conflate age with wisdom. 

The two don't necessarily occur together, as we can see in various old politicians today.

I was there, too, so my opinion has validity equal to RSL.

[BernardLanguillier]

Which are all positive sciences. Climate science is a speculative "science" when it embarks on predictions.

The scientific method is applied to both exactly the same way.

Besides, if you think that what you call "positive sciences" doesn't include a very strong component of forecast and simulation, you are very very wrong. This my area of speciality, I know what I am talking about.

The technology used to build a chess computer is very very close to that used to chuck the huge amount of past weather data, the highly turbulent and chaotic fluid simulation used to optimize the design of a wing or jet engine, is very very similar to the technology used to predict weather evolution,... they rely on the same maths, physics and simulation tools.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Besides, if you think that what you call "positive sciences" doesn't include a very strong component of forecast and simulation...

Which were all tested before implemented.

[Alan Klein]

The scientific method is applied to both exactly the same way.

Besides, if you think that what you call "positive sciences" doesn't include a very strong component of forecast and simulation, you are very very wrong. This my area of speciality, I know what I am talking about.

The technology used to build a chess computer is very very close to that used to chuck the huge amount of past weather data, the highly turbulent and chaotic fluid simulation used to optimize the design of a wing or jet engine, is very very similar to the technology used to predict weather evolution,... they rely on the same maths, physics and simulation tools.

Cheers,
Bernard

Deciding where to spend limited resources, whether on cancer research or climate control and in what proportion, is more a function of the human heart.  How come you haven't answer this question that I posed a number of times.  You keep trying to prove global warming.  OK.  Let's say you're right. How about answering my question. 

[BernardLanguillier]

Which were all tested before implemented.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

But the point Slobodan is that science works. It has been proven time and again. And it works better and better with less uncertainty even when dealing with complex phenomenon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Peter McLennan]

Deciding where to spend limited resources, whether on cancer research or climate control and in what proportion, is more a function of the human heart.  How come you  How about answering my question.

Your question is unclear.  Feel free to re-state it.

[Alan Klein]

Your question is unclear.  Feel free to re-state it.

Well, for example, do you spend limited resources trying to help people who are sick today or do you spend those resources trying to ameliorate problems that a future unborn generation may face?  If you decide to do both, then what proportion for each? There's no simple formula to determine what's best.  These are issues of the conscience and heart.  These are issues nobody wants to talk about, it seems,  We'd rather just fight about whether global warming is real or not.  Of course, that's easier.  We aren't faced with the really difficult questions that no algorithm can answer. 

[Alan Klein]

I'm trying to bump the discussion to a higher level.  Scientist don;t address these things because they basically aren't scientific questions.  They're human questions.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But the point Slobodan is that science works...

Nobody questions that. But climate science is not really science when it comes to predictions. It relies on models and models are notoriously bad substitute for the real world.