Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific theory with a preponderance of evidence. Like all scientific theories it is open to being revised if/when contrary data emerges. At the moment, the vast majority of data supports it as a theory.
This is true, and if only global warming people would start phrasing it in that way instead of the rather less scientific "It's an undeniable fact! You can't deny it! Expressing skepticism makes you a bad person!" then I could quit arguing with them.
I don't know how we ever got into the situation where the big argument is between "this is undeniable fact!" and "this is probably true". The dumb part is that the actions you should take in response to a reasonable probability of deleterious consequences are not all that different to the actions you should take if the probability is one hundred point zero percent.
But that's not how most people understand probability. Or science.
Remember, many deniers literally believe that climate change research is a hoax created by scientists to gain funding. A smaller but non-trivial percentage literally believe that NASA has a moon base and/or a mars base and access to free energy technology.
When faced with kookiness of that order, nuances of phrasing are politically irrelevant.
For deniers, argument by evidence is pointless, because many of them don't understand the scientific method anyway.
That's why they're deniers. If they were looking at the evidence objectively instead of cherry-picking it, or blanking it, or saying ill-informed things like "Another record cold winter - must be that global warming I keep hearing about, heh heh heh" they'd be as terrified of where we're going to be half a century from now as many climate scientists are.
All policy makers have left is argument by rhetoric - which isn't very scientific, but is more politically expedient.
I used to agree with your characterization. Most global warming deniers do not understand the nature of climate change. I do like to get all sides of a debate, unless of course the debate includes your average Trump voter.
There are a minority of climate researchers who are not certain our level of CO2 emissions warrant any action. I understand that this is not the climate-scientist-majority position; however, I've seen so many red flags from the majority over the past few years that I've re-evaluated my position that deniers are all either morons or evil.
Perhaps Judith Curry is a soulless leach paid off by powerful polluting interests, I do not know. In the absence of evidence for her corruption, applied with a neutral judging eye (i.e. applying the same standard to both sides) I'm going to assume she has something valid to say.
And she's a climate modeler, not a statistician, or a reporter, or Breitbart.
Well, when I see people cherry pick their data and cherry pick events that only support their side, I'm sorry to say I have to disagree with you. I have seen such things on both sides of this debate. Just because you haven't seen it, refuse to see it, or incapable of seeing it doesn't make my observations on the matter incorrect.
I can pull out a fancy term as well, I think you may have a case of confirmation bias. But since I don't know you, don't know your full opinion on the matter, nor don't know what you've read, I don't think I'll label you with negativity as you have done me.
You can check any of the climate science journals, the IPCC reports which summarize the loads of different, independent lines of evidence, the explanations of the physical models that describe the process of warming and how that maps out to different geographic areas of the world, along with all the predictions that leads to in timeframes that span over a century for now.
But no, I guess complaining to people who actually bother to at least get the fundamental explanations is a much more productive use of denialists' time rather than becoming informed.
I'm not sure what you mean. Evidence, by its very nature, can only be gathered for events that have occurred. There is plenty of discussions about evidence.
The real consequences, however, are in the future, and for those there can be nothing more than predictions. In that context, "consensus" means "within a very wide range of models and predictions, this is what will happen". It doesn't mean that it will happen, but it does mean that a bunch of people, using different methods and different data, agree on the conclusions. How does that weaken the argument?
Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position? Of course the thing these all have in common with climate change is scientific consensus..they just lack all the political "opposition". Actually it just hit me that people still debate evolution too.. lol.
Climate science is complicated by the fact that there are gazillions of variables and we hardly understand them and their interaction. Gravity is predictable enough for us to fly some apparatus millions of kilometres and land it on the comet.
We are far far away from this kind of precision in regard of climate.
Umm, we do understand them. We've been making effective climate predictions since the 80s. Just because our understand is not complete and that you don't even bother to read the corresponding literature doesn't mean anything about the science itself.
The scientific consensus refers to the number of scientists that believe in anthro-climate change, but not the number of scientists who actually study climate change detection and its relation to greenhouse gases.
In other words, the opinion of a natural scientist, who relies on models developed by scientists who study climate change detection and attribution, does not matter at all. In the same way my opinion on relativity, as an engineer, means nothing about the consensus of people who can say relativity is an accurate theory.
I believe there is definitely a majority. But the oft-mentioned studies mentioning 97% consensus are highly misleading.
Here is the oft-mentioned study's abstract and a link to the full study.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Searching the Consensus Project from Skeptical Science shows papers such as:
"Gruber, E., & Brand, M. (1991). Promoting energy conservation in small and medium-sized companies. Energy Policy, 19(3), 279–287."
"Boykoff, M. T. (2008). Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change, 86(1-2), 1–11."
I am concerned that this paper qualifies social scientists, psychologists, and other soft scientists as hard science climate researchers capable of deducing the possibility and cause of global climate change. What the fuck do they know?
I'm all for believing that there are a majority of hard-science climate researchers who agree that there is human-caused global warming. This study; however, gives nothing close to a true number.
The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers
that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or
without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers
written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals
That seems like a pretty large sample size to me. I guess you could claim that they cherry picked 11, 944 papers out of some much larger number, but that seems like a stretch. Of course meta-studies like this are always problematic, but considering the overwhelming result I think its at least safe to say that scientists producing papers that run contrary to human caused global warming are in the minority.... and to me that is the best answer we can get as far as what the consensus is. Like you, Im willing to change my view on this (or anything really), but im always going to go with wherever the scientific consensus seems to be.
>> Would you also say that gravity, evolution, and germ theory believers also point to just trends that support their position?
Most of them don't, but as for the few that do? I denounce them the same as any other scientist, climate or otherwise, that cherry picks their data and trends that only support their side of the debate. That was not the kind of science I learned in school.
Reddit can still be amazing, just stay away from the default subreddits. The more mainstream a subreddit is, the worst it gets over time. Some of them refuse to be set as a default for that very reason.
Although, they have started down the path of censoring stuff they don't like and promoting stuff they do like, so it'll likely start withering away as people start finding alternatives.
If you can build a good, working service without using anything from a third party then you can build the same service quicker, better, and cheaper using third parties and concentrating on just the innovative part. There is no sensible business reason to build everything yourself.
I'm suggesting it's essential to use third party services to do the things that aren't innovative, so you have the time, runway, and focus to do the innovative things.
For example, no SaaS startup should be writing their own payment system unless they're a fintech startup doing payments. If you're wasting time building things that you buy in for much lower cost then you will fail.
I'm not saying not to use third parties, I'm disagreeing with using the term essential in that context. It is too encompassing and final of a statement. To me it implies that any innovation in the space cannot possibly happen without the usage of third-party services, which is simply not true.
I believe s73v3r is saying that using third party services allows you to dedicate more time to innovation, rather than spending your time coding services that already exist and are probably better than you can write yourself anyway.
It absolutely can. But now you're dividing your time between what you're trying to innovate in, and doing boilerplate stuff that has already been solved and set up for you. There are only so many hours in the day.
What do you mean? I fully believe that a competent developer could sit down and make something like Twitter in a weekend. Especially since the concept and what to do with it is already on display for them to copy.
Now, to create a Twitter clone in a weekend when there's no Twitter to go by? Nope.
If you boil down the entirety of Twitter into just a CRUD app that allows you to post 140 characters at a time, then yes, you can make that in a weekend.
Well, how about recommended posts / people to follow (ML)? Sponsored posts with a buy button (3rd part integration)? Growth and metrics (data analytics)? A software product is never just about pixels on the screen; and trivializing the engineering effort behind it is insulting to Twitter employees, some of whom are brilliant engineers I know.
It's hard for me to get that from what you wrote. It seemed that your point was more that the existence of Twitter means it's easy to reproduce it, but before Twitter, it was difficult to envision a site like Twitter.
My counterpoint is that it's not actually the idea that's interesting, it's the fact that they've convinced lots of people to use it, and have built a system powerful enough to support that scale.
The poster was stating that writing Twitter was easy, anyone can do it, the only thing Twitter really has going for it are the network effects of having a huge user base and lots of visibility.
I do think that Twitter's biggest asset are the network effects that it currently enjoys, but I don't think that it would be trivial to recreate what they've done in order to create a Twitter competitor. It's not insurmountable, but it's not trivial either.
The original comment was clearly meant to trivialize the engineering. "One guy can do it in a weekend" is hyperbole, it's something you say when you're trying to communicate that anyone can do something in a relatively short amount of time. If there are a bunch of downvotes I would assume they're more for the hyperbole than people actually disagreeing with whether or not one weekend is enough time to write "non-scaling Twitter", which isn't specific enough for anyone to argue about how long it would take to do.
I don't think copying Twitter as a whole is easy nor do I think just anyone can do it. As pointed out, a simple non-scaling version of Twitter could be done by a competent developer in a weekend. I'm a front-end developer and I feel confident I could do it, just not in a weekend.
I fail to see where I am dismissing the accomplishments of the Twitter engineers in pointing out that creating, what is essentially, a RSS feed with a 140 character limit over a weekend would be difficult.
I believe you are complaining over something no one has stated.
No, they were a part of a company that was almost a studio in of itself. The people that started that division with Lucas, that was eventually purchased by Jobs, wanted to make movies from the beginning. It was their stated goal at the time and they repeat the claim today. It was Jobs that had other ideas for the company, people, and technology before Toy Story came to be.