I don't feel like spending all day picking apart each argument, so I'll just tackle this one:


He should have just written, "I don't know anything, but if I did know something I think it would be this."

There are lots of different models because there are lots of different scientists doing independent research. That's kind of how science works, and anyone that knows anything about science would know that. Furthermore, anyone who wants to have an opinion on the subject, let alone write about it, should at least fire up the internet and do 20-30 minutes worth of research to figure that out.

And why does that sound fishy? Because he doesn't know anything? Using multiple methods that arrived at the same answer is fishier than only using a single method and never validating it with an independent method???

I mean, I'm sorry. This statement just smacks of so much stupidity. Yes, he might have a point in that most people feel the same, but then the answer with the problem of climate science is "people are too stupid to understand it."

And if they only used one model we'd be hearing, "why don't they use more models?" Al Gore provided a very simple explanation that was easy to understand in An Inconvenient Truth, and it was blasted for being an over simplification, but whenever the details are provided, people say that they don't understand it and want to know why the scientists can't just give a simple explanation.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

science communication is something i care about, and i've written about (for instance, here.) and yes, lots of scientists are terrible communicators, even when it comes to matters of supreme importance.

but a lot of the complaints here about poor science communication come across as disingenuous.

are the people making these complaints truly open-minded, curious sorts who just can't seem to figure out the global warming thing and are waiting - just waiting - for a nice clear-spoken scientist to come along and lay it out carefully?

i have a few main problems with this:

1) frankly, i'm not sure why people think any scientists should be especially good at communication, or why it's their job. if i'm a hotshot scientist hired by nasa or wood's hole or harvard or something, i'm spending all day knocking out science, applying for grants, and maybe - maybe - teaching a small number of top-flight students. if - if - i write the odd article for the newspaper or give a public lecture at the community college or something, that's extra. but frankly, maybe i also have a family, or like training for tris or something, and that kind of 'extra' stuff falls to the bottom of the list.

2) sometimes complex ideas requires complex language and there's only so far you can dumb it down before key things get lost or obscured. so there might just be aspects of, say, particle physics or poststructuralist theory or atmospheric science that just can't be delivered in layman's terms, even by a great communicator.

3) these two feed into my third problem, which is the use of passive voice in these threads. climate change "hasn't been explained to me" yet. by who, exactly? have you sought explanations out? were you expecting that the world's scientists would slip a note under your door, or approach you on the food court with a 60-second summary of their work?

how responsible do you think you ought to be for learning about your world and material beyond your own expertise? how much work do you think it will take? what do you think are the limitations on your ability to engage with stuff outside your area of expertise?

this is the flip side of the 'science should communicate better' argument that i don't hear often enough.

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I don't think anyone is expecting the actual climate change scientists to be stunningly articulate when communicating the science to the public. People aren't really complaining about the scientists- they're complaining about how the message is communicated by those who are actually engaged in the public debate. People who aren't scientists themselves but ceaselessly claim the mantle of Science.

I think both sides are so deeply entrenched in their positions that it doesn't really matter at this point. The deniers aren't open to being convinced by reason, and the advocates have no real interest in persuasion.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The article referenced "scientific community" and "skeptics." I don't know what a climate change advocate is or where you got that from.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Lets reference point #1 (from the article).


Why so many models instead of one model? That's not an issue with communication. He has an issue with the scientific process itself. Perhaps he *thinks* that the multiple models were part of some sort of marketing strategy that was poorly implemented from the single minded entity called "the scientific community." In that case, yes, its a bad idea.

But that's not at all what's happening. There exist multiple models because there are multiple scientists around the world who are working independently, each using slightly different methods.

Simple minded people may want simple answers, but scientists can't simply force the climate to be simple enough for people to easily understand.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The article referenced "scientific community" and "skeptics."

Yeah, I know. Kind of irrelevant, though. I'm pretty sure Adams isn't talking about the actual scientists who research climate change when he says "scientific community." I could be wrong, but it is virtually never an actual climate change scientist who is engaged in the public discussion. It's just people, like you, or Dan, or vegan, or Al Gore, or Leo deCaprio, or whoever else takes part in the debate and argues that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.

I could be wrong about that, but I kind of doubt it.

As for what "climate change advocate" means, well, that's admittedly a clumsy term on my part. I'm open to alternatives. I figure you know what I meant. Climate change believer?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

When he said, "why are there so many models," I had assumed he wasn't referring to any work that Dan, Vegan, or myself had done.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

When he said, "why are there so many models,"

He didn't really say that, though. He said, "stop telling me 'the models' are good."

There's a difference, even if it's subtle. It's one thing to say that scientists use different models because there are a lot of scientists and they don't all look at things the same way, and they don't all look at the same thing. It's another thing to sell someone on the idea that global warming is real based on multiple, varying models. When you tell me the latter, I naturally wonder which model is the most accurate, and if this is supposed to be all scientific, why can't we figure out which one is best? It tends to come across as trying to hedge your bets, keeping multiple options open- if three models don't work, well, we got half a dozen more to rely on!

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

There's clearly a disconnect here because no one is arguing that you need to believe climate change is real because the models say so.
On the contrary, the models are 1 piece of the puzzle.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

On the contrary, the models are 1 piece of the puzzle.

Yes, and one piece of Adams' argument. I don't buy into his argument completely, but it could at least serve as a good starting point for the climate change believers/devotees. If they were really interested in persuasion, which they're not.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

you are often making statements about what other peoples intentions are.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Not making an argument about it so much as an observation of an obvious fact.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Car engineers are going to tell you how a car works. If there are multiple models, they are going to tell you there are multiple models.

Lying salesmen are going to tell you what they want you to hear in order to buy their piece of crap car. Or, IOW, Fox News is going to lie to you about global warming.


So, yes, in this case its better to be a sleazy salesmen than to be smart, knowledgable, and correct. Still not sure where you thought Veganerd, Dan, and myself are the lying salesman. Maybe a miscommunication in my original post.


I stand by my point, however, that when its dumbed down and simplified, the deniers accuse us of hiding information from them. When its explained in detail, they think we are trying to fool them by making it too confusing to understand.

Whatayagonado?

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Though I assume that you think the goal of every scientist is simply to show off how they are smarter than everyone, believe it or not, they actually want the public to believe correct information.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Though I assume that you think the goal of every scientist is simply to show off how they are smarter than everyone, believe it or not, they actually want the public to believe correct information.

Again, we're not talking about scientists here. We're hardly even talking about people who've read the science scientists have produced, for the most part, let alone understood it for themselves.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

really? then who are you talking about?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

"Climate advocates," which he previously said were people like you or me.

So we'll have to wait to find out what he thinks our agenda is, though he could have just told us in his last post.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I'm a climate advocate.

We need climate. If we didn't have any climate we'd have huge problems.

I've heard that there are actually people who are "climate deniers". Apparently they don't even believe that climates exist!

Crazy.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Car engineers can tell you that they have a computer model that shows that their car will go around the Nurburgring in 6:63.45, and lo and behold, that is exactly how long it took the car in the real world. Does that mean that they have a perfect (or even really good) model of their car? Would it help if I said that they had made 10,000 models, and just picked the one that was the closest after they actually tested the car? Would you trust that model to be correct for a different car? (It might actually be, since there are far fewer variables involved and most aspects of a cars performance are well know and can be measured and tested independently of the model)

you are using a different definition of model than barry was.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I believe in climate. I believe that it causes autism. Fuck climate.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Everyone who is autistic lives in a place that has a climate.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Truth.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Building 7...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

What if, instead, they were trying to calculate how fast they can finish Le Monde. Think they can get that down to the 100th of a second?


There is no perfect model to predict how fast they can finish Le Monde, but there are a lot of things that they can predict. Just like the climate scientists.


They actually have made 1000s of models. And over time, as they have learned more, they've refined their models. We still currently have many different models, and they aren't all the same, and some will be more accurate than others, but all of them will be able to predict with some degree of accuracy how far a car will go in the Le Monde.


And the same is true about climate. They predicted the Earth will warm and it has. They predicted the oceans will rise and they have. They predicted the permafrost and the ice will melt, and it has.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485