Jump to content

Having a spirited discussion with a friend about climate science


DaveinJapan

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering if I could get some info here on a few issues that a friend of mine has put forth which, some of which seem ridiculous to me, but I don't have the expertise to refute (I'd be interested in anyone pointing me to any websites and/or scientific papers that might help).

First off, he claimed that the thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding climate change were "pop science", amounting to a conspiracy of like-minded, politically influenced dittoheads out to fool us. He also called the 97% "mob science". He further claimed "whatever the majority agrees on must be the truth and whoever disagrees should be shunned and told to stop burying their heads in the sand, right? For every modern scientific "agreement" you can find an historical agreement to the contrary. Science is, especially these days, severely biased and in collusion with politics and government."

He further argued that peer review is unrelated to the scientific method (I have to admit I claimed that the peer review was *part* of the process using the scientific method, so I guess I gave the guy an opening in this case).

I'd like to see some info on the importance of the scientific method in reaching consensus on these matters, unless I'm wrong, in which case I'll concede the point (I'm certainly happy do so if I'm wrong or off-base on this).

Thanks in advance for any info/links/sources that might enlighten me on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"First off, he claimed that the thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding climate change were "pop science","
Well, the first thing to do is ask how he define "pop science".

Because, according to Wiki, it's

"Popular science (also pop-science or popsci) is interpretation of science intended for a general audience. "

and that pretty much excludes peer review.

 

So you friend is simply factually wrong.

 

Then there's the perennial issue of people describing the scientists and their work as

"amounting to a conspiracy of like-minded, politically influenced dittoheads out to fool us."

where they never quite explain why anyone would bother.

Apart from anything else, you don't get much kudos in science for supporting the status quo- you get the big bucks for overturning it.

So, perhaps your friend can explain why all these scientists are devotedly working towards not getting fame and money.

 

 

And, not that it's a vital part of the discussion in my opinion,

"He further argued that peer review is unrelated to the scientific method "

Well, the scientific method is based on trying to show that you are wrong- you can never prove a scientific theory- you can only try to disprove it.

Peer review is a simple way of letting someone else- who is knowledgeable, but independent- have a first go at refuting the work before anyone goes to the trouble of printing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if I could get some info here on a few issues that a friend of mine has put forth which, some of which seem ridiculous to me, but I don't have the expertise to refute (I'd be interested in anyone pointing me to any websites and/or scientific papers that might help).

 

First off, he claimed that the thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding climate change were "pop science", amounting to a conspiracy of like-minded, politically influenced dittoheads out to fool us. He also called the 97% "mob science". He further claimed "whatever the majority agrees on must be the truth and whoever disagrees should be shunned and told to stop burying their heads in the sand, right? For every modern scientific "agreement" you can find an historical agreement to the contrary. Science is, especially these days, severely biased and in collusion with politics and government."

 

He further argued that peer review is unrelated to the scientific method (I have to admit I claimed that the peer review was *part* of the process using the scientific method, so I guess I gave the guy an opening in this case).

 

I'd like to see some info on the importance of the scientific method in reaching consensus on these matters, unless I'm wrong, in which case I'll concede the point (I'm certainly happy do so if I'm wrong or off-base on this).

 

Thanks in advance for any info/links/sources that might enlighten me on this issue.

 

 

Peer-reviewed science is not "pop" science, by the very nature of how it is presented. But your friend is not a scientist, by the sound of it, so s/he can only imagine how science works, and has utterly failed to appreciate the process. "Truth" by majority rule (or by fiat) is what we used to have — the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, heavier-than-air flight was impossible — all products of "common sense". And all wrong. (not to mention things like tarot cards, mind reading, and other such nonsense. All popular, and all bunk)

 

Science works. You turn on your car and the engine or motor runs, because science works. It wasn't collusion with the government. We send rockets into space. Science also tends to be hard to do and understand, especially for complex topics, but not understanding it is not the same as it being wrong.

 

Kind of ironic to still be having such discussion when we just had the hottest year on record last year by a large margin, which broke the record of ... the previous year. February of this year was the hottest February on record. What we are not seeing are random fluctuations in temperature you would have if there was no warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

First off, he claimed that the thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding climate change were "pop science", amounting to a conspiracy of like-minded, politically influenced dittoheads out to fool us.

I'd like to know why your friend thinks thousands of people would conspire to make up the idea of climate change as a problem. What benefit will these scientists get from such a conspiracy? Money? Fame? Power? I contend that if there is a conspiracy, it would be investigated by a reporter, police or a citizen, and if true the scientists would, at the minimum, loose their jobs. Have you heard of such an investigation? Has your friend?

 

In fact, there are few jobs for scientists around the world, and the competition is fierce. When one scientists writes a paper, it is read by many, and if anyone finds fault in the paper, a refutation is published so that everyone knows the authors mistakes. Moreover, anyone, including your friend, may obtain a copy of these papers, which means your friend is welcome to read the papers, find the flaws, and expose the conspiracy. Your friend would have at least 15 minutes of fame, and there might even be a movie to make him/her rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contend that if there is a conspiracy, it would be investigated by a reporter, police or a citizen, and if true the scientists would, at the minimum, loose their jobs. Have you heard of such an investigation? Has your friend?

 

That is proof of how powerful the conspiracy is.

 

Anyone who seriously believes that sort of conspiracy is not open to rational discussion. It is exactly the same as people who believe the moon landings were faked. It doesn't matter how irrational their belief is, or how much evidence is presented, they will just latch on to one tiny detail and insist it proves they are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is proof of how powerful the conspiracy is.

 

Anyone who seriously believes that sort of conspiracy is not open to rational discussion. It is exactly the same as people who believe the moon landings were faked. It doesn't matter how irrational their belief is, or how much evidence is presented, they will just latch on to one tiny detail and insist it proves they are right.

There are some folks like that, and one may as well be talking with a door knob as try to change their mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all, for the excellent input. I'm in complete agreement with you all, but somehow I doubt any further info will sway my misguided friend (I will, nonetheless, attempt to pass it along).

 

 

Your doubt is well-founded. It's likely that for your friend this is an emotional argument rather than a logical one. Counter-arguments tend to make them become more obstinate and defensive about their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about using an emotional counter? Something like, "How are you going to explain to your grandchildren that there was a consilience of multiple related scientific fields that confirmed the dangers of doing nothing about AGW, but you decided to do nothing anyway? Is 'I'm so very sorry' going to be enough?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.