global warming- what's your take?

[Lurker]

Shades of covid

Shades of everything. We can't have a conversation about anything without extremists from both sides spinning and sputtering, leading to a lot of people in the middle just shrugging it off and walking away.

[biobook]

Or they are relying on science that is produced under circumstances that does not allow for the honest and open minded consideration of the facts.

Have you been in such a situation, where you tried to produce science under circumstances that didn't allow for the honest and open minded consideration of the facts?

Or do you personally know a scientist who had been forbidden to consider the facts with an open mind?  Really curious to hear where this is happening.

[avromie7]

How do you reconcile that with many (most?) major corporations factoring in climate change?

There can be many causes that are completely unrelated to climate change.

They can blame climate change for the forest fires on CA, while in reality it's caused by bad forest management. By putting it all under the umbrella of climate change they get to appease the left.

[Lurker]

There can be many causes that are completely unrelated to climate change.

They can blame climate change for the forest fires on CA, while in reality it's caused by bad forest management. By putting it all under the umbrella of climate change they get to appease the left.

That's fine in public calculations, not internal ones.

[S209]

There can be many causes that are completely unrelated to climate change.

They can blame climate change for the forest fires on CA, while in reality it's caused by bad forest management. By putting it all under the umbrella of climate change they get to appease the left.

Come on. You are talking about the actual odds insurance companies are placing on adverse events occurring. They won't charge a manufactured premium for climate change when proper forest management would prevent the issues. They'd never get clients or make money that way.

[aygart]

Come on. You are talking about the actual odds insurance companies are placing on adverse events occurring. They won't charge a manufactured premium for climate change when proper forest management would prevent the issues. They'd never get clients or make money that way.

How would the insurance company monetize the risk from CA's poor forest management?

[avromie7]

Come on. You are talking about the actual odds insurance companies are placing on adverse events occurring. They won't charge a manufactured premium for climate change when proper forest management would prevent the issues. They'd never get clients or make money that way.

Proper forest management hasn't happened in decades. If by some miracle CA gets their act together, they'll reduce the risk profile due to risk mitigation being done. Who cares what they call it? It's the same risk of fire.

ETA: CA assumes anytime 2 people get different premiums it's due to discrimination and not different risk profiles. By blaming it in climate change they'll have the regulators agree that they're justified in charging higher premiums.

[grodnoking]

Or do you personally know a scientist who had been forbidden to consider the facts with an open mind?  Really curious to hear where this is happening.

Fauci?

[zh cohen]

Or do you personally know a scientist who had been forbidden to consider the facts with an open mind?  Really curious to hear where this is happening.

You may have heard about this disease called COVID-19, regarding which it was (until recently) considered a racist conspiracy theory to say that it may have leaked from a Chinese lab.

[biobook]

You may have heard about this disease called COVID-19, regarding which it was (until recently) considered a racist conspiracy theory to say that it may have leaked from a Chinese lab.

I did hear the theory that the virus might have leaked from a Chinese lab, and I heard it from scientists who obviously were not prevented from presenting their ideas. 

You spoke of science being produced in circumstances that constrain "honest and open minded consideration of the facts", which describes Stalinist Russia, but not scientific research in America today. 

[Afrages6]

I did hear the theory that the virus might have leaked from a Chinese lab, and I heard it from scientists who obviously were not prevented from presenting their ideas. 

You spoke of science being produced in circumstances that constrain "honest and open minded consideration of the facts", which describes Stalinist Russia, but not scientific research in America today.

You had big tech censor anyone that said it was a lab leak because it went against the ideas of their savior Dr. Fauci. How does that enable an honest and open minded consideration of the facts?

[Lurker]

You had big tech censor anyone that said it was a lab leak because it went against the ideas of their savior Dr. Fauci. How does that enable an honest and open minded consideration of the facts?

You know that most science is discussed off of social media, right? No one argues that there are people with agendas, and that many of those people have great (undue) influence over what is "socially acceptable." That doesn't change the fact that scientists are still free to analyze all of the data that exists, and create new data through experiments and discovery. They can even publish it in scientific journals, which are generally available to anyone who wants to read them. The science is what it is. That some people or corporations with agendas try to control the narrative doesn't change the science.

[Yehuda57]

I did hear the theory that the virus might have leaked from a Chinese lab, and I heard it from scientists who obviously were not prevented from presenting their ideas. 

You spoke of science being produced in circumstances that constrain "honest and open minded consideration of the facts", which describes Stalinist Russia, but not scientific research in America today.

Taking claims of censorship to the extreme is bad, but so is gaslighting people into saying there wasn't censorship at all. Every major media organization, from the NY Times and down, including the supposed fact-checkers, labeled any such claims as conspiracy theories. It wasn't Stalinist, no one was sent to a Gulag, but people were definitely "coerced" into being mum based on how they were treated. The same thing happened with HCQ and other Covid related issues.

[S209]

Taking claims of censorship to the extreme is bad, but so is gaslighting people into saying there wasn't censorship at all. Every major media organization, from the NY Times and down, including the supposed fact-checkers, labeled any such claims as conspiracy theories. It wasn't Stalinist, no one was sent to a Gulag, but people were definitely "coerced" into being mum based on how they were treated. The same thing happened with HCQ and other Covid related issues.

You are referring to the media. There is no doubt that the left leaning media has (once again) a lot of egg on its face for hurling accusations at right leaning individuals who have raised valid concerns. This is far from the first time and won’t be the last that left leaning publications are quick to dismiss the legitimate concerns of people who go against the prevailing “acceptable” view.

Here are some headlines from 2020 calling the “lab leak” ridiculous and a conspiracy theory:

The Washington Post
Vox
The NY Times

Nevertheless, there were plenty of people with massive platforms publicly espousing this view without being “silenced” or “censored” (including some politicians):

Bret Weinstein with Joe Rogan: Why COVID-19 May Have Leaked from a Lab
FOX
Asia Times

Additionally, even back in April 2020 there were investigations launched into the origins of the virus with the lab leak theory not being ruled out. The fact that that there was ongoing research on bat coronaviruses at the lab was reported as well. This was extensively covered by the Washington Post and the New York Times, despite their seeming “objections”.

Some quotes from that April 2020 WaPo article:

But with each experiment came opportunities for an accidental exposure to dangerous pathogens, experts say. Indeed, such accidents occur dozens of times each year in high-security laboratories around the world, including in the United States.
The National Institutes of Health, the Defense Department and other U.S. government agencies have spent millions of dollars in recent years to fund research by American scientists into coronaviruses in bats, federal records show. Some of those scientists have worked with colleagues at the lab in Wuhan.
“Even if a lab is mechanically safe, you can’t rule out human error,” said Lynn Klotz, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Washington nonprofit group, and author of a comprehensive study of lab mishaps. “Accidents happen, and more than 70 percent of the time it’s due to the humans involved.”
Records of accidents in U.S. labs reveal multiple inadvertent infections and exposures to lethal microbes, including the pathogens linked to anthrax, Ebola and the plague. While no comparable records are available for Chinese labs, a Chinese scientific paper last year described widespread systemic deficiencies with training and monitoring of high-security laboratories where disease-causing pathogens are studied.
“Maintenance cost is generally neglected; several high-level BSLs [biological safety level labs] have insufficient operating funds for routine, yet vital processes,” said the paper by Yuan Zhiming, a chief scientist at Wuhan, published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity. Most laboratories “lack specialized biosafety managers and engineers,” he wrote.

David Relman, a Stanford University professor of microbiology, said the outbreak at a minimum underscores the need for more stringent standards and comprehensive monitoring of research involving pathogens with the ability to inflict widespread harm on human health and economies.
“There are far too many examples of lab accidents. Our own CDC and everyone else has had accidents, even with very dangerous agents,” Relman said. “There is simply no way around it, since humans are flawed — inconsistent, distractible — creatures.”

But while an accidental release may have been possible, no proof of such of an event has emerged. The closest relative to the coronavirus that causes covid-19 known to have existed at Wuhan was still a distant relative, scientists say.

However, look no further than the fact that the evidence has led to here, and indeed the “lab leak” theory is currently being investigated as the most likely origin of the virus, to see that good science and investigation does eventually emerge victorious nearly all of the time. Even when the media ends up with egg on its face, they do eventually concede the matter, and will acknowledge that they seem to be proven wrong (to be clear: wrong in their opinion that the theory was not viable, not that it has been conclusively proven).

The NY Times (Opinion)
The NY Times (News)
WSJ

————————

Which leads us to today. To claim that the vast majority of scientists don’t believe in at least some adverse effects of climate change after 15 years of this being discussed and analyzed by a multitude of scientists around the world is frankly, to use the word again, a conspiracy theory. The fact that some people here believe this shows how deep in the echo chamber they are.

There are legitimate arguments to be made regarding methodology to combat climate change, the causes, whether it is largely natural or mostly man-made, whether it is a part of larger weather patterns, what our responsibilities are, and how catastrophic it truly is. But complete denial of the effects we already see today is not considered a valid scientific view, and profit-driven corporations like insurance companies and engineering firms are taking note and using the information wisely.

As you stated, it’s not Stalinist Russia, and nobody is being sent to the Gulag. Good science almost always wins. The state of the information ecosystem is strong.

[Yehuda57]

You are referring to the media.

1) This is but one instance, there are numerous others.
2) Media plays a major role in how scientific studies get spread and funded. Are you seriously going to posit that the threat of being branded a conspiracy theorist or fringe lunatic is not going to play a part in what a scientist might choose to research or publish?
3) There are scientists who have expressed many problems with the current system and how the media damages the scientific process.
4) Pointing to people with "big platforms" as some kind of rebuttal is hardly a refutation of this issue. No self-respecting scientist wants to be the one who has to resort to Joe Rogan or Fox News (or Vox) to get their findings heard.
5) For every retraction or mea culpa there are a few dozen who just pretend it didn't happen or gaslight. There is usually zero reflection or lessons learned. We have no idea if "the good science" is winning, how would we?
6) This is seen in the case of climate change as well. Scientists who dared challenge even some aspects of it were labeled as outcasts and being bought off by Big Oil or whoever. Even people who agreed to the basic premises but challenged models and predictions which have since proven to be wrong were denigrated.
7) Saying "The state of the information ecosystem is strong" in a comment where you agree that the media has an agenda and hides/ignores/mocks legitimate science is absurd.
You write "left-leaning media" as if there is an impartial media that does get it right. The NYT and WP are not "left-leaning", they are supposed to be unbiased and fact-based. (I'm not talking about opinion pages).

[S209]

1) This is but one instance, there are numerous others.

Name one instance where we in the U.S. are hindered or intellectually crippled because of media bias but other countries/societies have done better.

2) Media plays a major role in how scientific studies get spread and funded. Are you seriously going to posit that the threat of being branded a conspiracy theorist or fringe lunatic is not going to play a part in what a scientist might choose to research or publish?

I don’t need to posit anything, I’m pointing to the unbridled success of scientific and medical advancement in our country and Western civilization in general as proof that science is doing exactly what it’s supposed to. Also, free speech helps curtail tyrannical behavior across the board. Others are positing that bias is hindering it, but the onus is on you to provide proof.

3) There are scientists who have expressed many problems with the current system and how the media damages the scientific process.

Sure, I think there are problems with our current system too, and to be honest there probably always will be. Humanity is at its essence imperfect. That doesn’t mean we aren’t pretty much the best we’ve ever been as a society at discovering and deciphering information rapidly and accurately.

I acknowledged media bias pretty openly. I do think it’s less of an impediment to reaching the truth than you are conjecturing. Of course, I wish it would be corrected and think we should fight it when we can. But does that mean the scientific process is ruined to the point that we need to discard what the vast vast majority of scientists have been saying for a decade with no evidence to the contrary? I think not.

4) Pointing to people with "big platforms" as some kind of rebuttal is hardly a refutation of this issue. No self-respecting scientist wants to be the one who has to resort to Joe Rogan or Fox News (or Vox) to get their findings heard.

Sure it is. Just like the lab leak, you should be able to easily search and find intelligent people who are knowledgeable of the issue who claim climate change patterns aren’t real. Can’t? Don’t blame censorship. It’s just not true. If it were, someone would be telling you about it.

How did the lab leak theory reach the mainstream? Simple. Enough evidence accrued so as to point science in that direction. It appears there were indeed enough “self respecting” scientists who managed to conduct inquiries just fine.

5) For every retraction or mea culpa there are a few dozen who just pretend it didn't happen or gaslight. There is usually zero reflection or lessons learned. We have no idea if "the good science" is winning, how would we?

Because we as a society are living longer, healthier, and more improved lives in almost every way than we and others have historically and are currently? Sounds to me like the good guys are coming out ahead.

6) This is seen in the case of climate change as well. Scientists who dared challenge even some aspects of it were labeled as outcasts and being bought off by Big Oil or whoever. Even people who agreed to the basic premises but challenged models and predictions which have since proven to be wrong were denigrated.

Again, I won’t deny that the media is often biased to the point of ridiculing dissenting voices, but if there were compelling evidence to the contrary you would be hearing about it.

7) Saying "The state of the information ecosystem is strong" in a comment where you agree that the media has an agenda and hides/ignores/mocks legitimate science is absurd.

Please elaborate. A strong information ecosystem doesn’t mean everybody and every outlet needs to strive for truth in an equally altruistic manner, it means that through a proliferation of opinions, information, and processes we will be able to discern the truth and arrive at the proper conclusion.

You write "left-leaning media" as if there is an impartial media that does get it right. The NYT and WP are not "left-leaning", they are supposed to be unbiased and fact-based. (I'm not talking about opinion pages).

I was using “left leaning” as a pejorative way of describing the media. I think you’re just saying what I was saying. I agree they are purportedly unbiased but I believe they are, in fact, left leaning. Of course, the same goes for the minority right leaning media.

[whYME]

Do you believe there are a number of scientists who deny the existence of climate change patterns?

Probably those who believe in anthropogenic global warming.

It's a lot easier to explain your (falsified) global warming numbers as being anthropogenic when you ignore the historical warming and cooling periods.

[whYME]

The NYT and WP are not "left-leaning"

Come again?

[S209]

Probably those who believe in anthropogenic global warming.

It's a lot easier to explain your (falsified) global warming numbers as being anthropogenic when you ignore the historical warming and cooling periods.

How is that relevant to an insurance company’s underwriting behavior?

[Yehuda57]

Come again?

I'm saying what they bill themselves as. Officially they are unbiased news operations. They have opinion pages, but the news is not supposed to be slanted. Of course what they are in reality is a whole 'nother story