Comment by averagewall
8 years ago
Bloodletting. It's honestly trivial to find examples of where science was wrong. I'm not going to research them for you if you'll make up ad-hoc reasons to reject them.
Obviously I can't give an example of current consensus being likely wrong because if I knew that, scientists would too and it wouldn't be the consensus.
Here's a snarky example though. See if you can find the flaw in it - current consensus among scientists is that you can't prove causation without doing an experiment - in particular you can't prove it using historical data. This is an obstacle to medical research since ethics impedes controlled experiments on people and it's part of why nutrition advice is frequently wrong (there you go for even more examples). But climate scientists have apparently done just that - themselves demonstrating that either the consensus is wrong or they're wrong. Either way, a consensus is wrong.
These are just an arguments to show how wrong consensus can be though - in reality I'm pretty sure that climate scientists don't acutally believe they're right without any doubt. It will be politics and attempts to manipulate people that changes confidence values into supposed certainty.
Cannot prove causation is not the same as cannot conclude causation. As you point out with your medical example, we have plenty of cases where we act with evidence but not proof. Sometimes these are wrong...but more often they are not (when talking about science).
Often there is some evidence in both directions (for/against a theory), so we likewise have experience and examples where we must decide based on that imperfect info.
Given that we will never be able to prove this causation, at least not in the next few lifetimes and given that, right or wrong, the people (vast majority) in the field are saying the problem is real; Given that inaction is terrible if this is all true, then what evidence would convince you (or any example climate change denier) that the concerns are valid?
My problem here isn't that I think the concerns aren't valid, but that whenever the topic comes up, multiple people start to push the agenda of "we must all take action now", as if they're trying to drum up an army of supporters, which they probably are. It gets embedded in just about any climate change related discussion, news article and even science paper.
You can't even disagree with anything related to the topic without people jumping to the conclusion that you're a climate change denier and insisting on educating you. It shuts down genuine discussion. Even evolutionist arguing creationists have managed to admit that it's just a theory, but then go on to show how strong theories can be which is perfectly righ. Climate change hasn't got to that level of honesty - people are afraid to say it's just a theory because of their agenda.
I can sympathize with your position - a lot of good discussion can't happen on various topics because you have to defend against the ridiculous.
Re: GMOs - you want to discuss the impact on monocultures, chemical levels and environment impacts (good or ill), prions or other corners of proteins we don't understand, patented genes, wild release of genes (including the patented ones), the economic value in talking cost vs improved yield, or even a serious discussion about what level of labeling (if any) is reasonable? Too bad, you're going to have to deal with people that think GMO food will mutate THEM if eaten.
climate, gun control, vaccines, free speech, etc - you can't have a nuanced, serious discussion to explore details because you have to fight off the fringe(s).
OTOH, however, a higher-than-linear curve of greenhouse gas emissions and year after year, into decade after decade of inaction, has an impact. The 2 degree threshold isn't a firm line...but it's also not arbitrary. If we need to make drastic change, but we've frittered away the decades that COULD have made that more gradual, then yeah, importance of action is higher. I'm not saying we have all stop driving tomorrow...but our current pace is not what we need, so the pressure is up. If we weren't taking as many steps backwards as we are taking forward, if the models said we were closer to a target than the projection said 10 years ago, that'd allow some reduction in the pressure. Instead of saying "we just need to keep our eye on the ball" we have to say "LOOK! THERE'S A FRICKING BALL!".
So I can understand the sense of urgency. Like race relations or gender issues in tech, any complaint that people are overreacting, or that this isn't the time, or this isn't the place has to come with some believable explanation of how they see a better way that hasn't been tried and failed.
To your concluding point: Climate change is a theory. I'll admit that. It could be wrong. The overwhelming majority of those in the world with relevant data and experience can be wrong. Really. But I don't see much evidence that that is more likely than the theory being mostly correct.
With that admission, where are we? Well, we've agreed to something that was already not in question. But for most it's NOT an agreement. We have to somehow convince people that their gut instinct is not a value that should even be considered when deciding things. And again, and again.
When exactly will we STOP agreeing that it's a theory and move on to what to do with it? Will another 10 years be enough? 20?