Support NeoGAF

[FloatOn]

I live in Orlando.

the 90 year version of me might have to worry. But I could be dead by then.

Party hard.

 

[Zaptruder]

I agree entirely with everything. It likely was the journalist (but still, this is Rolling Stone, not National Geographic - there was an obviously nonscientific audience that this was aimed at). And indeed, Scientists should be free yo make mistakes, revise their hypothesis and change their stance in light of new data, findings, theories etc. That's necessary for progress to be made. But it does make it slightly hard to swallow comics like that above which show anyone who doesn't believe everything a 'scientist' says as being some sort of intentionally ignorant idiot - scientists make mistakes too, and that's fine.

What proof do you think can be presented at this point in time to convince climate change denialists?

Ignore the data we already do have for a moment; what do you think would be required to conclusively show that AGW is occurring in order to get deniers to change their ways?

As far as I can tell, the proof needed to convince even a portion of them would essentially have to be the most dire global warming predictions come into actual effect.

 

[cajunator]

Florida will be ok. Its Louisiana thats really fucked.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Because from that post you don't understand what science is. A science can't make "dramatic claims." She can only tell us what the data says. Science isn't infallible, it's experimental and revisionist.

Right.... I still don't see what that has to do with my post. 'Science' might not claim anything, but 'scientists' do. They can, and will sometimes, be wrong. But acknowledging that every time this happens there's a negative impact on the chance of people believing in a subsequent claim - which is what my post said - hasn't got anything to do with the definition of science. I think you're intentionally missing my point.

 

[turnbuckle]

Right.... I still don't see what that has to do with my post. 'Science' might not claim anything, but 'scientists' do. They can, and will sometimes, be wrong. But acknowledging that every time this happens there's a negative impact on the chance of people believing in a subsequent claim - which is what my post said - hasn't got anything to do with the definition of science. I think you're intentionally missing my point.

I just don't understand what it is you want. By its nature science is fallible, so are you saying you'd prefer no science reporting at all? Only after-the-fact science articles? I mean, most of climate science is already built upon what's already happened and is happening to build projections of what could happen in the future - do you just want to avoid the predictive aspect of science? What's' the point then?

I don't want the availability of scientific news to be based on what would be least offensive to the cynical. You originally said scientists making mistakes detracts from the cause. Dax said it only detracts from the cause if the people taking in the information don't understand or are being willfully ignorant / belligerent to what science is. That specifically has to do with the definition of science and people's understanding of it. I don't believe it's him that's missing your point unless you're changing it on the fly.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I just don't understand what it is you want. By its nature science is fallible, so are you saying you'd prefer no science reporting at all? Only after-the-fact science articles? I mean, most of climate science is already built upon what's already happened and is happening to build projections of what could happen in the future - do you just want to avoid the predictive aspect of science? What's' the point then?

I don't want the availability of scientific news to be based on what would be least offensive to the cynical. You originally said scientists making mistakes detracts from the cause. Dax said it only detracts from the cause if the people taking in the information don't understand or are being willfully ignorant / belligerent to what science is. That specifically has to do with the definition of science and people's understanding of it. I don't believe it's him that's missing your point unless you're changing it on the fly.

I wasn't talking about scientific articles that turn out to be wrong, though. I was talking specifically about sensationalist articles in the non-scientific press like this, that have a negative impact on people's response to issues when they transpire to be inaccurate. That harms the cause, because 'the cause' is all about generating an understanding within the public who *aren't* privvy to the latest peer-assessed journals. If you take away people who 'don't know what science is' then you're talking about a different cause, a cause which most have no trouble celebrating with glee to have already been won. Articles like this - when they're wrong - undermine that cause. Even if you 'understand' the revisionist nature of science, mistakes can point to a suggestion that our understanding is limited enough that no prediction may be accurate.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Indeed. The farther north you go the more south you get.

Which is funny, because I've noticed a lot of places are like this. Upstate/Northern NY is also very...hillbilly. A stark contrast to other parts of the region. Same goes for Massachusetts.

 

[Dysun]

Was nice knowing yall, time to drown

 

[Angelus Errare]

Indeed. The farther north you go the more south you get.

So true, I don't stray from Orlando to any other part outside of Miami. As you drive north you can literally see the changes.

 

[DJ88]

Haha, yeah there isn't a single part of South Florida that beats Orlando's charm.

LOL. When I lived in Orlando I was constantly bored out of my mind. You couldn't get me to Miami fast enough

 

[B33]

Might as well pick one of the two. They're the only states that exist between PA and CA, if you ask most Easterners.

You have a point.

 

[Rei_Toei]

Perfect scenario for Spec Ops: The Line II? Replace sand for water. Profit!