This is a summary of research in those peer-reviewed journals, the summary being far better reviewed (by hundreds and thousands, as described) than the individual articles.
I don't know about other HN readers, but I don't have time or expertise to keep up on individual articles. I doubt many climate scientists have the expertise in all those different fields.
I'm not afraid of looking at the source.
Many times the "summaries" get distorted.
Statements like "provide some evidence for" gets translated into "this proves". Popular press often does this.
The actual raw data and original article and independent confirmation is the gold standard for science.
I've chased down many stories reporting "proof" in many fields and , after examining the actual article, found that it actually said "well, this might be some evidence for possibly maybe supporting something".
This is a hazard in MANY fields.
Many people know this.
We Hacker News readers ran in to this a couple of days ago.
Somebody said "Fasting helps in cancer therapy" and listed some science papers. It was voted up.
The actual papers DID NOT SAY THAT. They said "this small sample might provide some evidence but more study needs to be done".
These are separate things and careful readers can discern this.
Appeal to Authority or to a Mob or to Fashion is NOT science.
> Statements like "provide some evidence" for gets translated into "this proves".
For what it's worth, the IPCC reports are very, very careful about this. They have a chart (though it can be hard to find) of exactly what confidence/probability is meant by each phrasing.
EDIT: for example, from the Sythesis Summary for Policymakers report:
The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely
likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
What prestige science journal article says "virtually certain" that man is primary cause of global warming?
What phrasing in the results section makes you feel that it is "near proof" ?
I'm not asking for "it is likely or probable". I'll buy that. I want solid proof ... or , uh "almost proof".
Proofs don't exist in sciences concerned with the physical world. For proofs to work in the real world, you'd need certainty that you have recognised and correctly measured every variable that could affect the outcome of an observation/experiment.
The last philosophy of science that allowed proofs was positivism. For the natural sciences, it has been replaced by critical rationalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism). CR gave a solution to the proof problem: While positive proofs like in your quote don't work, you can still falsify a theory. By continuously falsifying theory after theory about an observed outcome, something resembling truth remains. Truth, but never certainty. Hence the talk about likelihood and probability.
> I'm curious. Gravity has not been proven to attract two masses, for instance?
Correct. That's why it's called the theory of gravity :) You would need Laplace's demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon) for a proof. "Proof" means absolute certainty. You only find that in math, not in the physical world.
As he already said, science doesn't do proofs; proof is something for Math, science does evidence, nothing is ever proven. Asking a scientist for proof merely shows you don't know what science is and thus aren't capable of using it to make decisions.
> Is there any evidence that two masses don't attract ?
The answer to that question does not in any way proof the existence of gravity.
I don't mean to offend, but if you honestly ask these types of questions, I doubt you are able to evaluate the quality of original papers dealing with climate research.
Am I to understand that you'll only "bet the climate" if it's a sure thing? I'm curious to know if all important decisions you make are backed only by "virtually certain" odds that the outcome of your decision will be as you predicted.
Not trolling, honestly. I really want to better understand this mindset.
Science once labeled gay as a mental disease.
Science once said that neutrinos have no mass.
Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only.
"Virtual certainty" may not always be "settled science".
I do think we should curtail pollution; regardless of the scientific certainty on man as primary cause of global warming.
> Science once thought that the universe was the Milky Way only.
No it didn't.
All of those are made up facts that bear no resemblance to reality. Science doesn't say or think things, it merely shows the current state of evidence for theories and when new evidence comes along, wrong theories are disproven. That's what science does, it disproves ideas.
A scientist likely once theorized that gay was a mental disease, the process of science disproved that theory; ditto for everything else you said. You're confusing some scientists bad theories for science itself, they are entirely different things.
Yes really. That scientists had such debates proves my point, not yours. Science doesn't make absolute claims, it posits positions based on evidence and changes those positions when the evidence changes. Sadly, you're clearly not intelligent enough to understand the distinction.
Only the second and fourth paragraph of this response are "important". The rest is an attempt at clarification of my personal viewpoint. I'm doing my absolute best to not offend people on a very touchy subject - but I know it is inevitable to do so. For that, I apologize for holding a different opinion but ask that you read the entire response to understand the reasoning behind my position.
[Paragraph the second] The declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder had more to do with harassment of the APA for several years leading up to 1973 by advocate groups than it does scientific consensus. Scientists are afraid to speak on the issue due to harassment and the possibility of losing their jobs due to said advocate groups. Even so much as trying to conduct studies on SOCE would get you harassment nowadays if the public was aware.
If we are to consider reproduction and the continuation of a species to be what is "normal" for a species (ie. the goal of a species is to produce a generation to succeed it to avoid extinction) then homosexuality is a disorder. Homosexuals cannot reproduce naturally and only through scientific advances can they choose to have a surrogate mother or a sperm donor to have a child: which is from a heterosexual process.
[Paragraph the fourth] The issue that arises of classifying it as a mental disorder is the stigma people attach to people with mental disorders. This stigma can be harmful to people and thus should be avoided. Regardless of scientific accuracy - I approve of any effort to treat people more humanely and if that means not considering a deviation from the norm to be a disorder, than so be it. I would like to point out that not all mental disorders have equivalent social stigma attached. OCD and insomnia don't tend to get someone harassed - while being anti-social or autistic is more likely to get someone harassed.
The definition of "mental disorder" is a mental condition that negatively impacts the person with the disorder. It's not clear (due to poorly conducted studies [0]) whether homosexuality is a disorder or if societal pressures are the cause of an increased number of suicides and depression. Until the social stigma goes away, I don't think we can find an answer on this. My intuition tells me that the increased amount of stress/depression/suicide are all strongly correlated with social stigma and that in more progressive and accepting regions these negative feelings are more rare. But my intuition and science don't always agree, so I've learned to not trust my intuition.
My personal views are closely related to Havelock Ellis [1].
>He proposed that being “exclusively homosexual” is to be deviant because the person is a member of a minority and therefore statistically unusual, but that society should accept that deviations from the "normal" were harmless, and maybe even valuable. Ellis believed that psychological problems arose not from homosexual acts alone, but from when someone "psychologically harms himself by fearfully limiting his own sex behavior.
TFL;DFR: It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. What matters is that society works to remove the stigma attached and treat each other humanely.
A layperson named Steve McIntyre did just that, after reading the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report and seeing the prominently featured "Hockey Stick" based on a paper by Mann et al., and wondering, hmm... perhaps this study is reproducible?
The rabbit hole that McIntyre and his colleagues have found themselves in over the last 10 years has, in my view, demonstrated the value of hacker-types taking an interest in climate science.
"Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockeystick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts."
IIRC, despite the criticsim, the 'hockey stick' study and its author were proven right. Lots of criticism doesn't make it wrong, especially in politicized debates.
You should just stop with this line of thinking. You have to understand the scientific context and the limits of the data to learn anything. (Source: I know several contributors to the IPCC AR5 report, and I try to have the proper respect for their expertise.)
Great, so you're capable of writing highly parallel cluster-scale code in C that does intensive precision numerical analysis? Most choose vectorized FORTRAN or a combination of C++ and CUDA, but hey, knock yourself out.
CERN has a 3700 core supercomputer to crunch through this kind of data. You can rent that on Amazon for about $800 an hour, so I guess you're good to go.
Sorry to be so harsh here. While there's always desirable amount of "constructive naivety" necessary to try the impossible, you need to recognize that there's considerable amounts of expertise required to process and analyze data of this complexity at scale.
This is not like a movie where six minutes of furious typing can solve any problem.
The best way to evaluate science is to look at the raw data and the scientist's original paper.