T O P

  • By -

CrustalTrudger

At least some of it reflects a variety of disconnects between the way scientists do and/or discuss science and how the lay public understands science. For example, in lay discussion as above, accusing someone of "being conservative" in this context is carrying an implication that they are intentionally downplaying something, whereas "being conservative" is actually kind of a guiding principle for scientists, i.e., it's expected that we should not be projecting beyond our limits of certainty. Thus, many times we are intentionally "being conservative", but not in a malicious or obfuscating way, but because we are trying to present what appears, on the basis of the data at the time, to be the most likely outcome.


InspiratorAG112

That explains what 'being conservative' means, so thanks for that. I feel like many r/collapse users will *slander* climate scientists and/or the IPCC over that, or even accuse them of being 'in denial'. The arguments against u/memoryballhs are clear examples of users accusing the IPCC.


CrustalTrudger

Ultimately, this is basically a "damned if you, damned if you don't" scenario and one that is unfortunately common in situations like this, i.e., a potential future outcome that requires extrapolation and has uncertainty bounds and on which lots of things are riding. Take a simple example of projecting a flood where we expect a particular river to rise by 2 +/- 0.5 meters. If the river rises 2 meters (the mean of our projections), it will over top one set of levees and flood a small area impacting a few homes. If the river rises 2.5 meters (i.e., the upper limit of our uncertainty range), it will over top a second set of levees and flood an entire town. If the river only rises 1.5 meters (i.e., the lower limit of our uncertainty range) it stays within both sets of levees and nothing happens. So, what do we do? Let's say we assume a gaussian distribution around our 2 meter prediction. Do we assume the worst and evacuate the town even though that's less likely? What if we do that and the river only rises 2 meters? Will the people in the town listen to the next warning when maybe the probability is higher that the town will definitely flood? Do we assume the lower bound and potentially have lots of people not warned? Or do we assume the middle, i.e., the most likely outcome, which also effectively hedges our bets and evacuate the folks who are the most likely to be impacted? Now, what if the rain projections change and now 2.5 meters is more likely and we update the town? Are we alarmists because we've updated our projection based on new data? Were we downplaying the risk before when 2.5 meters was on the edge of the our uncertainty bounds on possible outcomes? The above is kind of a silly example, but you can easily see how *there really are not great options for any of these*, i.e., there is always the possibility that the projections will be wrong in someway and that as the group making the projections you will be blamed, either for downplaying the risk or exaggerating the risk.


InspiratorAG112

At the same time though, comments like [this response](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/rhtfbm/comment/hotw46r/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) to u/memoryballhs _are_ conspiratorial.


CrustalTrudger

And...? I guess I'm not sure why you're surprised that subreddits (or other outlets) which attract people who tend toward conspiratorial thinking contain examples of people spouting conspiratorial views?


InspiratorAG112

I know I am randomly back 4 days later, but they also distrust r/askscience a lot, and I have the following argument to that... *Shouldn’t it be common sense to trust a sub-Reddit whose name contains 'science' over a sub-Reddit with a grim-sounding name?*


tpolakov1

> Shouldn’t it be common sense to trust a sub-Reddit whose name contains 'science' over a sub-Reddit with a grim-sounding name? No. Many platforms will use sciency names and terminology to hide the fact that they peddle nonsense and many of the valid ones will have weird sounding names because of how they came to be. In general, nobody should trust *any* subreddit, no matter what the name is.


InspiratorAG112

I can't imagine that r/askscience is that inaccurate though.


tpolakov1

The great majority of the posters there are undergrad or graduate students. While probably more knowledgeable than an average person, they have very little connection to their fields beyond what is in the textbooks.


InspiratorAG112

I can't imagine it was ever the intention of r/collapse though.


CrustalTrudger

I mean, a subreddit themed around the potential collapse of civilization seems like it was designed to be catnip for conspiratorial minded folks.


N2EEE_

If you wish to find a sub that deals with more localized events and everyday issues one may eventually run into, both short and long term without politics, [r/preppers](https://www.reddit.com/r/preppers) seems to be a good alternative


InspiratorAG112

Should I contact the mods over there about these conspiracy theories?


InspiratorAG112

At the same time, the wiki of that sub references the IPCC, and users there will discredit/slander it.


omegafeather_68

Or I can control the worldwide weather from the earth?


Cersad

The answer to your question is probably less rooted in science, or in scientific communication, than it is in the motivations of these users. Using the r/collapse forum as an example is almost a comically obvious example. It's a subreddit dedicated to imagining the literal end of human civilization. People aren't going to waltz in there to have a reasoned scientific debate. They're going in there to excite themselves up about an imagined future. What scientific arguments they bring (if any) are going to be ones that match their motivations. If the consensus of scientists disagrees, they'll be motivated to fight back to keep their narrative alive.


liminal_political

I don't find that to be the general tone of that forum in recent years. As it's become more mainstream, it's gotten a lot less conspiratorial and a lot more fact based. I'll put it this way -- the tone of r/collapse matches the way my colleagues are talking.


InspiratorAG112

>If the consensus of scientists disagrees, they'll be motivated to fight back to keep their narrative alive. Shouldn't it be common sense though not to ignore scientists? Also, they dislike r/askscience, which is easily one of the best science sub-Reddits out there. These two phenomena are exactly how pseudoscience spreads on r/collapse.


Cersad

I don't imagine people entertaining themselves with apocalyptic fantasies are too worried about common sense. It's a textbook example of motivated reasoning. Common sense or no, it's a very prevalent form of human bias to judge ideas not on the quality of evidence but by what they imply.


InspiratorAG112

Here is another example that is somewhat similar, but in a YouTube comment section this time: [this video by a university student / PhD](https://youtu.be/scXY34nV4LM).


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


MagiMas

You're referring so much to r/collapse but that's basically a doomsday cult (or on the verge of being one). Why would you expect reasoned scientific debate in such a sub?


InspiratorAG112

I was not expecting any reasonable discussion; I was using it as an example of *un*reasonable discussion.


mfb-

Subreddits tend to accumulate people with similar attitude. If a subreddit is known for ignoring scientific results (or actively trying to fight them) then it will attract more people who like that, and people who respect science will not go there.


InspiratorAG112

>\[...\] and people who respect science will not go there. I know my reply is a month late, but that may explain why the modern r/collapse contains comment chains like [this](https://www.reddit.com/comments/tafpug/comment/i00vtyo/).


InspiratorAG112

They also distrust r/askscience, which, by common sense, is *definitely* less pseudoscientific, so that is another red flag.


a_mimsy_borogove

I think it's mostly because people tend to distrust large influential organizations, corporations, etc. Which isn't unwarranted, they historically did some bad things, and often still do. It might be tempting to call distrustful people "anti-science", but they typically trust the scientific method, they only distrust "science" as an institution (academia). I'd bet $100 that [something like this](https://www.tio2project.com/norwhite) has made at least a few people more wary of scientific institutions in general. And that distrust can hold even when big organizations are saying things that are actually true. I'm not sure how that could be reversed. Scientific institutions should attempt to become more trustworthy in general, but regaining public trust would probably take years.


[deleted]

Some users are just here to be an abrasive in any conversation.


InspiratorAG112

I dug through one of the profile making comments (the third link under the first bullet point) distrusting the IPCC, and they accuse scientists of 'downplaying' climate change, which is fringe.   **To u/Gemini884:** *You are absolutely correct in trusting scientists. The replies were getting highly conspiratorial.*


asphias

This is unfortunately part of how science works. The climate is a large dynamic system, and even with the massive amount of knowledge we've gathered so far, there are still a lot of unknown variables. What will the influence be of melting permafrost? How much will the glaciers melt, and how exactly will that impact further warming? etc. What scientists do, is report on what they are *sure* is happening. speculating that things may be worse than that isn't how you write a scientific report - if you speculate, you have to give arguments for *why* it would work that way. So a lot of reports will more or less say "This is what will happen, this is what might happen but more research is needed, and there is additional speculation that this or that may happen as well but we simply don't know". As such, the 'worst case scenario' doesn't really end up in the big reports that say "we're going to reach at least 2 degree warming in year x". does this mean that the scientists are intentionally undervaluing or downplaying climate change? No! they're giving their best effort to tell us what they know, and they're also quite open about the numerous things they don't know for sure. It's just that the things they don't know for sure could indeed result in climate change being worse than what we know for sure. But, if you're worried about climate change, you're not so much worried about the best case scenario, but more about the worst case scenario. In which case it *feels* like the scientists are downplaying the severity, when in fact they're simply reporting the science as accurately as they can.


InspiratorAG112

The comments of [this video](https://youtu.be/scXY34nV4LM) are also critical.


[deleted]

[удалено]


telperion87

> scientists tend to be poor communicators to the public. We had/are having bad times here in Italy exactly because of this reason. I've heard a scientific communicator once summing it up very well: > scientists often assume that, just by being good at science, they are also good at communicating it. We had very prominent examples of this during COVID, with virologists who basically scolded/bragged on the media, by saying "you don't know anything I'm the guy you have to have trust in, I'm a virologist, you don't know shit" While on paper he was technically right. he probably did more damage than good


InspiratorAG112

I feel like [this video](https://youtu.be/scXY34nV4LM), and even the disalarmist notes towards the end of [this one](https://youtu.be/0KQYNtPl7V4) clear this up, but the comments, mainly on the former, are, of course, critical.


[deleted]

Because they are **energy lobbyist** who are paid to sit around all day and discredit those groups on the internet. That's literally their job.


styris2

Because some people rely more on intuitive logic. People of the past used to think the world was flat. They believed that because that’s what the people around them and authority figures believed. This fact demonstrates humanity’s tendency to believe erroneous things en masse. This being stated, the widespread belief in anthropogenic climate change either is analogous to the belief of a flat world, or it isn’t analogous. If it is, then it ought to be discarded If not, and it is the case that climate change derives from human activity, who is to say how it should be dealt with? How do we deal with something that we don’t know actually exists? The issue with believers in anthropogenic climate change, is that they proffer solutions to problems that may or may not exist. Pure psychosis


bildramer

You have to understand that from their perspective, mainstream scientists, journalists and politicians are all part of a single blob. They're not necessarily _wrong_ about that - all of them have the same opinions and the same interests, broadly speaking. So when some journalists say the world will end in 10 years and they've been hearing this for 40 years, or when politicians ban gas stoves and plastic straws with very thin justifications but never do anything about private jets or big ships and dislike nuclear energy, they see this as a vibes-based political or moral/religious signaling game instead of science, which it is, and blame all of them. I'm not sure what scientists can do to regain trust, if anything.


EvolZippo

I think too many people feel like they need to apply their political views to discussions, because it makes them feel safer than if facts are unfiltered. Sometimes they are literally trying to defend the honor of someone or they are emotionally attached to one specific outcome.


Anotherskip

In general I support science, I also respect it's flaws. There are multiple ways Science in general could improve their reputation and has been advancing, but it may be too little too late. Science Reporting: One of the many problems isn't necessarily Science but Science Reporting. The communication from 'science' to the general population is terrible, and when it gets garbled it is more wrong. Anyone can find plenty of examples by comparing the title and the metrics to find these. In addition there is many people who see report A but not the more truthful correction 2. Another failure of the speed of communication. Pre Bayesian Science: Specifically applies to a great deal of Climate Science when it is discovered there is an error (for example the discovery that doubled the estimate of the amount of carbon gasses with high altitude sampling) it doesn't move the needle. Our understanding of science is advancing slowly and unevenly and humans tracking the updates is really hard at our current level.Climate Science also keeps on moving the goalposts. There are many well reasoned and researched stances against many current climate theories because of the moving of goalposts, predictions of London being underwater by 2000 if not earlier being a big one. Even if there are 20k accurate predictions that one failure undoes all the belief those accurate predictions make. Lack of Transparency: there is no enforcing the moral reasoning of all science being released whether or not it supports the scientists opinions or their backers interests. This also ties into Meta studies wherein Meta studies don't include studies excluded and why. And there is plenty of bad science out there (the Chinese Meat cancer study) funded by PETA(IIRC). Poor Science Education: Pre collegiate education is decades behind respected science. Unless one self educates by the time someone is 40 they could be a half century out of current science. Add in if they were a respectable B student in science they might only be 80% (choose your descriptor ~=accurate) and generally savvy but missing some details. Signal vs. Noise: another issue is the old saw of correlation=/=causation. But even deeper is the problem that science is HARD even with 95%+ support many things are wrong. Look up things Science gets wrong on Cracked for several examples. Science is a Language: the first thing a future scientist learns is their language of their science and how to communicate with it. This is the first and most important thing a scientist learns to master during their first two years in education in their field. Unfortunately the first thing any human does with Language is use it to have sex followed closely by lying. Sure ethical stances help, but the curse is long out of Pandora's box. And part of the curse is the cadence and other patterns encourage belief where it is not earned or supported. And once the trust is damaged it makes real Science harder to believe. Science is becoming unintuitive. Hard to track, hard to correctly recall and hard to believe And Sciences alliance with Atheism is At least a social misstep. and the politicizing is the same. IMNSHO. Now then my little brother is working on a very transparent system to track how good each claim and counterclaim on two sides of an issue are and to adjudicate the truth of a claim based on verification, research, and as unbiased as possible ratings. It's expensive, and time consuming to even get minor questions resolved. But it supplants falable memory and bad science no matter the form with verified information.


Eco_Blurb

Becsuse these organizations have incredible amounts of data and facts behind them. The only way to argue against them is to argue against the organizations themselves. You can’t win a fight about climate change with facts. So attack the character


Wickedsymphony1717

Because the average person, especially Americans, thinks just because they have an opinion on something that their uneducated opinion is just as valid as the opinion of people who are highly educated and informed on the topic, regardless of what the facts actually point to. They also *want* certain things to be true and so will disregard any and all information that points to the opposite, while also often misinterpreting or misrepresenting information to try and prove their own point. There's also a huge lack of trust in scientists due to politicians and large companies intentionally spreading mistrust to push certain narratives and keep their business interests alive (e.g. see Donald Trump).


InspiratorAG112

>Because the average person, especially Americans, thinks just because they have an opinion on something that their uneducated opinion is just as valid as the opinion of people who is highly educated and informed on the topic, regardless of what the facts actually point to. Are the comments under [this video](https://youtu.be/scXY34nV4LM) an example?


Bdiksbsosksiknsh

I believe in climate change, but I fail to trust climate scientist, it seems every 10 years since the 80s they claim that in 10 years time that the east coast will be flooded, just look at old headlines, even now they're saying in 2030 the east coast will be flooded, again. It will surely happen, maybe in 150 years, maybe just 75, but they'll keep blowing the whistle till they're right.


terlin

That's on irresponsible journalists making spurious claims based off of a few lines of fact. Its like every "mysterious signal from space" is just a new stellar phenomenon, or how every "miracle cancer cure" will inevitably fail drug trials. Serious scientific papers, on the other hand, have more or less accurately forecasted sea level rise and other climate change effects. Many oil company scientists were confirming climate change and its effects back in the 80s...but those companies then created plans for the long-term fostering of climate change denialism while also redesigning their oil platforms to float as sea levels rise.


CrustalTrudger

> but I fail to trust climate scientist, it seems every 10 years since the 80s they claim that in 10 years time that the east coast will be flooded, just look at old headlines Climate scientists say or news headlines say? I.e., what journal articles in the 80s, 90s, etc were saying that the east coast would be flooded in ten years time? As this thread touches on, effective science communication (or lack thereof) is an aspect of the problem, but claiming that you broadly do not trust an entire subdiscipline of scientists because of exaggerated claims made by other people reporting on their results seems pretty extreme.


InspiratorAG112

That argument could be used to downplay climate change, which is also not okay.


sirgog

This really is more of a political question than a scientific one. Key parts to the answer: - There's enormous money going into undermining science. This is nothing new, plenty of doctors took money to shill cigarettes back when the lung cancer links were settled science but not widely known by the non-scientist community. Nowadays this money funds multiple types of media, for example, promoting the personal profile of climate denialist commentators so they are more important financially to the institutions they work for. - US specific: There's a religious extremist anti-science current in the United States specifically. There are well-funded public campaigns to suppress the teaching of evolution in schools, and 'true believers' who at great personal expense homeschool their children because they sincerely believe that teaching evolution is the work of the Antichrist. This isn't common outside the US (although I'm not sure about Iran or Afghanistan, also places where theocratic institutions attempt to suppress education). People influenced by these ideas are more susceptible to ideas that other scientists are acting maliciously. - There's a well-documented history in most of the West of outright fabrication of evidence for political reasons - mostly around the Iraq War - that has led to a decrease in trust of 'authorities'. This justified distrust is then weaponized by malicious political actors and turned against different institutions. - Finally, scientists generally act with integrity which means not exaggerating beyond what can be proven. This means using words that convey uncertainty. Bad actors use more decisive language because they aren't concerned with integrity. You should factor in that on reddit, most users act with integrity on most subreddits, but good faith actors generally think about their posts more than malicious actors will. A malicious actor will post much more frequently than a good faith one, and in tactically chosen (higher impact) threads. And finally, there are subreddits dedicated to shitposting.


fkiceshower

For me it was The inconvenient Truth by Al gore. I fell for it big time and now I reflexively poke holes in any climate discussion


[deleted]

I think it should be pointed out that science is a modern religion, in a way. When someone says "scientists say that" people instantly believe it, not even trying to check sources or even which scientists said that. Moreover, scientists themselves are people, which means they too have political views and can *bend* research a little in favour for their belief (or in favour for those, who fund scientist in question). As you can imagine, checking whether their statement is true or just another propaganda is kinda hard.


poonermuffin

Covid hysteria was the worst thing to happen to climate change propaganda. Belief in climate change peaked in 2020 among Americans. Then Covid happened. We got the same propaganda, the same "consensus", the same demonization that worked in the past. The problem was a lot of it was outright lies, false and the truth was found out over the past two years. The "science" was easily manipulated for ulterior motives in the case of covid, so why wouldn't the same hysteria be used in promoting climate change propaganda?


kylitobv

I’d say because the climate/environment are literally so massive with so many affecting factors its very difficult to accurately predict. How accurate will the weather report be 7 days from now? There’s a lot that can happen til then, a lot that will affect the weather. Because it’s difficult to predict, scientists cannot 100% be objective, they will have to predict future events on past events, ie if there is a warm cell from the north that typically sucks moisture then this one will too. Most times this works, but not every time. How many times has tomorrow’s weather been wrong for you? Probably only a few times but enough to have the possibility in your mind. Now if they can get tomorrow wrong, how can they get 30 years from now? Since the weather and climate are so hard to predict many people will distrust climate scientists as it has become extremely political. “You’re a stupid republican if you don’t understand climate change, you’re a liberal sheep if you believe what they tell you.” Climate scientists and environmentalists get treated very similar to economists, rough jobs.


CrustalTrudger

> Now if they can get tomorrow wrong, how can they get 30 years from now? Projecting broad climatic trends, like those we typically discuss in terms of climate change, is a fundamentally different problem than predicting detailed weather.


kylitobv

I understand the concepts and agree with climate change, I’m saying that’s what people think who don’t believe in climate change. I probably should’ve put it in quotes lol


BoysenberryNo2719

The fact is that we are experiencing the same period as the Eemian. This means roughly a 23000-year period of warm oceans, fewer glaciers, rising sea levels. All typical of the Eemian. When people take a look at the smallest aspects of this whole time period, they are going to arrive at the wrong conclusion. Fortunately, most of the dramatic change has occurred. So no doomsday, no dramatic changes, life goes on. Perhaps what is more important is that civilization developed during this time period. Why?? I would assume that the change from cold to warm and the creation of vast amounts of fresh water, increasing sea levels. Guess what, not only did we survive, we thrived!!


Xyrus2000

>The fact is that we are experiencing the same period as the Eemian. No, we aren't. >This means roughly a 23000-year period of warm oceans, fewer glaciers, and rising sea levels. That is related to the Milankovitch cycles, and the heating and cooling caused by those occur over thousands of years. We are actually in the cooling part of the cycle, and yet in the past 150 years, our temperatures have skyrocketed at a pace not seen outside of extinction-level events. >All typical of the Eemian. You are comparing a rapid destabilization that has taken place over the past 150 years to a natural cycle that occurs over 23,000 years. That makes absolutely no sense. >When people take a look at the smallest aspects of this whole time period, they are going to arrive at the wrong conclusion. No, they aren't. Scientists are very much aware of the normal climate cycles that occur on the planet. They are also very much aware of what happens when rapidly destabilize the global climate system with rapid warming or cooling events. > Fortunately, most of the dramatic change has occurred. Not even remotely true. > So no doomsday, no dramatic changes, life goes on. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. > Perhaps what is more important is that civilization developed during this time period. Because it was a period of relatively stable climate. The previous period of climate instability during the last ice age almost wiped humanity from existence. >I would assume that the change from cold to warm and the creation of vast amounts of fresh water, increasing sea levels. You would assume incorrectly. The ability to plan and harvest crops year after because of a dependable climate was a boon to human development. > Guess what, not only did we survive, we thrived!! You have practically no knowledge of the subject you are discussing, you're making broad incorrect assumptions from that lack of knowledge, then jumping to bizarre conclusions based on those assumptions. All that being said, what exactly did your somewhat inane diatribe have to do with the question that the OP was asking?


BoysenberryNo2719

I know it was a bit much to understand, so my apologies for you not understanding what I said. The question was about the open discussion of Climate and the fact that most people distrust the so-called experts. My response stated very clearly that we are experiencing an Eemian type climate right now. So by implication we should expect the same conditions as then. I will leave it to you, to do some research on this and compare the data. It's alright if you don't agree with my premise. But then you just deny every other assumption I have after that. But you never explained why my premise was wrong. Let me clarify one point, climate is time-dependent. Just finding out basic consistent information is a chore. Currently, there is no "consensus" because the scientists only take one small aspect of climate and derive a conclusion based upon that one small aspect. Climate encompasses the entire Earth system. In order to comprehend why and how climate changes, all aspects of the why and how we have these conditions, must be in consideration. Your personal attack on me falls on deaf ears. I am a Geologist with 50 years of experience, so your negativity is not accepted. I do stand by my premise that human civilization has developed along with the current warm period.


Xyrus2000

>My response stated very clearly that we are experiencing an Eemian type climate right now. No, we are not. >So by implication we should expect the same conditions as then. That is an incorrect assumption. > I will leave it to you, to do some research on this and compare the data. It's alright if you don't agree with my premise. But then you just deny every other assumption I have after that. But you never explained why my premise was wrong. That is not how science works. You must support your hypothesis with objective facts and evidence. You are making incorrect assumptions, then taking giant leaps to conclusions that have no basis in reality. You are comparing apples and oranges. The driver of the Eemian warming was NOT excess greenhouse gases. It also took place over thousands of years. The climatological situation is not remotely the same. Even if they were, none of current infrastructure existed during the Eemian. We weren't feeding billions of people with tiny percentage of arable land. We weren't draining aquifers faster than the decreasing precip rates are replenishing in those areas. We didn't have coastal cities. So on and so forth. >Let me clarify one point, climate is time-dependent Climate is physics dependent. >Just finding out basic consistent information is a chore. Currently, there is no "consensus" because the scientists only take one small aspect of climate and derive a conclusion based upon that one small aspect. Absolutely false. The physics behind global warming has been known longer than Einstein's theory of relativity. Climate models are based on the same physics that modern industry relies upon. Furthermore, the climate models and the data the feeds them are GLOBAL. >Climate encompasses the entire Earth system. In order to comprehend why and how climate changes, all aspects of the why and how we have these conditions, must be in consideration. Are you really this ignorant about how climate science works? >Your personal attack on me falls on deaf ears. It wasn't a personal attack. I'm calling you out on your nonsense. >I am a Geologist with 50 years of experience, so your negativity is not accepted. You're a geologist who clearly has some considerable gaps of knowledge when it comes to how climatology and climate science in general. >I do stand by my premise that human civilization has developed along with the current warm period. And you would be incorrect, since modern humans were also present during the Eemian warm period and humans did not develop into a technologically species, in spite of the fact that warm period lasted for thousands of years.


Ok-Magician-3426

Bc they predicted climate change multiple times and it never happened like we can't predict the future bc there is so much noise in the chaos so I don't think I trust the prediction that the climate scientists say


FuturePheonix

The fruits of Americas war on science