"Sabine Karin Doris Hossenfelder is a German theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, author, science communicator, and YouTuber."
(5 votes)
Trust in Science
"Sabine Karin Doris Hossenfelder is a German theoretical physicist, philosopher of science, author, science communicator, and YouTuber."
Comments
(Old Spike)
Well if she is unhappy with the research she should do peer reviews rather than write books. But ooops, she is not a "climate scientist".
Nobody wants to read her book so she follows the trend to criticise research with the argument that "she's just a "skeptic", using the "arguments" of big oil, because of course there are plenty brainless "youexplaintomeeee" types who eat that shit up and thus it generates more clicks than doing real science on youtube.
In the whole video she does not give a hint of a proof for her claims.
yawn
(Spiker)
you're right, today's science is a well oiled machine that totally isn't broken or anything.
(Old Spike)
Lol where is it broken?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
You're being naive if you don't think money doesn't play a part...or politics...or just plain biases of people.
The history of science is full of these examples.
(Old Spike)
There are, but they are being identified and eliminated during the peer review process. This happens all the time and of course is going on, like with the physicists she is talking about.
That does not make "science flawed". If scientists push into a certain "direction" that cannot be reproduced or proven then this will be found out (she knows the process but she also knows that this kind of "skepticism" gives a lot of clicks these days). If they keep doing this they will become the ridicule of their peers and ultimately, like for example Weinstein or "suspicious observer", may exclude themselves from the peer review process and "do their own thing".
One should be more concerned about the people with an agenda trying to hide (like Exxon's climate study) or distort any current "state of science" for their own benefit.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" There are, but they are being identified and eliminated during the peer review process. "
Sure, but some get through still. Theres even videos how people managed to push BS through the process.
The peer review process is far from perfect but that what we have.
" If scientists push into a certain "direction" that cannot be reproduced or proven then this will be found out (she knows the process but she also knows that this kind of "skepticism" gives a lot of clicks these days). "
So you think shes just faking it for the click? Have you looked into what she said in her book or is this a very superficial knee jerk reaction to her stuff.
If you actually go past the click baity title and listen to what she say: She is arguing that climate scientists underestimate the pace of warming and uncertainty.
"One should be more concerned about the people with an agenda trying to hide" (like Exxon's climate study) or distort any current "state of science" for their own benefit
Yes agreed but how do you know who has an agenda and who doesn't. I think a good (bad) sign is when politics starts pushing something heavily.
btw was the Exxon one peer reviewed?
(Old Spike)
"Sure, but some get through still"
Got some examples where this had important effects?
She is a physicist, if she is so concerned with some research she should do peer reviews, like that the scientific community will be made aware and the process will work. Then she can write a book about how her efforts did or did not work. Having a general moan in a book is aimed at the "concerned skeptic layman", not the scientific community. The same issue I have with the observer guy. I even suggested to him he produces a paper or peer reviews of papers detailing his findings. He declined rather rudely. lol.
In the end in this video she only hints at "some issues" but produces nothing of substance, so I assume the book will just be an extension to that. Even the examples she gives about research that led to nothing did exactly that because of the process.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Got some examples where this had important effects?"
Well heres the one I was thinking about that they made a video about. https://youtu.be/kVk9a5Jcd1k?si=MGmknE2pSQHGF4eR
Surprise it's about gender studies and all that bullshit but the point here is that you can fool the peer review process because people have biases. Similarly it can apply to any field. If you want, you can easily find criticisms / possible pit falls of the peer review process, there are paper on that too.
"She is a physicist, if she is so concerned with some research she should do peer reviews, like that the scientific community will be made aware and the process will work."
She is basically arguing that climate scientists are being too careful in what they say and their predictions. In her opinion they aren't being enough of alarmists.
I think it's fair to say that there is some leeway in how to interpret numbers and to some extent it's always a best guess based on the available data, as leading edge science most of the time is. I remember some years back asking you to give me a date when the arctic will be ice free as this was predicted to happen. I never got it, because it's not an exact science and and this is where the scientists interpretation / best guess comes in.
You didn't answer this: " So you think shes just faking it for the click?"
(Old Spike)
Gender studies is highly political, especially in the US, in Europe people are more relaxed about it. It is also a relatively new thing, comparable to what she mentioned in the beginning of the video and has psychology involved, which by default is a bit different to mathematics based science. The publishing only starts the peer review process anyway. I don't think they say whether they pulled the papers or did they let the peer review develop.
"She is basically arguing that climate scientists are being too careful in what they say and their predictions. In her opinion they aren't being enough of alarmists."
Being alarmist is not the task of scientists, they provide the interpretation of the data. It has been clear for many years that if nothing is done the situation will escalate, ALL the predictions and simulations point to that. Even if we stop producing CO2 now we will not stop the warming, it will only slow down. Isn't that alarmist enough?
I really don't care any more, I don't have kids, my wife and I are "end of line", I don't subscribe to life after death or being reborn delusions, so what the heck.
" some years back asking you to give me a date when the arctic will be ice free"
I am the wrong person to ask, I probably told you that. it is one of the "shut up" arguments in discussions like that "if you don't know that you don't know what you are talking about", pathetic.
Lastly I think she at least exaggerates for the clicks.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Gender studies is highly political, especially in the US "
If you haven't notices, so is climate science.
" Even if we stop producing CO2 now we will not stop the warming, it will only slow down. Isn't that alarmist enough? "
We don't know for sure, thats kinda her point.
" I really don't care any more, I don't have kids, my wife and I are "end of line", I don't subscribe to life after death or being reborn delusions, so what the heck. "
So what happens to future generations doesn't matter to you? Well that says a lot about you.
" I am the wrong person to ask, I probably told you that. it is one of the "shut up" arguments in discussions like that "if you don't know that you don't know what you are talking about", pathetic. "
My point being again that it's not an exact science and there for there is room for interpretation. We maybe on the mark, or just as well could be way off since it's a very complex system that we don't fully understand.
And as far as I can recall, we were talking about the accuracy of climate models.
(Old Spike)
"so is climate science"
but it is mathematics, not psychology, you conveniently forgot the second part of my argument
"We don't know for sure"
We do
"We maybe on the mark, or just as well could be way off "
We know how good we are on the mark, and it is by no means "way off"
" it's a very complex system"
it is, BUT just because you don't understand doesn't mean that scientists do not have a very good grasp of it. All the models and simulations confirm that.
It is people like you "wannabe skeptics" that make me not care, I try to point people in the right direction, you otoh have a hunch something "is not right" and refuse to further investigate because you are "not interested" (your words btw).
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" but it is mathematics, not psychology, you conveniently forgot the second part of my argument "
So now we should argue back and forth which peer review process actually matters?
" We do "
There is some uncertainty with climate science. The trend is clear, but how fast or slow thing will happen can have some wiggle room, sometimes a lot, depending what models you look at. Can we at least agree on this?
" It is people like you "wannabe skeptics" that make me not care "
People like me make you not want to care about future generation?
Maybe that idea of religion making people act more morally actually has something to it ;)
" I try to point people in the right direction, you otoh have a hunch something "is not right" and refuse to further investigate because you are "not interested" (your words btw). "
This physicist has that hunch too. I'm quite sure shes more qualified than either one of us. But we shouldn't listen to her because you said so, right?
Theres no need to be dogmatic, you can consider different take on the matter, in fact thats what a proper scientists does instead of dismissing it out of hand. Have you looked her points why she is skeptical or are you "not interested"?
I mean it's fine if you don't agree with her but at least you need spend the time looking at the opponents arguments.
And remember shes arguing that climate scientists are being too careful with their estimates. Shes not a denier, quite the opposite.
(Old Spike)
Do you really need the difference between math/physics/chemistry and psychology explained to you?
"There is some uncertainty with climate science. The trend is clear, but how fast or slow thing will happen can have some wiggle room, sometimes a lot, depending what models you look at."
Which of the models' predictions were so wrong that makes you think the whole "science" on this is so flawed it can't be trusted?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" Do you really need the difference between math/physics/chemistry and psychology explained to you? "
Yes there is a difference, I acknowledged that.
So now according to you, we have peer review processes that matters and ones that don't matter that much.
Math and physics can't be fooled (or can't be incorrect) because there is zero interpretation needed?
Is that what you're trying to say?
" Which of the models' predictions were so wrong that makes you think the whole "science" on this is so flawed it can't be trusted? "
Theres no middle ground with you, is there.
Lets say the models are off by 100 years and that marks the point when shit really hits the fan or the "point of no return / run away warming".
The models don't have to be off a lot for a 100 year mistake, which in turn will make us think we still have time to transition to green energies, when in reality we could already be fucked.
I think this is what shes trying to get across and not "the whole "science" on this is so flawed it can't be trusted"
(Old Spike)
Which of the models' predictions were so wrong up to this date that makes you think the whole "science" on this is so flawed it can't be trusted?
"Lets say the models are off by 100 years and that marks the point when shit really hits the fan or the "point of no return / run away warming"."
What makes you think that the models are that far off? How far off have they been this far?
If the models are 100 years off, then everything is honkey dorey, right?
What if they are off in the "wrong direction" (which is what she actually says, innit)?
You do understand that the strategy behind becoming "greener" is delaying as much as possible until a viable solution is found to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, or not?
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"What makes you think that the models are that far off? How far off have they been this far?
If the models are 100 years off, then everything is honkey dorey, right?
What if they are off in the "wrong direction" (which is what she actually says, innit)?"
I was thinking about adding to the end that I just made these numbers up, thought it should have been obvious, as this is just an example to drive the point home, but as usual you get all anal retentive about it.
It's not that different asking when is the arctic going to melt. This for example is important to know as it could trigger all sorts of havoc to the climate as it messes with the oceans salinity and currents, maybe even cause a run away warming. We have no examples of run away warming in our time, all we have is simulations and estimates of what MIGHT be the point when we hit the point of no return.
(Old Spike)
lol, so you have no argument other than a "general mistrust in the science". When challenged on that you call people names. You are in good company here, buddy.
Current research is all we have, nothing more nothing less. Whether we like it or not.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
I'm trying to convey her opinions on the matter as far as I understand them. It's odd that you find them totally unreasonable as they aren't even arguing against climate change but saying it might be worse. It's like you read the click bait title and can't get out of that head space. "OMG, mistrust in science" Maybe she gives more detailed explanation in her book. Maybe take a look?
" Current research is all we have, nothing more nothing less. Whether we like it or not. "
Yes, that is true. just don't be dogmatic about it. They aren't set in stone as in "the model that are used now can't be wrong in anyway".
I'll add this that you anal retentiveness doesn't get the best of you. (btw it's not name calling, it's a personality trait. Look it up)
This doesn't mean climate science is wrong or we can't trust it in any shape or from, it means it's likely theres a lot of thing we still need to tweak and learn to get the full picture. The models are in constant state of fine tuning,
They revise them constantly for a reason.
(Old Spike)
I told you already what I expect a scientist to do when they think research is wrong or needs improving.
I asked YOU what YOU think is wrong or inaccurate in the climate science field, and their predictions.
What is "anal" is saying "dunno, doh, too complex, doh, gimme date of icecap meltdown". As if this wasn't clear from the start and nobody with more than half a brain actually expects forecasts to be anything but trends.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" I asked YOU what YOU think is wrong or inaccurate in the climate science field, and their predictions. "
Oh me?
I'm not an expert on the field. I can only refer to what other scientists are saying. Like this one in the video.
" What is "anal" is saying "dunno, doh, too complex, doh, gimme date of icecap meltdown". As if this wasn't clear from the start and nobody with more than half a brain actually expects forecasts to be anything but trends. "
It's again just one way try and explain to you that it's not an exact science.
This is a good example for it. Maybe it will dwindle slowly over time, or maybe theres a point where it escalates and goes really fast.
(Old Spike)
lol
"Maybe it will dwindle slowly over time, or maybe theres a point where it escalates and goes really fast."
It won't. Don't (intentionally) confuse local phenomena with global trends, which is the typical red herring deniers and wannabe skeptics use.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"It won't"
It won't what? I gave you two scenarios. Fast and slow. Neither one is realistic?
(Old Spike)
Exactly, neither one.
I'll give a example of technology that has been looked into only a few years longer, the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE):
We have a very good understanding of how the mixture of fuel and oxidiser influence the combustion process, we know what effect it has on the combustion process when we change the mix of these components, despite this being a very complex and erratic system. We know that in a diesel engine the mixture will ignite simply by putting it under certain pressure. Although we cannot with certainty forecast to the square micron where exactly the burning process will begin and which individual molecules will be involved (and never will), we can still reliably forecast the power and torque an engine produces under all operating conditions. We also can forecast very well how many molecules will enter the combustion chamber but there is no way of telling where exactly they will end up in the combustion chamber or whether or not they will actually contribute to the combustion at all. So irrespective of predictability of local events (where and which molecule actually ignites) the global trend (power output) is very much predictable. We also have a very good understanding what adding tiny amounts of other substances like water or nitrous oxide have on the process, although we cannot predict the interaction of each molecule.
The exact same can be said about the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming. Of course other factors need to be taken into account but there is a DIRECT connection between amount of these gases in the atmosphere and the warming trend. The first study has been carried out in the late 19th century and the results are not contradicted by current research. The predictions have become more accurate because over the years more factors were included BUT the effect of greenhouse gas still remains the same, i.e. it is the MAIN DRIVER. A sizable local event may have an influence on this for a short while but it will not remove the effect of the main driver.
If you have a certain amount X of these gases in the atmosphere there is no significant warming effect, increase the content to Y there will be some warming effect, increase it more to Z there will be more warming effect (i.e. global temperatures will rise quicker). Stop increasing at levels Y or Z the warming effect will remain at the respective level (as CO2 is inert), in order to reduce warming you will have to reduce the amount of gas.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"Exactly, neither one. "
Have you tried to google "Climate change arctic ice free in summer"?
Did you use chat GPT :D
While your at it, ask if global warming is always linear to the amount of greenhouse gasses humans put out, or can there be other factors that can escalate it to what we might call "run away warming"?
(Old Spike)
Nobody denies there are other factors involved, as I told you a felt 100 times and even mentioned above they are incorporated in the models and well documented, ffs, grow up. My input ends here.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" as I told you a felt 100 times and even mentioned above they are incorporated in the models and well documented "
Ok. It's as if you don't read anything I type, so why bother.
(Old Spike)
Why would I, you told me you make shit up anyway. Then you tell people to "google it" which is the most pathetic way to have a conversation. facepalm
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" Why would I "
You don't need to. Just tell me that up front so we don't waste time on pointless arguments.
" Then you tell people to "google it" which is the most pathetic way to have a conversation. facepalm "
It's quite amazing how some have zero capability for reflection.
I ask you to google something to point out a false claim you made and that is a pathetic way to have a conversation.(it's a possibility that the arctic will melt in the near future during the summer).
But nothing pathetic about not reading my post and yet having the need to respond.
Just out of curiosity how old were you again?
(Old Spike)
My "google" search results will be different from yours, as you very well should be aware.
If you have a link that you think makes your point share it, otherwise shut up and fuck off.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
The first page in Google results is full of articles from reputable source (no conspiracy / deniers). Theres a paper from 2023 that most of these articles are citing. Pretty sure your result can't be that different from mine.
I think it is you who is reluctant to do even the slightest bit of investigation.
Isn't this was potholer preacher. Look into it yourself and not take anyone word for it.
If you can't find any papers / articles talking about the possibility of an ice free arctic then maybe we should just drop this.
(Old Spike)
been thinking about this off and on for a bit. i think the wording the problem. the words mean something completely different than whats expected and you wouldn't know unless the term being used is stated in the study and the articles that cite the study
so you got two groups
group 1 has got studies that talk about when the first day/week/month/year of an "ice free arctic" is going to be
group 2 has got studies that talk about when the first day/week/month/year of an "ice free arctic" is going to be
the reason there in two groups is because "ice free arctic" has two meanings. the first group are using "ice free arctic" to describe an arctic without ice. something they don't expect for hundreds of years. the second group(which this study is in) are using "ice free arctic" to describe an arctic with less than 1 million square kilometers of ice(a term coined 30 some years ago for a percentage of the ice we had in the 80's)
you've most likely gotten yourself into a situation where you're unknowingly comparing studies that sound the same but are actually from different groups/subgroups to each other and the discrepancies which would be expected knowing this, are reinforcing your perception of the field of study