Article Media & do-gooders: "Follow the science." Nonsense, I say. (Sabine Hossenfelder)

[C C]

https://youtu.be/nGVIJSW0Y3k

VIDEO INTRO: Today I want to tell you why I had to stop reading news about climate science, because it pisses me off. Every. Single. Time.

There’s all these left-wing do-gooders who think their readers are too fucking dumb to draw their own conclusions. So it’s not enough to tell me what’s the correlation between hurricane intensity and air moisture; no, they also have to tell me that, therefore, I should donate to save the polar bears.

There’s this implied link: Science says this, therefore you should do that. Follow the science, stop flying. Follow the science, go vegan. Follow the science and glue yourself to a bus, because certainly that’s the logical conclusion to draw from the observed weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Circulation.

When I was your age, we learned science does not say anything about what we should do.

What we should do is a matter of opinion, science is a matter of fact. Science tells us what situation we are in and what consequences our actions are likely to have, but it does not tell us what to do.

Science does not say you shouldn’t pee on high voltage lines, it says urine is an excellent conductor. Science does not say you should stop smoking, science says nicotine narrows arteries, so if you smoke you’ll probably die young lacking a few toes.

Science does not say we should cut carbon dioxide emissions. It says if we don’t, then by the end of the century estimated damages will exceed some trillion US dollars. Is that what we should go for? Well, that’s a matter of opinion.

Follow the Science is a complete rubbish idea, because science does not know the direction. We have to decide what way to go. You’d think it’s bad enough that politicians conflate scientific fact with opinion, but the media actually make it worse...

Follow the Science? Nonsense, I say.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/nGVIJSW0Y3k

[confused2]

When Donald Trump says "it [the planet] will cool again.." many people have more faith in DT's soothsaying powers than any number of measurements taken down here on planet Earth. Believing the Sun is going to dim by just the right amount is up there with Angels and life after death (all very plausible for many).

Following for reasons of faith isn't quite the same as rational decision making based on facts.

How do we know the Earth is getting warmer? Water expands as it gets warmer and we have measured the rise in sea level over the last 100 years.
How do we know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing? We measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
How do we know the Sun isn't getting hotter? We measured it.
How do we know volcanoes aren't causing global warming? The effect is too small to be significant.
What else has changed apart from the increase in CO2? Well..?

How can you discredit 'science'? - by pretending to use 'science' to make dodgy predictions then using 'science' to show the predictions of 'science' are unreliable.

I'm guessing maybe 20% of Americans could look at a graph and say .. if there was this much change in the last 20 years then it's likely there'll be the same (more/less) change in the next 20 years. Do Americans even get to see graphs? Measurements?

Edit..
Not caring is an entirely valid decision. Decisions based purely on propaganda put out by the fossil fuel industry is (potentially) just falling for well managed con.

[Syne]

Science says the planet will cool again, just from what we know of its history, where it has been both much hotter (with more CO2 in the atmosphere than today) and much cooler.

The only question is if those future changes will harm humans' ability to survive on the planet. The climate-religious left preaches apocalypse, while most sensible people expect new technologies to aid the situation well before it become catastrophic. It's really odd that the "follow the science" folks, who are usually the same scientism believers who think science will one day know and solve all, can't seem to imagine science coming up with solutions that don't require the whole planet revert to third-world conditions.

[confused2]

Can I check how common this view is..
From a (very) small sample of Americans..
1/ If the Earth is getting hotter it is because the Sun is getting hotter.
2/ The Earth will continue to get hotter until the Sun starts to cool - with luck technology will reduce or even cancel out the effect of the increased heat from the Sun.

Is that what some/most/all Americans think is true?

[Syne]

Who do you imaging is saying that? Where, in this thread, did anyone even mention the sun? Very much less that anything is happening ONLY because of the sun?

Seems you're arguing against your own imagination, e.g. a complete straw man. Typical of the climate-religious.

[confused2]

Who do you imaging is saying that? Where, in this thread, did anyone even mention the sun? Very much less that anything is happening ONLY because of the sun?

Seems you're arguing against your own imagination, e.g. a complete straw man. Typical of the climate-religious.

First line of the OP ..

Today I want to tell you why I had to stop reading news about climate science, because it pisses me off.

I am (still) fishing for why it pisses her off. I have no way to know what passes for 'climate science' in the US and what beliefs people actually have either as a result of reading (or not) about 'climate science'. Many years ago I trained to be an electrical engineer so.. a lot of maths and a fair amount of physics - the result is that what seems obvious to me may not seem obvious to 'most people' so I have to ask to find out what is and is not obvious. For reasons I don't understand the emphasis of 'global warming' seems to have switched to 'climate change' which is something else entirely. I am only concerned with 'global warming'. If the amount of energy arriving at the planet is greater than the amount leaving then the planet will get warmer. I mentioned the Sun because the only source of energy for the planet is the Sun so the Sun and our position relative to it controls the energy input. Energy leaves the planet by radiation into space either through the atmosphere or from the upper atmosphere. Is this too complicated or too simple or am I missing something?

[Syne]

So no one mentioned the sun in this thread, other than you. Again, you seem to be intent on arguing with yourself.

[confused2]

So no one mentioned the sun in this thread, other than you. Again, you seem to be intent on arguing with yourself.

I'm going with "too complicated.".

[Syne]

Oh, I'm sure arguing with yourself can get complicated. I mean, how do you keep track of which of you is arguing which side?

[confused2]

Follow the money.
I think we can expect many more subtle non-science contributions from Sabine.
For example
Climate scientist boasts about fudging his own paper (Sabine Hossenfelder)
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-14655-...l#pid59778