Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#11

Post by incompatible »

philipkglass wrote: post #3

The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used…

Looking a CO2 measurements, I don't see much sign that the rate of increase is slowing down: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/. Do the current models assume it will accelerate even faster?

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#13

Post by sam_lowry_ »

eecc wrote: post #9
zqfm wrote: post #2

Maybe off the wall, but my first thought is certificate revocation. Could there be (or is there already) a semi-centralized database of research that should no longer be cited? With maybe a dependency graph of research that maybe needs to be revisited?

WOT signed endorsements. Back when I had time I drafted a P2P application to share papers and execute peer review via GPG based digital signatures. Signed metadata - at least that was the plan - allowed communities to endorse, retract, flag spam in a distributed opt-in manner. It's rotting on GitHub, never managed to drum up enough interest...

Sounds like a great idea. WOT did not work for general public, but scientists are very different.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#14

Post by kjrose »

From my time working within an academic environment, I can attest this is absolutely true. Especially since the gatekeepers (older professors, etc) have a general interest to see these older articles cited more and referenced. It's not malicious, it's just a fact of how these things work. It's also why the general public's knowledge of how science works needs to be adjusted. Science is not a "100% correct" or "100% not correct" thing, and unfortunately I've seen too many institutions and individuals use that myth to try and push an agenda.

It's a combination of institutional momentum, combined with the fact that a specific narrative is politically expedient. The unfortunate thing is bad decisions, made off of bad science, regardless of the reasons external to the science, generally lead to bad outcomes.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#15

Post by soperj »

kjrose wrote: post #14

From my time working within an academic environment, I can attest this is absolutely true. Especially since the gatekeepers (older professors, etc) have a general interest to see these older articles cited more and referenced. It's not malicious, it's just a fact of how these things work. It's also why the general public's knowledge of how science works needs to be adjusted. Science is not a "100% correct" or "100% n…

>It's not malicious, it's just a fact of how these things work

While I agree it's not malicious, I'd say the reason it works this way is that there is a financial incentive to have it work this way.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#16

Post by [deleted] »

ravenstine wrote: post #10

This reminds me of a talk I watched about research into human pheromones. The speaker talked about how literature and studies on pheromones all lead back to 1 or 2 old studies that were basically considered bunk, but researchers kept citing it, and other researchers would also cite the other studies that linked back to the original low-quality studies. His point was that the whole field of research into human pheromo…

[deleted]

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#17

Post by sien »

philipkglass wrote: post #3

The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used…

From the article :

"For instance, O’Neill and colleagues find that “many studies” use scenarios that are “unlikely.” In fact, in their literature review such “unlikely” scenarios comprise more than 20% of all scenario applications from 2014 to 2019. They also call for “re-examining the assumptions underlying” the high-end emissions scenarios that are favored in physical climate research, impact studies and economic and policy analyses. As a result of such high prevalence of such studies in the literature, they are also the most commonly cited within scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. O’Neill and colleagues find that the highest emission scenarios comprise about 30% of all applications in studies over the past five years, from a family of 35 different scenarios that they surveyed."

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#18

Post by mjevans »

sam_lowry_ wrote: post #13
eecc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WOT signed endorsements. Back when I had time I drafted a P2P application to share papers and execute peer review via GPG based digital signatures. Signed metadata - at least that was the plan - allowed communities to endorse, retract, flag spam in a distributed opt-in manner. It's rotting on GitHub, never managed to drum up enough interest...

Sounds like a great idea. WOT did not work for general public, but scientists are very different.

Things that work for the general public need to be far less technical and way more automatic; from an end user experience perspective.

WoT could work exceedingly well for a decentralized replacement of Facebook... though at that point there's also the issue of competing against a walled garden with moats and most of the population already inside.

Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science

#19

Post by ChuckMcM »

This is a good read, although somewhat depressing.

When you have a topic that has been weaponized politically, as climate change has, people who use that weapon actively work against information they perceive would make the weapon less effective. The author sums it up as follows:

---- from the article:

According to Rayner, in such a context we should expect to see reactions to uncomfortable knowledge that include:

denial -- (that scenarios are off track),

dismissal -- (the scenarios are off track, but it doesn’t matter),

diversion -- (the scenarios are off track, but saying so advances the agenda of those opposed to action) and,

displacement -- (the scenarios are off track but there are perhaps compensating errors elsewhere within scenario assumptions).

---- end include.

Not enough people understand that science is expected to be wrong, and to converge over time to the correct answer. That is is okay to say "We used to think this, but these studies/experiments have shown that understanding to be incorrect. Now we believe this." That is how science works. And sadly when it is politicized, it becomes much harder to have conversations about it.

Post reply on HN