Physicists Sabine Hosselfelder is super pissed about the phrase “follow the science”.

It grates me as much as “the science is settled”

That’s a phrase, not a term.

She seems to be half right.

Sabine is right. She is also onto the particle physicist schictk too. Sabine is hot.

I agree with her overall point on follow the science especially given that I am in the field, but I do disagree with here using some idiotic metaphors and analogies to say why non-supporters reason their thinking.

Climate change data is some of the worst quality science you will ever see and that is the fundamental problems. As another poster said, some data is manipulated and others (the bulk of it) are entirely made up based on the assumptions of the “scientist” running/creating it or the model.

When you only have data for the last 100 years and can’t draw conclusions from it, you create model data. Problem is trying to extrapolate from 100 years of data put to thousands of years is entirely non-scientific. We are not supposed to extrapolate in science.

That leads to matters of opinion dictating what are called facts.

Worst part of this all is that we can see some of the issues that can arise, but instead of focusing on those, they go all doomsday and try to go to extremes. If you offer people alternatives that are cost equivalent or cheaper, they will do it. If you are asking them to pay way more for something based on invalidated claims or hypotheses, of course they are going to be resistant. You aren’t asking for small changes. Instead you are asking life altering changes at a significant cost with little guarantee it will even do anything.

That is politics and propaganda, not science.

You mean the average person hasn’t had a course in thermodynamics or heat transfer?

I have no problem with the greenhouse theory. I think it's well established. The problem I have are the doom and gloom predictions by SCIENTIFIC bodies. They use nothing but shoddy computer models which are nowhere near advanced enough to take into account the gazillion variables in the real world. Predicting a chaotic system like the climate of a planet is hard.

Two cases in point: In 1989 the director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) said by the year 2000 the world would be underwater. His words "Entire nations will be wiped out." Didn't happen.

In 2004, the US Department of Defense released a classified report to President Bush which stated that by 2020 "the science" tells us that the UK will be under an ice sheet (along with much of the northern hemisphere). Didn't happen.

There are MANY MANY more examples of failed climate predictions. Here's a good site that keeps track of them: LINK

So why should be continue listening? Of course "the scientists" like to sweep these old predictions under the rug and pretend they never happened - but they aren't going away no matter how hard they try.