[dxhdr]

> People deny anthropogenic global warming because they don't want to look at the details

There's a reasonable argument that we're fairly clueless about how most natural systems actually work. I heard recently that plate tectonics wasn't even a theory until the 70s! It's a tricky situation because the political aspect of global warming is both the only way to solve it and the thing getting in the way of it being solved.

I think people intuitively understand that science doesn't have this figured out. Which isn't to say the science is wrong! But papering over those gaps in knowledge by immediately ascribing all data to global warming does more to hurt the cause than help. It's easy to be a skeptic when there are so many low quality articles like this being produced.

[sgt101]

Agree. I think that this is further driven by two factors in the discovery system.

First Scientists are (I think) moral. So they find some evidence for AGW and then think "oh gosh if this is true my kids are going to have a problem" and then try to raise the profile of the topic to (essentially) help their kids out. On issues like "dog tooth growth" there is no driving moral imperative and so no tree shaking.

The other factor is money, scientists are human. Scientists need grants, appealing to politicians gets grants, stirring up news media gets grants. There has been a lot of grant getting in this space - the top 5% of folks working in the field have got grants in the most professional, highly targetted and useful way possible. The 5% worst applications funded, not so much.

However, this process is all about getting the science done - it seems to me as an outsider that the science has moved from not done but in the news to mostly done but roped around with personal positions, sacred cows and so on (like all science). I think that practitioners in the field think this too as they still want to work in it. In contrast I was will one of the leading Quantum Physicists a few weeks ago, I understood very little of what was said but smiled when he announced "I'm not working in Quantum Computing now as the theory is all done"! Compare...

The problem isn't the professional, ethical and well supported by science messages being put out by most AGW people now; it's the wild (probably correct, but wild) assertions that came out 15 years ago. These were slammed and unpicked by skeptics, leaving a residue of mistrust.

Unfortunately without one (assertion, flap) you don't get the other. This is where Feynman was wrong - PR does sometimes trump (geddit?) nature.

No one seems to be thinking about how Science should accommodate and learn from this. Which, given the Scientific method, is odd.

[acqq]

> It's easy to be a skeptic when there are so many low quality articles like this

It isn't "low quality."

This article reports about the current weather conditions, it was not intended to "prove" anything about the cause of climate change. You expect from the news article something that nobody can give you (understanding of the causes) unless you have the capability and the wish to acquire it.

When the weather conditions reach all-time high, it's news. Especially if it matches the much longer trend.

See my other post here for the links to the graphs with the context.

[mablap]

    There's a reasonable argument that we're fairly clueless
    about how most natural systems actually work.

That's kind of my point. To a certain extent you are right that everybody, including scientists, are "clueless". BUT there's a huge difference in attitude between a scientist and Random Joe. That difference is politics. The scientist looks at the data, formulates hypotheses, asks tough questions, etc. Random Joe reads one article and his mind's made up.