| I should have kept scrolling, but here goes. TLDR; Science is Complicated, statistics are confusing, some publications that look like science have been paid for by the petrochemical industry to mislead the gullible, and climate instability has many reasons of which human activity is a significant contributor. Here goes the long version : There are many, many... very many regions in scientific understanding where one cannot simply 'run fully controlled laboratory experiments with only a single variable.' These all require many minds working together to find the most probable cause-and-effect relationships, which may have a large number of co-related and unrelated contributory causes. Most of applied medicine, materials science, ecosystems biology, sociology, ... the list really does go on to include just about every field that is not either very elementary kinetics or basic chemistry. For example: The primary reason for most of the efforts in low temperature quantum computing is about removing as many exterior effects (thermodynamic chaos) on the very specific material interactions that are being used. The application of a prismatic view: "we don't have a single-variable laboratory equivalent" to the realm of attempted scientific comprehension, can make it necessary to stop learning at about a 5th grade basic science level, and then set a worldview accordingly. It might be inferred from the tone and content of linked interaction, not with a frontier-capability LLM model, but with the 'explain-a-thon two-thousand' which has been shimmed into the google search page, perhaps this is the worldview-building approach in use, and this post is seeking validation of that worldview in this forum. This interaction does not in-fact demonstrate that an understanding of the scientific process has 'defeated' a weak-tea model's training data, nor does it demonstrate that there should be any significant measure of doubt that anthropogenic effect on climate instability exists. Take strict note of the "significant measure of doubt" phrase, it is load bearing in all of science. If any reliable dataset introduces significant doubt into the scientific consensus, the scientific community (a.k.a the consensus) does reliably investigate and then shift toward explanations of observations which reduces the "significant measure of doubt." That is the exact process which has been followed, and continues to be followed, to reach current scientific community's consensus in every field, including global climate instability, which was simplified in the press to read as "Global Warming." Where reliable data is insufficient or false some corner cases appear in headlines about "reproduce-ability failure" and "ethical misconduct" in scientific publications. This is an outcome of many effects, many of which may be attributed to misalignment within institutional science resulting from 'publish-or-perish' stressors on research. Another effect on the body of climate science publishing has been and continues to be been directed, unethical publications of disinformation funded by the groups who are financially incentivized to continue the mass consumption of petrochemical assets. These publications and the alleged scientists producing them are generally viewed as unprincipled when the financial mechanisms funding the unreliable research and those publications are exposed to public view. This is similar to situations when tobacco companies contracted the creation of pseudo-science which presented as true various viewpoint from 'smoking is good for you', to 'smoking treats cancer' and later 'smoking doesn't increase your chances of being diagnosed with cancer.' These were conclusively debunked and some of the offending parties held accountable in various courts of law. The petrochemical industry is in the nascent stages of this same route to accountability. So, yes, "Science is Complicated" but there is not any significant doubt in the scientific communities' that increasing frequency and severity of weather instability in general and wildfires in particular are one outcome of conditions which have been impacted in a measurable quantity by human actions. Anyone who is publishing to the contrary is very likely to be perpetuating a worldview that may be easier to understand, but that worldview is less likely to be accurate than the probability of finding several grand prize LOTTO tickets on the ground. |