• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s how science works dude. You can’t say something is for sure happening without conclusive data.

    • zaphod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Just jumping in to caution: no, science rarely ends up with truly definitive, conclusive data. A ton of science, particularly climate science, is all about preponderance of evidence.

      It may seem nitpicky, but it’s this precise misunderstanding that has led a lot of people to reject climate science, evolution, etc. “Well you can’t prove it so my crackpot theory is just as good as yours.”

      So how much of what happened in 2023 is broader AGW and how much is El Nino? It’s hard to say. But we can absolutely say AGW has almost certainly made a strong El Nino year even more severe.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I agree with you there. What I’m trying to say is that we, unfortunately, have to act in parallel to data gathering. Obviously this means we risk making bad choices, or making the data harder to read. That’s our lot in life though. If we just sit still and gather data all our lives we’ll get eaten by catastrophe.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m not saying we shouldn’t address climate change right now. Not even sort of, I am very alarmed by what’s happening, and what we already do know. The data gathering I’m talking about is for the science part, not for the action part.

        We should be 330 million Americans in Washington DC right now (or wherever you live) demanding climate action right now. Unfortunately, that’s just not going to happen.