Why are people so disinterested in climate science and meteorology? I mean, in comparison to all things quantum or epidemiology? Serious question. Is there something intrinsically unsexy about climate science or is it a social phenomenon? (Unsexy because we don't talk about it?)
(deniers will be blocked; I don't have time for bullshit)
I'll collect some possible explanations that were mentioned in the comments below:

a) Climate science and meteorology is just more complicated and thus difficult to communicate

mentioned eg by @russellh777
b) People avoid it because the conclusions are too depressing/they don't want to know

mentioned eg by @ExMuslimsMN @spartalien
c) There are no climate rock star scientists

Mentioned eg by @ggscully

Though I guess @MichaelEMann comes close
d) Historical legacy: Too much misinformation in the past, now people mistrust everything they read about climate science

mentioned eg by @rahusphere
e) Because talking about quantum nonsense is easy & makes you look intelligent, whereas the same isn't the case for climate science

mentioned eg by @mb_ir

(though that doesn't explain why people now talk about virology all the time while that didn't happen for climate science)
f) Because climate science doesn't create hype / you can't build anything with it / can't make money from it

mentioned eg by @987_rahulky
g) It's just not true: people are as interested and knowledgeable about climate science as they are about virology and quantum physics

mentioned eg by @tomatosorter
f) It's not magical enough, insights aren't deep enough, reveals nothing fundamentally new

mentioned eg by @CreatesCarbon

That explains why people like quantum things, but not why basic virology has become household knowledge whereas basic climate science hasn't
the second f) should have been h), sorry

i) Because scientists themselves treat meteorology and climate science as a low-prestige topic, few prizes and awards

@acorralcrm

(Not sure it's true that there are fewer prizes in these areas, just that maybe we don't hear of them?)
j) Because climate science isn't useful, as opposed to virology

@7SecularSermons

not useful in the short run, maybe, but the same isn't true for meteorology, and also, quantum mechanics is hardly useful in every-day life?
k) Because climate science reminds people of their personal responsibility and they'd rather not be reminded

mentioned by @JasonWilliamsNY

But of course personal responsibility is the reason why people love talking about vaccines and mutations etc, so not sure about that
l) Because it sounds easy (and thus, presumably, boring)

mentioned by @ArneBab

(Until you look at a paper about clouds and realize you don't understand a thing, haha)
m) It's a size issue. People like the science of really small things (quantum) and really large things (cosmology) but not that of intermediate scales

(partly) suggested by @Keshavatearth

But how can you possibly *not* like vortex streets?

n) Because climate science is presented as settled, nothing left to discover, it's unexciting research-wise

mentioned by @Bryanireland

I think that's a very good point

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sabine Hossenfelder

Sabine Hossenfelder Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @skdh

4 Apr
"There’s this avalanche of experimental numbers you have to put in by hand. But in string theory the Standard Model just pops right out. With just a few assumptions you get the entire Standard Model. "

That's just wrong. #StopHype

theguardian.com/science/2021/a…
People, as I have said many times before, if string theory was actually really simpler than the Standard Model, then physicists would actually USE IT to make predictions for the LHC. They don't. Why? Because it's useless.
It's the same with supersymmetry. People who work on it claim it solves problems and it improves the standard model. But no one who actually makes predictions for the standard model expectations uses supersymmetry. Why? Because it's useless.
Read 6 tweets
16 Mar
Everybody who is quoting the total number of thromboses in people vaccinated with #AstraZeneca to brag with their statistic skills needs to wake up. We're talking about an accumulation of recent cases of a specific type in close temporal order after vaccination.
Look, I am not saying that this is something to worry about -- I don't have any data. But maybe consider that the people who made this decision are not entirely stupid.
And since I am ranting already, let me point out that we'd be well advised to keep in mind the most important principle in all of science: Shit happens.
Read 7 tweets
3 Nov 20
The black hole information loss problem has been solved, again!

arxiv.org/abs/2011.01166
In case you haven't been following, that's for those of you who cannot fathom why I say that this problem is not solvable with math alone

As was recently claimed here

quantamagazine.org/the-black-hole…
Read 8 tweets
1 Nov 20
No, I am saying the black hole information loss problem cannot be solved with existing methods, so throwing money at it is a waste of time. Look at the literature of the past 40 years to see that what I say is correct.

I have said this many times before, but since this is twitter, let me repeat it again: Physics is not math. There are several mathematically consistent solution to the problem. We would need observations to find out which one correctly describes nature. There are no observations.
And there will not be observations because the Hawking temperature of the known black holes is too low to see them evaporating. And even if we did see them evaporating, this would not tell us anything about information loss.
Read 5 tweets
20 Jun 20
Here is something that should worry you. Each time I give a public lecture people come up to me and say they agree with me that building a bigger collider is currently a nonsense idea. It's a huge investment with little scientific benefit and basically no societal relevance 1/
I mostly get this from physicists of other disciplines (condensed matter physicists seem to feature prominently, but maybe just because there are many of them) but also from particle physicists who have left the field, both theoreticians and experimentalists 2/
Yet, there is not a single one of them on the public record willing to speak out. The reason I keep getting quoted by newspapers and magazines is simply THAT THEY CAN'T FIND ANYONE ELSE WILLING TO SPEAK OUT. 3/
Read 10 tweets
12 Jun 20
While I agree that religion and science don't have to conflict with each other and can indeed complement each other, using male circumcision as an example for how religious practices have been "proven to be scientifically effective" is most unfortunate.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/r…
First, you don't need to circumcise boys at birth to prevent them from contracting sexually transmitted diseases much later in life (for the effectiveness of which the evidence is not particularly good).
Second, it ignores that the boys in question had no chance to consent on what is a mutilation of their body and that most of these circumcisions are done without pain control because that was (and to some extent still is) considered unnecessary, possibly leaving permanent trauma.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(