Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

[Teallaura]

Jim

You are a bad person. And now you know it.

[oxmixmudd]

You are a bad person. And now you know it.

Yep - I'm horrible. Nevertheless, if you can come up with something on topic - about the OP (arguments for or against) or that responds to the facts in my posts (arguing for or against) I'll be glad to discuss them with you courteously and objectively.

Jim

[Teallaura]

Yep - I'm horrible. Nevertheless, if you can come up with something on topic - about the OP (arguments for or against) or that responds to the facts in my posts (arguing for or against) I'll be glad to discuss them with you courteously and objectively.

Jim

You are - glad you've come to the realization.

Now, go back and address the concerns I ALREADY laid out in my original answer to you - you know, the one that WASN'T nasty and DIDN'T call you stupid.

Come to think of it, I haven't actually called you stupid, have I?

[oxmixmudd]

You are - glad you've come to the realization.

Now, go back and address the concerns I ALREADY laid out in my original answer to you - you know, the one that WASN'T nasty and DIDN'T call you stupid.

Come to think of it, I haven't actually called you stupid, have I?

I already did, but you didn't appear to recognize that I had. To perhaps help you understand:

Except that the supertanker has supposedly reached the point of no return <scrolls up to count> nine times. So, if we believe what we've been told, there's no longer a point to trying to avoid global climate whatsis - we're already doomed.

This isn't a response. It's a rant. The actual scientific predictions have been fairly accurate (Al Gore and the other politicians quoted are NOT a scientists), with the warming we are experiencing well within error bounds in most cases.

In other cases, the OP has characterized calls to action as predictions of immediate doom, which is part of it's own immature and irresponsible rant. There are consequences of a certain amount of temperature increase. Rising sea levels due to melting ice being one of them. We do need to act, and we are running out of time to respond. But it's like if you smoke your whole life. Lung cancer, heart disease etc is likely but not guaranteed. And it will usually take a long time to see the writing on the wall. But by the time you do, it's likely too late. But with smoking big companies eventually lost and Medical Science won. But not before a lot of people suffered a great deal. The parallels actually are uncanny between big business, ignorant people that don't want to change anything, and what the science tells us is the likely outcome.

That's the problem - so much of this is based on modelling, which is very like survey research in how danged finicky it can be. Trying your best can still result in totally nonsensical results, even when you're good at it. My understanding is that the Russian modelling has been the closest thus far to actual events - and it's the one that doesn't think the world is ending.

Again, no-one is predicting the end of the world. That is a straw-man. That was my point in my original response. The world has seen much worse. But then again, the world has experienced several mass extinctions and survived. Somehow that is not comforting just because we are the ones engineering the extinctions.

A good model, in my methodological studies, is the one that is accurate (not precise, just accurate) but the predictions we're given are all over the place. Then someone tells me I'm stupid for questioning why the emperor's wearing his birthday suit - if the folks that believe this is real want policy change, they're gonna have to give us something better to work with.

Accurate. OK - Consider:

sea level rise:

slr_prediction_med.jpg

temperature:

ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif

See for more information: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm


Jim

[Teallaura]

I'll go over it tomorrow because I'm not feeling well right now.

[Teallaura]

I already did, but you didn't appear to recognize that I had. To perhaps help you understand:

Being nice and ignoring that you are implying that I'm stupid - really, do you think that convinces anyone to listen to you?

This isn't a response. It's a rant. The actual scientific predictions have been fairly accurate (Al Gore and the other politicians quoted are NOT a scientists), with the warming we are experiencing well within error bounds in most cases.

It IS a response - you (general) don't get to argue from facts NOT IN EVIDENCE. Most people have not read the studies/papers themselves and aren't getting their information from acedemia/science industry. Most people get their information from the public square. Expecting otherwise is unrealistic - and self defeating, policy wise - because most people will have to rely on the public square. They also rely on that square being policed - this is where the science establishment falls down - a lot.

So, back on point - what's in the public square are a lot of predictions that supposedly came from the science - and were completely wrong. Coming back after the fact to say 'well, that's not what we really said' is an extremely bad idea. (Calling people ignorant and stupid makes it infinitely worse, FYI.) This is where policing comes in - at least if you (general) want to be correctly represented in the public square. After the fact makes it look like a hoax - and most people will quickly conclude exactly that (here is where the trust in science is coming off the rails). There's no way to win when you don't police at the time of the statement.

The public sees these outlandish predictions failing repeatedly - and when the new one comes out from Politician X, there's nothing but crickets from the science academia and industry. In the age of the Internet, this is really idiotic - it's not that hard to get in front of a camera and say, "Er, no, Politician X is wrong, we actually said Y."

But that doesn't happen either much or particularly loudly - and the reason is political. Science in both academia and industry is dependent on political forces - and angering the gods of funding is usually a bad thing. Scientist Bob might protest - but Administrator Joe ain't gonna let a little thing like details upset the universities entire gravy train. The net result is grumbling in the ranks but few in the public hear it - and another outlandish prediction fails to come true.

It's the system we have - but the ugly truth is, scientists don't get to tell Joe Schmoe he's an idiot for believing Politician X when Scientist Bob wasn't brave enough to get in front of a camera to say Politician X had it wrong. NOW your (general) stuck with the reality that the 'scientific' prediction failed - again.

So, nine such predictions, all framed in the public square, all proved false - where's the evidence that scientists DID push back when it mattered? Because after the fact explanations are not compelling - tell me why I should trust anything supposedly said by scientists when their work, represented in the public square, keeps being refuted?

Yes, I DO understand how high the bar is - but I didn't put it up there. Look, if you (still general) truly believe that global whatsis is happening and humans can and should do something about it, you're the one that has to convince the public - Joe Schmoe and his 'stupid' friends - to make or allow the policy changes necessary. Alienating people WILL NOT accomplish that - neither will failing to own up to previous mistakes, scientific or political.

In other cases, the OP has characterized calls to action as predictions of immediate doom, which is part of it's own immature and irresponsible rant. There are consequences of a certain amount of temperature increase. Rising sea levels due to melting ice being one of them. We do need to act, and we are running out of time to respond. But it's like if you smoke your whole life. Lung cancer, heart disease etc is likely but not guaranteed. And it will usually take a long time to see the writing on the wall. But by the time you do, it's likely too late. But with smoking big companies eventually lost and Medical Science won. But not before a lot of people suffered a great deal. The parallels actually are uncanny between big business, ignorant people that don't want to change anything, and what the science tells us is the likely outcome.

Yeah - and immediate gloom and doom is a large part of what is presented in the public square - followed by draconian policy changes that will destroy economies and nations.

Also, keep calling the people YOU NEED to convince 'ignorant' - it guarantees we WON'T be destroying our economy - whether or not you're correct about global whatsis. Seriously, is it really so hard to understand that attacking people is self defeating? I'm on the fence (when you aren't pushing me to the skeptic side) - but every time I see 'denier' or 'ignorant' I log it as 'doesn't have a real case' because politically that's EXACTLY what that tactic means.

Again, no-one is predicting the end of the world. That is a straw-man. That was my point in my original response. The world has seen much worse. But then again, the world has experienced several mass extinctions and survived. Somehow that is not comforting just because we are the ones engineering the extinctions.

Yes, they ARE. It's all over the media - hyped everywhere - and often here on Tweb, too. DO SOMETHING OR THE POLAR BEAR GETS IT! This is what's ACTUALLY in the public square - whether you blame Gore or politicians in general or something else - THAT'S what we've been told we have to change policy to avert - the end of the world as we know it and the eventual end of the world, period.

That is the reality - and part of why I say science as an industry has done a very big disservice to the public and itself in not addressing this much, much earlier.

Accurate. OK - Consider:

sea level rise:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38723[/ATTACH]

temperature:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38724[/ATTACH]

See for more information: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm


Jim

Okay - none of these show what was predicted in the public square - but I concede that they appear to show accurate predictions. Now, how come that doesn't translate into the public square?

[JimL]

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

The amazing thing is that you can remain in denial for so long with so much scientific evidence in contradition to your beliefs. What is it, do you guys just not believe in science. Do you have personal agendas that take precedence over the lives of your children and grandchildren. It is because of people like the authors of this article and you that may be responsible for it being to late now to turn this thing around. Good job!

[Cow Poke]

The amazing thing is that you can remain in denial for so long with so much scientific evidence in contradition to your beliefs.

Posting an article for discussion in no way demonstrates that I'm in denial of anything, JimmyPoo.

What is it, do you guys just not believe in science. Do you have personal agendas that take precedence over the lives of your children and grandchildren. It is because of people like the authors of this article and you that may be responsible for it being to late now to turn this thing around. Good job!

What a moron.

[Teallaura]

.... What is it, do you guys just not believe in science. Do you have personal agendas that take precedence over the lives of your children and grandchildren. It is because of people like the authors of this article and you that may be responsible for it being to late now to turn this thing around. Good job!

No, actually, I don't 'believe in' science. It's a methodology that I find sound and usually works well - but those that report it are as human as any other, make mistakes, have bad days - and even sometimes are bad actors. But 'science' isn't something to 'believe in' - it either works and can be trusted or it doesn't.

So no, no faith in science - just conviction that the methodology does work when used correctly. And an equal conviction that humans don't stop being human when they don lab coats.

[shunyadragon]

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

Nothing remotely in this yellow rag of an article that is science, and question of the scientific evidence for global warming is not addressed.

[Teallaura]

Nothing remotely in this yellow rag of an article that is science, and question of the scientific evidence for global warming is not addressed.

You read the word 'hysterics' as 'scientists'?

[mossrose]

I just love how the faithful are so taken with the science of climate change, even when it contradicts itself over and over again, but refuse to listen to those scientists who will tell you that there are only 2 genders and that an unborn baby is actually a human being before it's born.

Talk about cherry-picking.........

[Mountain Man]

I concede that they appear to show accurate predictions.

Two words: "adjusted data".

[Teallaura]

Two words: "adjusted data".

Yeah, yeah, but I'm trying to be fair - and stay on point. Besides, the question is whether or not there have been false predictions put forth - you guys can debate the 'is it real' thing all over Nat Sci.

But yeah, if the question were different, I'd want more than just a good looking graph.

[Tassman]

I just love how the faithful are so taken with the science of climate change, even when it contradicts itself over and over again,

https://climate.nasa.gov/