Little Greta comes clean

[Sparko]

I'd like to know too. That doesn't help the science alarmism much when "sky is falling" predictions turn out to be wrong.

It's uh, because all of our efforts are working! Yeah, that's it. We have slowed down the death of the planet by our politicians heroic efforts. The proof is that we are not underwater as predicted!

[Mountain Man]

How could it be happening much faster than predicted when some of those predictions had places like Miami and NYC underwater by now?

My favorite was when they went out to study the lack of sea ice only to get trapped in record amounts of sea ice that every prediction and computer model told them shouldn't be there.

[Sparko]

tzone.jpg

[lilpixieofterror]

That would be one of those untrue pseudo scientific claims, not at all unlike how the yec websites try to pretend both sides of the old earth/young earth have equivalent but different interpretations of the data. It just simply isnt true in either case and the case is normally not hard to make... if a person is willing to look at the science and the data and has sufficient science background to understand it.

[oxmixmudd]

The arctic should be boiling by now.

That is sarcastic I know, but it is also quite ignorant. That is, it shows you really do not understand what has been observed or the actual implications of it.

[Sparko]

That is sarcastic I know, but it is also quite ignorant. That is, it shows you really do not understand what has been observed or the actual implications of it.

Why do you feel the need to denigrate me for making a joke?

[oxmixmudd]

by the scientific community? I would be doubtful those are the actual abstract summaries of legitimate research. (Excepting 'x years,no return', which refers not to immediate results but a long term trajectory and our capacity to keep it in 'safe' bounds). But media outlets overhyping things - yes, I am aware of at least one instance of things like that being said. It's the difference between reading popular science and actual scientific journals, and having the background to understand error bounds on models and statistics.

But if you can attribute these things you mention to real science I'd definitely be interested in digging in to where they came from and what was a reasonable conclusion to draw from them.

[whag]

Why do you feel the need to denigrate me for making a joke?

[Sparko]

I never said he did.

[oxmixmudd]

Why do you feel the need to denigrate me for making a joke?

Fair enough. I apologize for being harsher than necessary.

The joke you are making implies that the warming predictions have been wildly out of bounds - yet they have not been. That joke then can only be a joke to a person that doesn't understand what the actual facts are. Who thinks the predictions are so bad that such a comment captures some ironic element of reality.

Given the atmosphere of ignorance concerning AGW routinely displayed and promoted here, it just isn't funny, at least not to me.

[lilpixieofterror]

by the scientific community? I would be doubtful those are the actual abstract summaries of legitimate research. (Excepting 'x years,no return', which refers not to immediate results but a long term trajectory and our capacity to keep it in 'safe' bounds). But media outlets overhyping things - yes, I am aware of at least one instance of things like that being said. It's the difference between reading popular science and actual scientific journals, and having the background to understand error bounds on models and statistics.

But if you can attribute these things you mention to real science I'd definitely be interested in digging in to where they came from and what was a reasonable conclusion to draw from them.

What people see is the News, government officials, and their reports. If the media, government officials, and reports are scientifically inaccurate, whose job is it to set the record straight?

[seanD]

What people see is the News, government officials, and their reports. If the media, government officials, and reports are scientifically inaccurate, whose job is it to set the record straight?

They love the public attention. More fearmongering means more funding and job security.

[oxmixmudd]

What people see is the News, government officials, and their reports. If the media, government officials, and reports are scientifically inaccurate, whose job is it to set the record straight?

Baked in here is the assumption that large numbers of government reports and media productions on these issues are wildly inaccurate. They are not. Some are, and often they get raked over the coals for it when they are.

The reality is your sense that these outlets are often wildly inaccurate is more due to the disinformation you feed yourself on the topic than any real high percentage of legitimate sources on the topic being off the rails.

[oxmixmudd]

They love the public attention. More fearmongering means more funding and job security.

Such comments are not helpful, but are mor accurately aimed at the sources of disinformation on the topic eng. Wattsup. The solution is to stop mocking what is not really understood and take the time to learn about it before making snide comments that ultimately reveal more about what a person doesn't know than what they do know.

[seanD]

Such comments are not helpful, but are mor accurately aimed at the sources of disinformation on the topic eng. Wattsup. The solution is to stop mocking what is not really understood and take the time to learn about it before making snide comments that ultimately reveal more about what a person doesn't know than what they do know.

Anti-climate change sites are catering to a niche audience, not the broad public. Climate scientists need government funding, so it's in their best interest to keep the fearmongering as widespread as possible among the general public. It's even better if you have an MSM, that makes its own profits off clickbait articles, unwittingly serving your purpose.