4 ms·
It doesn't work that way. Climate change is so politicised that pretty much every source of information is biased. It is impossible to get a clear picture. Poli
by Kenji 10y ago
It doesn't work that way. Climate change is so politicised that pretty much every source of information is biased. It is impossible to get a clear picture. Politics is absolutely toxic to science. Many people would like to establish something like a world government by leveraging issues like climate change. Even though we really have no idea about the severity and magnitude of the problems ahead of us. I personally think scientists are exaggerating massively; here we have climatologists who cannot even predict correctly whether it rains next week, yet they make predictions about how in 20 years the climate is such and such.
- the_why_of_y 10y agoAverages (climate) can be much easier to predict than particular values (weather). As a mathematical analogy, we cannot predict accurately whether flipping a fair coin is going to come up head or tails, but we can predict that if you flip it 1000 times it's going to be between 450 and 550 heads with 99.8% probability.
- Nursie 10y agoClimate is not weather. "World Government" is an utterly crazy conspiracy theory.
- Kenji 10y agoClimate is not weather. Clearly you have no idea how modeling works and how similar such computer models for weather and climate are (usually splitting up the area in smaller parcels or a volumetric approach and running equations on them in parallel). Unless the scientist is really dumb and just extrapolates arbitrary temperature data points with a polynomial of degree 1 (aka a line) to predict the climate. "World Government" is an utterly crazy conspiracy theory. Look at governmental bodies like the EU that spread and grow like cancer. It is obvious that in today's world, more than ever, there are strong forces in play that want to centralize power. It is a fact that climate change is already used to push regulations onto people by unelected governmental bodies.
- Freak_NL 10y ago> here we have climatologists who cannot even predict correctly whether it rains next week, yet they make predictions about how in 20 years the climate is such and such. Consider observing a forest road in an area with lots of rabbits. You can't accurately predict how many rabbits will dart across the road in the next hour, but you can — based on long-term observations — predict roughly how many rabbits will cross that road in a year, and based on the empirical evidence of bunnies counted conclude that the number furry creatures moving from one side to another is increasing or decreasing. Symptoms versus trends. The latter can be predicted with some degree of accuracy.
- Kenji 10y agoYou raised a good example with rabbit population. Consider this: http://fractalfoundation.org/OFCA/predatorprey.jpg http://fractalfoundation.org/OFCA/predatorprey.jpg Nobody would ever dare to fit any of the two populations with a straight line, yet they do that with temperature data with barely any explanation for the choice of a linear function.
- beevai142 10y agoRead and understand the IPCC reports, and then we'll talk.
- Kenji 10y agoThank you, I will. For those who are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/