3 ms·

I actually haven’t made a single comment about the validity of climate change in this thread. I have exclusively talked about the chronic issues with climate sc

I actually haven’t made a single comment about the validity of climate change in this thread. I have exclusively talked about the chronic issues with climate science communication and it’s propensity to publicly promote outrageous predictions. The underlying science doesn’t even enter the picture for many people. Because if you spend 30 years saying the world is about to end, then people don’t need to know a single thing about the science, because they know for a fact that the world didn’t end.

mirimir 8y ago
Maybe science journalism has been iffy, and maybe some advocates have aimed to shock. But the fact remains that scientists have been talking for decades about what it's going to be like in 2050 or 2100 or whatever. And those projections haven't changed much. It's just that 2050 is no longer so far in the future.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  The problem isn’t science journalism, or iffyness. It’s the predictions made by the scientists themselves. Scientists have spent the past few decades predicting near term catastrophes, which have not been iffy, they have been outright falsified by failing to eventuate. The sentiment I’ve observed regarding this, and what you seem to be echoing right now is that it’s OK to overstate evidence and predictions because anything you say or do to get people to fear climate change is good, regardless of its merits. The outcome of that is that climate science has been thoroughly undermined by its own predictions. Why would somebody believe that the next 80 years of predictions are going to be more accurate than the previous 30? Predicting something 80 years into the future seems a lot harder than predicting something 10 years into it. If the question is “why don’t enough people take climate change seriously?” Then looking at the merits of the communication on the topic seems like a much more reasonable line of inquiry, rather than arriving at the conclusion that people must be mentally deficient in some way. Because even though a lot of damage has already been done, there are so many ways for the communication to be improved.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Just what predictions are you talking about? And please, don't point at stuff in the popular press. I'm talking mainly about the UN IPCC assessment reports.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      >And please, don't point at stuff in the popular press. The articles I've linked show the failings of arguable the two most noteworthy climate change advocates, Al Gore and James Hansen (a real climate scientist). This perfectly illustrates my point that the communication on this topic has been complete bunk. But if you want failings from the UN, you don't have to look very far. >1990 IPCC Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade >Outcome 0.12°C-0.19°C Depending on your source >1990 IPCC This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 >Outcome 0.31°C to 0.49°C by 2017, depending on your source. >2007 IPCC by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change >Outcome Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends (Source UN IPCC) >2007 IPCC There is a very high likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. >Outcome IPCC later outright recanted this prediction saying it was not peer reviewed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him... >2001 IPCC Fire frequency is expected to increase with human-induced climate change, and that several authors suggest that climate change is likely to increase the number of days with severe burning conditions, prolong the fire season, and increase lightning activity, all of which lead to probable increases in fire frequency and areas burned >Outcome Globally, the total acreage burned by fires each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.h...
      - 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

Maybe science journalism has been iffy, and maybe some advocates have aimed to shock. But the fact remains that scientists have been talking for decades about what it's going to be like in 2050 or 2100 or whatever. And those projections haven't changed much. It's just that 2050 is no longer so far in the future.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
The problem isn’t science journalism, or iffyness. It’s the predictions made by the scientists themselves. Scientists have spent the past few decades predicting near term catastrophes, which have not been iffy, they have been outright falsified by failing to eventuate. The sentiment I’ve observed regarding this, and what you seem to be echoing right now is that it’s OK to overstate evidence and predictions because anything you say or do to get people to fear climate change is good, regardless of its merits. The outcome of that is that climate science has been thoroughly undermined by its own predictions. Why would somebody believe that the next 80 years of predictions are going to be more accurate than the previous 30? Predicting something 80 years into the future seems a lot harder than predicting something 10 years into it. If the question is “why don’t enough people take climate change seriously?” Then looking at the merits of the communication on the topic seems like a much more reasonable line of inquiry, rather than arriving at the conclusion that people must be mentally deficient in some way. Because even though a lot of damage has already been done, there are so many ways for the communication to be improved.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Just what predictions are you talking about? And please, don't point at stuff in the popular press. I'm talking mainly about the UN IPCC assessment reports.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    >And please, don't point at stuff in the popular press. The articles I've linked show the failings of arguable the two most noteworthy climate change advocates, Al Gore and James Hansen (a real climate scientist). This perfectly illustrates my point that the communication on this topic has been complete bunk. But if you want failings from the UN, you don't have to look very far. >1990 IPCC Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade >Outcome 0.12°C-0.19°C Depending on your source >1990 IPCC This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 >Outcome 0.31°C to 0.49°C by 2017, depending on your source. >2007 IPCC by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change >Outcome Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends (Source UN IPCC) >2007 IPCC There is a very high likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. >Outcome IPCC later outright recanted this prediction saying it was not peer reviewed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him... >2001 IPCC Fire frequency is expected to increase with human-induced climate change, and that several authors suggest that climate change is likely to increase the number of days with severe burning conditions, prolong the fire season, and increase lightning activity, all of which lead to probable increases in fire frequency and areas burned >Outcome Globally, the total acreage burned by fires each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.h...
    - 8y ago