2 ms·

You've taken a quote from a study that talked about the lower bound of the range of estimates (earliest possible ice free date) and specifically mentioned the h

You've taken a quote from a study that talked about the lower bound of the range of estimates (earliest possible ice free date) and specifically mentioned the high range of uncertainty (even in the news story pull quote), and you've decided that was a firm prediction which has been invalidated. This is your bad science at best, your deceitfulness at worst. "We predict X will happen sometime between 10 and 50 years from now, sorry about the high range of uncertainty" "Welp, it has been ten years and one day and X didn't happen, THOSE SCIENTISTS WERE ALL LIARS, DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE" Just dishonest.

paulddraper 7y ago
The first instance was a requote from Al Gore's Nobel Prize speech. I'm not sure what the bounds were in the source material; it is possible that Gore (dishonestly?) cited only the lower bound. What was the upper bound? The second instance used the upper bound (2016 ± 3 years). I never said "THOSE SCIENTISTS WERE ALL LIARS, DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE"; I said those scientists cannot yet predict accurately years ahead the effects in such a complex system.