4 ms·

Did you look at the paper? Is the data wrong? The calculations? Is there anything you can re-run with alternative data sources that you do trust? Or calculation

by Aachen 6y ago

Did you look at the paper? Is the data wrong? The calculations? Is there anything you can re-run with alternative data sources that you do trust? Or calculations you checked? Or do you "straight up" not trust people when the conclusion is not controversial enough (or some other random justification) without actually checking anything? At the very least, do you have any sort of data or analysis that backs up the claim that it's more likely than not that this will turn out to be faked data in 6 months, e.g. did a majority of climate-change-is-real papers go down that fate?

jhardy54 6y ago
It's simple: they don't like the conclusions.
- Aachen 6y ago
  Perhaps, but perhaps they also just never stopped to question what their peers are saying about climate change.
- codingprograms 6y ago
  Show me any climate paper that actually predicted what it said would happen. It’s always some 20 years off doomsday. But the day never comes
  - thangalin 6y ago
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019... "Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyze the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account."
  - chki 6y ago
    The IPCC predictions on climate change and sea level rise are pretty accurate (albeit sometimes conservative). Just look at this graph comparing the predictions from 1990 to the actual observations: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#/media/Datei:Slr_prediction_med.jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...
    - kristopolous 6y ago
      the only time i've ever actually seen them wrong is when the predictions happen far faster or are more catastrophic than predicted. It's wild how many people believe this is still "in dispute" but then again, that's what Exxon and Chevron paid big bucks for, nonstop merchants of endless doubt.
      - Aachen 6y ago
        I really think that the vast majority of people, say 90%, really don't think 'this is still "in dispute"'. Of those, I wouldn't be surprised if a decent share disagrees on the severity of the problem, and probably 95% of those 90% have very little idea about the time-sensitivity of the issue in the first place. However, virtually nobody I speak to thinks it's a non-issue, and if you look at polls about whether the government should do more against it, you usually see a large majority (and that's only a subset of those that acknowledge that there is an issue at all). Perhaps murica is, as usual, an outlier among generally educated countries, but let's not pretend like there is too much dispute to get things done on this topic, or that denying it is anything more than a conspiracy theory with a vocal troll/joke aspect to it as well as a couple of real conspiracy theorists. The biggest problem is that people don't believe they can do anything. A family member of mine wants to put a solar park in a nearby field. "Great!" I said, "I'll chip in!" Realizing I wasn't doing it for monetary gain (I don't live nearby enough to really profit from it), they then told me to not be "more catholic than the pope" (not sure if that translates well) and wouldn't accept the money I wanted to put towards this directly effective good cause. They (singular) are not doing it for the climate, they don't believe it will make a difference. They think it's a good investment for their own riches. But they don't think climate is a non-issue, just that they can't do anything about it, nor believe that there would be a sufficient majority to collectively (i.e. have the government) do something about it. I mean, they're right about this being absolute peanuts, but the presence of solar fields and wind turbines also sends a message to those who learn of it: we can do this, we are doing things, it is economical, let's go for it.
  - Aachen 6y ago
    Check Wikipedia on the topic, there are a ton of papers that were (within the given error margins) right about the warming we'd be seeing given a certain number of continued emissions. Even the oil companies were behind this and continue to not deny it (they just continue, just like tobacco companies, to not care enough because it makes them very rich and there is enough diffusion of accountability). Nobody ever said fireball, but the average temperature moving multiples of degrees is already materializing in real world measurements.
codingprograms 6y ago
I’m not an expert, but I have a dual masters in math and cs. If you listened to these people 30 years ago, you would expect we would all be engulfed in a fire ball by now. It hasn’t happened. Almost none of the past predictions have turned true. Ever. I’m not going to start now and these people need to be held accountable for studies that they did in the past that didn’t work
- Aachen 6y ago
  > If you listened to these people 30 years ago, you would expect we would all be engulfed in a fire ball by now. Once again, can you link to a significant (say, a fifth) share of the papers on this topic at the time that claim that? Or if that's not what you mean by "these people", how about even a single one? > these people need to be held accountable for studies that they did in the past that didn’t work. If there are such papers, did anyone ever show that a single one of these did not the best they could with the information available at the time? Again, any sort of analysis (of your own or by anyone else) that shows negligence or anything of the sort would give your ideas some sort of credibility.
- blendergeek 6y ago
  > Almost none of the past predictions have turned true. Ever. Could you link to a meta-analysis of climate research that shows this?
- sarakayakomzin 6y ago
  since you have a dual masters I would expect you to be familiar with the word "citation" by now.

by Aachen 6y ago

jhardy54 6y ago

It's simple: they don't like the conclusions.

Aachen 6y ago
Perhaps, but perhaps they also just never stopped to question what their peers are saying about climate change.
codingprograms 6y ago
Show me any climate paper that actually predicted what it said would happen. It’s always some 20 years off doomsday. But the day never comes
- thangalin 6y ago
  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019... "Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyze the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account."
- chki 6y ago
  The IPCC predictions on climate change and sea level rise are pretty accurate (albeit sometimes conservative). Just look at this graph comparing the predictions from 1990 to the actual observations: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#/media/Datei:Slr_prediction_med.jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    the only time i've ever actually seen them wrong is when the predictions happen far faster or are more catastrophic than predicted. It's wild how many people believe this is still "in dispute" but then again, that's what Exxon and Chevron paid big bucks for, nonstop merchants of endless doubt.
    - Aachen 6y ago
      I really think that the vast majority of people, say 90%, really don't think 'this is still "in dispute"'. Of those, I wouldn't be surprised if a decent share disagrees on the severity of the problem, and probably 95% of those 90% have very little idea about the time-sensitivity of the issue in the first place. However, virtually nobody I speak to thinks it's a non-issue, and if you look at polls about whether the government should do more against it, you usually see a large majority (and that's only a subset of those that acknowledge that there is an issue at all). Perhaps murica is, as usual, an outlier among generally educated countries, but let's not pretend like there is too much dispute to get things done on this topic, or that denying it is anything more than a conspiracy theory with a vocal troll/joke aspect to it as well as a couple of real conspiracy theorists. The biggest problem is that people don't believe they can do anything. A family member of mine wants to put a solar park in a nearby field. "Great!" I said, "I'll chip in!" Realizing I wasn't doing it for monetary gain (I don't live nearby enough to really profit from it), they then told me to not be "more catholic than the pope" (not sure if that translates well) and wouldn't accept the money I wanted to put towards this directly effective good cause. They (singular) are not doing it for the climate, they don't believe it will make a difference. They think it's a good investment for their own riches. But they don't think climate is a non-issue, just that they can't do anything about it, nor believe that there would be a sufficient majority to collectively (i.e. have the government) do something about it. I mean, they're right about this being absolute peanuts, but the presence of solar fields and wind turbines also sends a message to those who learn of it: we can do this, we are doing things, it is economical, let's go for it.
- Aachen 6y ago
  Check Wikipedia on the topic, there are a ton of papers that were (within the given error margins) right about the warming we'd be seeing given a certain number of continued emissions. Even the oil companies were behind this and continue to not deny it (they just continue, just like tobacco companies, to not care enough because it makes them very rich and there is enough diffusion of accountability). Nobody ever said fireball, but the average temperature moving multiples of degrees is already materializing in real world measurements.

codingprograms 6y ago

I’m not an expert, but I have a dual masters in math and cs. If you listened to these people 30 years ago, you would expect we would all be engulfed in a fire ball by now. It hasn’t happened. Almost none of the past predictions have turned true. Ever. I’m not going to start now and these people need to be held accountable for studies that they did in the past that didn’t work

Aachen 6y ago
> If you listened to these people 30 years ago, you would expect we would all be engulfed in a fire ball by now. Once again, can you link to a significant (say, a fifth) share of the papers on this topic at the time that claim that? Or if that's not what you mean by "these people", how about even a single one? > these people need to be held accountable for studies that they did in the past that didn’t work. If there are such papers, did anyone ever show that a single one of these did not the best they could with the information available at the time? Again, any sort of analysis (of your own or by anyone else) that shows negligence or anything of the sort would give your ideas some sort of credibility.
blendergeek 6y ago
> Almost none of the past predictions have turned true. Ever. Could you link to a meta-analysis of climate research that shows this?
sarakayakomzin 6y ago
since you have a dual masters I would expect you to be familiar with the word "citation" by now.