3 ms·

This same problem has plagued climate science as well, giving munition for deniers and otherwise just confusing the public. You want to see the real writing on

by waheoo 6y ago

This same problem has plagued climate science as well, giving munition for deniers and otherwise just confusing the public. You want to see the real writing on the wall? The IPCC report takes 10 year old settled science and makes models using it. The real, more recent data is much, much worse.

terafo 6y ago
> The real, more recent data is much, much worse. Where can I read anything on this?
- Qwertious 6y ago
  There's a video on YouTube, Gwynne Dyer -- Geopolitics in a Hotter World (2010) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY ), which very briefly touches on it IIRC. I'm talking about the bit that starts at 8m30s on the video, but I highly recommend watching the whole thing (or at leas the 1-hour talk part - the Q&A is practically inaudible for me). Basically, the IPCC doesn't publish studies - they study compilations of studies, every 4-5 years. And when they start compiling, they have a cut-off date at the very start and only use studies that have been both completed and have passed peer review from before that date. Meanwhile, the studies themselves have the same problem - they obviously can't start the study with incomplete data and update the data as they go. The studies need to start with data that finished before they started the study. And on top of that, they're necessarily a reserved body (Icd say "conservative" but that's ambiguous in politics) - IPCC is run by a bunch of governments trying to figure out the bare minimum of emissions reduction they need to commit to, to not be negligent - they don't want to hear bad news unless it's certain. The end result is that the data in the report is 10+ years out of date.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    The (non political) conservatism is the major issue. They select for conservative non alarmist studies leaving more alarmist ones as outliers, the studies themselves do the same thing. The compounding effect of this along with the time lag is just so damn disturbing.

by waheoo 6y ago

terafo 6y ago

> The real, more recent data is much, much worse. Where can I read anything on this?

Qwertious 6y ago
There's a video on YouTube, Gwynne Dyer -- Geopolitics in a Hotter World (2010) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_4Z1oiXhY ), which very briefly touches on it IIRC. I'm talking about the bit that starts at 8m30s on the video, but I highly recommend watching the whole thing (or at leas the 1-hour talk part - the Q&A is practically inaudible for me). Basically, the IPCC doesn't publish studies - they study compilations of studies, every 4-5 years. And when they start compiling, they have a cut-off date at the very start and only use studies that have been both completed and have passed peer review from before that date. Meanwhile, the studies themselves have the same problem - they obviously can't start the study with incomplete data and update the data as they go. The studies need to start with data that finished before they started the study. And on top of that, they're necessarily a reserved body (Icd say "conservative" but that's ambiguous in politics) - IPCC is run by a bunch of governments trying to figure out the bare minimum of emissions reduction they need to commit to, to not be negligent - they don't want to hear bad news unless it's certain. The end result is that the data in the report is 10+ years out of date.
- waheoo 6y ago
  The (non political) conservatism is the major issue. They select for conservative non alarmist studies leaving more alarmist ones as outliers, the studies themselves do the same thing. The compounding effect of this along with the time lag is just so damn disturbing.