5 ms·

Funny that's contrary to the experience of > 95% of climate scientists. I would trust that over an unsupported reference to your experience, whatever that is.

• splitstud 5y ago
  We generally expect models to have predictive value, at least through a set of historic data, before we lens them much credence. We have made an exception for climate models. I believe following basic scientific procedures is a better plan than listening to what amounts to a widely-hekd belief structure. It is particularly galling when we could be using time and effort to combat the proven environmental catastrophes such as air and water qualities, deforestation, and issues such as the one that started this thread.
  • eloff 5y ago
    You know all those climate models are back tested with the historical data too right? Climate modeling is a tricky thing because the system is so complex and we are continually surprised by interactions and effects we didn't expect. However, climate science is about far more than just models. The models are actually the least compelling part.
• kortilla 5y ago
  > Funny that's contrary to the experience of > 95% of climate scientists. That’s an appeal to authority though. What’s wrong with the following statement? “95% of numerologists strongly believe in the predictive power of numerology so therefore we should trust them.” When people question the foundations of an entire field, presenting a giant sample of people who work in said field an implicitly agree with the foundation by labeling themselves as such isn’t really a compelling argument? Guess what percentage of catholic priests think faith in Jesus is important?
  • eloff 5y ago
    That's a fair point if you're going to question an entire field. I think the difference in this case is the arguments and evidence presented by climate science is generally accepted by experts and policy makers outside of the field.