4 ms·
It's unfalsifiable at its core. Predictions will continue to be alarmist and unmet. Modeling decades out is impossible for systems we do understand. For system
by nostrebored 5y ago
It's unfalsifiable at its core. Predictions will continue to be alarmist and unmet.
Modeling decades out is impossible for systems we do understand. For systems we don't -- like climate -- it's an exercise in confirmation bias.
- cinntaile 5y agoI don't really see how it's unfalsifiable. If you predict a certain outcome in the future and this doesn't come true then your prediction was wrong. The question is, are we really focusing on the right things here? Predicting trends is probably better than predicting outcomes. As you correctly alluded to, expecting accurate predictions for complex systems is actually too much to ask for and that's why I think it's important to look at the general direction that the models point to. Are these predicted trends from the 70s different from the predicted trends now? If they aren't, what arguments do we have to reject 50 years of modelling?
- freen 5y agoPerhaps for models of the future, but for historical predictions of the current climate, prior models have been astoundingly accurate, and if anything overly conservative in their predictions. What evidence do you have that leads you to believe that the models used now will have less predictive power than those of the past which had high predictive power?