6 ms·

Maybe the estimate will be right this time, and maybe the previous estimates were right too, in some technical sense, but the people making these predictions ne

Maybe the estimate will be right this time, and maybe the previous estimates were right too, in some technical sense, but the people making these predictions need to ask whether their repeated contradictory-sounding warnings are doing more harm than good. For perspective: * 2021 - John Kerry says Earth has 9 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crisis: "There's no faking it on this one"[0] * 2019 - Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting[1] * 2018 - We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN[2] * 2012 - Two years left to curb climate change, Government warned[3] * 2011 - World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns[4] * 2009 - 'We have only four years left to act on climate change - America has to lead'[5] ------ [0] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-9-years-john-kerry/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-9-years-john-ker... [1] https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w... [3] https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/two-years-left-curb-climate-2019481 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/two-years-left... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-f... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/obama-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/obama-cl...

PikachuEXE 5y ago
Don't "forget" about 1970 global freezing too. https://climatechangedispatch.com/120-years-of-climate-scares-1970s-ice-age-scare/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/120-years-of-climate-scare... Or just search "1970 global freezing".
- argomo 5y ago
  This was a minority view inflated by poor journalism. Climate science as a whole was veering toward the "Earth gets warmer" conclusion.(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/25/huckabees-claim-that-global-freezing-theories-from-the-1970s-shows-the-science-is-not-as-settled-on-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/...) I note your article also waves the "follow the money" insinuation that scientists are being bought writ-large by government grants even though these are but a trickle compared to the profits from selling fossil fuels.
- Oletros 5y ago
  Still about that hoax?
JoshTko 5y ago
They are all right. It's just how much human suffering you consider to be worst case.
- olalonde 5y ago
  If those are right, then logically so are these: "it's too late to curb climate change", "it's too late to act on climate change", etc. See the problem?
mempko 5y ago
It only does harm when people paid to spread global warming denial propaganda use predictions to show that there is nothing to worry about. Turns out, many people make all kinds of predictions all the time. Turns out predictions are random variables. Anyone understanding this would welcome as many predictions as possible because the aggregate paints the most accurate picture.
- lootsauce 5y ago
  So conclusions evidenced by climate models, valid or random variables?
  - mempko 5y ago
    Valid and are random variables. Because models change their prediction over time too. Ensemble is better than one model, which is why the IPCC publishes ensemble results from different models.
foolfoolz 5y ago
these scare tactics have only worked in emboldening skeptics. it’s a great example of how to de sensitize the world to a problem
- gonational 5y ago
  Oh yeah it's not that they are absolute bullshit predictions based on climate pseudoscience; it's that they are completely true in a secret, unobservable way, and their ostensible wrongness emboldens the idiotic skeptics… I try to imagine the cognitive dissonance required in order to navigate these kinds of mental puzzles.
  - lstodd 5y ago
    It's called 'belief'. Faith, religion. Once you believe, nothing else matters.
  - Oletros 5y ago
    Bullshit predctions? Which ones?
jeffbee 5y ago
Those all seem consistent and accurate to varying extents. We are already suffering from permanent or at least metastable effects of climate change.
sebow 5y ago
You also forgot the 2000, which was probably the biggest of them all.Granted almost everything else was also probably said back then: a comet, aliens, what have you.
varelse 5y ago
It amazes me that we can't all just agree that this is real and that we just disagree on how fast we need to act. Because then we could spend 12 billion to retire the entire coal mining industry in the United States of America and retrofit the entire power grid with whatever mix of solar, wind, and nuclear floats each state's boat. It's about $2.6T to take all 128M homes in the US and convert them to solar with 40 kilowatt-hours of battery backup. These are big numbers but they are not astronomical. But we can't so here we go. Evidently the extreme weather in Texas last winter and the entire West Coast choking in smog all summer is insufficient evidence that anything is going on whatsoever. Good luck with that mindset.
- gonational 5y ago
  Why does everyone need to agree? Is this a religion? (rhetorical - of course it is) Science is about making predictions (hence hypotheses). When your predictions are always wrong 100% of the time I think it's time to go ahead and retire. "Climate science" predicts nothing correctly. In fact, it's so incorrect, that now there is a global initiative to attempt to censor information that counters the narrative they present. I wonder if this has anything to do with a GLOBAL EFFING TAX that these same exact people want to levy on the entire population of the planet. No chance there's any kind of conflict of interest there… Good grief.
- version_five 5y ago
  My view is that people are too interested in making political hay with climate change to actually do something about it. It's better to have a vague threat you can roll out to get votes (I mean this for both sides) than just getting on with some action. Technological solutions that provide for where we are in human progress are really the only non-partisan way to proceed. This means getting over the evidentiary burden (i don't care of there is some chance climate change is not happening or not caused by humans) and looking at energy solutions as you've mentioned as well as carbon capture solutions. Fighting in the weeds about which study says what is irrelevant, and trying to walk back from human progress and implement some kind of climate socialism is an obvious non starter, so let's tackle this as a technological solution that is within reach, and get on with it. Unfortunately, this doesn't really increase any one/groups immediate power, so nobody advocates for it

PikachuEXE 5y ago

Don't "forget" about 1970 global freezing too. https://climatechangedispatch.com/120-years-of-climate-scares-1970s-ice-age-scare/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/120-years-of-climate-scare... Or just search "1970 global freezing".

argomo 5y ago
This was a minority view inflated by poor journalism. Climate science as a whole was veering toward the "Earth gets warmer" conclusion.(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/25/huckabees-claim-that-global-freezing-theories-from-the-1970s-shows-the-science-is-not-as-settled-on-climate-change/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/06/...) I note your article also waves the "follow the money" insinuation that scientists are being bought writ-large by government grants even though these are but a trickle compared to the profits from selling fossil fuels.
Oletros 5y ago
Still about that hoax?

JoshTko 5y ago

They are all right. It's just how much human suffering you consider to be worst case.

olalonde 5y ago
If those are right, then logically so are these: "it's too late to curb climate change", "it's too late to act on climate change", etc. See the problem?

mempko 5y ago

It only does harm when people paid to spread global warming denial propaganda use predictions to show that there is nothing to worry about. Turns out, many people make all kinds of predictions all the time. Turns out predictions are random variables. Anyone understanding this would welcome as many predictions as possible because the aggregate paints the most accurate picture.

lootsauce 5y ago
So conclusions evidenced by climate models, valid or random variables?
- mempko 5y ago
  Valid and are random variables. Because models change their prediction over time too. Ensemble is better than one model, which is why the IPCC publishes ensemble results from different models.

foolfoolz 5y ago

these scare tactics have only worked in emboldening skeptics. it’s a great example of how to de sensitize the world to a problem

gonational 5y ago
Oh yeah it's not that they are absolute bullshit predictions based on climate pseudoscience; it's that they are completely true in a secret, unobservable way, and their ostensible wrongness emboldens the idiotic skeptics… I try to imagine the cognitive dissonance required in order to navigate these kinds of mental puzzles.
- lstodd 5y ago
  It's called 'belief'. Faith, religion. Once you believe, nothing else matters.
- Oletros 5y ago
  Bullshit predctions? Which ones?

jeffbee 5y ago

Those all seem consistent and accurate to varying extents. We are already suffering from permanent or at least metastable effects of climate change.

sebow 5y ago

You also forgot the 2000, which was probably the biggest of them all.Granted almost everything else was also probably said back then: a comet, aliens, what have you.

varelse 5y ago

It amazes me that we can't all just agree that this is real and that we just disagree on how fast we need to act. Because then we could spend 12 billion to retire the entire coal mining industry in the United States of America and retrofit the entire power grid with whatever mix of solar, wind, and nuclear floats each state's boat. It's about $2.6T to take all 128M homes in the US and convert them to solar with 40 kilowatt-hours of battery backup. These are big numbers but they are not astronomical. But we can't so here we go. Evidently the extreme weather in Texas last winter and the entire West Coast choking in smog all summer is insufficient evidence that anything is going on whatsoever. Good luck with that mindset.

gonational 5y ago
Why does everyone need to agree? Is this a religion? (rhetorical - of course it is) Science is about making predictions (hence hypotheses). When your predictions are always wrong 100% of the time I think it's time to go ahead and retire. "Climate science" predicts nothing correctly. In fact, it's so incorrect, that now there is a global initiative to attempt to censor information that counters the narrative they present. I wonder if this has anything to do with a GLOBAL EFFING TAX that these same exact people want to levy on the entire population of the planet. No chance there's any kind of conflict of interest there… Good grief.
version_five 5y ago
My view is that people are too interested in making political hay with climate change to actually do something about it. It's better to have a vague threat you can roll out to get votes (I mean this for both sides) than just getting on with some action. Technological solutions that provide for where we are in human progress are really the only non-partisan way to proceed. This means getting over the evidentiary burden (i don't care of there is some chance climate change is not happening or not caused by humans) and looking at energy solutions as you've mentioned as well as carbon capture solutions. Fighting in the weeds about which study says what is irrelevant, and trying to walk back from human progress and implement some kind of climate socialism is an obvious non starter, so let's tackle this as a technological solution that is within reach, and get on with it. Unfortunately, this doesn't really increase any one/groups immediate power, so nobody advocates for it