5 ms·

> The “good news” here is that probabilities of 6C warming are reduced from what they have been historically. So I guess it’s a good thing we didn’t listen to

by coolso 5y ago

> The “good news” here is that probabilities of 6C warming are reduced from what they have been historically. So I guess it’s a good thing we didn’t listen to the old science and go scorched earth to prevent what they thought would happen. The question becomes, why should people trust or believe the new science any more than the old? What if that’s also greatly exaggerated? Sometimes I wish science were treated more like the fallible concept it is, rather than a religion whose followers can be more fervent than even the most fundamentalist of [insert religion here]

sulam 5y ago
In general, this bias towards preferring data that preserves the status quo vs data that tells us we need to be active in anticipating and mitigating future risks is 1) very human and 2) detrimental to long term success, regardless of the domain in question. I don't blame you for having doubts, and you're probably aware that scientists also have doubts. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do their work, and give us the best information they have with the tools at their disposal. Regarding climate change specifically, I make the point that we are seeing effects already because it neutralizes this line of reasoning entirely. This isn't about some future risk that we can see debated in academic journals of questionable provenance. This is about real effects that are happening today.
pl-94 5y ago
Why do you think it is good thing we waited so long? The carbon budget to not go over 1.5C is now pretty much used. Without aerosols, it is even likely that we have already overshoot 1.5C. Adaption and reduction would have been so much easier if it were better anticipated.
rixed 5y ago
When you base a prediction on something else then science and it turns out to be too alarming, that's exaggerating. When science predicts something that turns out to be too alarming, that's the model being perfectible. What else do you suggest we should trust, if not science?

by coolso 5y ago

sulam 5y ago

In general, this bias towards preferring data that preserves the status quo vs data that tells us we need to be active in anticipating and mitigating future risks is 1) very human and 2) detrimental to long term success, regardless of the domain in question. I don't blame you for having doubts, and you're probably aware that scientists also have doubts. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do their work, and give us the best information they have with the tools at their disposal. Regarding climate change specifically, I make the point that we are seeing effects already because it neutralizes this line of reasoning entirely. This isn't about some future risk that we can see debated in academic journals of questionable provenance. This is about real effects that are happening today.

pl-94 5y ago

Why do you think it is good thing we waited so long? The carbon budget to not go over 1.5C is now pretty much used. Without aerosols, it is even likely that we have already overshoot 1.5C. Adaption and reduction would have been so much easier if it were better anticipated.

rixed 5y ago

When you base a prediction on something else then science and it turns out to be too alarming, that's exaggerating. When science predicts something that turns out to be too alarming, that's the model being perfectible. What else do you suggest we should trust, if not science?