5 ms·

Based on what? I think I’ll stick to what the Met Office says rather than what someone on HN “knows”. It’s alarming enough without embellishing it further. I s

Based on what? I think I’ll stick to what the Met Office says rather than what someone on HN “knows”. It’s alarming enough without embellishing it further. I see this often when climate change is discussed. People seem to casually throw science under the bus when it suits them. For example, people boldly proclaiming that X recent weather event was caused by climate change, as if it was a 100% proven fact. Yes, it may well have been, because climate change causes extreme weather. But it’s impossible to tell that any particular event was caused by climate change; extreme events happened in the past plenty too. It’s unscientific and unhelpful, and is ultimately driven by bias.

throwaway6532 4y ago
>I see this often when climate change is discussed. People seem to casually throw science under the bus when it suits them. I think it's because people see humanity casually throwing the planet under the bus when it suits them despite what the science says. Eventually you just kind of see the writing on the wall (or _feel_ like you do).
- gruez 4y ago
  >Eventually you just kind of see the writing on the wall (or _feel_ like you do). I don't get it. You "see the writing on the wall" and then... throw science under the bus yourself as well?
  - throwaway6532 4y ago
    There is no 'science of future events' only probabilistic outcomes based on models underpinned by chains of inference. The longer those chains of inference the lower the conditional probability the entire chain is correct becomes. Those models don't account for black swans Russia invading Ukraine and that suddenly massively changing a large portion of the worlds calculus on what sources of energy to leverage in the short-term. We have decades of data to draw a pretty good gut feel from looking at Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accord and COP26 and it's always the same story - "hey we're going to hit an iceberg!", "OK, well then we'll steer away from it :)" rinse repeat. I keep up with technological improvements that can help us avert disaster, but I also look around me and see human behavior changing not nearly fast enough. I dunno man... this is less of a 'science' thing for me and more of a human behavior thing.
  - j245 4y ago
    Science can’t explain everything. It can’t tell you why the Empire State Building looks the way it does. There are other factors involved. I’m not sure what the scientific model is based on, but it’s borderline impossible to quantify how societal views (one of the biggest factors) will evolve over time, and to account for that in the prediction. I also “feel” the chance of overshooting is higher than 48%.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nr2x 4y ago
Climate science has consistently under estimated potential outcomes for decades, so yeah, if we’re sticking with the trend I imagine the odds are higher

throwaway6532 4y ago

>I see this often when climate change is discussed. People seem to casually throw science under the bus when it suits them. I think it's because people see humanity casually throwing the planet under the bus when it suits them despite what the science says. Eventually you just kind of see the writing on the wall (or _feel_ like you do).

gruez 4y ago
>Eventually you just kind of see the writing on the wall (or _feel_ like you do). I don't get it. You "see the writing on the wall" and then... throw science under the bus yourself as well?
- throwaway6532 4y ago
  There is no 'science of future events' only probabilistic outcomes based on models underpinned by chains of inference. The longer those chains of inference the lower the conditional probability the entire chain is correct becomes. Those models don't account for black swans Russia invading Ukraine and that suddenly massively changing a large portion of the worlds calculus on what sources of energy to leverage in the short-term. We have decades of data to draw a pretty good gut feel from looking at Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accord and COP26 and it's always the same story - "hey we're going to hit an iceberg!", "OK, well then we'll steer away from it :)" rinse repeat. I keep up with technological improvements that can help us avert disaster, but I also look around me and see human behavior changing not nearly fast enough. I dunno man... this is less of a 'science' thing for me and more of a human behavior thing.
- j245 4y ago
  Science can’t explain everything. It can’t tell you why the Empire State Building looks the way it does. There are other factors involved. I’m not sure what the scientific model is based on, but it’s borderline impossible to quantify how societal views (one of the biggest factors) will evolve over time, and to account for that in the prediction. I also “feel” the chance of overshooting is higher than 48%.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nr2x 4y ago

Climate science has consistently under estimated potential outcomes for decades, so yeah, if we’re sticking with the trend I imagine the odds are higher