4 ms·

I don't know enough about climatology to comment on the article. However, when something called the Competitive Enterprise Institute publishes something on clim

I don't know enough about climatology to comment on the article. However, when something called the Competitive Enterprise Institute publishes something on climatology, they don't give me a good feeling about their knowledge on the subject, either. It would seem, from their front page, that they have a specific political viewpoint. Accordingly, I think I'd rather pay attention to the experts.

mwint 4y ago
Shouldn’t we be looking to people who have a track record of making correct predictions? If someone is an expert, but is consistently wrong, I’d stop listening to them.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Yep, but, well, about that https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli...
jimmaswell 4y ago
It's just a list of objectively failed predictions. The source's lean doesn't matter, you can't deny the contents of the article.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  Well, except many of the claims were true when they were stated. The ozone hole really was a crisis and only stopped being one because the international community put together treaties to stop it
- jfim 4y ago
  The source's lean does matter, as that tends to influence the things that are not said in order to make a point. For example, how much of the predictions that have been made in the past have come true? Does climatology have a different track record of predictions being incorrect than other fields? Are predictions that have been made decades ago and published in the media relevant to the current state of things? Also, as an example of how using failed predictions is fallacious, in the past it was predicted that in the 2000s we'd all have domestic robots in to do cooking and cleaning. There aren't such robots generally available. Does that mean that we can say that robotics today is all bunk and robots don't exist?
- vincent-manis 4y ago
  I once watched 2 people (whom I later discovered to be Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs) try to make their Apple ][ “computer” work, at the 1977 Westcoast Computer Fair. I predicted to my friend that Apple would be bankrupt within 6 months. Lots of people have made predictions that have turned out to be wrong. You can read many of those in the Business section of your newspaper. This article takes articles from newspapers and magazines, but not from refereed scientific journals. As to climate change: at present, there's a heat dome in Northern Canada that is resulting in record-breaking temperatures; we had one in southern BC last year that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people. Lake Mead is at record lows. The arctic ice pack has shrunk by a yearly average of 2.5±0.9% from 1979 to 2002 [1]. Science and scientists are often wrong. That's why they gather further data to confirm or refute their theories. There's a famous apocryphal quote from Einstein when a reporter asked how a conference was going: “Wonderful! Everything we knew about physics this morning is wrong!” So: this article is not in anyway a refutation of climate change, or a useful analysis of where science goes “wrong”. It is merely a collection of out-of-context quotations presented in order to affirm a point of view. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_pack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_pack

mwint 4y ago

Shouldn’t we be looking to people who have a track record of making correct predictions? If someone is an expert, but is consistently wrong, I’d stop listening to them.

space_fountain 4y ago
Yep, but, well, about that https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli...

jimmaswell 4y ago

It's just a list of objectively failed predictions. The source's lean doesn't matter, you can't deny the contents of the article.

space_fountain 4y ago
Well, except many of the claims were true when they were stated. The ozone hole really was a crisis and only stopped being one because the international community put together treaties to stop it
jfim 4y ago
The source's lean does matter, as that tends to influence the things that are not said in order to make a point. For example, how much of the predictions that have been made in the past have come true? Does climatology have a different track record of predictions being incorrect than other fields? Are predictions that have been made decades ago and published in the media relevant to the current state of things? Also, as an example of how using failed predictions is fallacious, in the past it was predicted that in the 2000s we'd all have domestic robots in to do cooking and cleaning. There aren't such robots generally available. Does that mean that we can say that robotics today is all bunk and robots don't exist?
vincent-manis 4y ago
I once watched 2 people (whom I later discovered to be Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs) try to make their Apple ][ “computer” work, at the 1977 Westcoast Computer Fair. I predicted to my friend that Apple would be bankrupt within 6 months. Lots of people have made predictions that have turned out to be wrong. You can read many of those in the Business section of your newspaper. This article takes articles from newspapers and magazines, but not from refereed scientific journals. As to climate change: at present, there's a heat dome in Northern Canada that is resulting in record-breaking temperatures; we had one in southern BC last year that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people. Lake Mead is at record lows. The arctic ice pack has shrunk by a yearly average of 2.5±0.9% from 1979 to 2002 [1]. Science and scientists are often wrong. That's why they gather further data to confirm or refute their theories. There's a famous apocryphal quote from Einstein when a reporter asked how a conference was going: “Wonderful! Everything we knew about physics this morning is wrong!” So: this article is not in anyway a refutation of climate change, or a useful analysis of where science goes “wrong”. It is merely a collection of out-of-context quotations presented in order to affirm a point of view. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_pack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_ice_pack