3 ms·

More hysteria based on models. We saw with covid how unreliable and destructive this new form of crystal ball reading. Falsifiable and thus pseudo science.

• phtrivier 4y ago
  You meant "unfalsifiable" ? Which those models are _not_. They have been projecting, for a while now, an increase in mean global temperature, and an increase in the frequency of extreme climate events. (Which very generous margins, though.) It could very much _not_ be observed (read the thermometers. Count the heat waves frequency. Compare.) My general understanding is that the observation seem to match the projections, but IANA climatologist, so I have to trust other people [1] [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... Also, the science of greenhouse effect is robust enough, much more so than the short term dynamics of an exponentially spreading unknown virus - so mistrusting all models because of the COVID ones seems a bit unfair. Knowing all models are wrong, and some are usefull, I'm now going to leave you to doub, and go enjoy my fourth heatwave of the year.
• montalbano 4y ago
  Covid models underestimated the number of cases, just as climate models did not largely predict such extreme heat this soon. If you choose to be skeptical of models on these two topics, it seems safer to assume they are underestimating the issues rather than overestimating them. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/may/09/how-good-are-we-at-predicting-pandemic https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/m... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/this-summer-could-change-our-understanding-of-extreme-heat https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/this-...