4 ms·

> a lot of people are skeptical of climate change and reject the scientific consensus That's because science doesn't work by "consensus". It works by building

by pdonis 4y ago

> a lot of people are skeptical of climate change and reject the scientific consensus That's because science doesn't work by "consensus". It works by building models that make accurate predictions. The models climate scientists currently have don't make accurate predictions. So people who are skeptical of the "consensus" are right to be skeptical (though that in itself doesn't necessarily mean they are skeptical for the right reason--see below). > You can't challenge the consensus without becoming an expert on the matter yourself. That's way too strong. You don't need to become an expert in the sense of being able to build your own models. You just need to have enough knowledge to be able to judge whether the models scientists have make accurate predictions. That's a much easier job. I think you are right, though, that many people who are skeptical of various scientific claims aren't skeptical on the basis of what I said above, but for other, invalid reasons.

viscanti 4y ago
> It works by building models that make accurate predictions. Have climate change models been shown to be making poor predictions? From what I've seen, it appears they've predicted temperatures should warm and we've seen average surface temperatures generally increasing over time. It seems they've predicted stronger hurricanes and those have also been happening more frequently over time. They've predicted increasing amounts of droughts and those have also been happening more frequently over time. Weather is a complex system and there's always going to be some amount of variance. Are you claiming that people have trouble understanding how statistics work? If so, that seems to be the same argument that the OP is making (that you need to understand how things work before you have informed skepticism). If you don't understand how statistics work, you might have trouble following statistical predictions that have generally been show to be correct for several decades. That doesn't appear to be a problem with the predictions of climate change models, but with the interpretation of said models by people who haven't bothered to understand them.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Have climate change models been shown to be making poor predictions? Yes. Even the IPCC admitted that in the AR5, though you had to look carefully at footnotes to see it. > it appears they've predicted temperatures should warm No, they predicted that temperatures should warm at a particular rate based on a particular rate of CO2 increase. More precisely, there are three groups of climate models, each based on a different rate of CO2 increase: basically, a "business as usual" rate of CO2 increase, a "some reduction" rate of CO2 increase, and a "drastic reduction" rate of CO2 increase. The output of each group of models is averaged to come up with a prediction of warming based on the rate of CO2 increase that the model assumes. The "business as usual" models predict the most warming, the "some reduction" models predict somewhat less warming, and the "drastic reduction" models predict less warming still. Actual CO2 increase has been about the same as the "business as usual" scenario, but actual warming has been less than the amount predicted by the "drastic reduction" set of models. If the models made accurate predictions, actual warming should have been about what was predicted by the "business as usual" set of models. But it wasn't; it was well below the 95% confidence interval for that set of models. (Note that, whenever actual warming is compared to models, it is compared to the average of all the models--all three sets, with different assumptions for CO2 increase. That actually makes no sense, but climate scientists do it anyway to obfuscate how much the models have overpredicted warming.) > It seems they've predicted stronger hurricanes and those have also been happening more frequently over time. No, they haven't. Studies of frequency of storms show no change in frequency over time. The amount of damage done by storms has increased, but that's because of the huge increase in the number of people and the value of housing and other property that are in the paths of major storms.
  - viscanti 4y ago
    > Studies of frequency of storms show no change in frequency over time. Right. Which is why I said the models predicted stronger hurricanes. Which is what you're saying. Looks like we'll have to agree to agree here. The models are making accurate predictions and you'd need to know a lot about the domain to suggest there are flaws. No one would argue a lay audience would be making those arguments. Temperatures are getting warmer, storms are getting stronger, droughts are happening more frequently. The models aren't perfect but that's why they're called models and they're generally predicting what's happening.
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > Which is why I said the models predicted stronger hurricanes. Which is what you're saying. No, it's not. I said that the damage due to storms has increased, but I gave the reason why, and it has nothing to do with hurricanes getting stronger, any more than it has to do with hurricanes getting more frequent. Studies have not shown any increase in the average strength of storms either.
      - viscanti 4y ago
        > Studies have not shown any increase in the average strength of storms either. “On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes and increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify,” NASA reports. In 2020, the world saw a record-breaking hurricane season. The facts show what the models predicted. You can continue to argue that there's no evidence, but you'll continue to be wrong. The OP's argument seems not be refuted here. You need to be an expert and know a lot more than a lay audience would to find any criticisms with existing models. The vast majority of climate change deniers are science skeptic and not going so deep they have a valid basis for their skepticism (and in some cases, it's becoming clear it's not just skepticism but willfully ignoring the actual data for whatever reason).
pas 4y ago
> The models climate scientists currently have don't make accurate predictions. [citation needed] https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/CMIP6/historical_timeseries_obs_cmip5_cmip6.html https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/CMIP6/hi... are they perfect? of course not. are they useful? yes, the climate science community, the general science community things that yes they are. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... "There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions." https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-cli... https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projecti...
randcraw 4y ago
I agree, becoming an expert is too strong. Here's an example. Physicians in the early 1800s were taught many medical practices and concepts that had no basis in fact (the dynamics of Hippocrates' 4 body humors, the value of bleeding, germs were not the basis of disease, miracle elixirs abound, etc). You'd think all medicine practiced in that time would be worthless. But in fact, a small number of heterodox doctors recognized the contradictions and limits inherent in the dogma of the day and chose to think and practice largely independently of it, testing methods themselves to retain what worked and discard what didn't, and sharing lessons learned with peers they respected. They personally employed the scientific method and learned from it, despite the established orthodoxy. Each of those experimental revelations did not depend on expertise, only on a rigorous determination to be methodical and fair-minded and refrain from employing or spreading unfounded claims. That's more a matter of discipline and personal integrity than expertise.
fleddr 4y ago
Agreed. I think the biggest problem is that category I mentioned: skepticism on the basis of simply not liking the scientific conclusion, because it negatively affects me. This lazy skepticism has been suppressed for good reasons, but probably has gone too far. An extremely authoritative approach that is dogmatic and doesn't tolerate the slightest of deviations has only emboldened conspiracy theorists. All of this in a backdrop of extreme political polarization. A perfect storm.

by pdonis 4y ago

viscanti 4y ago

> It works by building models that make accurate predictions. Have climate change models been shown to be making poor predictions? From what I've seen, it appears they've predicted temperatures should warm and we've seen average surface temperatures generally increasing over time. It seems they've predicted stronger hurricanes and those have also been happening more frequently over time. They've predicted increasing amounts of droughts and those have also been happening more frequently over time. Weather is a complex system and there's always going to be some amount of variance. Are you claiming that people have trouble understanding how statistics work? If so, that seems to be the same argument that the OP is making (that you need to understand how things work before you have informed skepticism). If you don't understand how statistics work, you might have trouble following statistical predictions that have generally been show to be correct for several decades. That doesn't appear to be a problem with the predictions of climate change models, but with the interpretation of said models by people who haven't bothered to understand them.

pdonis 4y ago
> Have climate change models been shown to be making poor predictions? Yes. Even the IPCC admitted that in the AR5, though you had to look carefully at footnotes to see it. > it appears they've predicted temperatures should warm No, they predicted that temperatures should warm at a particular rate based on a particular rate of CO2 increase. More precisely, there are three groups of climate models, each based on a different rate of CO2 increase: basically, a "business as usual" rate of CO2 increase, a "some reduction" rate of CO2 increase, and a "drastic reduction" rate of CO2 increase. The output of each group of models is averaged to come up with a prediction of warming based on the rate of CO2 increase that the model assumes. The "business as usual" models predict the most warming, the "some reduction" models predict somewhat less warming, and the "drastic reduction" models predict less warming still. Actual CO2 increase has been about the same as the "business as usual" scenario, but actual warming has been less than the amount predicted by the "drastic reduction" set of models. If the models made accurate predictions, actual warming should have been about what was predicted by the "business as usual" set of models. But it wasn't; it was well below the 95% confidence interval for that set of models. (Note that, whenever actual warming is compared to models, it is compared to the average of all the models--all three sets, with different assumptions for CO2 increase. That actually makes no sense, but climate scientists do it anyway to obfuscate how much the models have overpredicted warming.) > It seems they've predicted stronger hurricanes and those have also been happening more frequently over time. No, they haven't. Studies of frequency of storms show no change in frequency over time. The amount of damage done by storms has increased, but that's because of the huge increase in the number of people and the value of housing and other property that are in the paths of major storms.
- viscanti 4y ago
  > Studies of frequency of storms show no change in frequency over time. Right. Which is why I said the models predicted stronger hurricanes. Which is what you're saying. Looks like we'll have to agree to agree here. The models are making accurate predictions and you'd need to know a lot about the domain to suggest there are flaws. No one would argue a lay audience would be making those arguments. Temperatures are getting warmer, storms are getting stronger, droughts are happening more frequently. The models aren't perfect but that's why they're called models and they're generally predicting what's happening.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > Which is why I said the models predicted stronger hurricanes. Which is what you're saying. No, it's not. I said that the damage due to storms has increased, but I gave the reason why, and it has nothing to do with hurricanes getting stronger, any more than it has to do with hurricanes getting more frequent. Studies have not shown any increase in the average strength of storms either.
    - viscanti 4y ago
      > Studies have not shown any increase in the average strength of storms either. “On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes and increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify,” NASA reports. In 2020, the world saw a record-breaking hurricane season. The facts show what the models predicted. You can continue to argue that there's no evidence, but you'll continue to be wrong. The OP's argument seems not be refuted here. You need to be an expert and know a lot more than a lay audience would to find any criticisms with existing models. The vast majority of climate change deniers are science skeptic and not going so deep they have a valid basis for their skepticism (and in some cases, it's becoming clear it's not just skepticism but willfully ignoring the actual data for whatever reason).

pas 4y ago

> The models climate scientists currently have don't make accurate predictions. [citation needed] https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/CMIP6/historical_timeseries_obs_cmip5_cmip6.html https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/CMIP6/hi... are they perfect? of course not. are they useful? yes, the climate science community, the general science community things that yes they are. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... "There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century, and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions." https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-cli... https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projecti...

randcraw 4y ago

I agree, becoming an expert is too strong. Here's an example. Physicians in the early 1800s were taught many medical practices and concepts that had no basis in fact (the dynamics of Hippocrates' 4 body humors, the value of bleeding, germs were not the basis of disease, miracle elixirs abound, etc). You'd think all medicine practiced in that time would be worthless. But in fact, a small number of heterodox doctors recognized the contradictions and limits inherent in the dogma of the day and chose to think and practice largely independently of it, testing methods themselves to retain what worked and discard what didn't, and sharing lessons learned with peers they respected. They personally employed the scientific method and learned from it, despite the established orthodoxy. Each of those experimental revelations did not depend on expertise, only on a rigorous determination to be methodical and fair-minded and refrain from employing or spreading unfounded claims. That's more a matter of discipline and personal integrity than expertise.

fleddr 4y ago

Agreed. I think the biggest problem is that category I mentioned: skepticism on the basis of simply not liking the scientific conclusion, because it negatively affects me. This lazy skepticism has been suppressed for good reasons, but probably has gone too far. An extremely authoritative approach that is dogmatic and doesn't tolerate the slightest of deviations has only emboldened conspiracy theorists. All of this in a backdrop of extreme political polarization. A perfect storm.