6 ms·

I'm old enough to remember we were all "science" supposed to be entirely underwater by now. Yet here we are quibbling about millimetres? First it was "the comin

I'm old enough to remember we were all "science" supposed to be entirely underwater by now. Yet here we are quibbling about millimetres? First it was "the coming ice age", then "global warming", now its "climate change". What's next? The "millimetre sea-level imbalance catastrophe"? I'm over it. I've lost my respect for climate science, and the field has done that to itself. It needs to take full responsibility for its repeating cycle of "alarmism -> failed prediction -> u-turn" that caused me to.

revelio 4y ago
Yeah. A great example of the corruption problem is the story of Tuvalu. Here's a research paper from 2018 that looked at the size of the islands using radar data: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 It starts by saying: "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration" but then just two sentences later: "Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%) [in the past 40 years], despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls" Tuvalu got bigger! It goes on to explain that Tuvalu has grown due to other factors that were not previously considered. Yet the field is so corrupt that a paper literally reporting that Pacific islands are getting bigger has to start by repeating the claim that those very same islands will be "inundated" and "rendered uninhabitable". It goes on to argue that maybe the biggest problems the islands face is not climate change per se but rather "the historic imprint of colonial agendas and entrenched land tenure systems". That was in 2018. It had no effect on the narrative whatsoever. In 2019 the Guardian wrote a huge story telling its readers that Tuvalu is going to be drowned by climate change and how angry they are at Donald Trump because in future they'll have to evacuate their homes: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/one-day-disappear-tuvalu-sinking-islands-rising-seas-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/o... “Tuvalu is sinking” is the local catch-all phrase for the effects of climate change on this tiny island archipelago on the frontline of global warming. The entire story is misinformation, but you'd never know that if you didn't double check these things and the Guardian not only never will but actively tells its readers that people who do double check are evil.
ohdearno 4y ago
> I'm old enough to remember we were all "science" supposed to be entirely underwater by now. The science never really said that. Bad PopSci reporting did. The science said that was a worst case possibility. Kind of "if we do the worst things possible as much as possible, then this is the worst case scenario". Then you read hacks--and paid disinformation spreaders, which we have documentation of various oil companies in particular doing I might add--reporting that as if it was a sure thing. Because clickbait isn't a new concept. Also - we actually DID change what we did. We did things like ban CFCs, etc. It made a significant difference to models! Hooray us for doing the bare minimum. We're not quibbling over millimeters, not unless you're completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the topic anyhow. We're pointing out the rate of change is increasing and we haven't even seen the worst case effects yet (like CO2 release from the oceans, Greenland melting, etc). The global temperature is going up, rapidly, and we're at the point were these effects are already starting to be seen. That's... a tipping point.
- revelio 4y ago
  Unfortunately, if we take what prestigious climatologists have said as "the science" then you're wrong. They have in fact said exactly that. Here's just two examples, of many. James Hansen is perhaps the most famous climatologist, he worked at NASA and testified to Congress about global warming at the end of the 1980s. Back then he was telling people that by ~2010 highways in New York would be underwater, there'd be tape on the windows due to high winds and that crime would have increased due to the heat. https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon... Not that it might happen, or there was a worst case possibility that it would happen. That it would definitely happen. None of that occurred (and in fact crime in New York went down a lot) but he didn't learn anything. Here he is in 2008. "Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer". https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=... It's now 35 years after his first prediction and 15 years after his second. New York isn't under water and the Arctic isn't ice free in the summer. When people claim that scientists never get it wrong, that when people remember bad predictions it actually never happened and if it did it was all the journalist's fault, then they are making the problem worse because it teaches scientists that they can be wrong without consequence, that people will side with them over the journalists who in most cases were directly quoting what they had said.
Sakos 4y ago
I've lost my respect for people like you who'd rather deny the very real effect climate change is having and will have on hundreds of millions of people.
- detrites 4y ago
  Or is it the very real effect continued geo-engineering is having and will have on hundreds of millions of people? Look up China's participation in that. Or is it the solar cycle - how much impact does the primary core driver of earths climate moods have on earths climate? Look that up. Or is it a mix of these and other possible causes, some potentially those identified by so-far very unreliable dogmatic climate science? You can't solve problems with science if you are so mired in the current "correct" way of thinking you can't think objectively continuously, and especially during those times it seems like everyones got it "figured out". (And even more especially when those same people can be demonstrated to have been consistently wrong for decades.)

revelio 4y ago

Yeah. A great example of the corruption problem is the story of Tuvalu. Here's a research paper from 2018 that looked at the size of the islands using radar data: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 It starts by saying: "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration" but then just two sentences later: "Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%) [in the past 40 years], despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls" Tuvalu got bigger! It goes on to explain that Tuvalu has grown due to other factors that were not previously considered. Yet the field is so corrupt that a paper literally reporting that Pacific islands are getting bigger has to start by repeating the claim that those very same islands will be "inundated" and "rendered uninhabitable". It goes on to argue that maybe the biggest problems the islands face is not climate change per se but rather "the historic imprint of colonial agendas and entrenched land tenure systems". That was in 2018. It had no effect on the narrative whatsoever. In 2019 the Guardian wrote a huge story telling its readers that Tuvalu is going to be drowned by climate change and how angry they are at Donald Trump because in future they'll have to evacuate their homes: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/one-day-disappear-tuvalu-sinking-islands-rising-seas-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/16/o... “Tuvalu is sinking” is the local catch-all phrase for the effects of climate change on this tiny island archipelago on the frontline of global warming. The entire story is misinformation, but you'd never know that if you didn't double check these things and the Guardian not only never will but actively tells its readers that people who do double check are evil.

ohdearno 4y ago

> I'm old enough to remember we were all "science" supposed to be entirely underwater by now. The science never really said that. Bad PopSci reporting did. The science said that was a worst case possibility. Kind of "if we do the worst things possible as much as possible, then this is the worst case scenario". Then you read hacks--and paid disinformation spreaders, which we have documentation of various oil companies in particular doing I might add--reporting that as if it was a sure thing. Because clickbait isn't a new concept. Also - we actually DID change what we did. We did things like ban CFCs, etc. It made a significant difference to models! Hooray us for doing the bare minimum. We're not quibbling over millimeters, not unless you're completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the topic anyhow. We're pointing out the rate of change is increasing and we haven't even seen the worst case effects yet (like CO2 release from the oceans, Greenland melting, etc). The global temperature is going up, rapidly, and we're at the point were these effects are already starting to be seen. That's... a tipping point.

revelio 4y ago
Unfortunately, if we take what prestigious climatologists have said as "the science" then you're wrong. They have in fact said exactly that. Here's just two examples, of many. James Hansen is perhaps the most famous climatologist, he worked at NASA and testified to Congress about global warming at the end of the 1980s. Back then he was telling people that by ~2010 highways in New York would be underwater, there'd be tape on the windows due to high winds and that crime would have increased due to the heat. https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon... Not that it might happen, or there was a worst case possibility that it would happen. That it would definitely happen. None of that occurred (and in fact crime in New York went down a lot) but he didn't learn anything. Here he is in 2008. "Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer". https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=7mgiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7qkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5563,4123490 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=20080624&id=... It's now 35 years after his first prediction and 15 years after his second. New York isn't under water and the Arctic isn't ice free in the summer. When people claim that scientists never get it wrong, that when people remember bad predictions it actually never happened and if it did it was all the journalist's fault, then they are making the problem worse because it teaches scientists that they can be wrong without consequence, that people will side with them over the journalists who in most cases were directly quoting what they had said.

Sakos 4y ago

I've lost my respect for people like you who'd rather deny the very real effect climate change is having and will have on hundreds of millions of people.

detrites 4y ago
Or is it the very real effect continued geo-engineering is having and will have on hundreds of millions of people? Look up China's participation in that. Or is it the solar cycle - how much impact does the primary core driver of earths climate moods have on earths climate? Look that up. Or is it a mix of these and other possible causes, some potentially those identified by so-far very unreliable dogmatic climate science? You can't solve problems with science if you are so mired in the current "correct" way of thinking you can't think objectively continuously, and especially during those times it seems like everyones got it "figured out". (And even more especially when those same people can be demonstrated to have been consistently wrong for decades.)