5 ms·

This sounds like a prelude to a simplistic "the models aren't accurate, so climate change probably isn't really a problem". However the problem with that is tha

by altacc 3y ago

This sounds like a prelude to a simplistic "the models aren't accurate, so climate change probably isn't really a problem". However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic. Using the argument that these models aren't accurate ignores the fact that even with a large margin of error, the lower bounds of climate change still result in significant negative effects for large numbers of people and ecosystems. Models have for a long time shown that the overall global temperature will rise and observations over the years have proved the models reflect reality. Are all models 100% correct with predictions? No, but the trend the models show is proven, even if there is a margin of error which is typically always acknowledged during modelling. Questioning the accuracy as a form of dismissal raise the question of what level of accuracy you'd want before accepting the results, and what level of accuracy any countering research should have. Research like this paper also has margins of error, are often single studies or analysis and therefore aren't proven to be accurate themselves. Science evolves all the time, a large amount of the science we experience or rely on day to day cannot be fully modelled with high accuracy but we don't discount reality because the models don't match it.

amelius 3y ago
It sounds like a very basic mistake, though. Now I wonder how well climate research is funded.
- revelio 3y ago
  It's incredibly well funded, that's part of the problem. Every time they make extreme claims their funding levels go up, because rich people and governments conclude studying the climate is the most important thing that can be done with the money.
kcplate 3y ago
I think the problem with the attitude of “so what if the models aren’t accurate, we should still undertake giant unpopular sacrifices because I, the expert, says so…”.is that it makes people more and more distrustful of future models that may be more accurate. We just watched with front row seats what happens when once trusted scientific authorities rely on poor data, poor communications, and poor models. The general populace starts to distrust and reject them. This is the danger of every apocalyptic climate prediction that fails to come to pass. The desire to scare people into action only tends to push people into distrust and indifference.
- kredd 3y ago
  Significant portion of population will always act against status quo even if the data is accurate to the T. Something about “don’t let perfect be enemy of the good” heavily applies to climate modeling, in my opinion. Worst case scenario, we convert to better sources of power through a ton of investment, and make general populace’s life “cleaner” anyways.
  - fwlr 3y ago
    There’s always the Lizardman Constant[1], and on top of that there’s people demanding unreasonable perfection of data, sure. But I think the post you’re replying to has a good point: public opinion of “public health” has taken a significant hit in reaction to the handling of Covid, as more information came out that contradicted earlier messaging (vaccine confers immunity -> vaccine lessens symptoms, most notably). It seems prudent to acknowledge the same could happen with climate change! 1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - kcplate 3y ago
    The worse case scenario is investment in your your movement towards cleaner energy is constantly hampered by scientists and politicians making near term apocalyptic predictions based on conjecture.
slibhb 3y ago
> However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic I think climate change is a problem (not a crisis) but it's important to note that if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah. In such an environment, it's hard to know how much confidence we should have in consensus. > Models have for a long time shown that the overall global temperature will rise and observations over the years have proved the models reflect reality. Are all models 100% correct with predictions? No, but the trend the models show is proven, even if there is a margin of error which is typically always acknowledged during modelling. My understanding is that we observe some climate trend over N years and then select the best model proposed in the past. This is where the "oil companies knew about climate change!" accusation comes from. But it's much harder to select the model before taking the measurements and climate models have obviously performed much worse at that.
- jarenmf 3y ago
  > if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend. As climate science is mostly atmospheric physics, biology and chemistry, it's pretty much very easy to disagree with anyone if you have a good argument supported by data. If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. On the contrary, this will likely make you famous and secure your career. Scientists (at least the curios ones) love to be proven wrong. EDIT: spelling
  - fooker 3y ago
    > If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. That’s a nice idealistic thing to say. Academia has shown this to be false again and again. Most groundbreaking ideas or arguments which go against the current wisdom get buried in the best case, and the proponents scorned and driven out of research in the worst case. It has been like this since the beginning of organized scientific communities, which is understandable. Scientists are humans with the usual shortcomings like ego and pride.

by altacc 3y ago

amelius 3y ago

It sounds like a very basic mistake, though. Now I wonder how well climate research is funded.

revelio 3y ago
It's incredibly well funded, that's part of the problem. Every time they make extreme claims their funding levels go up, because rich people and governments conclude studying the climate is the most important thing that can be done with the money.

kcplate 3y ago

I think the problem with the attitude of “so what if the models aren’t accurate, we should still undertake giant unpopular sacrifices because I, the expert, says so…”.is that it makes people more and more distrustful of future models that may be more accurate. We just watched with front row seats what happens when once trusted scientific authorities rely on poor data, poor communications, and poor models. The general populace starts to distrust and reject them. This is the danger of every apocalyptic climate prediction that fails to come to pass. The desire to scare people into action only tends to push people into distrust and indifference.

kredd 3y ago
Significant portion of population will always act against status quo even if the data is accurate to the T. Something about “don’t let perfect be enemy of the good” heavily applies to climate modeling, in my opinion. Worst case scenario, we convert to better sources of power through a ton of investment, and make general populace’s life “cleaner” anyways.
- fwlr 3y ago
  There’s always the Lizardman Constant[1], and on top of that there’s people demanding unreasonable perfection of data, sure. But I think the post you’re replying to has a good point: public opinion of “public health” has taken a significant hit in reaction to the handling of Covid, as more information came out that contradicted earlier messaging (vaccine confers immunity -> vaccine lessens symptoms, most notably). It seems prudent to acknowledge the same could happen with climate change! 1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- kcplate 3y ago
  The worse case scenario is investment in your your movement towards cleaner energy is constantly hampered by scientists and politicians making near term apocalyptic predictions based on conjecture.

slibhb 3y ago

> However the problem with that is that the overwhelming majority of observations and models, many of which are far from simple and use large amounts of data, point to climate change being real, unusually rapid and anthropogenic I think climate change is a problem (not a crisis) but it's important to note that if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah. In such an environment, it's hard to know how much confidence we should have in consensus. > Models have for a long time shown that the overall global temperature will rise and observations over the years have proved the models reflect reality. Are all models 100% correct with predictions? No, but the trend the models show is proven, even if there is a margin of error which is typically always acknowledged during modelling. My understanding is that we observe some climate trend over N years and then select the best model proposed in the past. This is where the "oil companies knew about climate change!" accusation comes from. But it's much harder to select the model before taking the measurements and climate models have obviously performed much worse at that.

jarenmf 3y ago
> if a scientist questions climate science, he becomes a pariah As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend. As climate science is mostly atmospheric physics, biology and chemistry, it's pretty much very easy to disagree with anyone if you have a good argument supported by data. If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. On the contrary, this will likely make you famous and secure your career. Scientists (at least the curios ones) love to be proven wrong. EDIT: spelling
- fooker 3y ago
  > If you have strong scientific arguments, it does not matter even if the whole world is against you. That’s a nice idealistic thing to say. Academia has shown this to be false again and again. Most groundbreaking ideas or arguments which go against the current wisdom get buried in the best case, and the proponents scorned and driven out of research in the worst case. It has been like this since the beginning of organized scientific communities, which is understandable. Scientists are humans with the usual shortcomings like ego and pride.