3 ms·

Would you prefer denial of the denial? I only know what I learn from the media, so as far as I know, you could be right. But is there not a consensus from the

• slily 3y ago
  I'm in no way an expert, but I've heard from several climate researchers that the current consensus is manufactured to some degree, in that they face severe hurdles trying to publish papers that refute or contradict pessimistic predictions. Funding is also reportedly heavily biased, which isn't too surprising considering the financial incentives. So while I don't doubt that there is an anthropogenic component to climate change, I am now suspicious of alarmist headlines and predictions. To my knowledge, climate models used to predict the impact of emissions are still fairly low-resolution (because climate is much more complex than is possible to model currently) and don't have a good track record for long-term predictions, and indeed, historically, plenty of apocalyptic predictions have failed to materialize. So while stories like this one are interesting, I would not trust them to determine immediate policy, and in the very short term I am more concerned about governments destroying their countries over arbitrary environmental goals based on incomplete models than about climate change itself. Investing in sustainable energy is great, but I have serious doubts about "tipping point" theories that encourage radical policies at the expense of poor people and the middle class.