4 ms·
The thing is, we now have decades of empirical evidence to confirm or deny the predictions. What scientists have been (mostly) right about is the rise in temper
by perrygeo 3y ago
The thing is, we now have decades of empirical evidence to confirm or deny the predictions. What scientists have been (mostly) right about is the rise in temperature; the models have nailed that from decades out.
What scientists have been somewhat wrong about is the impact of that temperature rise - even the small 1.2C rise so far has produced much stronger effects on biologically-relevant variables at the tail.
So in a sense, they've been spot on about global warming itself, but have consistently underestimated/understated the risks associated with it.
- appplication 3y agoThere were a lot of scientists who have consistently messaged the dire significance, but were generally ignored as wolf criers. They still are, even in the face of evidence of their correctness. Al Gore was spot on with his labeling. It’s an inconvenient truth. We love to ignore and downplay it because reacting appropriately would really throw a wrench in our plans for infinite capitalism.
- namaria 3y agoSadly, I've come to the conclusion that current population levels and economic arrangements are simply not sustainable. I had hope for most of my youth that we'd figure something out. Now I think a large scale disruption leading to drastically less people consuming Earth's resources over the next century or so is the only possible future we have.
- perrygeo 3y agoExactly, some scientists raised the warning flags but were chastised despite being right. The obvious consequence has been a chilling effect - scientists are now heavily biased to understate the problem and most are somewhere between ultra-conservative and completely silent about impact predictions.