5 ms·
> This has really shaken my faith in the climate science community Are you kidding me? Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades
by js8 3y ago
> This has really shaken my faith in the climate science community
Are you kidding me?
Activist climate scientists (like James Hansen) have warned for decades that IPCC reports are likely too conservative, because they represent broad consensus of climatologists.
Yet climate deniers continued to decry IPCC (also for decades) as too radical, political organization.
And now that the conservativism of IPCC is finally coming to public consciousness, you decide to side with the deniers, as if they were right all along?
- brutusborn 3y agoThere’s no reason the IPCC can’t report on more conservative models whilst keeping all relevant effects in accurate models. Usually their conservatism is in choosing more realistic assumptions. In this case they ignored a realistic effect. I’m not siding with anyone. I’m criticising a particular groups models which they have admitted to not contain critical effects and thus don’t match recent observations. I don’t deny climate change, I deny that the IPCC models are good.
- scaramanga 3y agoYes, that's precisely the sort of thing that would elicit flak. If they openly say "here is an under-egged model for the climate deniers, but here is the real, alarming model" which one do you think their climate-denying flack machines are going to take aim at? "No, you think fox news would really do that? cherry pick data?!" :)
- brutusborn 3y agoSo just to clarify, you agree that “the models are inaccurate” is true, but that is is because of pressure from climate deniers and is systematically conservative. So because of political pressure, the modellers didn’t include a well known effect and missed predicting the highest temperatures on record. A model confirming event which could have convinced millions that climate is worth worrying about. But instead the IPCC listened to fox and neutered their models? I think that is a lot less likely than “their models aren’t very accurate, they simplified a part of the model which turned out to be very important.”
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhere is the conservatism coming to the public consciousness? I don't think that is the case as such.
- scaramanga 3y agoYes, this is like my relatives who voted Tory because immigrants are taking their benefits away. Only to enter old-age with the Tories taking their healthcare and their benefits away. These are tragic and self-defeating people. It doesn't mean they aren't stupid or dangerous to the rest of us. Or that they aren't responsible for the consequences of their own actions. But that they do stuff which is illogical, self-harming, or counter-productive shouldn't be surprising.
- lacrimacida 3y agoI wouldn’t solely hold them to blame but also point to who manipulated them in the first place. While they are blamable through ignorance they are not the real culprits It’s known the masses are manipulable to do and think in certain ways, and almost always to their disadvantage
- avgcorrection 3y agoI can't take a normal person seriously who, with apparent (imagined) perfect awareness, talks about the masses as a blob of stupid individuals who can't think a critical thought. The real reason the masses often act irrationally—counter to the manipulation that your brain has received—is that they have no power or coordination to act as a group themselves. It has got little to do with ignorance.
- brutusborn 3y agoIf you think criticising a model for not matching observations is illogical, then I don’t think you have a very good understanding of logic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]