3 ms·
It’s reasonable to be skeptical since past climate models (eg from 20 years ago) didn’t do great over the subsequent period. It could be that current ones are m
by zeroonetwothree 3y ago
It’s reasonable to be skeptical since past climate models (eg from 20 years ago) didn’t do great over the subsequent period. It could be that current ones are much better (but we won’t know for a while).
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoWhat has changed in 20 years? Realistically. When we’re the ClimateGate emails? Do you think the industry got itself together after that?
- notmypenguin 3y agoThat’s a bunch of FUD. Climate science is and has been solid, but fossil fuel industry lobbies have tried to add doubt to what is certain and known. I see your tactics and I call you out on them.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoAre you saying those emails weren’t real?
- melagonster 3y agoscience is getting better. most of government hired people to research it, if they can can't promote anything, it is weird.
- jshen 3y agoCan you link to these models from 20 years ago?
- conception 3y agoI don’t think this is the case at all - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-models-have-been-impressively-accurate-for-decades-study-geophysical-research-letters/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-models-have-been-impres...
- sdfignaionio 3y ago[dead]