4 ms·

> The latest fad seems to be making claims are specific weather events I read these same news articles, and usually they're quoting a scientist saying that no

> The latest fad seems to be making claims are specific weather events I read these same news articles, and usually they're quoting a scientist saying that no specific "weather event" can be attributed to climate change, but that a general increase in severity or fluctuations between extremes is likely the result of climate change. Why the heck do supposedly "smart and detail oriented" people pay more attention to scare quotes from journalists and policy makers than to nuanced quotes from actual scientists? https://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2019/historical-climate-models-accurately-projected-global-warming https://eapsweb.mit.edu/news/2019/historical-climate-models-... > Climate impacts are nuanced and are experienced at smaller, regional scales, for which different models often still disagree. This is because different models may contain slightly different characterizations of the Earth’s physics, particularly small-scale features that do not last long but can make a big impact, like clouds. These slight differences in calculations, when spread over time and space, have the potential to cancel out or amplify other climate effects. > The results from this paper increase our confidence in climate models in that they have accurately projected the most basic climate metric through history: global warming. By many measures, today’s climate models are much more useful and skillful than the historical models reviewed here. This adds to our confidence in today’s state-of-the-art model projections, which climate scientists will continue to improve upon and use to pin down the specifics of climate change’s effects.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I don't disagree and think that illustrates my point. If you're used to one or two levels of exaggeration or deception from alleged authorities like politicians, news, or other groups, then you start to discount everything you hear on the topic. The even bigger problem comes up for some people is that if every claim you investigate is false, why think the primary science is free from lies and exaggeration just because you can't repeat the work. Like I said, I personally believe in climate change in general, but have seen a ton of bad primary science in the areas I am capable of scrutinizing. As a result, my default assumption is that the field is toxic and news is more likely to distort than enlighten.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I don't disagree and think that illustrates my point. If you're used to one or two levels of exaggeration or deception from alleged authorities like politicians, news, or other groups, then you start to discount everything you hear on the topic. The even bigger problem comes up for some people is that if every claim you investigate is false, why think the primary science is free from lies and exaggeration just because you can't repeat the work. Like I said, I personally believe in climate change in general, but have seen a ton of bad primary science in the areas I am capable of scrutinizing. As a result, my default assumption is that the field is toxic and news is more likely to distort than enlighten.