4 ms·

I heard interesting tidbit on Sabine's YouTube channel. That climate scientist have actually 'toned' down the doom outlooks. Because it turns people off to muc

I heard interesting tidbit on Sabine's YouTube channel. That climate scientist have actually 'toned' down the doom outlooks. Because it turns people off to much. Like there will be no action if people knew how bad it was. So they take 'averages', that kind of show warming, but 'not that bad'. When really, it is 'really bad'. So the 'right' is saying all the climate scientist are 'doomer's and causing sensational hype to promote their theories to sell books. When really, they are toning it down. To be as reasonable as possible. To be 'as sure' as possible.

astrodust 3y ago
When they tone it down, they look like idiots because their most pessimistic predictions from one era become the most optimistic ones from the next. But of course, politics.
graemep 3y ago
> That climate scientist have actually 'toned' down the doom outlooks. Because it turns people off to much. Like there will be no action if people knew how bad it was. That sounds wrong. They should be giving people the most accurate estimates and the error range, not toning it down (or going the other way). > So the 'right' is saying all the climate scientist are 'doomer's and causing sensational hype to promote their theories to sell books. So now it is a partisan political issue? No chance of sensible discussion at all then.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Maybe I shouldn't have said 'scientist'. Scientist have 100's of studies, and create 100's of models. The results are a range. Then various agencies release 'reports' that are summaries of the models. But, like in a lot of fields, you can toss outliers like the top 5 extremes hot and cold. And of course, it's a report, so the language can be as 'toned down', or 'hyped' as you want to make it, or judge it. I'm sure if it was over-hyped, many would complain that way too. What this video was then explaining, was that some of the 'hot' models might actually have been more accurate. So the entire report is even more skewed 'cold', the emergency is actually greater.
brabel 3y ago
> Because it turns people off to much. No, that's not what she said at all! Her main point was that the "hot models" were not being considered as very reliable because they showed poor power predicting past climate when compared to other models, but when applied to predicting the weather within shorter periods (e.g. a few days) they were actually better, so that gives weight to the hypothesis that the "hot models" are actually more accurate than previously thought, so they may need to adjust the currently accepted rates of warming to be higher... scientists didn't downplay the "hot models" because they were trying to make people more comfortable - that would be doing terrible science! Science doesn't care about feelings.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You are correct. I was referring to start of the video when referring to the reporting bodies that aggregate the model data. Of course science doesn't have 'feelings' but the people that report it do. And, you can take the same words' and some people call it 'hype' and others call it 'downplayed'. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'scientist'. Scientist have 100's of studies, and create 100's of models. The results are a range. Then various agencies release 'reports' that are summaries of the models. But, like in a lot of fields, you can toss outliers like the top 5 extremes hot and cold. And of course, it's a report, so the language can be as 'toned down', or 'hyped' as you want to make it, or judge it. I'm sure if it was over-hyped, many would complain that way too. What this video was then explaining, was that some of the 'hot' models might actually have been more accurate. So the entire report is even more skewed 'cold', the emergency is actually greater. You are correct. The Video was all about the 'hot' models and how they might actually be the most correct. Thus the reports are skewed in wrong direction overall.
dls2016 3y ago
I've been saying this for years: climate science isn't science (in the falsifiable sense), climate is nonlinear and humans don't like to rock the boat. This is especially true with a big, cross-disciplinary project like the IPCC report. (Yes, I understand parts of climate science are falsifiable... I'm at least semi-educated as a former meteorologist and former PDE guy. But the conclusions of the IPCC report are not testable.)
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Kind of like how biology isn't a science? Because observations doesn't count, since they are not testable? This is just playing with words. That 'science' must be 'testable' or it is not science, and all other fields that either have observations, or theory, is not 'science'. Theoretical Physics? Not science? What word should we use?
mr_toad 3y ago
If you look at successive IPCC reports you can see that many of the worst case scenarios have been dropped or relegated to footnotes and appendices.

astrodust 3y ago

When they tone it down, they look like idiots because their most pessimistic predictions from one era become the most optimistic ones from the next. But of course, politics.

graemep 3y ago

> That climate scientist have actually 'toned' down the doom outlooks. Because it turns people off to much. Like there will be no action if people knew how bad it was. That sounds wrong. They should be giving people the most accurate estimates and the error range, not toning it down (or going the other way). > So the 'right' is saying all the climate scientist are 'doomer's and causing sensational hype to promote their theories to sell books. So now it is a partisan political issue? No chance of sensible discussion at all then.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Maybe I shouldn't have said 'scientist'. Scientist have 100's of studies, and create 100's of models. The results are a range. Then various agencies release 'reports' that are summaries of the models. But, like in a lot of fields, you can toss outliers like the top 5 extremes hot and cold. And of course, it's a report, so the language can be as 'toned down', or 'hyped' as you want to make it, or judge it. I'm sure if it was over-hyped, many would complain that way too. What this video was then explaining, was that some of the 'hot' models might actually have been more accurate. So the entire report is even more skewed 'cold', the emergency is actually greater.

brabel 3y ago

> Because it turns people off to much. No, that's not what she said at all! Her main point was that the "hot models" were not being considered as very reliable because they showed poor power predicting past climate when compared to other models, but when applied to predicting the weather within shorter periods (e.g. a few days) they were actually better, so that gives weight to the hypothesis that the "hot models" are actually more accurate than previously thought, so they may need to adjust the currently accepted rates of warming to be higher... scientists didn't downplay the "hot models" because they were trying to make people more comfortable - that would be doing terrible science! Science doesn't care about feelings.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You are correct. I was referring to start of the video when referring to the reporting bodies that aggregate the model data. Of course science doesn't have 'feelings' but the people that report it do. And, you can take the same words' and some people call it 'hype' and others call it 'downplayed'. Maybe I shouldn't have said 'scientist'. Scientist have 100's of studies, and create 100's of models. The results are a range. Then various agencies release 'reports' that are summaries of the models. But, like in a lot of fields, you can toss outliers like the top 5 extremes hot and cold. And of course, it's a report, so the language can be as 'toned down', or 'hyped' as you want to make it, or judge it. I'm sure if it was over-hyped, many would complain that way too. What this video was then explaining, was that some of the 'hot' models might actually have been more accurate. So the entire report is even more skewed 'cold', the emergency is actually greater. You are correct. The Video was all about the 'hot' models and how they might actually be the most correct. Thus the reports are skewed in wrong direction overall.

dls2016 3y ago

I've been saying this for years: climate science isn't science (in the falsifiable sense), climate is nonlinear and humans don't like to rock the boat. This is especially true with a big, cross-disciplinary project like the IPCC report. (Yes, I understand parts of climate science are falsifiable... I'm at least semi-educated as a former meteorologist and former PDE guy. But the conclusions of the IPCC report are not testable.)

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Kind of like how biology isn't a science? Because observations doesn't count, since they are not testable? This is just playing with words. That 'science' must be 'testable' or it is not science, and all other fields that either have observations, or theory, is not 'science'. Theoretical Physics? Not science? What word should we use?

mr_toad 3y ago

If you look at successive IPCC reports you can see that many of the worst case scenarios have been dropped or relegated to footnotes and appendices.