3 ms·

> If climate scientists made forecasts that were this ridiculously off base in the wrong direction, the whole field would be laughed out of the room. How is it

> If climate scientists made forecasts that were this ridiculously off base in the wrong direction, the whole field would be laughed out of the room. How is it that the neoclassical econometric modelers at the IMF aren't? It's more like astrology than science. I have to say, this made me chuckle. Climate scientists have gone from warning us that we're entering an ice age, to warning us that the globe is warming too much. They've consistently gotten their forecasts wrong concerning rising sea levels, and their forecasts concerning when the world would end. It's pure alarmism, extremism, and is the cause for the increasing eco-terrorism we are seeing. Anyone that would like a little more info can watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Yms_-vgbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Yms_-vgbU

adrianN 3y ago
The ice age thing was never a majority opinion among scientists.
notaustinpowers 3y ago
Scientists, quite literally, change their theories as more information becomes apparent. Frankly, you're better suited to blame mass media for the alarmism and extremism. "The global temperature increased 1ºC in the past 100 years" is a lot less likely to get those sweet, sweet ad revenue clicks than a headline like "Scientists say the Earth will be uninhabitable in 100 years". Also, a philosopher cosplaying as a climate scientist may not be the best source for climate information. Until he starts having his statements and information peer-reviewed, it's nothing more than the philosophical musings of a man who, he himself, believes that the pinnacle of life is to feed the machine and consume, consume, consume.
photochemsyn 3y ago
That's nonsense - you're conflating the discovery of the main drivers behind the ice age cycles that began at the end of the Pliocene (~100,000 years per cycle over ~2 million years) with the discovery of the effects of human fossil fuel combustion. Yes, we're past the historical warm maximum period of this cycle and we'd be steadily (and very slowly) heading into another ice age over the next 70,000 years or so - but again, fossil fuel combustion and the injection of mass amounts of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere have radically altered that trajectory. This is not hard to understand, unless you're deliberately trying not to.

adrianN 3y ago

The ice age thing was never a majority opinion among scientists.

notaustinpowers 3y ago

Scientists, quite literally, change their theories as more information becomes apparent. Frankly, you're better suited to blame mass media for the alarmism and extremism. "The global temperature increased 1ºC in the past 100 years" is a lot less likely to get those sweet, sweet ad revenue clicks than a headline like "Scientists say the Earth will be uninhabitable in 100 years". Also, a philosopher cosplaying as a climate scientist may not be the best source for climate information. Until he starts having his statements and information peer-reviewed, it's nothing more than the philosophical musings of a man who, he himself, believes that the pinnacle of life is to feed the machine and consume, consume, consume.

photochemsyn 3y ago

That's nonsense - you're conflating the discovery of the main drivers behind the ice age cycles that began at the end of the Pliocene (~100,000 years per cycle over ~2 million years) with the discovery of the effects of human fossil fuel combustion. Yes, we're past the historical warm maximum period of this cycle and we'd be steadily (and very slowly) heading into another ice age over the next 70,000 years or so - but again, fossil fuel combustion and the injection of mass amounts of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere have radically altered that trajectory. This is not hard to understand, unless you're deliberately trying not to.