4 ms·

Obviously you get downvoted for this here, but you are absolutely correct. Climate science is one of the most speculative fields of science, which for politica

Obviously you get downvoted for this here, but you are absolutely correct. Climate science is one of the most speculative fields of science, which for political reasons is rarely admitted towards the general public. The climate in 100 years is incredibly uncertain. The general story of rising sea levels due to increased temperatures due to increased carbon in the atmosphere is of course very plausible. But it is just one of large number of effects at play and one of many ways the climate is changing. (Which isn't to say that the sum of these effects can not have server negative consequences) Science communication around climate change has always been built around the obvious falsehood that climate models make good predictions, especially when it comes to long term trends. Instead of honestly communicating the actual state of science, which is that while specific predictions are hard, negative consequences of human intervention in the earths atmosphere likely will have sever negative consequences if they aren't mitigated, science communication has focused in on stories about "in X years Y will happen". When Y inevitably did not happen that was (and it is hard to blame people for this) taken es evidence that no negative consequences can be expected. Edit: It is pretty surprising how anti science the crowd here is. These are just basic truths about he state of the science. Accurate climate models do not exist, if you disagree I suppose you should read a bit into the literature.

margalabargala 1y ago
This is completely wrong and I'm frankly not sure how you came to this conclusion from the parent comment's data. The uncertainty is "we do not know whether the amount of sea level rise due to human GHG emissions will be closer to 40cm, or closer to 100cm 75 years from now". Science communication regarding this has generally always expressed uncertainty. Right wing entertainment masquerading as news frequently portrays it otherwise, but that's easy to do when unencumbered by a connection to reality. Don't confuse what is most profitable to say, with what is most correct to say.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    No idea since I can't read German, but that looks like a news site not a scientific site to me. I'm talking about things written by scientists, not reporters or talking heads. I do think it's telling that you felt the need to reach for things written in a foreign language to try to make your point on an English language discussion site
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      >No idea since I can't read German, but that looks like a news site not a scientific site to me. It is one of the largest German magazines, which certainly has the ambition and ability to shape public perception of issues. What they are saying matters more than any scientific journal. >I'm talking about things written by scientists, not reporters or talking heads. Then you just ignored my post. I was talking about how science is communicated, I was explicitly saying that how scientist talk about this issue and how journalists talk about it are different. It is journalists who shape how an issue is perceived, not scientists. My point was, again, that the uncertainty scientists have in their models is not adequately reported. >I do think it's telling that you felt the need to reach for things written in a foreign language to try to make your point on an English language discussion site It is not a foreign language to me. I brought it up because it is what I am seeing. This is not far right propaganda, it is how the main stream center left is covering the issue of climate change in Germany.
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        Clearly it isn't a foreign language to you, but it's a remarkably self centered act to decide that therefore it's appropriate to use as a part of a discussion on a site that is exclusively in a different language. In other words: bIvalqu'be'. 'ach pIch SoHbe'.
        constantcrying 1y ago
        If you do not want to talk about this issue then don't. I brought it up because you claimed it was only something the far right claimed. Demanding that someone from another country has to be able to point to a media environment he has no interaction with just so that he can talk about an issue seems incredibly close minded and petty. We both know how to use a translator for a website, this isn't some unreasonable obstacles I am asking you to overcome. Am I just now allowed to share my perspective on anything, because the only sources I can point to on this specific topic are in my native language? How idiotic is that.

margalabargala 1y ago

This is completely wrong and I'm frankly not sure how you came to this conclusion from the parent comment's data. The uncertainty is "we do not know whether the amount of sea level rise due to human GHG emissions will be closer to 40cm, or closer to 100cm 75 years from now". Science communication regarding this has generally always expressed uncertainty. Right wing entertainment masquerading as news frequently portrays it otherwise, but that's easy to do when unencumbered by a connection to reality. Don't confuse what is most profitable to say, with what is most correct to say.

constantcrying 1y ago
[flagged]
- margalabargala 1y ago
  No idea since I can't read German, but that looks like a news site not a scientific site to me. I'm talking about things written by scientists, not reporters or talking heads. I do think it's telling that you felt the need to reach for things written in a foreign language to try to make your point on an English language discussion site
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    >No idea since I can't read German, but that looks like a news site not a scientific site to me. It is one of the largest German magazines, which certainly has the ambition and ability to shape public perception of issues. What they are saying matters more than any scientific journal. >I'm talking about things written by scientists, not reporters or talking heads. Then you just ignored my post. I was talking about how science is communicated, I was explicitly saying that how scientist talk about this issue and how journalists talk about it are different. It is journalists who shape how an issue is perceived, not scientists. My point was, again, that the uncertainty scientists have in their models is not adequately reported. >I do think it's telling that you felt the need to reach for things written in a foreign language to try to make your point on an English language discussion site It is not a foreign language to me. I brought it up because it is what I am seeing. This is not far right propaganda, it is how the main stream center left is covering the issue of climate change in Germany.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      Clearly it isn't a foreign language to you, but it's a remarkably self centered act to decide that therefore it's appropriate to use as a part of a discussion on a site that is exclusively in a different language. In other words: bIvalqu'be'. 'ach pIch SoHbe'.
      - constantcrying 1y ago
        If you do not want to talk about this issue then don't. I brought it up because you claimed it was only something the far right claimed. Demanding that someone from another country has to be able to point to a media environment he has no interaction with just so that he can talk about an issue seems incredibly close minded and petty. We both know how to use a translator for a website, this isn't some unreasonable obstacles I am asking you to overcome. Am I just now allowed to share my perspective on anything, because the only sources I can point to on this specific topic are in my native language? How idiotic is that.