7 ms·

The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years. Climat

• scarmig 13y ago
  No, it doesn't say that. The best climate science predicts a rise of 3 degrees Celsius or so, which has the potential to substantially disrupt some vulnerable societies and act as a significant drag on economic growth. It would not render large portions of the world uninhabitable, though.
• crusso 13y ago
  The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years The best climate science is still crap. We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural variability. It's been rather telling that IPCC has had to adjust its predictions significantly over the last decade because they haven't matched up with reality. Let's all step away from the hype, politics, and hollywood portrayals to figure out what's really going on. Personally, I find it very grounding to go back to Judith Curry's blog every once in a while to see what a reasonable skeptic is observing in all the political noise around the science. http://judithcurry.com/ http://judithcurry.com/
  • scarmig 13y ago
    Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word for it over the mainstream of the scientific community because of your expertise, or because she conveniently says things that align with your pre-existing opinions? Blogs are always a less-than-ideal medium for picking out scientific truth, but compare Judith Curry's blog (which is barely better than Watts Up With That) with, say, RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.realclimate.org/ The differences in scientific focus is immediately evident. Judith Curry myopically focuses on lazy "debunkings," yelling at her imagined enemies, and hyping up her own public appearances; RealClimate focuses on new scientific papers, what's going on at conferences, and a much smaller proportion of "ethics" and "meta" questions.
    • crusso 13y ago
      Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to reason about them to create my own world view. Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society. I really don't spend enough brain cells to understand the issues as well as the climate scientists, but I am good/have relevant experience in two important ways. 1. I've worked with simulation enough to know that they aren't worth crap if they don't have a track record for predicting reality. Climate models have had no appreciable success at predicting long range climate. As much as you may want to, you can't put the cart before the horse. The validity of the model has to be proved before they can be trusted. Before that happens, you're using religious thinking and trying to label those who don't agree with you heretics. 2. I'm good at spotting bullshit politics masked as scientific authority. I've found the IPCC, Mann, et al. to be extremely political in their approach to Science. They trash people who don't agree with them and they don't just admit it when they and their models are significantly wrong.
      • scarmig 13y ago
        "Bullshit politics" "crap" Keep it civil. You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate, simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to her AGW denialism. 2) is, naturally, an argument from "climate science is bunk because climate scientists are evil because crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists are evil," which is unfortunately a common logical error.
        • moheeb 13y ago
          ""crap"" is pretty civil. I pick up my dog's every day just to keep our neighborhood civil.
        • crusso 13y ago
  • tvladeck 13y ago
    > Let's all step away from the hype, politics, and hollywood portrayals to figure out what's really going on. Sure, but let's also enact policies that help make our societies and economies more robust to whatever that answer is. When there are time lags involved, you cannot wait for perfect information before you act.
    • crusso 13y ago
      let's also enact policies societies and economies more robust to whatever that answer is I agree completely with that. As a first step, I'd be happy if our federal government could somehow balance and claw the debt back to a point where we will have financial reserves against future challenges rather than our current extremely vulnerable position.
      • tvladeck 13y ago
        That's a truly impressive non-sequitur. What policies would you suggest to prepare for the risk of catastrophic or highly damaging climate change?
        • crusso 13y ago
          It's a non-sequitur to have an economy that can handle damage from any of a number of disasters - including extreme climate change?
  • MaysonL 13y ago
    Screw the models, look at the data. Especially the biological and physical data: plant and animal species ranges, bird migration patterns, permafrost melting. All point toward warming.
• crisnoble 13y ago
  I refuse to believe that humanity is at its apex. Keeping our heads in the sand about climate change is a terrible idea and will have dire consequences. Admitting defeat and that the world is about to go down the toilet is also going to have dire consequences. My opinion: Raise awareness about the problem and fight to fix it.