3 ms·

Science isn't about popularity or fame. Either the data supports his conclusions or it doesn't.

• obstinate 11y ago
  It seems like it's based on computer models, so it really depends on how well the models predict reality. Just fitting past data will not be sufficient.
  • polotics 11y ago
    any serious modelling will involve predictive runs with a starting point in the past, then matching the output to available actual time series data up to present time. I would be very surprised if this scientists' models were not subjected to this kind of routine testing.
    • aoeuasdf1 11y ago
      That's not sufficient. If you write 10 different models, each with 10s of thousands of parameters until you get the results you want, it doesn't matter how accurately the model seems to predict in the past. Modelling is a tricky business that easily falls prey to such "data snooping" methods.
• powera 11y ago
  From a pure science reporting point of view the news article screams "the claims in this news article are an outlier result that isn't actually likely to be true". The lack of peer review, the claims that things are actually 10 times worse than the consensus, the focus on the fact that it's a famous scientist all tend to correlate with really bad articles, and the article barely even mentions any of the actual science done here. (and the part it does mention the science claims that the article doesn't even say it will happen in the next century)
• mikeash 11y ago
  Climate change has become a political issue and politics is all about popularity and fame.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
• themgt 11y ago
  The data we have has been evolving very rapidly over the last few years, but in general, it would appear to support these conclusions. If they'd thrown in a guesstimate on possible massive arctic permafrost/clathrate methane leaks, it'd make this estimate look conservative. Greenland, West and likely East Antarctica are all far more vulnerable to rapid melt than we had imagined, and those different findings have not to my knowledge so far been combined and used to update global models until now. The paper is written by some of the real heavy-hitters of climate science, so I would take it in some sense as almost a "statement of consensus" about what the new science is telling us. And, as many have been trying to warn, the answer is: it's not good.
• Daishiman 11y ago
  No shit. It's pretty obvious that the article isn't talking about that. What it is talking about is a scientist who has a known track record of advancing his field and being ahead of the curve in creating useful models and predictions. Since the article is meant for laymen, it is reasonable to use the phrase as a shortcut for the prior definition, unless the title "Scientist who has been right about a lot of important things has more models with relevant results for all of us".