Climate science was wrong!

[Eise]

... the earth is heating faster. than anyone expected in the past.

The New York Times

Quote

 

Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

 

 

[swansont]

Such predictions as the one in the quote were dismissed as alarmist.

Blaming the scientists is misguided, at best. Political inaction happened despite the predictions, not because of them.  

The article also points to the problem of using "wrong" as attached to scientific results or predictions, as if this is a binary condition. Most of the time it isn't. Science tends to quantify things, so that one can see how close results are to predictions. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

... the earth is heating faster. than anyone expected in the past.

The New York Times

 

The future is easy to dismiss, it hasnt happened... 

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

... the earth is heating faster. than anyone expected in the past.

Meanwhile, it's bloody freezing here. I've lived through nearly seventy Novembers, and I can tell you that this one is bloody cold. 

Is there any way we can get some of those baking arctic temperatures here, in the UK ? They seem to keep sidestepping us. Even a little would be nice. 

[iNow]

Those pesky ocean currents are far more likely to lead you toward glaciation

[Strange]

 

[mistermack]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Those pesky ocean currents are far more likely to lead you toward glaciation

Well none of it's my fault. I have the heater and air conditioner on full blast all the time in my Humvee, and I give off methane everywhere I go. 

If the planet freezes over, I will have a clear conscience.

[iNow]

Denial is more than a river in Africa

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Denial is more than a river in Africa

I don't deny any religion. I'm just waiting for decent evidence. And the burden of proof is on the believers. 

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't deny any religion. I'm just waiting for decent evidence. And the burden of proof is on the believers. 

Which is?

[Ken Fabian]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

I don't deny any religion. I'm just waiting for decent evidence. And the burden of proof is on the believers. 

This sounds like faux scepticism rather than any kind of genuine and appropriate application of scientific scepticism. In effect you are saying the conclusions of the world's climate scientists including, in this case, panels of accomplished experts picked for their appropriate skills and their scientific integrity by world leading institutions like the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society to review climate science, are wrong until and unless you, personally are convinced otherwise.

Surely scientific scepticism starts with the position that you don't know, not that no-one else knows or that entire bodies of established and accepted scientific knowledge are wrong. Not even as you check to be sure. It is a very useful error checking technique but one that requires a degree of actual expertise - and I suspect is most of all used by working scientists to avoid embarrassing themselves.

It is the armchair sceptic that holds that anything you do not, cannot or choose not to understand is wrong until personally convinced; which makes it a way to reject absolutely anything you choose to reject; it is as far from being sound science as it gets.

You can - of course - disbelieve anything you like, however I think people holding positions of responsibility and trust to have no such "right". In their case it is, at best negligence. At worst it is a result of corruption. Either way it is dangerously irresponsible.

 

[Strange]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

I don't deny any religion. I'm just waiting for decent evidence. And the burden of proof is on the believers. 

That is off topic. The subject is climate science, not religion.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That is off topic. The subject is climate science, not religion.

The point is that by using terms like deniers, people are treating the subject like a religion. And constantly talking about the belief, rather than the evidence for it, is much the same. 

Even the so-called "consensus" is religion-like. I'm sure there is near 100% consensus that Jesus was god, among Catholic clergy. Although to their credit, they don't quote that as some kind of evidence.

If you want to be regarded as a science, act like scientists, and not like adherents. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

The point is that by using terms like deniers, people are treating the subject like a religion. And constantly talking about the belief, rather than the evidence for it, is much the same. 

Nonsense. If you claim the science is wrong, despite the evidence, you are denying the science. That makes you a science denier. And that denial is based on belief rather than evidence. 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Even the so-called "consensus" is religion-like.

And double nonsense. The consensus exists because of the science. 

Is the consensus that gravity follows an inverse square law, or that water is wet, religion-like?

[dimreepr]

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The point is that by using terms like deniers, people are treating the subject like a religion. And constantly talking about the belief, rather than the evidence for it, is much the same. 

Even the so-called "consensus" is religion-like. I'm sure there is near 100% consensus that Jesus was god, among Catholic clergy. Although to their credit, they don't quote that as some kind of evidence.

If you want to be regarded as a science, act like scientists, and not like adherents. 

Thats what you want to believe. A bit sad really. 

[Strange]

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you want to be regarded as a science, act like scientists, and not like adherents.

I think you should take your quasi-religious beliefs about climate science elsewhere.

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The point is that by using terms like deniers, people are treating the subject like a religion. And constantly talking about the belief, rather than the evidence for it, is much the same. 

Even the so-called "consensus" is religion-like. I'm sure there is near 100% consensus that Jesus was god, among Catholic clergy. Although to their credit, they don't quote that as some kind of evidence.

If you want to be regarded as a science, act like scientists, and not like adherents. 

There's evidence coming out every fucking day. Don't you read the news? It's only 'absent' because you are not looking for it.

Edited November 19, 2019 by StringJunky

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nonsense. If you go claim the science is wrong, despite the evidence, you are denying the science. That makes you a science denier. And that denial is based on belief rather than evidence. 

You can't see what's wrong with that statement? Climate science is based on informed guesswork, it's all about projections that go many decades into the future, when there are complete unknowns involved, like future volcanic and solar activity, among many many others. And yet, you regard any difference of opinion as "denying the science". 

Well, the science isn't done. There are many poorly understood factors, like clouds. I'm disagreeing with the guesswork, not the science. Projection of climate for the future IS a best guess. Climate models are tools, to help people with their guesswork. They don't remove the guesswork element.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

And double nonsense. The consensus exists because of the science. 

Is the consensus that gravity follows an inverse square law, or that water is wet, religion-like?

No, because firstly, it doesn't involve guesswork about unknown unpredictable elements, and secondly, it's been tested experimentally hundreds of thousands of times, and always got the same result. Also, if anyone disagrees, it is perfectly open and easy for them to show why the inverse square law is wrong, and collect their Nobel Prize. So the consensus doesn't involve a leap of faith.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

You can't see what's wrong with that statement? Climate science is based on informed guesswork

That may be what your religion tells you, but you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Prometheus]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Climate science is based on informed guesswork, it's all about projections that go many decades into the future, when there are complete unknowns involved, like future volcanic and solar activity, among many many others.

Any science that makes projections into the future and contains complete unknowns is informed guesswork? Don't take a peek at medical science. 

Is solar activity a complete unknown? The 11 year cycle is well established isn't it - not quite completely unknown. I'm sure volcanologists would disagree that volcanic activity is completely unknown. 

It seems you have very standards of evidence - but are you consistent in this standard? We know there are completely missing between quantum and relativistic sciences as the two theories are incompatible. Then by your own reasoning we should admit that theories of gravity are informed guesswork.

Even if it is informed guesswork, what else would you base decisions on. Uninformed guesswork? If you see a car coming towards you and you can't quite gauge its speed would walk faster or slower?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

The point is that by using terms like deniers, people are treating the subject like a religion. And constantly talking about the belief, rather than the evidence for it, is much the same. 

Even the so-called "consensus" is religion-like. I'm sure there is near 100% consensus that Jesus was god, among Catholic clergy. Although to their credit, they don't quote that as some kind of evidence.

That's a pretty spectacular failure of logic.

35 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You can't see what's wrong with that statement? Climate science is based on informed guesswork, it's all about projections that go many decades into the future, when there are complete unknowns involved, like future volcanic and solar activity, among many many others. And yet, you regard any difference of opinion as "denying the science". 

Well, the science isn't done. There are many poorly understood factors, like clouds. I'm disagreeing with the guesswork, not the science. Projection of climate for the future IS a best guess. Climate models are tools, to help people with their guesswork. They don't remove the guesswork element.

I defy you to find any science where this isn't the case: "informed guesswork" (i.e. predictions coming from mathematical models) and the science still happening and we continue to learn, because it's not "done".

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You can't see what's wrong with that statement? Climate science is based on informed guesswork, it's all about projections that go many decades into the future, when there are complete unknowns involved, like future volcanic and solar activity, among many many others. And yet, you regard any difference of opinion as "denying the science". 

!

Moderator Note

If you reread the OP, you'll find your ignorant, misinformed stance is off-topic here. This thread is about how the climate is changing faster than the models predicted. Further attempts to troll this topic will be removed to the Trash.

 

[dimreepr]

Even a shit arguement has followers.

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You can't see what's wrong with that statement? Climate science is based on informed guesswork, it's all about projections that go many decades into the future, when there are complete unknowns involved, like future volcanic and solar activity, among many many others. And yet, you regard any difference of opinion as "denying the science". 

 

see what I mean?

[Ken Fabian]

Trust is not the same as faith. Trust in the institutions, practices and ethics of science is not religion. Given that the work of scientists is documented and widely accessible it is available for sceptical review and critique - but this takes knowledge and expertise. Being wrong is bad for a scientist's reputation - and when they are wrong it is documented. There are sound reasons to have trust in the error correcting nature of those practices and - because it is so thoroughly documented, misconduct or conspiracy is difficult to sustain.

If, as a sceptic, you don't actually engage in actually doing the work of critiquing - which involves studying, in this case, climate science - any conclusion that it is wrong is a mere personal preference, a belief that lacks any sound basis. It is not up to people who trust science based advice to convince the doubters, nor the scientists either; it is within the body of their works that scientists present the evidence and reasoning.

Meanwhile, as the initial post notes, we are experiencing weather events that are in keeping with a world with AGW. I suggest that when examined closely these are within the range of what climate model based projections have "predicted" - the middle of the spread outcomes may be being exceeded. That doesn't make it wrong any more than outcomes that are at the high end of the range not occurring - the worst case ones that, rightly and wrongly get extra public interest and attention - makes climate science wrong.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[Arete]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

The point is that by using terms like deniers, people are treating the subject like a religion. And constantly talking about the belief, rather than the evidence for it, is much the same. 

Even the so-called "consensus" is religion-like. I'm sure there is near 100% consensus that Jesus was god, among Catholic clergy. Although to their credit, they don't quote that as some kind of evidence.

If you want to be regarded as a science, act like scientists, and not like adherents. 

One of the representations that has always bothered me, being a scientist, is that a "scientific consensus" is a bunch of us sitting around in tweed jackets, smoking pipes, sipping scotch and all nodding in agreement with one another.

A scientific consensus occurs when a bunch of different data all converge on the same conclusion. Provided it's collected using best practices, data can't be political in of itself, it just, is