How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[TheLurch]

Eggs. They are high in cholesterol. They must cause heart disease.

Until they don't.

No, wait, they do.

Er, no, they're actually good for you.

But wait...

Oh, good, the old "scientists were wrong once, and therefore we should conclude they're always wrong" argument. I'm convinced!

That's leaving aside that you're not even using an analogous situation.

And that mess was based on actual studies, not computer modelling. A given isolated fact is not a definitive projection of outcome.

Did i mention computer modeling in my statements? I did not. So why are you bringing it up?

Scientists have mortgages like the rest of us - and we've seen how well that turns out when science meets politics. It's far more amazing to me that anyone takes science in polity seriously at all.

And this is an even worse argument than the other two. You know what's happened to climate funding over the last several decades? Nothing, it's right where it was at the start (adjusted for inflation). You know why? Because the money to solve climate change goes to engineers, materials scientists, and biochemists. They're the ones who can make new renewable energy systems, enhanced biofuels, etc. Solving climate change doesn't need climatologists, and they're not getting any extra money just because people are taking it seriously.

(The argument is also bad because climate change is accepted by scientists in countries - and companies! - that are overtly hostile to their conclusions, including here in the US. So, their conclusions appear to be independent of politics.)

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, sure, Jim - has NOTHING to do with your little outbursts where you call me a liar and make false accusations and imagine all kinds of anger and me "getting set off"....

No -- you appear to be on some kind of emotional roller coaster at times. It's not healthy. You perceive a threat, you lash out, you complain about there being "no friends", and if somebody points any of this out, you go into "I'm not going to lay here and let you turn this all on me".

If I can consistently be polite and respectful to JimL who, by the way, appears to be one of your loyal fans, then maybe you can try just a little harder not to be so 'triggered'.

At this point we have reached that rather common little turning point in the discussion where you and others have decided you'd rather rail on me more than discuss anything meaningful. So - tah!

[Cow Poke]

yep - that is why you keep saying Done!

It's because I realize I'm triggering you, and making ZERO progress in trying to communicate with you. No anger, no hostility --- just not interested in your emotional outbursts.

every time I don't agree with you or point out where you have made a mistake. Very cool.

Yup. Quite honestly, Jim, you're not worth the angst when you're in your "poke somebody in the eye" then complain bitterly that "there are no friends".

When I feel like you're building up another head of steam, I try to disengage.

[Cow Poke]

At this point we have reached that rather common little turning point in the discussion where you and others

Any clue what the common denominator might be, Jim?

have decided you'd rather rail on me

And there we have it.... that persecution thing again.

more than discuss anything meaningful. So - tah!

"tah"?



And, actually, I'm having a very civil discussion with you on the SpaceX thing..... I suppose as long as Trump is not mentioned.

[TheLurch]

So, i've finally gotten around to reading it, and i disagree with the central thesis. The author is basically focusing on a bunch of cases that can be summarized as "we don't have any data on this, so we assume this aspect of the climate is relatively stable." Then when we got data, it turns out it wasn't. But the issues he ends up using to illustrate this are largely unrelated climate phenomena, and and the data that came in to show they could change rapidly came in decades apart.

So, the author's not misrepresenting any of the individual storylines, but he's trying to piece them together into a narrative i don't think applies. Scientists weren't underestimating climate change, they were simply being conservative in their conclusions until they had sufficient data.

Has that left us worse of when it comes to preparing for potential impacts? Yes. Have they been accused of being flaming radicals regardless of their conservatism? Yes. Should they have done anything differently? I think conservatism was scientifically appropriate in these circumstances.

[One Bad Pig]

Close enough. You ignored all content in my posts and just tried to pretend I was picking a fight with you or being irrational. It is what it is OBP, and I know you'll not spend 5 seconds considering the possibility I have a point. So it is what it is. You are who you are.

If that's the way you see things, and that seems to be the case, then there is no point in me discussing anything with you. Ta.

[Cow Poke]

If that's the way you see things, and that seems to be the case, then there is no point in me discussing anything with you. Ta.

It's "tah"!

[One Bad Pig]

So, i've finally gotten around to reading it, and i disagree with the central thesis. The author is basically focusing on a bunch of cases that can be summarized as "we don't have any data on this, so we assume this aspect of the climate is relatively stable." Then when we got data, it turns out it wasn't. But the issues he ends up using to illustrate this are largely unrelated climate phenomena, and and the data that came in to show they could change rapidly came in decades apart.

So, the author's not misrepresenting any of the individual storylines, but he's trying to piece them together into a narrative i don't think applies. Scientists weren't underestimating climate change, they were simply being conservative in their conclusions until they had sufficient data.

Yeah.

[oxmixmudd]

If that's the way you see things, and that seems to be the case, then there is no point in me discussing anything with you. Ta.

Unfortunately, that is probably true. You've not not been able to hold a meaningful conversation with me in quite some time. You've managed to be offended by something I've said within one or two posts every single time.

[oxmixmudd]

And, actually, I'm having a very civil discussion with you on the SpaceX thing..... I suppose as long as Trump is not mentioned.

That we are - so at least we know it is possible

[Cow Poke]

That we are - so at least we know it is possible

Like I said, if I can have civil discussions with JimL.....



ETA - you know you'll never lived down that "tah", eh?

[One Bad Pig]

Unfortunately, that is probably true. You've not not been able to hold a meaningful conversation with me in quite some time. You've managed to be offended by something I've said within one or two posts every single time.

You haven't offended me in quite some time, Jim. I agree that meaningful conversation has been difficult for a while, which is why I try not to engage with you.

[demi-conservative]

Back to the main topic:

There is no consensus on how much the temperature is going to rise, not least because they're still making significant adjustments to the models, with post #1 highlighting yet another 'Oops, gotta fix it again'. What's more, there is no consensus on the consequences of an unknown magnitude of temperature increase.

While there is consensus that AGW is happening, the consequences of AGW are ill-understood like high cholesterol consumption, resulting in no scientific case to make any significant change to economies and societies.

[rogue06]

Why would anyone say "ta" or "tah" when a perfectly good "toodles" was left unused? smiley dejected2.gif

[oxmixmudd]

You haven't offended me in quite some time, Jim. I agree that meaningful conversation has been difficult for a while, which is why I try not to engage with you.

I would define 'offended you' as you terminating the conversation, usually with some comments about how irrational I am. Perhaps there is no actual emotion involved on your part, but the effect is the same.