How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[Juvenal]

Opinion
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
When both underestimation and overestimation occur, and only the latter is penalized, underestimation is baked into the consensus conclusions. Because underestimation is by far the most costly error, a proper risk/benefit analysis should exclude it in favor of mid-range to worst case estimation.

sealevel.jpg

[oxmixmudd]

Opinion
How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong
When both underestimation and overestimation occur, and only the latter is penalized, underestimation is baked into the consensus conclusions. Because underestimation is by far the most costly error, a proper risk/benefit analysis should exclude it in favor of mid-range to worst case estimation.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40779[/ATTACH]

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of conspiracy laden propaganda out there from Big Oil etc that has latched onto anti-science fears in a large part of the US population. And any overestimation feeds those same irrational, conspiracy based fears. Not sure what the solution is, but the conservative right sees the climate change issue as an appeal to something not far removed from world domination by socialists. And I do not know how to change that perception.

[mikewhitney]

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of conspiracy laden propaganda out there from Big Oil etc that has latched onto anti-science fears in a large part of the US population. And any overestimation feeds those same irrational, conspiracy based fears. Not sure what the solution is, but the conservative right sees the climate change issue as an appeal to something not far removed from world domination by socialists. And I do not know how to change that perception.

What is your evidence that there is a conspiracy being led by Big Oil?

That just sounds like another conspiracy theory. Or is your conspiracy theory better than all other conspiracy theories?

[shunyadragon]

There was organized opposition against Global Warming by the Oil Companies, which has moderated recently as Oil companies diversified and Global Warming has become undeniably support by the science.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

The ExxonMobil climate change controversy concerns ExxonMobil's activities related to global warming, especially their views on climate change skepticism. Since the 1970s, ExxonMobil engaged in climate research, and later began lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.

From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. From the 1980s to mid 2000s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to curtail global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and sought to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition of businesses opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. More recently it has expressed support for a carbon tax and the Paris agreement.

© Copyright Original Source

[mikewhitney]

the wikipedia article wasn't very persuasive. the article just showed a company confused about the way to navigate their future.

[shunyadragon]

the wikipedia article wasn't very persuasive. the article just showed a company confused about the way to navigate their future.

Large Oil Companies do not act on confusion. It was organized opposition. As geologist I knew petroleum geologists that worked with the oil companies, and of course they knew the corporate opposition was bogus, and as time passed it became an embarrassing position not supported by science.

It would be advisable that you read the rest of the article to understand the broad base of the corporate opposition to Global Warming up until recently. Apparently the Conservative political movements have taken up the banner to joust with windmills since many of the corporations have accepted the science of Global Warming.

[oxmixmudd]

What is your evidence that there is a conspiracy being led by Big Oil?

That just sounds like another conspiracy theory. Or is your conspiracy theory better than all other conspiracy theories?

Big oil has been shown to be a major funding arm of climate misinformation sites like Wattsup. And their lobbies are forever pushing back against legislation thatvrecognises ot ir acts to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels.

There is a lot of money to be lost, and like the cigarette industry, they're not above some shady 'science' to muddy the waters and slow down acceptance of the reality AGW.

In some cases they have begun transitioning to roles less hostile, and so their current status may well be evolving, unlike those entrenched in climate science denial for religious or political reasons.

[rogue06]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Big Oil the primary investor in alternative energy? If so whatever we do for energy they win.

[Cow Poke]

I think it's interesting that the fact that scientists "got science climate so wrong" is an argument for trusting them now.

[One Bad Pig]

Opinion

Oh.

[shunyadragon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Big Oil the primary investor in alternative energy? If so whatever we do for energy they win.

Only recently. Yes they now see the advantages of alternate energies.

[shunyadragon]

I think it's interesting that the fact that scientists "got science climate so wrong" is an argument for trusting them now.

Science does not "get climate so wrong." The knowledge of science concerning climate change changes over the years like all science. The present knowledge of science confirms beyond a reasonable doubt, global warming due to human influence is a reality, and we may be facing an excellerated rate of climate change as not in the other thread.http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nge-2019/page7 posts #63 and #64.

[Cow Poke]

Science does not "get climate so wrong."....

Ummmm.... back up just a tad and read the title of the thread, to which I was responding.

[oxmixmudd]

Ummmm.... back up just a tad and read the title of the thread, to which I was responding.

The title is itself a play on words. The content is describing an effect of climate change that is worse than expected and lamenting that the politics of climate change have forced scientists to tend to underestimate, tend towards best case scenarios, when in reality, for something like climate change, we really need to be looking at the worst case in terms of funding and mitigation. Acting too slowly is typically going to be more of a problem than acting too quickly.

[shunyadragon]

Ummmm.... back up just a tad and read the title of the thread, to which I was responding.

Your title is from a very biased non-scientific agenda, and means nothing concerning the present level of scientific knowledge concerning global warming and climate change. Like all science the science of global warming changes over time based on new discoveries and research such as what I cited in the other thread and you choose to ignore.