Author Topic: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong  (Read 67319 times)

Offline Liar Loan

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 818
  • -Received: 526
  • Posts: 2667
  • Don't fight the Fed.
Re: Experts admit global warming predictions wrong
« on: May 09, 2018, 10:15:49 AM »
“Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change

Donald Trump once said climate change was a “hoax” invented by the Chinese but the phenomenon could be responsible for flooding his own Florida properties.

Environmental experts lined up to testify at a senate hearing on climate change this week, just four miles from Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, arguing that water could rise so high by the end of the century that the President’s own resorts would be damaged.”

This would be a prime example of something that is not scientific consensus.

Climate models are not science any more than a pipeline hedging model in the mortgage industry is science.  You can figure out which variables are the most predictive, and overlay a set of assumptions on those variables, but reality has a way of not cooperating with our human assumptions.

So to summarize, science is based on observable, repeatable results that are aggregated into datasets that can be studied.  The models built on top of those datasets are not science, but represent our best guesses about a whole host of variables, making them no more reliable than economic models or weather prediction models. 

They make for great discussion points and a way to test our theories, but they shouldn't be lumped into the same category as "scientific facts".

Sounds reasonable, but why should I believe you over many others who have spent years actually studying Climate models? Do you have a real understanding of climate models, or just enough knowledge of them to know they share some characteristics with financial models? This sounds like Dunning-Kruger affect at work.

I'm inclined to trust those with experience in their field over a separate, but potentially similar, field. I'm not sure I believe that climate models equate to financial models, or that your expertise in that area gives you authority to make that assertion.

I'm not a client scientist either, so don't believe what I say, look to the huge number of scientists and work they've done showing that the globe is warming, it's caused by CO2, and it could cause us significant trouble if we don't get in front of it.

My point is, we've gotten to where we are now by trusting scientific consensus and using its insights to better ourselves. It has been our sharpest tool, allowing us to carve out a seat of power over this world that has enriched and elevated us. Why make exceptions now? Why do you equate your limited knowledge of climate science as equal or superior to the body of work that lays the foundation of the current consensus?

EDIT: Fixed image that didn't work for dunning kruger graph

It sounds like you agree with me that eyephone shouldn't be listened to.

The following member(s) thanked this post:

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2022, SimplePortal