
Only have a 5 percent chance of avoiding ‘dangerous’ global warming - drallison
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/31/we-only-have-a-5-percent-chance-of-avoiding-dangerous-global-warming-a-study-finds/?utm_term=.4bae9019b9dd
======
jamez1
I don't know how anybody can take models like this seriously. It's about as
valid as any of these economists models. Hell, it is partly an economic model.

Reading the paper, they make a big deal about the out of sample testing - but
given that there is a clear trend, is anybody surprised the model fits? Do you
even need a fancy Bayesian hierarchical model or would a regression have
predicted the same thing.

To top it off there's not mention of the CO2 cycle and the forces sucking CO2
out of the air they just assume the CO2 is cumulatively stasis in the air for
perpetuity.

Shit like this, wins you great points with the environmentalists, who want
ammo to throw at polluters. I get it - pollution is shit. But we shouldn't use
falsehoods to achieve an outcome even if it's a good outcome. This is the
reason why there is growing discontent for climate science. We need it now
more than ever, but the academic community just publishes bullshit and yells
at us if we doubt the veracity of their models.

We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and
instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone
else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign
against skepticism.

It's a strange world where scientists use the word 'skeptic' as a derogatory
term.

~~~
awkwarddaturtle
> I don't know how anybody can take models like this seriously. It's about as
> valid as any of these economists models. Hell, it is partly an economic
> model.

Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct
and they are the greatest scientists in human history.

It's crazy how this global warming political movement has hijack science to
push their agenda.

> We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and
> instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone
> else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate
> campaign against skepticism.

It's funny how model after model has proven rather suspect and yet you will
get called anti-science or a denier if you don't accept their model 100%
without question.

If only the global warming movement had more humility of scientists rather
than the total conviction of a cult members, I'd take them more seriously. And
if they were more honest about the data and the science of climate rather than
lying about it.

~~~
jgys
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, two things: 1) that your assertion
that environmentalists and public figures in media, politics, and (what we'll
call, with marginal disrespect, "pop") science are lacking in humility and
unwilling to admit any flaw in their predictions or assertions is a fair
assertion, and 2) that they are generally correct in their concern about
pollution in general and the effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures
and weather patterns in particular, and that this is a risk to the welfare of
many people around the world.

Do you suppose that environmental activists are more likely to achieve their
important objective of dramatically reducing carbon emissions by admitting
even mild uncertainties in the rationale for their position in effort to
appeal to educated, reasoned people like you, or by adhering to a steadfast
narrative, increasingly accepted by the masses, that anthropogenic climate
change is creating a severe risk to the welfare of people the world around?

~~~
credit_guy
there's another thread of articles currently high up on Hacker News about
Baltimore cops planting evidence. I don't like police doing that, and I don't
like climate scientists being cavalier with the science "for the greater
good".

------
marssaxman
Yeah, well, this has been basically obvious for a while now: the world simply
didn't develop the political will to deal with climate change in time to make
a difference. It's probably still worth pretending that we have a chance, if
that fiction helps us make changes that will mitigate some of the effects, but
we're really just deciding whether we're going for "bad" or "worse". If we
were going to achieve a good outcome, we'd have to have gotten serious a
decade or two ago.

------
framestr
"So you're saying there's a chance"

