200 million persons at risk of flooding in the US this spring.
This looks insane.
lol, too funny. they know exactly what they’re doing. that’s why michael mann used his “trick” to “hide the decline”.
let me know when you discover the difference between weather and climate.
That old canard? Now you’ve lost any credibility you might have brought to the table.
canard? lol. hardly. denial doesn’t make it untrue. only if it were actually untrue would it be so, but it’s not. do you even know what the decline was he was hiding? do you know what trick he used to do it?
I suggest you google it but avoid denier sites. You may learn what he was referring to.
i know what he referred to, do you? when you look it up i suggest you avoid the junk science sites claiming it was valid science. it was not. far from it.
What was he referring to?
It’s weather, it’s not climate. It’s nothing.
Climate change played a hand in the deadly floods in the U.S. upper Midwest that have damaged crops and drowned livestock, scientists said on Thursday, while a Trump administration official said more homework was needed before making that link.
Science doesn’t care who’s a denier or not, or what internet sites you visit, what you think Al Gore is up to, or if there’s a new green deal–or not. Scientists, like anybody else, also make mistakes. Over time the mistakes are ironed out by the process. But the process is all we have and it has proven to be the most important process of the modern world. There is nothing special about a “climate” scientist that distinguishes them from any other kind of scientist. It’s all done the same way. One of the worst avenues for discourse are predictions. They come in various sizes. The most obvious and commonplace predictions are simply a means to test the validity of certain hypotheses. Like the prediction of general relativity that light bends in the presence of massive objects.
If somebody predicts that the world will end in 12 years, that is not a prediction in the scientific sense of the word. It’s OK to say it or even believe it, but it is not science. That global warming might result in a certain amount of sea level rise in the next century also is a prediction, but not in the scientific sense. It’s simply an outcome of the best data used to model future trends. Think of it as a forecast using the best data we have at the moment.
By the way, this also includes social science, like psychology or anthropology. But here the variables are more intricate and more difficult to control. One of the most important contributions of psychology over the past few decades is the understanding of how we make judgments and the biases that all of us are susceptible to. One of Michael Lewis’ new books (author of Moneyball, The Blind Side, The Big Short, etc.) was about two such psychologists, called “The Undoing Project.” I recommend it.
Just to follow up, words matter in science. The word “prediction” is one of the words that needs to be treated carefully, not casually. That also goes for the word “theory,” which is perhaps the most mistreated word of all. I’ve heard people say that evolution is only a “theory.” Well, the quantum theory of the atom is also a “theory.” But tell the mutated descendants of the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it’s all just a theory.
That’s not what it said. I mean the report is public.
The 12 years portion I highlighted is a reference to the IPCC report , no?
I thought that was something AOC said. I haven’t read the new IPCC report. Does it say the world will end in 12 years? I bet not, but if you want to go there, let’s go there.
Nah, AOC was not just pulling some ■■■■■■■■ out of her ass.
No, it did not say that the world will end in twelve years. It said that we have 12 years to keep global warming to 1.5 C.
Fair enough. That’s a prediction of the forecast sort, but not of the classic predictions of science based on laws of nature. I’m not going to argue whether that will come true or not. It might be realistic, or it may not come to pass exactly as predicted. But I believe they are in possession of the best information that is currently available.
So what’s your point?
You know, the classics.
That the IPCC report did not say the world will end in 12 years.
Got what you’re saying. OK.