thranx said:
Hind sight is 20/20 and the victors write the history. Like i said in 20 years the same will be said of global warming. Have you not noticed that it has already begun. With the new term being climate change.
What "hindsight"? The majority of the actual peer-reviewed scientific literature of the time was predicting warming, which is what has happened. That's foresight. If we continue on our current path, in 20 years the global average temperature will have continued trending upwards.
And the term "climate change" is decades old. It isn't some 21st century neologism conjured up by environmentalists.
If the science behind global warming/climate change is so sound why are the predictions so off? If they know what they are talking about, if the science is true, why can they not accuratly predict global temperature trends?
Because there's no such thing as absolute certainty in science. There's always an error bar, especially when dealing with complex systems. See my reply to Locknuts from the other day in this thread. This is like harping on the Big Bang theory because some scientists back in the 30s & 40s were off by an order of magnitude in their prediction of the cosmic microwave background's temperature (George Gamow predicted 50°K; the CMB is actually about 2.73°K). While a lot of scientists were off on how warm the CMB was, the main point of the predictions was "The Big Bang should have left a microwave background afterglow" and that's what was finally discovered in 1964. Hell, there were a lot of uncertainties about how long ago the Big Bang happened (and thus how old the universe is). It still didn't make the BBT false or fraudulent, because the BBT did accurately explain a lot of other cosmological phenomena, whereas alternate cosmologies utterly failed to explain a great many things (the CMB, light element abundances, Hubble's law, and various other things).
The media, but more o politics, have made global warming science a farce. its now a business and industry and its self serving itself. Of course climate "scientist" will support it, their jobs depend on it.
There's nothing farcical about the science, and your language reeks of conspiracism. Saying "Of course climate "scientist" will support it, their jobs depend on it" is just as ridiculous as saying "Of course biologists support evolution. Their jobs depend on it," or "Of course geologists support plate tectonics. Their jobs depend on it," or "Of course physicists support quatum mechanics and relativity theory. Their jobs depend on it" or, well, you get my point. And y'know, I hear very similar claims to that from a lot of other promoters of pseudoscience and science denialism.
When we have only one agency that takes the info and it can't be trusted to give correct info it hard to take the science behind it seriously
There's more than one agency tracking temperatures. And the reason so many people don't take the science seriously is because they've chosen not to, and not because there's any reasonable doubt that the science is wrong or because there's any evidence of actual fraud and/or incompetence, but rather because the public policy implications of the science rub people's political views the wrong way.
|
