Ironicwarcriminal posted:jools posted:i mean sure lets just ignore all these scientists with their FAncy MAth and Clever Computers and go straight for the Gut with "unsustainability = death"
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
Another victory for science. Thank goodness we had ample warning and cleaned up our atmosphere in the 1970s, I'll bet gas masks are uncomfortable!
Funnily enough I just got probated in DnD arguing with a libertarian saying the same thing about environmentalism becoming the new antogonist of capitalism, although his point was more that the commies had switched to environmentalism when their former ideology was discredited.
You're misrepresenting most climate predictions, which are generally vague and non-specific. The comparison of climate modeling to economics is appropriate, in fact economic predictions are an essential component of climate models. Economists don't just predict an increase in the size of BRIC economies, they make specific predictions about trends in this growth, changes in economic composition, labor costs, etc.
So I can feel comfortable saying not just that the Chinese economy will surpass the U.S.A.'s in size in the next 10-20 years but also that the rate of its growth will decline as it depletes its reserves of rural migrants and its labor force begins to age. I can also say that it is likely shift production more to meet domestic consumption rather than increase exports. These predictions are repeated so often I've absorbed them through osmosis without taking any particular interest.
Those maps don't show that the temperture was 5 degrees colder than predicted, btw. The first shows the probability of exceeding median minimum temperture and the second reported deviation. Why the presentation almost seems misleading, using the same color palette for different descriptions on a graphic too small to make out the labels... pretty sloppy presentation imo. Not that a wrong weather prediction is in anyway relevent to this conversation
Squalid posted:Another victory for science. Thank goodness we had ample warning and cleaned up our atmosphere in the 1970s, I'll bet gas masks are uncomfortable!
You don’t get to handwave away that nonsense prediction so easily, your explanation is some serious “this rock keeps tigers away” bullshit. What legislation between 1970 and 1980 stopped enough air pollution to “reduce the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half”.
Funnily enough I just got probated in DnD arguing with a libertarian saying the same thing about environmentalism becoming the new antogonist of capitalism, although his point was more that the commies had switched to environmentalism when their former ideology was discredited.
True enough, several high profile members of the Australian Greens are former communists. If you are a person who believes in collective action and dislikes the idea of profit and capitalism (and has a messianic Christianity-derived zeal, but that's no different to communism either) then environmentalism is the most expedient way to get your message out to people.
You're misrepresenting most climate predictions, which are generally vague and non-specific. The comparison of climate modeling to economics is appropriate, in fact economic predictions are an essential component of climate models. Economists don't just predict an increase in the size of BRIC economies, they make specific predictions about trends in this growth, changes in economic composition, labor costs, etc.
And yet 30 years ago economists who predicted the impending collapse of the USSR were largely dismissed as cranks, sort of like how climate sceptics are now.
So I can feel comfortable saying not just that the Chinese economy will surpass the U.S.A.'s in size in the next 10-20 years but also that the rate of its growth will decline as it depletes its reserves of rural migrants and its labor force begins to age. I can also say that it is likely shift production more to meet domestic consumption rather than increase exports. These predictions are repeated so often I've absorbed them through osmosis without taking any particular interest.
Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are totally wrong, and China will fall into civil disorder and a collapse of production.
Those maps don't show that the temperture was 5 degrees colder than predicted, btw. The first shows the probability of exceeding median minimum temperture and the second reported deviation. Why the presentation almost seems misleading, using the same color palette for different descriptions on a graphic too small to make out the labels... pretty sloppy presentation imo. Not that a wrong weather prediction is in anyway relevent to this conversation
What’s the dividing line between a weather/climate prediction?
getfiscal posted:jools posted:i mean sure lets just ignore all these scientists with their FAncy MAth and Clever Computers and go straight for the Gut
- heterodox economics
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxvNb6ewL7kOdWhYSEI4OVJHTkk/edit?pli=1
I do not dispute that politics can influence how science is conducted and presented. We must keep in mind the pressures and agendas behind persons and institutions. Is a a windmill salesman a good source on the price of renewable energy? No. Is a politician ever trustworthy? No. Is a reporter likely to carefully and conservatively depict the risks and uncertainties inherent in cutting edge research? No. Incidently I see Chinese people in surgical masks all the time on the news and emissions of particulate matter do have a large effect on climate.
Of course economic predictions could be wrong. Global nations could also get serious about cutting emissions or blow themselves up in a nuclear war. Or weird positive feedback mechanisms we do not understand could kick in and send temperatures spiraling beyond anything ever predicted. Nobody can predict the future, the point is to establish what we already know and look where it points us.
There is no firm dividing line between weather forecasting and climate modeling... so I guess I can't object to you calling a three month time scale climate modeling. Maybe I will be in a more combative mood tomorrow.
jools posted:its a shame none of you have figured out the IWC Secret
this includes me btw