| Pardon the delay in replying, I didn't see this until now. > Your question was answered in the comment underneath it -- the answer is taken from the article in the discussion: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709446 Well, shit. This is kind one of those timing error, at the time I wrote that the thread was quite young, so I presumed my more substantive complaint (which is immediately under my comment) would have been seen. That'll teach me for being trite, hopefully. Anyways, here is that comment (and I imagine you won't like my pedantry, but I did note it as such, and I'm not forcing anyone to answer - if they'd like to allow ambiguity/uncertainty to remain, be my guest): --------------- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708936 > As noted in TFA, they looked at 17 forecasts from 14 models Pardon a little pedantry: >> The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph. They compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to 17 forecasts, from 14 separate models. But....how many models did they look at, before choosing those particular 14 models? TFA doesn't say. Articles written in this style provide rich fodder for conspiracy theorists, particularly because there is no shortage of examples in the past where authoritative, trustworthy organizations have gotten caught in lies. Rare is the climate change article I've read that can't easily have similar holes poked in it. What's the real truth here? Based on the literal content of this article, no one knows. It is speculation vs speculation. --------------- > Then, incredibly, the paper author chimed in with this offer: > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709010 > And you couldn't respond constructively. If he didn't include a model, point it out. An obvious lack of thoroughness and reasonableness on my part - it would have been wiser to restate my above question in it's entirety rather than expecting him ti find it. So I'll take the reputation hit on that one. But then on the other hand, I did email one of the authors directly (after looking through the github repo to see if my questions were answered there), with a much more detailed question, in polite terms, and with mention of the possibility that this sort of ambiguity is open to exploitation by propagandists, but didn't hear back, so far anyways. UPDATE: To the author's credit, they did address a question posed to them here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21709249 Also, his reply to another comment is suggestive that all available models (that fit his criteria) were in fact used: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21708782 I get a fairly trustworthy feel from him after reading those, although I still prefer that these things were written using more defensive wording. |