[logicchains]

The scientific method is making testable predictions. You can look back 10, 20, 30, 40 years at the predictions of sea level rise made by climate scientists, and the sea level today is nowhere near where they predicted it would rise to. If someone's continuously making incorrect predictions it's not reasonable to assume their predictions will suddenly become accurate, especially when there's no feedback loop to weed out people making bad predictions (unlike e.g. in finance where people whose models have little predictive power eventually go bankrupt). No climate scientist has lost their job for making incorrect predictions of sea level rise twenty years ago.

[uecker]

"We were quite amazed how good those early projections were, especially when you think about how crude the models were back then, compared to what is available now,” https://news.tulane.edu/pr/study-finds-sea-level-projections...

[imtringued]

Yeah you have to literally stick your head in the sand to deny what's happening. The models are shit. They suck, and yet the degree to which they are more accurate than not should be enough to convince you.

The CO2 hypothesis was made in the 50s, long before there was conclusive evidence, and yet we are right on the predicted trajectory.

[uecker]

That CO2 emissions will cause warming was predicted first by Arrhenius Svante in 1896. While accurate modelling of all effects may be difficult, the basic effect follows from fundamental physics. There is really no excuse for doubting this.

[vel0city]

The basic ideas go back even further than that. Eunice Newton Foote's "Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays" was published in 1856.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunice_Newton_Foote

[pastage]

That sounds like a perfect match for a meta study do you have any? I am very dubious about your conclusion. I am basing this on work I did in high school on this so I really have no sources for my claim.

EDIT did some more searching and have not been able to finding anything supporting you claim. People have not been very alarmist about sea levels.. 7500m by the year 2500 in Waterworld does not count.

[vel0city]

In fact I remember reading the opposite recently, that IPCC sea level rise predictions from the 90s were actually pretty accurate given the limitations of the models at the time. And that a good bit of the error was underestimations of rise, not overestimations.

> Here we show that the mid-range projection from the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC (1995/1996) was strikingly close to what transpired over the next 30 years, with the magnitude of sea-level rise underestimated by only ∼1 cm.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025ef00...

[Zetaphor]

People wouldn't just lie on the internet!

[gosub100]

The far left is all in on climate change so they suppress anything that contradicts the narrative. You think Nature is going to publish "oops we were wrong about" stories wrt climate change? Each side has dug their heels in.

I believe people have influenced the climate, but the far left is using it as a political football to get Their Guy elected, not to actually stop it. The idea of a rising sea is a perfect disaster they can sell you the solution for. If they actually cared, 1) the Democrats would be fighting AI tooth and nail, unless it was 100% powered by renewables (not nuclear, remember their version of science denialism is no nukes.). 2) they would be worshipping Elon for bringing us EVs. Instead they take all that silicon valley AI money and tell us to save the ocean. No way San Jose!

[JoeAltmaier]

That argument seems to be applicable to either party.

And I'm not sure we want to put our heads in the sand and say La-La-La, against the real possibility that everything is actually going to shit.

[gosub100]

I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter. And yes the misinformation and dogma is used by both parties. And I am not a Trump supporter, I think he's an abhorrent human. But I think the environmental argument is propaganda. Trying to get us to sign away our rights but not doing anything that affects the rich (e.g. ban gas stoves but not private jets).

[ZeroGravitas]

You've gone from hating the far left for trying to push their agenda via global warming to hating the Democrats for not targeting the rich to solve climate change within the span of two comments.

Perhaps you have cognitive dissonance because you've fallen for some very low quality propaganda.

[gosub100]

I haven't "gone from" anything. I pointed out it's "regulations for thee but not for me". If the party cared about climate change, their actions would look much different. But instead they claim disasters (that have occurred for millennia) are caused by CC, then make it right by banning and regulating things as if it will prevent, say, a hurricane. That's akin to self pleasure, or religious dogma (you are "saved" if you give your life to Christ/drive an EV and recycle).

[alsetmusic]

> I'm not going to ride a bike to save CO2 when AI is allowed to build a whole datacenter.

"The people with the most power and money are hurting the planet, so there's no reason for me to inconvenience myself for the sake of others."

It's a pretty weak justification for a selfish attitude.

[xnyan]

What is nature not publishing? On what has the climate change "side" (such as it is) dug their heels on?

[gosub100]

They aren't publishing any data that contradicts CC. But no university would allow it either. It's career suicide.

[imtringued]

It's career suicide because it is antithetical to the scientific method. You can't look at the data and then arrive at the exact opposite conclusion the data is presenting.

Every single global cooling prediction has failed, so yes, if you're that incompetent you should definitely find a different career.

[xnyan]

What's an example of data that nature should be publishing, but is not?

[alsetmusic]

> The far left

> the Democrats

You have shown that you don't understand what Leftist politics means. Democrats are center-right. The USA hasn't had a meaningful Leftist party since the first half of the last century.

[gosub100]

Fair enough, I've been saying both parties are the same for a long time now.

[Ma8ee]

Which of course is obviously false. There’s no center right in the Republican Party, only extreme right. The Democrats try to preserve democracy, the Republicans are working very hard to dismantle it.

[alsetmusic]

You’re right, yet at the same time you display that you are completely wrong. One party maintains the status quo (dems). The other advocates fascism (who? repups). We are not the same. You’re using a colloquium to pretend you know about politics.

I’m a Leftist and I want good things for all people. I don’t want to persecute my enemies. I don’t agree with you.

[alsetmusic]

In fact, your comment offends me.

[digdugdirk]

Systems are complicated. Given there are numerous predicted outcomes (it's not just about the actual measured sea-level rise, after all) and many of those predictions are coming to pass far earlier than hoped, it might be worth having an open mind to the fact that sometimes people who devote their lives to studying something might be worth listening to.

[pnt12]

It's much harder to predict exactly than to dismiss anything slightly off.

But the tendency is showing: in my country, we're getting records in extreme temperatures, forrest fires and storms.

But a study 1% can be dismissed, some random in a basement 99% off can be believed. This just says: many people are just looking for a confirmation of their beliefs, not evidence. And many companies play this game (supporting the right politicians, spreading disinformation aka lies, etc), because there are billions at stake.