Is this a prediction in any way? I am trying to figure out how you define “prediction”, other than “something that hasn’t happened yet but might.”
‘The world will end in 12 years unless we do something’ wasn’t a prediction, ‘nations will be wiped off the globe unless we reverse global warming by the year 2000’ wasn’t a prediction. Is ‘significant changes can’t be avoided’ a prediction?
Regards,
Shodan
Actually it says they will happen if the global warming trend has not been reversed by the year 2000. Was the global warming trend reversed in the year 2000? But it still seems like a pretty open-ended prediction to me.
Here is a youtube video that contains a bunch of these claims.
Climatologists generally don’t give predictions as such, but a range of probabilities for outcomes based on scenarios. For example, in this graphprobabilities are given for temperature change based on high CO2 and low CO2 emissions in the future. And different models may give different probabilities. “Significant changes can’t be avoided” can be taken to mean something like there’s a 95% probability that such changes will occur under present emissions trends.
No, it wasn’t, which those outcomes are still on the table to occur at some future time. Yes, it’s open ended in the sense that that article it does not give a time frame for those outcomes to happen.
I’m not really sure what aspect of this you’re not getting.
I’m not watching a 14 minute video to sort out what these might be. How about posting what you think are the main points.
There isn’t any aspect I’m not getting. Just stating what the article actually said, and the open-endedness of the prediction. Not sure what YOU are not getting.
In other words, you understand that Brown didn’t say anything that was incorrect.
It has not, and therefore, a number of island nations are doomed, yes. It doesn’t mean that the sea is going to swallow up those places by the year 2000, it means “If we don’t take action 2000, there will be no saving those places.” and honestly, that seems correct.
Basically: Climatologists have said a lot of stuff, and virtually none of it has had a chance to come true yet, but all signs point to most of it being correct.
Of course, if your prediction is “Sometime between the year 2000 and the end of the universe” it’s kind of hard to be incorrect.
To me, if someone makes a prediction in 1989, I would expect it to be proven true by 2019, but that’s just me. You may require less rigor in the predictions you accept.
For those of you who are having such difficulty telling climatologists from people who have opinions, informed or otherwise, about the weather: Please check out this site that tells you all about what they are and what they do.
If that’s the level of your understanding, I think we can safely ignore your opinions on the matter.
Sure I’ll take that from someone who thinks “Sometime in the near or far future” is an accurate prediction that we should worry about.
Of course I didn’t say that, or anything like it, so this just reinforces my opinion of the value of your input.
Well, I didn’t say you said that, so your input value has dropped to zero as well.
You do realize we can all see your previous posts, don’t you?
But I’m done responding to you unless you make an actual point that deserves one.
To be fair, he didn’t say that you said those things. His claim is that he read your mind and that you were thinking those things.
I didn’t say everything I said.
-Yogi Berra
Posts like the OP and some of the followups bother me.
Should climatologists make predictions? Sure they should.
But we need to pay attention to the consensus, not the outliers.
This idiotic, misleading references to fringe stuff is a terrible argument technique. It reflects very badly on the person making such a reference. Very badly.
It’s like smearing an ethnicity due to a crime committed by one member.
Consensus predictions are incredibly helpful and should definitely be discussed.
It’s not only climate campaigners who do this: there is a similar dispute in epidemiology. During the Ebola epidemic, WHO and others refused to report the success of counter measures because they were afraid that people would think that the problem had gone away. Influenza reporting and immunization campaigns are bedeviled with warnings about possible pandemics, again, because people are worried that if we aren’t frightened we’ll think that the problem has gone away.
I tend to agree with the OP: I think the problems that climate believers have in Aus are largely self-inflicted. But I take a wider view about the USA: I believe that the problems science has in the USA are largely self-inflicted, and climatology is only one chapter of that.
