[flagged]
No, you don't.
And googling for https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=climate+m... gives me that Quora question where people seem to agree https://www.quora.com/Did-climate-scientists-in-the-1980s-pr...
Also: https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-cli... (Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate)
> Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.
Now where are you on my list:
> Quoting myself (again) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36619271 :
> - There's no climate change
> - Climate change is okay and has no impact
> - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes
> - Climate change exists but it's due to natural causes and its impacts are small
> - Climate change exists but its impacts are good for us
> - Climate change exists but we will adapt
> - Climate change exists and its the activists' fault we didn't act because they scared us with their doomsday predictions
> - Climate change exists and we shouldn't talk about it because it's scary and scared people are not productive members of society
I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this:
> “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it”
> “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it”
I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial”
I heard the first one on the radio, it was in a debate/show about eco-anxiety. The second one I read it first on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36618428:
> > > How about the psychological damage done by the fear mongering caused by these type of news regarding climate change?
> > What about it?
> You're not concerned about how having such a large percentage of population becoming basically useless due to psychological problems can trouble the future of mankind?
> > I have however seen many people (online) state a “doomer” or an “optimist” view that goes like this:
> > “Climate change is real but there’s nothing we can do about it”
> > “Climate change is real but it’s being handled so we don’t need to worry about it”
> I think those two would better fit your list of “stages of climate change denial”
Ah, nice addition. Thanks ! I'll think about it before adding them. Originally the list displayed progressive steps (it's a process) but maybe there are some branching to illustrate.
Yea, we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
> They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models
That's a neat way to twist the criticism. You're taking what is a very sensible position of "the public should be wary of published headlines which make extreme predictions" and then narrowing it into some specific claim about computer simulations, which "the public" almost certainly has no experience or knowledge of.
> Now where are you on my list:
If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.
No, an extreme prediction would be "the oceans are literally boiling". We don't have such headlines. Instead we have headlines reporting extreme facts such as: Copernicus: 2023 is the hottest year on record, with global temperatures close to the 1.5°C limit (https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-2023-hottest-year-r...) or Last 12 months have been the hottest ever recorded on the planet (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/04/09/glo...)
> > Now where are you on my list:
> If your goal is to inspire people to care more about the climate, I would suggest to you that this is precisely the opposite way you would best achieve it.
I am past trying to convince climate change deniers to care more about climate.
Quoting myself again:
> With climate deniers and complotists I always suppose they hide their real stance and it is revealed through small hints they let out. I strongly believe these small hints are baits to see if the other party has the same beliefs. They will be lying until they think there are in like-minded company (or are too drunk and let it out).
> Yeah, I have been burned hard before by climate and covid deniers who lied right out to my face. They are dishonest and advance in disguise (with loaded questions and fake scepticism and the whole arsenal of arguments coming from fabricated doubt factories).
That the change is anthropogenic. That its consequences are not mild, etc., etc. They've moved from climate denial to climate change consequences denial to obstructing climate action.
It's a process.
Argue for better models, argue for other models that reproduce similar results, but don’t argue for solipsism.
I find it strange that when we talk about replication crisis, It's all fair game and everyone sees that "science" is made up of fallible people and corrupt institutions, but when I don't schit my pants because Wired published a post about the siblings (omg, who cares), then suddenly I'm a anti science propagandist. I'm just a regular guy who disagrees with you on something.
A very close friend of mine is a physicist, dedicated his PhD on modeling how clouds form at a molecular level, then his post doctorate studies further into modeling other aerosols, his work improved many general models accuracy.
All of those models validate their output with empirical past data, this is not fucking tarot.
But without even looking at or understanding the model (did you?), you’ve already written it off as “tarot reading.”
Certainly not the way I’d approach it, especially as the facts of the last decade or so (not models, but actual recorded data) indicate that the globe is definitely warming and sea levels are definitely rising and glaciers are definitely melting.
How do I know? Well, data, but also talking to experts in Iceland (as an example). All of them, every single one, without exception, agreed global warming was happening. Not all of them agreed as to why it was happening, but that it was is no longer a question at all. They are out on these glaciers all the time. They have data going back many decades. Time lapses of the changes in the glaciers over the last 50-100 years. There isn’t really a question, anymore, as to whether the globe is warming; it is.
What we do about that is entirely a different discussion, as is why it’s happening.
But, you know, facts suck in the face of conspiracy theories and “doubt at all costs,” I guess.
That’s my main issue with folks who show up and start yelling that we don’t know anything. We do. We know the globe is warming, significantly. Denying that solves nothing.
I think the floors of actuaries at the insurance companies know more than I do.
> The difference between the predictions only being whether we'd all have drowned 5, 10 or 25 years ago, etc
that's very interesting, could you give a few links/DOIs?
Eg: 10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y
does not answer the question asked: Which models told us we'd be underwater by now?
The claim made by Al Gore, well over a decade ago, was that all arctic ice would be gone within five years. If you can't reason about how that much could claim to happen in five years and now fifteen's elapsed, I'm not sure what to say.
You claimed knowledge and have yet to name a single one.
Al Gore is not a geophysical scientist and has published no peer reviewed papers in any GeoPhys | Climate journals so whatever a second rate US VP may have claimed in a film I certainly haven't watched is hardly relevant.
Can you back your claim or not?
Can you even name one climate model used in an IPCC report?
it's like quoting those scientists who believed that heavier than air flight was not possible and deciding that you don't need qualified engineers to build them - afterall somebody somewhere got something wrong, didn't they!