Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a PR problem. Scaremongering is a double-edged sword. I'm not a fan either. It can cause some people to pay attention and care about the problem. But it also causes other people to dismiss the worry as exaggerated (because by definition putting too much emphasis on the extreme range of the probability range is by definition exaggerating). But it's a mistake to confound the scaremongers with the underlying scienc…
> The uncertainty bracket is large. I completely agree. It's so large that it's expected that any near-term predictions will be false, and that's what we see. By now there's a huge graveyard of false climate doomsday predictions that are swept under the rug by the media, seemingly because it's so useful for them to have something scary to talk about. We know that the atmosphere's temperature goes up and down, and doe…
'No One Is Safe': How the Heatwave Has Battered the Wealthy World
51–52 of 52 posts
Re: 'No One Is Safe': How the Heatwave Has Battered the Wealthy World
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The uncertainty bracket is large. I completely agree. It's so large that it's expected that any near-term predictions will be false, and that's what we see. By now there's a huge graveyard of false climate doomsday predictions that are swept under the rug by the media, seemingly because it's so useful for them to have something scary to talk about. We know that the atmosphere's temperature goes up and down, and doe…
You wrote that we lack the computational ability to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which causes climate drift with lower temperatures in the higher atmosphere, and higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere? Are you serious? This was demonstrated by Fourier more than 250 years ago! He did not lack computational ability at all, was able to produce good estimates. May I suggest you study a bit more?