The link is fluff, not news. As John pointed out it clearly is identified as an opinion piece, not a researched article. Also it says right in the opinion that the model was intended to be a "worst case scenario" not a forecast of actual future events... And the opinionist keeps bashing on "the Guardian" which has long been known to be hyperbolic and have questionable resources to begin with.
Sadly a new off topic thread
- Thread starter skjl47
- Start date
Hello; saw the same story picked up and reported on national TV channels twice yesterday. If correct the information is not fluff. I will be on the lookout for more information in the coming days.
The same could be said for the latest proclamations of the Flat Earth Society and the Watchtower magazines that our local infestation of JW's stuffs into my gate latch. But the "if" in "if correct..." is a tiny word with huge importance.
So I'll use that magic word myself: IF the original published story could be proven, or could even provide evidence, the Daily Caller would have published a byline that read "by Benjamin Roberts". But they didn't; their legal staff insisted upon a byline stating "opinion by Benjamin Roberts". They are covering their own butts by admitting that it is nothing other than what they claim it to be: somebody's opinion.
I'll go one further: IF Benjamin Roberts had any kind of scientific credibility, or a great deal of experience in reporting science news...they would not miss the opportunity to tell us that at the end of the story. But...they didn't...so...he probably doesn't...so why should I or anyone else care about his opinion?
Clickbait.
So, don't look for "more" information...look for information, rather than misinformation, fake information, imagination, etc.
Scientists Say Both Best and Worst Climate Warming Scenarios Are No Longer Likely
Scientists are jettisoning their worst and best case scenarios for a warming world as no longer plausible. That shows how modest gains in the fight to curb climate change have dialed back the most catastrophic of future heating but also confirmed that there’s no chance to limit warming to the...
ground.news
Hello; Here is a link which try's to cover all bias perspectives.
I do get you main point I think. Which is the story is hyped up headline to get clicks. I happen to think the story is a big one and important. The computer projections were used to create a scary scenario which helped foster a big effort to change lifestyles around the world in fundamental ways. Dismantling of working energy infrastructure (coal, oil & natural gas power plants). Legislative mandates to prevent the sale of ICE vehicles & power equipment starting as early as 2030 in some places. Billions, if not trillions, spent -committed to "green energy" investments such as EV's, solar & wind generation, home solar panels, replacing traditional home appliances with questionable energy/water saving sorts. Go have a look at the newer water heaters with a heat pump on top and compare prices. In some places you cannot buy a traditional WH any longer.
I have used an example of significant numbers before. Say a crew is sent out to measure something. One guy measure to a fraction of a millimeter. Another uses millimeters. Another uses centimeters. The point being the overall accuracy of the result cannot be any better than the largest unit used. I figure the same sort of confidence must apply to all endeavors. A result or prediction can be no better than the least accurate instrument used. If I have six levels but one is out of plumb, that faulty level contaminates all results if it is used alongside of the gool levels.
I do not know when the climate scientists knew of the anomaly in their computer models. I noted such in the published information years ago and posted on forums such as this about such years ago. That with me being merely an observer seeing published reports some length of time after the fact. The actual users/developers had to have know of the anomalies long before a published report. Yet it is very late in the expanse of time for the correction to be made publicly. The faulty model was use for some 15 years it seems.
Contrary to the popular adage, the world is not "run by those who show up". It's actually run by those who can convince enough of those who don't show up that they should place their trust in those few at the top. But there are far too many politicians who are out to line their pockets rather than serve the people, and scientists who are more concerned with being published and lauded for their forward-thinking ideas rather than actually seeking the truth, and arrogant morons who simply "know" that they are smarter than everyone else and so should make policy.
I'm not entirely certain where you stand on this issue? You post a lot of links to news stories...heavy emphasis on "stories"...that seem, again IMHO, to be classic examples of clickbait. What's the point? This latest link takes us to a little puff piece that is a distillation, created by AI (as stated at the bottom of the piece), of various bits'n'pieces taken from the internet. It's been pointed out that AI is frequently wrong, sometimes hilariously, outrageously, dangerously wrong, because it just collects everything, good or bad, and summarizes it for us. The wheat, the chaff, the bugs, all of it just homogenized into an amorphous mass of stuff, usually dramatized to the greatest extent possible.
This piece does have a fairly believable, reasonable and realistic air to it...but it's still just AI...and it still gives the reader the chance to report it if it seems off...so...
I'm not entirely certain where you stand on this issue? You post a lot of links to news stories...heavy emphasis on "stories"...that seem, again IMHO, to be classic examples of clickbait. What's the point? This latest link takes us to a little puff piece that is a distillation, created by AI (as stated at the bottom of the piece), of various bits'n'pieces taken from the internet. It's been pointed out that AI is frequently wrong, sometimes hilariously, outrageously, dangerously wrong, because it just collects everything, good or bad, and summarizes it for us. The wheat, the chaff, the bugs, all of it just homogenized into an amorphous mass of stuff, usually dramatized to the greatest extent possible.
This piece does have a fairly believable, reasonable and realistic air to it...but it's still just AI...and it still gives the reader the chance to report it if it seems off...so...
Last edited:
Hello; seems I have not made my point very well. For several decades a strong movement has arisen proclaiming various dooms day scenarios. Among the many variations most had a fatal flaw in that they proclaimed a date upon which the particular doom would take place. A common time frame was ten years, but I can recall some eight-year deadlines. Even a 12 year such at least once.Contrary to the popular adage, the world is not "run by those who show up". It's actually run by those who can convince enough of those who don't show up that they should place their trust in those few at the top. But there are far too many politicians who are out to line their pockets rather than serve the people, and scientists who are more concerned with being published and lauded for their forward-thinking ideas rather than actually seeking the truth, and arrogant morons who simply "know" that they are smarter than everyone else and so should make policy.
I'm not entirely certain where you stand on this issue? You post a lot of links to news stories...heavy emphasis on "stories"...that seem, again IMHO, to be classic examples of clickbait. What's the point? This latest link takes us to a little puff piece that is a distillation, created by AI (as stated at the bottom of the piece), of various bits'n'pieces taken from the internet. It's been pointed out that AI is frequently wrong, sometimes hilariously, outrageously, dangerously wrong, because it just collects everything, good or bad, and summarizes it for us. The wheat, the chaff, the bugs, all of it just homogenized into an amorphous mass of stuff, usually dramatized to the greatest extent possible.
This piece does have a fairly believable, reasonable and realistic air to it...but it's still just AI...and it still gives the reader the chance to report it if it seems off...so...
As I have mentioned a few times my particular windmill I did tilt at was (and still is overpopulation). I have no time frame for the dire outcomes of overpopulation just some confidence the carrying capacity of places have been exceeded and such will continue to happen. Perhaps my particular windmill can be lumped in with the others, but I like to think the effects of overpopulation have sound reasoning/observation behind it. Anyway, that battle is long lost.
The clever aspect of long-term climate change. (Correction "human caused climate change" since the climate has been naturally changing for millions of years before we came long. ) The clever thing was they set a due date for the dire outcome at around 100 years in the future. To be more succinct the benefit of carbon zero/ neutral, anti-fossil fuel agendas, pro "green energy" such as windmills, solar farms, EV's and the like will not start to show up for decades in the future. Early such time frames were more distant saying at least 100 years to deal with the carbon already in the atmosphere.
That time frame allowed for no accountability in a normal lifetime. Such is a very clever aspect.
To help push the agendas something was needed to hang the scary predictions upon. Not just any doomsday prophet shouting from atop of a box on the corner. Enter computer generated predictions. Back in 1993 I went to a summer program in which science teachers were invited. We got to play with early computer modeling of animal populations. The models were a bit crude, but they did well enough if you considered there was a limited number of inputs. I do not recall the total number of data points input. I am sure improved models have been created.
To the climate models. Watch a weather forecast for a hurricane track and pay attention to the individual tracks. Day one they all generally agree. Day two they begin to diverge a lot with the average line as an educated guess. A bit beyond a WAG and even beyond a SWAG. A CGWAG after all. In just a few days the tracks can wind up all over the place. This with real time data which can be verified.
Here again is one of my main points. Some years ago the climate models were wisely tested by entering known data from say 30 years ago and allowed to run for a time with known outcomes. The models got the outcomes somewhat wrong. Maybe a base hit was my take but not a home run. Yet the flawed models still became a strong 'look at this" base to help justify an attempt to drastically change world lifestyles.
Enough from me. There is much more to be sure.
