thegreekdog wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Based on the actual information contained in the link in the OP, you would be correct, but it was evident that Phatscotty and co. were drawing the conclusion that climate change research is illegitimate because of situations like this. The point is that we must be careful not to conflate social science predictions with climate science predictions; based on the title alone, the OP was guilty of this.
This makes sense and I understood that this is what was going on. I just don't agree with doing it.
Metsfanmax wrote:I imagine the UN made the prediction because they believed it to be true, and wanted to tell people to be prepared for the climate change refugees. In science you don't have an ulterior motive in making your predictions - you make your predictions and let the policy makers do with them what they will. Of course, there are people who lobby for a particular policy decision based on scientific results, but those are people are no longer acting in a scientific context when they do this - they are acting in a political context. In the case of the UN report, it is true that a lot was made of this prediction in the media and among policymakers and that the prediction ended up being correct -- but that is a failure of the lobbying arm of the UN. At any rate, if they had been right, would there have been a furor?
The United Nations is not a scientific organization, it is a political organization. So you are correct, as far as I'm concerned, that the United Nations expected a particular result of the science. I think it was because the United Nations has a vested interest in changing the societies and economies of the world through their pronouncements that they made the pronouncement in the first place, but I'm a cynic. I also think that Al Gore is so adamant about the imminent (operative word) dangers of climate change because he has a vested financial interest in the subject... again, I'm a cynic.
Unfortunately, the United Nations holds such high importance in the lives of many, including policy leaders in a whole host of countries, that any pronouncement the UN makes are fairly important to the day-to-day lives of citizens. So, a pronouncement that is so egregiously wrong is, well, egregious.
I think you missed something or rather, are falling into the classic trap that so many right wingers now try to box for anything with which they disagree, particularly anything environmental.
Environmental predictions are very, very tricky. There are just so many variables that we often don't have the math to really predict empirically until the situation is already pretty well set from an environmental standpoint. That part, I know you "get". You also understand that climate change is one of the very few situations where the data is so firm, so set and so profuse that there actually is a true consensus.. to a point. (and the devil is always "in the details).
BUT, here is the real problem. MANY people, but particularly those on the right just don't like uncertainty. Uncertainty is horrible for business. So, they pressure both scientists and politicians to make real predictions. Scientists will comply, but they tend to put so many uncertainties and "if, then, except... etc." conditions that it drives non-scientists crazy. Media types don't like it, either. They often care less about being accurate, they want CERTAINTY. If its wrong... more press later (OK, I AM being cynacle, but not much). So, the scientists come up with a broad range of predictions that say x and y and z are likely to happen. In the case of climate change they began with "it looks like the climate is warming"... this has since been expanded to say that our weather is going to get very extreme, very strange, with swings both up and down and [all over the place]. BUT, what people remember is that 30 something year old idea that scientist first noticed... an overall increase in the world's temperature.
That is still happening, but not exactly as scientists predicted
at first. In reference to I's comments above.. note that Al Gore was still a kid 30 years ago. Whatever place he has inserted himself, it is his politics, NOT anything really and truly to do with either climate change or the science behind it. He has little to do with the UN, despite any wishes he might have otherwise. So, yes, it is pretty stupid to bring up his name -- either in reference to any evidence of climate change OR the UN stuff.
Anyway, so, we have all these world leaders and business folks wanting real and true
predictions Scientists give them, but with a LOT of qualifications. Still, you have groups like the UN that have to make some kind of plans. Like any businessman, they try to look at both the most likely probable events AND teh worst case scenario. This report was a bit of the "worst case".. but taken out of context and blown into something else.
So, what really happened? The UN was
doing its job. It put out warnings of what might happen and disasterour consequences because people demand that knowledge, those predictions. In this case, the predictions regarding how humans reacted were off, but not simply because the climate predictions were wrong, not at all.
YET, here is the real issue... instead of people arguing about how we can fix climate change, prepare for the inevitable (and yes, at this point, changes are inevitable), and better define exactly how these changes will impact all of us, instead here we are arguing over an error in ONE SINGLE UN report.. not a scientific report, not even a really firm prediction (despite how it got watered down and simplified..the initial data was full of qualified statements).
So, instead of putting ALL our effort toward actually coming up with solutions, we bicker instead about whether climate change is real and then about what the impacts might be. And... the situation keeps getting worse and worse. What we DO know gets ignored,a nd any little tiny error is used by the right as fodder for dimissing the entire concept of climate change.. or its severity.
but, at least Phattscotty changed his thread title... and I see some people that did argue against climate change at all are now in agreement that it is happening. (not suggesting this is due to the forums here, rather due to education). so, it seems some progress is being made.
