why is climate science so good, but climate propaganda so bad? they keep getting things right but get embarrassed on the media all the same all the time>https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378>Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyze the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.
>>16806758i think they just retroactively chose the models that got it right and ignored the thousands of published models that got it wrong, if you publish everything predicting everything you get to select something and claim you got it right all along
their models on average all work for decades of previous data (tuning). generous error bounds force them all to be in agreement with each other. where they fuck up is extrapolating decades into the future. there will always be anomalies to predictions of averages
>>16806758The media is made of retards that take good studies and then resummarize them over and over again until the original study is basically invisible and it is now just the ramblings of someone with a journalism degree talking about what they wish the study said.Conservatives take good studies and pretend that they're all wrong because it was chilly this morning. Liberals take good studies and then run with them for miles past their actual conclusions to say the world is ending in 10 years.
>>16806760They also modify and sometimes just invent new data to use in the models by assuming that backtested correlations from past data in the models are predictive. Obviously if you use your model as a feedback loop to update your model, your model will more or less conform to your model.
>>16806758What happened to all the climate alarmism shills who just last year used to squat in every climate thread posting hundreds of image macros, inane arguments to authority, and other non sequiturs? Is the USAID money laundered through billionaire NGOs a bit tighter these days?
>>16806758this is all meant to drive you back to religion, because at some point religion will actually make more scientific sense. https://www.bitchute.com/video/jyPwh4Xaaihj
A third of the world's population (2.7+ bn) currently live in an area that by 2070 will be as hot as the hottest parts of the Sahara Desert today.https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
>>16806765
>>16806760>>16806765>>16807346>>16808295>>16808332Does chevron pay you to do this, or is it just for the love of the game?
>>16808441>He doesn't know that Russia paid for most of the green energy ads and protests in EuropeImagine being paid by a literal gas station while accusing other people of being paid by "chevron" lol
>>16807346>They also modify and sometimes just invent new data to useNo examples. Makes your post pointless.
>>16808599>No examples.https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/can-scientists-use-global-temperature-data-as-is/https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/once-the-invalid-data-are-eliminated-are-global-temperature-data-ready-to-use/https://community.wmo.int/en/climate-data-homogenizationAre you retarded? Every published model is an example. It's an explicit feature. No one says they don't. What they say is that they do and it's heckin valid.
>>16806758The answer to your question is that climate science is funded by public grants and research universities, the people hired through public grants and research universities are Earth scientists, they are not experts in media and propaganda. On the opposite side are oil, gas and coal companies who will lose money if people burn less carbon in order to lower the rise in global temperature. They hire experts in media and propaganda to do everything they can to confuse the public with misinformation. The scientists literally don't have the money to hire media experts to get their information out to the public. The oil companies do.
>>16808596Chevron admits to man made climate change:https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/sustainability/documents/climate-change-resilience-report.pdfEvery oil company does:https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability.htmlhttps://www.shell.com/sustainability/climate.htmlThe problem is that they know for a fact that their product is causing harm and the evidence is so overwhelming that they can't deny it, so they put up websites admitting to exactly that and trying to say "hey look, we're trying to get to net zero!" while not actually trying to get to net zero and paying organizations like the Heritage Foundation to confuse the public on climate change while hoping when the shit hits the fan and they get their asses sued for shit like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVHKGo1z5p0So they're trying to earn as much money as they can while also pretending they're not so they can point to their website when they get sued.
>>16808366>by 2070 will be as hot as the hottest parts of the Sahara Desert today.Lmao. The fact that I can't tell if this is a bad actor troll meant to make climate science look ridiculous or legitimate climate science talking points speaks volumes about the state of climate science.
>>16808639>Chevron admits to man made climate changeThat's not an admission. Here's their corporate-speak executive summary of "climate-related risks" from that pdf:>We face a broad array of climate-related risks, including physical, legal, policy, technology, market and reputational risks.Lol.Btw, I agree it's retarded to think that significantly changing the composition of the atmosphere won't somehow affect the climate and that human activity isn't doing that. It's just also retarded to think that the models are anything but backtested feedback loops of garbage data.
>>16806807Scientist go along with the misrepresentation of their studies because it gets them more money. There are no innocents here and you know very well that there's an ocean of junk science in which the good science has small islands that "science" is happy to have misrepresented as continents.
>>16808645>i can't readyeah we know
>>16808849Wait you're serious? Let me laugh more.
>>16808441do you really not think there is no moneyed interest in climate change alarmism?
>>16808923do you really not think there is no moneyed interest in climate change denialism?
>>16808937probably a lot less than climate change as the narrative used to push communism on people by financial powers as represented by blackrock and vanguard and other wealth funds used as a front
>>16808943>by financial powersoil companies are communists? How much exxon mobile and chevron stock do you own?
>>16808967Who owns and/or controls chevron and exxon?
>>16808967You are one dumb motherfucker.
>>16808968>Who owns and/or controls chevron and exxon?Stockholders, it's not a secret. People buy vanguard and ETFs through their pension funds. >>16808969You're not even half as smart as you think you are.
>>16808974NTA but people who buy funds and ETFs aren't stockholders and have no vote on anything. The funds hold the stock. This self-serving billionaire scam was the main driver for ESG getting pushed into every aspect of corporate finance.
>>16808937No, I think there's moneyed interest on both sides. Do you?
>>16808994ESG was a product created to sell higher maintenance fees then the popular passive funds that currently dominate portfolios.>>16809003I think there's way more money in climate change denialism than alarmism, and I think anyone that equates the two is a moron. Saudi Arabia by itself has a GDP of $1.2 trillion dollars with about 73-75% of its exports being crude and refined petroleum.
>>16809006>I think there's way more money in climate change denialism than alarmismWhy?
>>16809008>Why?Hi there, it's customary on message boards and forums to read the entire post before replying. If you need help with navigating the website you should take a look at https://www.4chan.org/rules and https://www.4chan.org/faq if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Older members of the site would be thrilled to help you.
>>16806758Because activists aren't scientists and scientists are too busy doing science to do outreach. To be honest, most science is terribly communicated in general. I realized this when I saw popsci YouTubers like Veritasium et al. make videos on my field which in my opinion misrepresented it (it wasn't outright false but misleading and not the way I would explain things). 95% of the time I see people on /sci/ talk about my field I want to kill myself seeing posts this idiotic and I wonder if it's the same thing for other fields.
>>16809006Lol no, it's a risk rating invented by billionaires to nudge the direction of social and environment policy by assigning an analogue to bond creditworthiness.
>>16808923>theres moneyed interest in medicine, so medicine bad and wrong
>>16808295Probably a "climate consultant" at PWC whilst you remain a not-very-useful-idiot intern at Cato.
>>16809168Isn't Cato a denialist think tank? Why would an alarmist shill be interning there?
>>16809017>can't answer the questionWhat a surprise.
>>16809173I am arguing that what you refer to as 'climate alarmism' can be leveraged into a more financially remunerative position than 'climate denialism'. This is provided someone has actual knowledge and has acquired significant experience arguing with dipshits. If you look closely, I am also implying that we are fucking doomed.
>>16808386
>>16809182I really wanted to give you hope but apparently Irving Kristol's and Dick Cheney's demon spawn are both still "geopolitical consultants" wearing a different team jersey. Yeah, we're doomed.
>>16809202>I really wanted to give you hopeUnfortunately, I've already noticed that the anti-refugee rhetoric and rapid acquisition of apartheid-related technology is anticipatory.
>>16809058yes
because a lot of money is spent on making climate science people seem like retards, while there isn't nearly as much money in presenting solutions to the problem unless you are a battery and wind turbine salesman.
>>16809295I'm just saying, oil and coal are still the 2 largest fuels in the world its not like those industries are going to let some pesky regulations tank demand for their product without a fight
>>16809297not largest with electricity generation anymorehttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2rz08en2po
>>16808386>>16809183Where is the dip from the finno Korean hyper war
>>16808613>https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/once-the-invalid-data-are-eliminated-are-global-temperature-data-ready-to-use/>Posts NASA saying we have to be careful because urbanized areas will show larger increases in temperature. >Claims the game is riggedJesus you are a retard did you even read this shit?
>>16809311that's good but that is sum of all renewables, i like to count each renewable as its own industry because they don't have much in common with eachother besides "nonfossil and non nuclear"
>>16809008because people dont like changerich old people even lessIts not even hard to imagine some shareholder meeting at an oil company coming up with ideas to muddy the water and reduce action on climate change
"anthropic climate change" is the great cause the UN (ie rich scum like bill gates) has been using to push its globalised control agenda since at least the 80s when they realised they couldn't do it with only diseases
>>16809325This is some advanced cope. Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about
>>16809363>Use raw dataThey didn't even take insert effect into account>Preprocess dataHah they have to change the data what idiots.What even is the point. Refrain from speaking to me.
>>16809459I accept your concession.
>>16809325Not "rigged," you politics-brained idiot, modified. It's a clear, dispassionate word that doesn't imply ill intent.People like you who try to make a point by rewording normal language into retarded, hysterical language are truly the lowest, scummiest, most worthless form of human life.
>>16809017Your reason's just that oil has a lot of money?
By the way eating fat causes heart disease, it's a proven fact. So stop eating meat you're killing the planet.
