I did ridicule her, because her characterization of scientists and their predictions is ridiculous bullshit, in my opinion.
She implied that scientist's predictions about climate from decades ago were not modified as they learned more. When I directly questioned that position she either ignored the questions or repeated her assertions.
She started off way back, asserting that because the Y2K problem was avoided that it never was a problem and that no one actually did anything to avoid it. The company I worked for spent several million dollars preparing for and avoiding Y2K.
I can see Ms Brain is a troll, so I don't see much point in engaging her further, beyond ridicule.
Why did it take so long for a consensus on climate change to emerge? Certainly the fossil fuel industry's funding of science played a role.
Part of the reason might be the billions spent on propaganda and buying politicians.
Science is carried out by imperfect humans whose mere intellectual lapses can cause enough damage, but scientists are also heir to all other human foibles, and those play a role in science as well. That's why a consensus is so important - the foibles average out.
Scientists make mistakes, but good science is self correcting. It is part of the scientific method to make predictions based on the state of current knowledge and to modify those predictions as we gain more knowledge.
Sarah's responses seemed to indicate that she disputes the modify part of the scientific predictions and that scientist should keep their mouths shut. If that is not her position she didn't do anything to make her position clearer, to me.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
I screwed up agreeing with you. Ridicule is the only response left when nonsense is persistent. The start of my post was just saying that I thought she was saying something slightly different than what you ridiculed her for, but closely related and still pretty bad. Then I added that I think she's aware of the abuses she's committing, but when confronted with a choice between intellectual integrity and cherished beliefs, she chooses the latter.
I think "modifying" predictions after they fail to come to pass rather misses the point, don't you? Certainly it happens in science (and everywhere predictions are made), but the global warming crisis is especially fraught: if you're caught crying wolf, even unintentionally, the consequences could be problematic.
I think "modifying" predictions after they fail to come to pass rather misses the point, don't you?
If you mean this in the manner of cult leaders continually moving back the date of the predicted apocalypse, then no. You should be looking at evidence-based consensuses. The only consensus of note on climate change over the past century is a growing one that climate change is man-made and pushing rapidly toward a tipping point beyond which it cannot be stopped.
Certainly it happens in science (and everywhere predictions are made),...
Instead of listening to scientists who make "predictions" you should be listening to scientists who make forward looking projections of currently available data using the best models. Ignore the scientists, especially the lone ones, making predictions to the media.
...but the global warming crisis is especially fraught: if you're caught crying wolf, even unintentionally, the consequences could be problematic.
The only thing working scientists can do is apply the best currently available data to the best models to produce quality forecasts around which a consensus can be constructed.
Climate deniers have centered their efforts on sowing doubt and confusion about the science, for instance, by characterizing past efforts as lacking scientific discipline. Because there's no actual scientific controversy one must be manufactured. The ultimate driving force behind climate denial, though they try hard to hide it, is the fossil fuel industry, using the same playbook as big tobacco.
if you're caught crying wolf, even unintentionally, the consequences could be problematic.
Wolf! Wolf! Lions! Tigers! Bears! Dragons! Help carbon!
Sarah, They are all sticking their noses and toes in our tent, now! Today!
The consequences are already well known and they are not problematic. They are lethal. Deadly. Extinction level for humanity. That's why the rest of us are screaming STOP!
We can't scream any louder! Climate change! Monsters!
Wolf! Help wolf! It's gonna eat us! Help! Wolf!
If you can't hear and see them drooling at the door then YOU are the fucking problem.
You want some known consequences of the coming events?
If we don't DRASTICALLY drop carbon emissions by 2050 then wolves, lions, tigers, bears, and most mammalia, will be dragged into extinction along with us. That is the coming trigger point; the lethal cliff we are charging at head on.