EV's.......... 😂😂😂😂😂

[NightmareMoon]

Hello; I follow what you say. My concern being for the last 15 years the erroneous predictions were used as a scare tactic to support (dare I say it) an agenda. The climate scientist and even folks on this forum pushed the models hard even when reasonable doubts were raised.

I spent most of my adult life in the minor league of science. I learned early on to be careful to make absolute proclamation's. I still recall when some things I studied hard to learn had to be dismissed when new facts arose. Often when a new instrument came about.

Science theory is supposed to be tested and challenged by others attempting to replicate.
I simply found the revelation is significant.

Beware of confirmation bias and be VERY ware of clickbait media articles. You talk about science… go find some of that, and not this news headline clickbait junk. Its hollow.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

Beware of confirmation bias and be VERY ware of clickbait media articles. You talk about science… go find some of that, and not this news headline clickbait junk. Its hollow.

Hello; I am not seeking out unconfirmed reports which simply meet desired expectations. The story in the link I found recently has later shown up on more than one major TV news station with sufficient detail. Not click bait. A reversal of confidence for one of the major computer models predicted outcomes.

Appears to me the confirmation bias existed for those who pushed the flawed models as an evidence base upon which to push their favored view on climate change.

 

[NightmareMoon]

Hello; I am not seeking out unconfirmed reports which simply meet desired expectations. The story in the link I found recently has later shown up on more than one major TV news station with sufficient detail. Not click bait. A reversal of confidence for one of the major computer models predicted outcomes.

Appears to me the confirmation bias existed for those who pushed the flawed models as an evidence base upon which to push their favored view on climate change.

Which model? How many models are there? Which ‘major TV network and are they leaning left or right (you have to be aware of the bias in the source). Have you looked at graphs of the models and what they actually say?

Runing out one model out of many is not a “major reversal” on climate change predictions. its not even news unless you’re trying to get the attention (clicks) of people who already believe climate change is not as extreme as reported.

Thats called confirmation bias and its a normal human trait, and the news is 100% reporting it because you wanted to hear it and thats how they get paid. Yes that form of bias absolutely lives on both sides of an issue, but that doesnt mean its ok or one balances the other out. Its bad on both ends.

The most useful thing would be to look at the latest climate model predictions, that would would actually be something to talk about, not vapid news which is obviously trying to reinforce a /position/ and not actual /data/ of climate predictions

 

[sk47]

Which model? How many models are there? Which ‘major TV network and are they leaning left or right (you have to be aware of the bias in the source). Have you looked at graphs of the models and what they actually say?

Runing out one model out of many is not a “major reversal” on climate change predictions. its not even news unless you’re trying to get the attention (clicks) of people who already believe climate change is not as extreme as reported.

Thats called confirmation bias and its a normal human trait, and the news is 100% reporting it because you wanted to hear it and thats how they get paid. Yes that form of bias absolutely lives on both sides of an issue, but that doesnt mean its ok or one balances the other out. Its bad on both ends.

The most useful thing would be to look at the latest climate model predictions, that would would actually be something to talk about, not vapid news which is obviously trying to reinforce a /position/ and not actual /data/ of climate predictions

Hello; Confirmation bias can run both ways, can it not?

 

[NightmareMoon]

Hello; Confirmation bias can run both ways, can it not?

I JUST said that. That doesnt mean one side balances out the other or that its ok. Two bad things on either side doesnt balance out, its two bad things.

To be a bit more helpful, heres the Ground News link to this story, it shows how multiple sites are reporting, and you can click the buttons to see center, left, or right leaning versions of the news.

https://ground.news/article/scienti...limate-warming-scenarios-are-no-longer-likely

 

[sk47]

https://ground.news/article/scienti...limate-warming-scenarios-are-no-longer-likely

Hello; 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 -or 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 known 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.

Sponsored