Regarding the reliability of climate modeling, maybe you\u2019re right, despite your lack of expertise, and despite the fact that the last time you made a testable prediction about statistical modeling, you revealed yourself to be a great deal less accurate than the much-despised Nate Silver.<\/p>\n
Maybe the 98% or so of actual climate scientists who agree about human-caused global warming are engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy to deceive the public so that they can get some government grants, as some conservatives have claimed. Or maybe the overwhelming scientific consensus is simply mistaken. It\u2019s possible.<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s also possible \u2013 and, frankly, seems much more likely \u2013 that science is correct, and people like you and James Inhofe \u2013 people who, while extremely intelligent, aren\u2019t experts on climate science \u2013 are suffering a horrible case of confirmation bias.<\/p>\n
Think of how certain you, and most Conservatives, were that Nate Silver was a fool. “The models are wrong!” you said, absolutely, positively wrong. That was an error with no real consequences for anyone, because election forecasts are trivial. (We could do without election forecasts entirely and be better off for it.)<\/p>\n
Unlike Birthers and election forcasts, there will almost certainly be terrible consequences for ignoring reality when it comes to climate. If the scientists are right, extreme weather events will happen more often, as will droughts; people will suffer and die, economies will crash, food chains will break, homes will be destroyed. In response to this, conservatives say it\u2019s worth risking all that in order to avoid the possibility of slower economic growth caused by inefficient spending and regulations.<\/p>\n
If you think that there\u2019s even a 50% chance that the experts are right and you (and others, including a handful of scientists, almost none of whom are experts on climate) are mistaken, then I don\u2019t see how obstructing climate mitigation policy is reasonable, or justifiable, or anything other than horribly irresponsible. And seriously: There\u2019s a way, way, WAY more than 50% chance that the experts are right and you are mistaken.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Regarding the reliability of climate modeling, maybe you\u2019re right, despite your lack of expertise, and despite the fact that the last time you made a testable prediction about statistical modeling, you revealed yourself to be a great deal less accurate … Continue reading