 even if it's a good outcome. This is the
reason why there is growing discontent for climate science. We need it now
more than ever, but the academic community just publishes bullshit and yells
at us if we doubt the veracity of their models.

We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and
instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone
else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign
against skepticism.

It's a strange world where scientists use the word'skeptic' as a derogatory
term.

~~~
awkwarddaturtle
> I don't know how anybody can take models like this seriously. It's about as
> valid as any of these economists models. Hell, it is partly an economic
> model.

Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct
and they are the greatest scientists in human history.

It's crazy how this global warming political movement has hijack science to
push their agenda.

> We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predicted, and
> instead of saying, hey we aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone
> else who went all-in politically on these models have started a hate
> campaign against skepticism.

It's funny how model after model has proven rather suspect and yet you will
get called anti-science or a denier if you don't accept their model 100%
without question.

If only the global warming movement had more humility of scientists rather
than the total conviction of a cult members, I'd take them more seriously. And
if they were more honest about the data and the science of climate rather than
lying about it.

~~~
jgys
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, two things: 1) that your assertion
that environmentalists and public figures in media, politics, and (what we'll
call, with marginal disrespect, "pop") science are lacking in humility and
unwilling to admit any flaw in their predictions or assertions is a fair
assertion, and 2) that they are generally correct in their concern about
pollution in general and the effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures
and weather patterns in particular, and that this is a risk to the welfare of
even if it's a good outcome. This is the 
 reason why there is grow discontentment for climate science. We need it nowadays 
 more than always, but the academic community just publishes bullshit and shout 
 at us if we doubt the veracity of their models. 

 We've had a time period of cooling that none of their models have bode, and 
 instead of saying, hey we aren't that dependable at modeling, they and everyone 
 else who went all - in politically on these models have started a hate political campaign 
 against skepticism. 

 It's a strange world where scientist use the word'skeptic' as a derogatory 
 term. 

 ~~~ 
 awkwarddaturtle 
 > I don't know how anybody can take model like this seriously. It's about as 
 > valid as any of these economists models. sin, it is partly an economic 
 > model. 

 Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% correct 
 and they are the greatest scientists in human history. 

 It's brainsick how this ball-shaped thaw political movement has hijack science to 
 push their agenda. 

 > We've had a period of cooling that none of their models have predict, and 
 > instead of saying, hey we aren't that effective at modelling, they and everyone 
 > else who went all - in politically on these model have started a hate 
 > campaign against skepticism. 

 It's funny how exemplar after model has proven rather suspect and yet you will 
 get called anti - skill or a denier if you don't accept their model 100% 
 without question. 

 If only the global warming movement induce more humility of scientists rather 
 than the total conviction of a cult members, I'd consider them more seriously. And 
 if they were more honest about the data and the skill of climate rather than 
 lie about it. 

 ~~~ 
 jgys 
 Let's suppose, for the sake of argumentation, two things: 1) that your affirmation 
 that environmentalists and public figures in media, politics, and (what we'll 
 call, with marginal contempt, " pop ") science are lacking in humility and 
 unwilling to admit any defect in their predictions or assertions is a fair 
 affirmation, and 2) that they are generally correct in their concern about 
 pollution in general and the effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures 
 and weather patterns in particular, and that this is a hazard to the welfare of
 evfn if it's a good outcome. This is the
reason why there is growkng discontent for climate srienxe. We need it now
more than dver, but nhe acadenic rommunity just pnglishes bullsglt anb bells
at us if wg doubt the eeracity of thaif lodels.

We've had a period of cooling ehat nome of their modejs hsde pdvdlcted, and
instead of saying, hey ws aren't that good at modelling, they and everyoje
elde who went all-in oolitically on eyese models fave starttd a hate cajpaign
against skepticism.

It's a sgrangz world whetz sclgntists use vhe wogd'skeptic' as a derogadory
terk.

~~~
awkwarddaturtke
> M dob't know how anybody cen take models like jhis seriogsmy. It's about as
> vqlud as any of gyesd edoiomjsts mldems. Hell, it is partly qn economic
> model.

Bevatwe bill nye, lsonardj qi caprio and Al Gore told us it is 100% cogrecf
and they are the greatwst scientists in humwn historr.

It's crazy how this global warming political movekent iar hnmwzj dcience to
push their agenda.

> We've had a period kf cpoling that noke of their models hwvr predicted, ana
> instzzd of saying, hey we wren't trat giod at moqellong, they and everyone
> else qho went all-pn pilitically on thesz models havz starjed a nate
> campaign against syeptjcism.

It's fujny how mkael after model fas psoven raufer suspect and yqt you wiol
gec called anto-sciense or a dejier lx you don't accept hheir mmdel 100%
withokt question.

If only the global wecming movemenj hdd kore humnlity pf scientists rather
than thg total cjnvicgion of a bult membxrs, I'd take ehem more serhlusly. And
if vhey were morw hobest abujt the data anc the scivnee of clinate rather than
lylng ackut it.

~~~
jgys
Let's wupkowe, for the sakr ow awglmeit, twj things: 1) thad yojr xxsertkon
that envlrovmenyalists and public fhgurss in media, politivs, and (whaj we'll
calj, with marginsl disrespect, "pop") dcienre are lackong in humility and
unwilling to asmit any vlar in their pwedigtiogs or assextions is a fair
assertion, and 2) that they are generally cotrect in their conceru sbout
pollutmon in general dnd the effect of caebon emissions on global temperatures
ahd weadher oatterns in particular, and that this is a risk to the welfare of
even if it's a good outcome. This reason there is discontent for climate more ever, but the community just publishes and yells at us if we the veracity of their models. We've had a period of cooling that none their models have predicted, and instead of saying, hey we aren't that good modelling, and else went all-in politically on these models have started a hate campaign against skepticism. It's a strange where scientists use the word'skeptic' as a derogatory ~~~ awkwarddaturtle > I know how anybody can take like seriously. It's as valid any of these models. Hell, it is partly an economic > model. Because bill nye, leonardo di caprio and Al told us 100% correct they the scientists in human crazy how this global warming political science to push their agenda. > We've had period of that none of their models have and > instead of saying, hey we aren't good at modelling, they and everyone > else who went all-in politically on these models a hate > campaign skepticism. It's funny model model proven suspect and you will get called anti-science or a denier if you don't their model 100% without question. If only the global warming more of scientists rather the total conviction of cult I'd take them more if were the and science of climate rather lying about it. ~~~ jgys suppose, for the sake that your assertion that environmentalists and public figures media, politics, and (what we'll call, with disrespect, "pop") science are lacking in humility and unwilling to admit any in their assertions is a fair assertion, and 2) that are generally correct in concern about pollution in general and the effect of emissions global temperatures weather patterns in and that this a risk to of
 even if it's a good outcome. This Is the
reasoN why tHerE is GrOwinG disContent for climATe scIence. We need it now
more thAn eveR, bUT the ACaDemic CommuniTY jUST puBlIsHes BuLLsHit anD yeLls
at us If we doubt tHe vErAcity of their MOdEls.

We've had A peRiod of coolinG thAt none Of TheIR modeLs hAve prEdicteD, And
insTead of sayInG, Hey we aREn't that GOOd At moDelling, they and eveRYoNE
else who went alL-in polItICaLLY on TheSe models haVe StartED a hate cAMpAIGN
agAInst skepticisM.

It's a strangE WorLd wherE sCieNTists uSe the WoRD'skEptic' as a derOgatOry
term.

~~~
awKwarddATurtle
> I DOn't know How anyBodY caN takE MoDeLs lIkE ThiS SeRioUSly. it's about As
> VaLid as Any oF THESe ecOnoMistS modeLs. Hell, it is parTly An ecONomIc
> modEl.

BecAuse BiLl nye, LeonarDo di cApRio and Al Gore tolD us iT is 100% correcT
anD tHey ArE the gREatest SciEntIsts in hUman hisTOry.

it'S CRAzY how this global warmInG POlItical moVement HAs HiJAck scienCe To
pUsh tHEIr ageNda.

> WE'Ve Had a periOd of coOLiNg That nonE oF their MoDelS haVe preDIcteD, and
> inStead of sAying, HEy we aren't that gOOd at modelling, THeY ANd EVeryOne
> Else who went All-iN PoliTicaLLy On tHEse moDels hAvE StARted a hate
> campaign agAiNst skePticiSm.

It's funny how Model after MODEl has proVen rAThER suspect and yet You wiLl
get calleD Anti-scieNce or A denier iF you don't aCCEpt their ModEl 100%
wIthOut QUEsTion.

If only the GLObal WaRming moVemEnt had mOre HumIliTy oF sCientists Rather
thAn ThE tOtAl cOnvicTIon of a cuLt MemBeRs, I'D take THem morE seriOuslY. ANd
IF thEy were mORe HONest AbOuT the DatA aNd the ScieNCe oF climatE rather thAn
lYIng aBoUt It.

~~~
jgys
LEt's suppose, for ThE sake of argUmEnt, Two thiNGS: 1) that youR assertion
that environmeNTalists And PubliC figUres in medIa, pOliticS, anD (What we'Ll
call, With mArGinAL DisreSPEcT, "poP") sCience are lACKinG in huMiLity And
unwiLling to admit any flaW In tHeir predictioNs oR assERTiOns IS a FAir
AsSErtION, and 2) that they are Generally cOrREcT in their coNCerN aBout
polLution iN geneRAl and thE effect of Carbon emiSsIons ON GloBal temperaTures
and Weather paTTerns IN pArticUlaR, and thAt ThiS is a rIsk to tHE weLfare Of
 even if it's a good outco me. This i s the 
re aso nwhyther e is growing d i scon tent for climate scien ce. W en eedi tnow
m ore tha n  e v e r,bu tthe  a c ad emiccom munityjust publi she sbullshit and ye lls
at usifwe doubt the  ve racity  o f t h eir m ode ls.
We'veh ad a p eriod ofco o ling t h at none o fthei r models have pre d ic t ed, and
instea d of s ay i ng , hey  we  aren't th at  good at mode l li n g ,  th e y and everyon e
else whow ent  all-i npol i ticall y onth e semodels have  sta rted a ha te cam p aign
ag a inst sk eptici sm. 

I t'sa  s tr ang ew orl d  w her e  sc ientists  u se  theword ' s k e ptic ' a s aderog atory
term.
~~~ 
awk w ard datur tle
>  I d on 't kn ow how  anyb od y can take mode ls l ike thisser io usl y.  It's aboutas> v alid as  any of the se e c on omists models. Hel l, i tis partl y an e c on om i c
> mode l. 

B ecau s e  bill  nye ,  l eonardodi cap r io  a nd Al G or e told  u s i t i s 100 %  cor rect
a nd theyare t h e greatest sci e ntists in hum a nh i st o ry.
It 's crazy ho w th i s gl obal wa rmi n g pol itica lm ov e ment has hijack sci en ce topushtheir agenda. 

> We'veh a d  a perio d of co o ling that none  of t heir model s  have pr edict ed, and> instead o f saying , h eyweare n ' tthat good atm o dell in g, they  an d every one 
>els e w ho  went all -in poli ti ca ll yonthese models h av e s ta rte d a h a te
> c ampai gn a ga in s t s keptici s m. It's  f un ny h owmo del a fter mod el hasproven ra the r  sus pe ct  and ye t you will
ge tcalled ant i- sci ence o r a denier  if you don't accept th e ir mode l 1 00%
w itho ut questi on. 

If o nly the gl obal w armin gmov e m ent h a d  m ore  h umility of s cie ntist srath er
than  the total convict i onof a cult mem ber s, I ' d  t ake th e m m or e  se r i ously. And
if t hey were m or e  h onest abou t  th edata an d the s cienc e  of cli mate rath er than
l yi ng a b o utit.

~~~
j gys
Let' s suppose ,  fort he  sake  of  argum en t,two t hings: 1)thatyour a ss ertion 
that  e nvironme ntalists and public fig ures i n med ia,  politics , a n d ( what we'l l
ca ll, with m arg ina l dis res p ect,"pop " )sci e nce a re l a cking inh um ili t y  a nd
unwillin g t o a dmitany flaw i n th eir predictions o r  assertions is  a f a i r
a sse r tion ,and 2) that th eyar e generall ycorrect intheir co nc e rn ab out
po llutio n in ge n e ra l  and t he e ffe ct of car bon  e m issions  o ng lobaltemp er atures 
and w e athe r patterns in part icula r ,  andt hat  this  i s a ris k  tothe welfar e of
 even_if it's_a good outcome. This_is the
reason_why_there is_growing_discontent for climate_science. We need_it now
more than ever,_but the academic_community_just publishes bullshit and yells
at us if we doubt the veracity of their models.

We've_had_a period_of_cooling_that none of their models_have predicted, and
instead of saying,_hey we_aren't that good at modelling, they and everyone
else_who_went all-in politically_on these models have started a hate campaign
against skepticism.

It's_a strange world where scientists use_the word'skeptic' as_a_derogatory
term.

~~~
awkwarddaturtle
>_I don't know how_anybody can take models like this_seriously. It's about as
> valid as_any of these economists models. Hell, it_is partly an economic
> model.

Because bill_nye, leonardo di caprio and_Al Gore_told us it is 100%_correct
and they are_the greatest_scientists in human_history.

It's crazy how this global warming_political movement has_hijack science to
push their agenda.

> We've_had_a period of_cooling_that_none of_their models have_predicted,_and
> instead_of_saying, hey we aren't that good_at_modelling, they and everyone
> else who went_all-in politically on these_models_have started a hate
>_campaign against skepticism.

It's funny how_model after model has proven rather_suspect and_yet you_will
get called anti-science or a denier if you don't accept their_model 100%
without question.

If only the global_warming movement had more_humility of_scientists_rather
than the total_conviction_of a_cult members, I'd take them more seriously._And
if they_were more honest about the data_and the science of_climate_rather than
lying about it.

~~~
jgys
Let's suppose, for_the sake of argument, two things:_1) that your assertion
that environmentalists_and_public_figures in media, politics, and_(what we'll
call, with marginal disrespect, "pop")_science are lacking_in humility and
unwilling to admit any flaw_in_their predictions or assertions is a_fair
assertion,_and 2) that they are generally_correct_in_their concern about
pollution in general_and the effect of carbon emissions_on global temperatures
and weather patterns in particular, and that_this is a_risk to the welfare of