No one said it straight out yet. Retroactively altering your model to fit predictions is not science. It is the opposite of science. Climatologists are the opposite of scientists.
-
-
Not an expert on climatology. But I’ve looked at other fields of knowledge and just about every single one has... let’s say trustworthiness issues. Climatology fits the pattern of such fields of knowledge, so why would anyone trust it... Oh, right, status I guess
-
Hold a gun to someone's head and they'll think they genuinely believe whatever you tell them to believe. Someone is holding a gun to every university's head.
-
Munger-style analysis time! Consistency: people stick to prior beliefs, especially ones stated publicly Incentives: people adopt beliefs that provide reward value So, first who is incentivized? The organizations doing the research? The ones building green product? Hmm...
-
Climatologists realized they could get lots of funding by predicting the end of the world. It probably started as noise. Politicians realized they could oppress by exploiting these predictions, and thus a cycle was formed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Narrator: "As it turned out, the game would not be over until there was no more free money left to burn..."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.