All scientific domains with policy relevance tend to have publication bias in one way or the other. Whenever scientists are more afraid to err in one way than the other, the distribution of probabilistic claims tends to be skewed from ground truth. #climate #econ #iq #vaccines
-
-
For instance, if climate scientists are more afraid to be seen as alarmist than conservative, their studies will become more conservative, and the most likely climate developments won't be at the mean of predictions but closer to the worst case (or vice versa).
2 replies 2 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @Plinz
Have you compared the
@IPCC_CH reports over time with the actual measurements? I got the _impression_ of exactly that effect occurring. Maybe due to allowance of governmental influence on wording. Looked at ministerial change requests once: way more conservative than alarmist.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, and not just due to governments. If you want to make sure that you don't open flanks to the warming denialists, you may try to argue the case that is easiest to defend, i.e. the most conservative one. (But that does not explain why most discussion of warming stops in 2100.)
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming … corrected my impression:
#IPCC and other reports were on average spot-on. Re "2100": Maybe convenience & avoiding alarmist impression? Farther away future by definition less certain => more space for horror scenarios => high risk of "open flanks"?2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Note that in the 1970ies and 1980ies it was still widely acceptable to be alarmist (and perhaps it was even encouraged). The war on climate science took off when the warners started to get influence on policy, and is probably now abating, so the story is complicated.
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.