Climate change alarmists…or are they?

With scientists consistently erring on the side of least drama, it is difficult to understand how anyone can consider them alarmists.

I wonder who the actual alarmists are?

 

 

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under Climate Change

5 responses to “Climate change alarmists…or are they?

  1. I always find it somewhat ironic to read (or hear) people say something like “millions will die if we listen to these alarmists and stop using fossil fuels”.

  2. In a US context, how different would history be if Paul Revere had not been an ‘alarmist’ and the contemporary ‘deniers’ thought that the British were (a) natural, (b) occurred in cycles. (c) wouldn’t be all that bad…? Or the ‘deniers’ thought that (a) the British would be good for the plants, (b) it would be economic madness to fight the British, (c) no one really knew what the sensitivity of the British was, …? ( http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/paul-revere-alarmist/ )
    Actually, the godfather of conservatism, Edmund Burke, saw alarmism as a kind of virtue (when appropriate).

  3. Nice video!

    One consequence of “erring on the side of least drama” is that as you have more data, understand the system better and gain more confidence in the predictions, you will get closer to the mean. This leads to a string of messages saying: the effects are larger than previously expected. If you do not understand this, you may draw the opposite conclusion from this imbalance, namely that scientists are exaggerating things.

    If scientists would not be so “over-careful”, would get the mean right the first time, you would have just as many studies that would claim that effects are weaker as studies claiming stronger effects.

    Another reason climate scientists are perceived as alarmists is likely the media. I subscribe to a German science information service that sends out scientific press releases. I must say I am touched by the naivete of so many climate scientists (and their supposedly professional press offices) to think that the press is interested in positive news. So many press releases are positively worded and will go straight into the waste bins of the journalists.

    I would estimate that the average climate ostrich gets its information from the press at best, from WUWT at worst, not from the scientific literature.

    • Its the same here in oz and the press is mostly owned by rupert murdoch. For me, the evidence is overwhelmingly serious and for want of a better word, sensational. Under – reporting just breeds apathy.

  4. Pingback: Alarmist, really? | Wotts Up With That Blog