No, the word ‘hoax‘ is too strong IMO.
Replace it with hyperbole… leading to mass hysteria… leading to bad decisions. That would about summarise it.
You throw accusations around very freely, some of which I agree with and believe true, but they also apply to your arguments. You watched that video 100% from the perspective of not believing any of it, of looking for the arguments against it, etc. Your main argument isn’t even with the content, but how it was presented !
I‘m not saying everything in that video is correct in details, but what is beyond debate is there are 32 examples whereby the scientific communities at the time made clear predictions, based on proven scientific evidence.
And all 32 were wrong! Not just wrong by a bit, but their hypotheses fundamentally rejected.
I do not understand how anyone can reasonably look at that and not at least admit the possibility that some of that could be happening today! In fact, I’d argue it is proof that it is unavoidably so to one degree or another.
If nothing else, it shows that science is not some kind of infallible institution. And that the idea of there being ‘the’ science (ie a monolithic belief) just isn’t right. I find it remarkable that people can say yeah all those scientists didn’t know what they were doing / didn't have the data / didn’t understand… yet our current scientists do and are indisputably 100% correct and anyone who asks otherwise is a conspiracy theorist !
I would like to know more about why data from the 30s to 40s was not available to scientists in the 60s and 70s. And even if this is true, why such a short period was so instrumental in them being so fundamentally wrong. A 10 year data set in meteorological terms is less than the blink of an eye FFS !
As far as I know, accurate meteorological recording started in the 1850s and that data has been available ever since.
And as has been explained already, even that (1850 to today) is a very short time in meteorological terms. And more to the point, it is only in more recent years that we are starting to understand what happened before the 1850s. And what this shows is that the 1850s were bottom of a historical cool period. Which means temperature rises are both inevitable and thankfully staving off an ice age !
Kinda sounds like nit-picking right? Except it’s not, it’s absolutely fundamental to the underlying hypothesis.
I generally look first at the video’s source (and take a quick glance at structure/presentation) to decide whether I’m gonna waste my time watching or not. Admittedly that gave me a preconception here for obvious reasons, but I watched it in a critical way as you did. Maybe look again if you think that your statement here is ‘beyond debate’.
I‘m not saying everything in that video is correct in details, but what is beyond debate is there are 32 examples whereby the scientific communities at the time made clear predictions, based on proven scientific evidence.
Also not sure I stated that all 32 were wrong and rejected the fundamental hypothesis of all of the content? I watched 100% with the perspective of not believing any of it?
Or did I say of your main summary point ”is this
completely accurate and true” followed by:
It seems that the 60’s/70’s in particular were a difficult time for climate science - they were a disjointed body that had historical data with a more limited ability to interpret and model it.
Contrary to what this review extract says, there were many articles/commentary pieces in journals and newspapers in the 70’s that hypothesised on long term climate cooling, along with plenty of news outlets that applied the usual spin and hyperbole - some of which we see example of in the vid. It’s not clear to me whether these included published, peer reviewed scientific papers to meet the ‘proven scientific evidence’ tag or not. Nor whether the Wiki term of ‘conjecture’ is more accurate.
Can science get things wrong? Of course it can and does, principally I guess due to the available data on hand at the time and the ability to analyse it and model outcomes - projections and modelling are fraught with the unknown by definition right? I think it’s also clear that climate can change over shorter time frames than one might assume.
I too have reservations with some of todays climate thinking/action, as I’ve stated several times in this thread - although I realise that it works better to characterise me as 100% mainstream. I can then be partnered with Greta - yeh!
Labelling of climate science of the time as ‘doom fads’, ‘hoaxes’ or ‘hyperbole’ may be an inference of their intent to mislead, misrepresent or exaggerate which might carry through to today? Or were they just doing the best they could with the data and resources available at the time.
Todays climate scientists have the advantage of the passage of more time into a historical warming trend. Advances in methods and means of data and sample collection and the advent of the super computer for analysis and modelling are a quantum leap forward from the 60s-70’s. Including the ability to extrapolate/model all historical data. As such, can we justifiably project the failure of previous scientific (or otherwise) predictions from the 70’s or earlier, onto today‘s climate science consensus?
I get your argument FE - science has made incorrect predictions in the past - how can we be sure current science is not doing the same? It’s a valid question. What is not a valid and reasonable response (IMO) is the default accusations of incompetence, corruption, cronyism, and/or conspiracy coming from some.
Unless we have definitive proof that is, then ‘I’m all ears‘!
NB. Definitely open to discuss the fact that climate scientists are not a homogeneous group. Outliers will have differing interpretations.
www.independent.co.uk
