undefined | Better HN

0 pointskcplate2y ago0 comments

I think the problem with the attitude of “so what if the models aren’t accurate, we should still undertake giant unpopular sacrifices because I, the expert, says so…”.is that it makes people more and more distrustful of future models that may be more accurate.

We just watched with front row seats what happens when once trusted scientific authorities rely on poor data, poor communications, and poor models. The general populace starts to distrust and reject them. This is the danger of every apocalyptic climate prediction that fails to come to pass. The desire to scare people into action only tends to push people into distrust and indifference.

0 comments

kredd2y ago

Significant portion of population will always act against status quo even if the data is accurate to the T. Something about “don’t let perfect be enemy of the good” heavily applies to climate modeling, in my opinion. Worst case scenario, we convert to better sources of power through a ton of investment, and make general populace’s life “cleaner” anyways.

fwlr2y ago

There’s always the Lizardman Constant[1], and on top of that there’s people demanding unreasonable perfection of data, sure. But I think the post you’re replying to has a good point: public opinion of “public health” has taken a significant hit in reaction to the handling of Covid, as more information came out that contradicted earlier messaging (vaccine confers immunity -> vaccine lessens symptoms, most notably). It seems prudent to acknowledge the same could happen with climate change!

1: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

1 more reply

kcplateOP2y ago

The worse case scenario is investment in your your movement towards cleaner energy is constantly hampered by scientists and politicians making near term apocalyptic predictions based on conjecture.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse