“But Predictions”

Various ways to attack the predictibility of climate science.

Examples

[LUTHERTARIAN] Exxon scientists were actually wrong with their predictions.

[No Shit Dept] Hey, Rick- why don’t you try getting a single fucking catastrophic prediction correct before waxing cocksure?

[ROB] The problem is that the experts have been predicting impending climatic doomsday for decades, and they have always been wrong.

[TalkMaster] Not ONE single climate doomsday prediction over the past 60 years has come true. Not one.

Objections and Replies

(Always) Climate scientists predictions always fail. –
Reply. That’s false. For instance, (Hausfather & al 2020) assessed models from 1970 to 2007. Their predictions fared quite well. If we look at 2019, it’s right in line with the old CMIP5 models. There are many other comparisons, as climate scientists tend to test their models a lot. See my collection.

(Exxon) Exxon was wrong. –
Reply. Look at Andrew’s graphs. See also this article.

(Handwaving) Some prediction P failed, most extreme predictions failed, etc.
Reply. That’s easy to say. Which one do you have in mind?

(Impossible) Climate science cannot make prediction.
Reply. Either it fails to predict, or it cannot. Make up your mind.

(No shit) Climate science can’t predict a shit. –
Reply. To be fair, that’s not really what they are designed for.

Notes

{Cf.} See also #But12Years, #ButModulz, #ButFalsification.

{Dutch Book} One can’t lose by saying both that predictions are necessary and impossible.

{Predictability} Predictability is less clear than we usually presume.

{Projection and Prediction} A prediction can be distinguished from a projection, but for our purpose that does not matter much.

{Robustness} Whining about climate modulz does not cohere with appeals to economic modulz. Yet many contrarians will do both, like Adam.

{Squirrel!} As always, watch out for deflection after asking for specifics.

Further Readings