I actually haven’t made a single comment about the validity of climate change in this thread. I have exclusively talked about the chronic issues with climate science communication and it’s propensity to publicly promote outrageous predictions.

The underlying science doesn’t even enter the picture for many people. Because if you spend 30 years saying the world is about to end, then people don’t need to know a single thing about the science, because they know for a fact that the world didn’t end.

Maybe science journalism has been iffy, and maybe some advocates have aimed to shock. But the fact remains that scientists have been talking for decades about what it's going to be like in 2050 or 2100 or whatever. And those projections haven't changed much. It's just that 2050 is no longer so far in the future.

The problem isn’t science journalism, or iffyness. It’s the predictions made by the scientists themselves. Scientists have spent the past few decades predicting near term catastrophes, which have not been iffy, they have been outright falsified by failing to eventuate. The sentiment I’ve observed regarding this, and what you seem to be echoing right now is that it’s OK to overstate evidence and predictions because anything you say or do to get people to fear climate change is good, regardless of its merits. The outcome of that is that climate science has been thoroughly undermined by its own predictions. Why would somebody believe that the next 80 years of predictions are going to be more accurate than the previous 30? Predicting something 80 years into the future seems a lot harder than predicting something 10 years into it. If the question is “why don’t enough people take climate change seriously?” Then looking at the merits of the communication on the topic seems like a much more reasonable line of inquiry, rather than arriving at the conclusion that people must be mentally deficient in some way. Because even though a lot of damage has already been done, there are so many ways for the communication to be improved.

Just what predictions are you talking about? And please, don't point at stuff in the popular press. I'm talking mainly about the UN IPCC assessment reports.

>And please, don't point at stuff in the popular press.

The articles I've linked show the failings of arguable the two most noteworthy climate change advocates, Al Gore and James Hansen (a real climate scientist). This perfectly illustrates my point that the communication on this topic has been complete bunk. But if you want failings from the UN, you don't have to look very far.

>1990 IPCC

Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade

>Outcome

0.12°C-0.19°C Depending on your source

>1990 IPCC

This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025

>Outcome

0.31°C to 0.49°C by 2017, depending on your source.

>2007 IPCC

by 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change

>Outcome

Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, methodological uncertainties and geographical inconsistencies in the trends (Source UN IPCC)

>2007 IPCC

There is a very high likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

>Outcome

IPCC later outright recanted this prediction saying it was not peer reviewed https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him...

>2001 IPCC

Fire frequency is expected to increase with human-induced climate change, and that several authors suggest that climate change is likely to increase the number of days with severe burning conditions, prolong the fire season, and increase lightning activity, all of which lead to probable increases in fire frequency and areas burned

>Outcome

Globally, the total acreage burned by fires each year declined by 24 percent between 1998 and 2015 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.h...

We're not yet 30% into the next century from 1990, so mean 0.3°C per decade is still possible.

Given how things are going, about 1°C by 2025 is still possible. Also, there was a slowing in temperature increase from 1998 to 2012. But now we're back at the long-term trend. I suspect that Chinese SOx emissions from coal played a role, by increasing cloudiness. Cuts in SOx emissions in the 70s arguably increased the warming rate. And if that's true, the shit will hit the fan as China cuts coal use. Because the residence halflife for SOx is so much lower than that for CO2.

I don't know the water stress stuff. But California has been pretty screwed. Let's see what happens in the US Southwest over the next decade or so.

Maybe we still have Himalayan glaciers, but high-altitude glaciers have generally not fared so well, I think.

You're misusing that data on area burned by fires. The page actually says ...

> The ongoing transition from nomadic cultures to settled lifestyles and intensifying agriculture has led to a steep drop not only in the use of fire on local lands, but in the prevalence of fire worldwide, researchers found.

... and ...

> Across Africa, fires typically burn an area about half the size of the continental United States every year, said Niels Andela, a research scientist at Goddard and lead author on the paper. In traditional savanna cultures with common lands, people often set fires to keep grazing lands productive and free of shrubs. As many of these communities have shifted to cultivate more permanent fields and to build more houses, roads and villages, the use of fire declines. As economic development continues, the landscape becomes more fragmented, communities often enact legislation to control fires and the burned area declines even more.

The recent experience in Russia, northern Europe, California, etc does seem consistent with predictions. But I agree that there's not enough data to be confident yet.