One recent example of such a dynamic was Germany's recent plan to phase out coal (by 2038). The committee that drew up the recommendations was overruled on several key elements, such as the decision to not to open a new coal power plant this year. Although the committee was and is correct that opening new coal power plants is not compatible with our CO2 emissions goals under the Paris agreement, which are in turn our best estimate of the maximum we can emit and still have civilization past the next couple decades, lawmakers didn't want to hear it.
You've got it backwards. The models are known to be conservative because "alarmist" scientists have received a bad reputation when they are proven wrong. It is safer to pretend to be ignorant and underestimate the numbers.
Why? Because experimenters who got the correct value figured it must be too high, and ran the experiment again until they got a more-erroneous value, one that was nonetheless higher. Eventually it worked itself out.
But climate modeling isn't measuring something objective and static like the charge of the electron. It's prediction. I'm afraid that the incentives are to credit models that predict less warming just a bit more than those which predict more; the expected effect would be that the predicted warming effect would only slowly approach the more dreadful reality.
Please note that I'm not calling climate science a "Cargo Cult", as Feynman put it; I accept the basic premise of anthropogenic warming on first principles, and see that historic measurements (not to speak of recent ones) show a warming trend. There is cause to be extremely concerned.
Nonetheless, it would be surprising if climate modeling, which is inherently inexact and involves irreducible guesswork, didn't drift toward the less alarming, due to similar social forces to those identified in Feynman's essay.
You're not actually saying anything of merit here. Flipping the sign on your paragraphs requires almost no work to get a meaningful result (which doesnt contradict known facts). You've made an assertion (climate models are likely to overpredict warming rather than underpredict) and handwave at some random shit that makes it sound nice. The actual assertion has zero argument behind it.
The oil drop results (Millikan was less than 1% off, by the way) show the pressure on scientists to conform with the current status quo, the pressure NOT to release shocking or unexpected results. In climate science, that means underplaying the results, biasing them towards less catastrophic findings, and there's a great deal of evidence that that is what has been happening. For instance, the gold standard climate documents, the IPCC reports, represent a consensus and therefore if 99% of scientists believe 100 units of climate change is coming, and 1% of scientists believe no more than 30 units of climate change is coming, 30 units is what is reported (the amount everyone can agree on). This is a huge underreporting bias, only slowly corrected with each new report.
Good on you for your scientific approach, you just basically reversed the signs in your equation.
To use your numbers, the IPCC reports that 99% of scientists believe 100 units of climate change is coming, and 1% believe no more than 30.
It's less than 200 pages, I recommend actually reading it, rather than just guessing how the sausage is made, as you've done here.
This actually doesn't make any sense! In your valued Milikan example, the problem was subsequent experiments were biased towards lower values, meaning that for climate models the bias would be expected towards under heating models. In other words, the lesson from Milikan is that there is a risk our models aren't heating fast enough.
So by the quoted example we should be worry that our models under predicts, and yet Milikan is stood up to argue the models are too wild in their warming predictions?
The result being, you equate someone expressing questions about the any parts of this process with deluded people. This doesn't seem conducive to healthy discussion.
"patient" earth is sick. Will you cure him or not? That's the only important question.
For that matter, I don't think you are making a honest argument here, as you paint experts coming together to check each others work as something bad. People don't generally object to the linux kernel simply because it is "the coordinated work of thousands".
Nor is it normal to pretend that there isn't dissent within the linux project, as you try with climate change by saying "anyone who expresses skepticism[sic]" isn't welcome. And you do this in a comment thread of an article that is explicitly about dissent (about details) within the climate community.
There seems to be an effort to use the the historical example of Milikan, where a respected authority got a slightly low value, and all subsequent measurements all ended up above it, because that's where the truth was. Then it is claimed that likewise for climate change models above the average are preferred.
But this actually doesn't make any sense! First, because in the Milikan example the problem was subsequent experiments were biased conservative, meaning the bias would be expected towards under heating models. In other words, the lesson from Milikan is that there is a risk our models aren't heating fast enough.
So by the quoted example we should be worry that our models under predicts, and yet Milikan is stood up to argue the models are too wild in their warming predictions?
Here is the problem, here is the hard science, here is how we can fix it.
Flat earthers and the like don't get nearly as far in part because they have no such counterpoint to leverage. They remain on the fringes, not taken seriously. Climate change deniers could be relegated to the same fate if we'd be clear about predictions vs science, and ease up on the doomsaying. Doomsayers tend to be ignored for good reason. The world is always said to be ending, yet it never does. Instead it's become drastically better, historically. Global warming is a problem to be solved. Stick to the science.
The post you are defending is doing more than simply pointing out that the models are models. It is also claiming, without any proof or even argument in support, that experts all over the world are only publishing high predictions.
As for an argument, well, experts have been on the wrong side about things like climate predictions, stock predictions, economy, nutrition and so on many times. Even to terrible effect. We replaced fat with trans-fats and sugar, for example. So it's at least fair to be skeptical.
Personally, I'm on the side of science and climate change is a problem we need to solve. And I think we will because we tend to be good about solving slow moving disasters. Besides, optimism and hope about the future is a better strategy than seeding people with fear, doubt and anxiety.
See ipcch.ch
Why? Because experimenters who got the correct value figured it must be too high, and ran the experiment again until they got a more-erroneous value, one that was nonetheless higher. Eventually it worked itself out.
But climate modeling isn't measuring something objective and static like the charge of the electron. It's prediction. I'm afraid that the incentives are to credit models that predict more warming just a bit more than those which predict less; the expected effect would be that the predicted warming effect would get larger over time.
Please note that I'm not calling climate science a "Cargo Cult", as Feynman put it; I accept the basic premise of anthropogenic warming on first principles, and see that historic measurements (not to speak of recent ones) show a warming trend. There is cause to be concerned.
Nonetheless, it would be surprising if climate modeling, which is inherently inexact and involves irreducible guesswork, didn't drift toward the more alarming, due to similar social forces to those identified in Feynman's essay.