Because a list of articles that were wrong isn't the proof you're claiming. There is also a long list of science that was absolutely correct. The technology sitting in your hands is the very proof of correct science.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook to Speak at United Nations Climate Ambition Summit on Saturday
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
I'll just select 1 doomsday prediction that has a few variants based off it.
Why did this not occur when the science said it would? Science is facts. This should have occurred!
It is not the climate change that worries me, that throughout history has been constantly changing. It is the man made pollution. Big business and governments now use the green argument to increase costs and put up taxes. Instead of acting, they work hand-in-hand to cover up the damage. It is only when the individuals with the power are personally threatened, that they act.
Your first link was a newspaper article, not a scientific paper, so isn't exactly reliable (as newspapers make their money from selling emotions and drama, not facts, so are well known for taking scientific papers and taking a tiny part of it and twisting and dramatising it. This practice infuriates scientists no end). Regardless, the gist of it was that one scientist was making a contentious claim that was far from universally supported by the scientific community. That is not the consensus that modern global warming enjoys. Basically, this article is clickbait, not a consensus of scientific opinion.
As for your second link, I can only assume you haven't read it, as in no way does it claim an ice free Arctic by 2015. It merely talked about levels of gasses and sediments dissolved in the ocean due to temperature changes. They took samples ranging back to the peak of the last ice age, and then constructed a model based on that data. Whoever is claiming that articles such as this are making claims that have been proven wrong is outright lying. Don't believe me? Just read the damn article. And send me the paragraph that claims an ice free Arctic by 2015. You won't be able to, because it isn't there. Nor is there anything there that remotely implies it.
You're also confusing what science is. In short, the scientific process goes more or less like this:
- Someone makes an observation about a natural phenomenon, or a bunch of data, and postulates what it could be, or what it could mean.
- They then conduct experiments aimed to prove or disprove the postulate
- They publish the results
- If it is of significant interest, other scientists then recreate the experiments, or create similar experiments, to check that the first experiments were done correctly and didn't produce false data or misleading conclusions.
- When enough people have conducted enough experiments that it is considered truth, then it adds to the body of knowledge
- In some cases the results are of direct real world use and result in the production of a new technology. In other cases, it merely adds to the general body of knowledge. Other cases are in between.
Scientists are extremely sceptical, and question the truth of everything. It is only after many verifying experiments from many sources that a postulate becomes a theory or a law. NB: in science terminology, the word "theory" means something that has been validated so much that it is taken as a given truth. A law is the same, but is mathematically provable. Thus the laws of thermodynamics vs the theory of evolution. Both are indisputable truths (amongst the scientific community, not necessarily by the common person who has conflicting views based on politics or religion), but only one is mathematically provable.
And this is the problem with global warming. Amongst the scientific community, it has overwhelming consensus (that it exists and will be catastrophic if we don't fix it, but not so much of what exact timeline effects it will have, as there simply isn't enough data to accurately model the exact timeline of results), but amongst the general population it has become a political football for some bizarre reason.
People don't question science that results in the technology that sits in their very hands, as they have the indisputable physical proof right there in front of them. But the very same people can disbelieve the very same scientific process that results in less tangible and visible conclusions, such as a drip by drip slow but catastrophic man made rise in the earth's temperature. We are literally living out the boiling frog fable.
the gist of it was that one scientist was making a contentious claim that was far from universally supported by the scientific community.
And here is the problem. Every claim of global warming that has come and gone gets easily dismissed as retroactively "not being supported by the new and enlighten scientific community."
It seems that the 11 years left until irreversible damaged is pretty widely supported. But in 12 years time, it will be pushed aside as "one rogue scientist who at the time was using some pretty contentious science." But the new 15 years left until irreversible damage claim in the year 2030 will be totally supported, until it isn't.....
One thing we all agree on is that the climate is always changing. However, the thing I've never seen is, what would the rate of increase (or decrease) in temperature be without human interference? To say the climate would be sitting at a stable baseline with no variation or flux would pretty silly. So how can we know humans are speeding up the rate if we don't know what the baseline rate is?
But the article that you actually linked to said it was controversial and not universally supported, so there's no retroactive changing of minds there.
And no "11 years left until irreversible damaged" is not universally supported. No one can accurately predict the timeline, there's not enough data, and there is no previous event like this in the entire history of the earth from which to model it accurately. What IS universally supported is that the earth is being rapidly heated by man made causes and will lead to catastrophic irreversible damage if we don't stop doing it. It is universally supported that we need to change fast, but no one is entirely sure just how fast, so the universally accepted answer is simply, as fast as we can, because we don't really know at what point it will be too late. Sure, a lot of people like to throw their guesses out there, but those guesses are just that, and aren't universally supported. There is a big difference between scientific research that leads to something that becomes a theory or law of science, and research that leads to an estimate. You can't just read a science paper that provides an estimate, and because the estimate turns out to be wrong, you conclude that all science related to that subject is wrong. That's just dumb.
Also, a LOT is already being done to slow down the damage. Most countries governments are on board with the problem. E.g. China is on the path to 100% renewable energy. And even countries like the US where the government isn't on board, many of the citizens and companies themselves are on board regardless. In many cases, it us purely for financial reasons, as solar and wind have become cheaper than coal. The Kentucky Coal Museum famously switched to solar several years ago, purely because it's cheaper than paying the power bills. So if a freaking coal museum has done that, then you know something serious is happening. Every car company in the world is in a mad race to produce the best and cheapest electric cars, with the only thing holding it back being the price of batteries. And bazillions of dollars (and dun du dun, SCIENCE research) is being poured into improving battery technology.
So you've gotta ask yourself, if solar is now so cheap that a coal museum has jumped on board, then why are the conservative governments still pushing coal and oil so hard? Could it be because the coal and oil companies are donating tons of money to them and lobbying for them to continue pushing that barrow so they can continue to milk the last few $billions out of a dead duck? Could it be that the same billionaires that own huge shares in these companies also own a lot of the TV and newspapers, and thus the messages you're getting about climate change being wrong are actually twisted?