Hacker News Reader

Comment by dls2016 | Hacker News Reader

dls2016

I've always been worried that estimates and predictions in the IPCC reports, for instance, are much too conservative. The reports are averages, in some sense, of thousands of peer-reviewed publications.

It's hard to get your publication accepted into the scientific mainstream if your predictions make you sound like an alarmist crank.

View on HN

I've seen this sentiment a lot, and it doesn't make any sense to me. How can you "trust the science" and peer review, but only when it's scary? If it's not scary enough, you hypothesize it being biased?

How is that better than the crowd who thinks it's biased the other way? It's just as easy to imagine your publication won't get accepted into the scientific mainstream unless it conforms to the prevailing narrative.

What's the value of peer review if either of these biases (deniers or alarmists) is correct?!?

In the IPCC case, the report itself says the evidence rules out less than 1C of warming but can't rule out more than 5C of warming by the end of the century. My views are perfectly consistent with the science... it's simply that the science is very limited when it comes to analyzing "tipping point" scenarios.

But, yes, I also have some qualms about peer review.

If the science is limited in that area, why do you believe tipping points (positive feedback) will be horrific? There's just as much reason to believe that negative feedback (the good kind) will keep things from going off the charts.

Either way, it's not scientific thinking, and it isn't trusting the experts either.

I said “I’ve been worried…” not that the worry is necessarily rational. The worry is based in what I view as weaknesses in human organizations. But it is also based in scenarios outlined by IPCC, so I’m not sure why you’re going on about “trusting the experts”.

I hope you'll forgive me for lumping you in with the other comments I read along these lines, but exaggeration on this topic is a pet peeve of mine. I've read more than a few parts of the IPCC reports over the years, and they aren't as end-of-the-world as a lot of people claim. There's a whole lot of spots in the current document where it says, "2.0 degrees will be worse than 1.5 degrees" with repercussions like "droughts in some areas and extra precipitation in others", about 75 cm of sea level rise by 2100, and poor people will suffer more than they already do. There's no brimstone rains, no water wars, and no extinction of mankind mentioned in the document, but lots of people feel free to fabricate that.

And every time someone claims to be following the science, but discards it all with "Yeah, but everyone knows the IPCC is overly conservative", I wish they'd admit they're no more rational than "the end is nigh" religions. The documents are right there [0] [1]. It's a report specifically designed for policy makers and laymen, which states in plain understandable language what the risks are, and armchair experts think they can dismiss it because they know the term "clathrate gun".

I know standing up to this is pointless. People don't change their minds very easily. But at least you're willing to admit your worries aren't necessarily rational, so it's unfair of me to try and pin that on you.

[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/11/SR1.5_SPM_Lo...

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com