you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

One simplified model is not the reason for this. They've been expected to use a number of different climate scenarios in their work for a long time. Stop making shit up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    The point was to test for human bias in the data. The initial complaint was that scientists were cherry picking the data to make it look worse than it was. By looking at the spread, it showed they were minorly cherry picking to understate the problem. A fact that is now more and more obvious as it plays out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Funny you say that, my wife does climate change mitigation research. She definitely isn't cherry picking data. Climate change is just very uncertain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    It wasn't deliberate. It was more likely scientists being overly cautious about overstating their case. The end results pushed the normal agreed values closer to best case predictions rather than middle.

    This was back when the main models needed weeks of super computer time, so only a few were run, and everyone else analysed the shared results.

  • source
  • parent