Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Ann]

Whose science are we talking about?

For thirty or so years, from 1980 to 2010, a good deal of my professional life was taken up with assessing applications for money to allow individuals and groups to carry out the research they wanted to do. That led me into the arcane world of peer review and careful assessment. I learned a lot — about intellectual mafias, about arrogance, about the search for knowledge, truth and beauty. I have written about some of it, in part in essays here (search for ‘peer review’ for example.


More recently I have come across a new aspect of peer review, essentially its shift into the world of politics, where a policy proposal is advocated on the ground that ‘the science’ or ‘research’ or the work of ‘scientists’ must make the implementation of the policy proposal imperative, as well as immediate. There was some of that thirty years ago, mostly in the world of social science: education, criminology, indigenous affairs, and the like. Here the world of peer review would produce quite contrasting assessments of the proposal, from total support to outright condemnation. Today the area where it is most obvious is ‘climate change’, and once again we find advocates calling on ‘science’ to support or defend policy proposals. But what ‘science’ are they calling on? More, very interesting comment....

 

[wayneL]

Whose science are we talking about?

For thirty or so years, from 1980 to 2010, a good deal of my professional life was taken up with assessing applications for money to allow individuals and groups to carry out the research they wanted to do. That led me into the arcane world of peer review and careful assessment. I learned a lot — about intellectual mafias, about arrogance, about the search for knowledge, truth and beauty. I have written about some of it, in part in essays here (search for ‘peer review’ for example.


More recently I have come across a new aspect of peer review, essentially its shift into the world of politics, where a policy proposal is advocated on the ground that ‘the science’ or ‘research’ or the work of ‘scientists’ must make the implementation of the policy proposal imperative, as well as immediate. There was some of that thirty years ago, mostly in the world of social science: education, criminology, indigenous affairs, and the like. Here the world of peer review would produce quite contrasting assessments of the proposal, from total support to outright condemnation. Today the area where it is most obvious is ‘climate change’, and once again we find advocates calling on ‘science’ to support or defend policy proposals. But what ‘science’ are they calling on? More, very interesting comment....

This echos what my scientist friends and clients say, exactly.

 

[kahuna1]

A person with a political science degree is ... as relevant as an Astrology degree.

One can buy a doctorate in astrology for $39- on Ebay.

Aitkin wants us to believe that he is a disinterested observer whose views are based strictly on the evidence, yet his assessment leads him to reject all of the major claims about global warming. He claims to be "agnostic", willing to change his mind should the evidence become sufficient. This was the same claim made by former Prime Minister John Howard, who said he wanted to see the evidence for global warming before taking any action. In truth, the evidence had been piling up on his desk for years, yet he refused to look at it.

https://newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-sceptics/

When challenged, these amateurs are wont to claim that they "have done a lot of reading". According to Professor Aitkin, a historian and political scientist, he has read a lot, an achievement that — along with the fact that his two brothers are a mathematical statistician and a neurophysiologist and he himself had considered becoming a geologist — qualifies him to challenge the foundations of climate science.

Uh huh ... great source !!


even better ...

SHANE Mortimer was wearing a possum-skin coat when he conducted a welcome-to-country ceremony at Parliament House in late August. But in the eyes of former National Capital Authority chairman Don Aitkin, he looked "about as Aboriginal as I do". Professor Aitkin, who is also a former vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra, wrote as much on his blog the next day.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...k/news-story/baec355b4cdd60197d259be2dd98d4ff

 

[Ann]

More very interesting essays from Don Aitkin...

My Perspective on 'Climate Change' and Global Warming. 1:History

My Perspective on 'Climate Change' and Global Warming. 2: A Chronology of the Scare

My Perspective on 'Climate Change' and Global Warming. 3 The Core Argument Behind the AGW Scare

Is the Planet Warming? #4

Are Human Beings Causing the Warming? My Perspective on 'Climate Change' #5

Are the seas rising? My perspective on 'climate change' #6

How useful are climate models? My perspective on 'climate change' #7

Why do so many people believe in all this? My perspective on 'climate change' #8

But wouldn't it be useful to move to alternative energy anyway? #9 My perspective on 'climate change'
http://donaitkin.com/but-arent-97-p...-warming-10-my-perspective-on-climate-change/

‘But aren’t 97 per cent of climate scientists sure that humans are causing global warming?’ #10 My perspective on Climate Change
http://donaitkin.com/well-why-do-al...eal-with-11-my-perspective-on-climate-change/

‘Well, why do all the scientific academies support the AGW issue as something that governments and the world must deal with?’ #11 My perspective on ‘climate change’


‘When is it ‘weather’ and when is it ‘climate’?’ #12 My perspective on climate change

How not to argue #13 My perspective on climate change*

*This one is worth reproducing in full, I am sure Mr Aitkin won't mind.

There is a continuing debate about global warming and about climate change, despite the cries that ‘the science is settled’. It is, in my view, a most sloppy debate, mostly because of the argumentative style of many of those who involve themselves in it. My own rule is to look at the arguments and see if they are backed up by good evidence. I was taught so as an undergraduate, and it has been the basis of my scholarly work. But there are other styles, most of them fallacious in whole or in part. Indeed, there are scores of them (you can see a long list here). My advice is to recognise them, and never consciously to use them, in discussions about global warming or indeed about anything else. Here are a few. They’re easy to recognise.


Attacking the person and not the argument (ad hominem)


There’s been a lot of that on this website. Why would anyone go to WUWT, or read anything by Jo Nova? To which the counter is Why would anyone go to SkepticalScience? I’ve said myself that I regard SkepticalScience as mostly worthless and hypocritical, and I’ve explained why. But I have certainly gone there to read their arguments. In fact, if you are going to take part in a debate you have to know what the other side thinks, and why it thinks the way it does. Not to go there, and not to read their stuff, is intellectually empty.


Moving the goalposts


There’s been a good deal of this one, too. If you successfully address some point, you are told you must also address some further point. This can go on for some time. It is an argument by distraction. I think the underlying trouble with so many of these false argumentative forms is that the user is trying to win. It is better to take part in order to discover what you yourself think, and why you think that way. You will not convince most people, anyway, whatever you say, but you will be a lot more confident about your own position.


Incidentally, you can sometimes see the goalposts lowered rather than shifted. I take Vitamin C, have done for years and years, and rarely have colds. But if were to catch a cold I might be tempted to say (I hope I wouldn’t do this!) that my cold would have been a lot worse had I not taken Vitamin C. You can see variants of this one frequently.


Changing the subject


Another familiar ploy in the Comments section could also be called the arrival of a red herring, or just misdirection. You say something substantial, and your opponent picks you up on a spelling issue, and by the time you have dealt with that the issue has gone. You use a particular verb, and your opponent asks you to define the meaning of that verb, or asks whether or not you are aware that Marx/Hitler/Mao also used the verb in that way. Avoid those people!


Using numbers without context


You will come across people telling you that five trillion tons of ice have melted, or that 70 per cent of the Great Barrier reef is dead, or the we’ve passed 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide — as though these numbers have significance in themselves. They don’t, of course. What is the context? How much ice is there, anyway? How well have we sampled the Reef? In what sense is coral dead?And so on. The context usually puts the large number in proper perspective.


The Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment


This one is widespread. You will say something, and your opponent says, ‘Oh, Bloggs debunked that ages ago!’ It is sometimes called ‘the smoking gun’ or ‘the canary in the coal mine’. The media frequently report scientific papers in this fashion, if only because to do so makes a better story. I remember being told by an elder and better, when I was enthusing to everyone about my first paper published in a leading journal, that the test would be if anyone remembered it ten years later. In fact, only one of about a hundred papers I have written was ever given much recognition later on, but at least that one had lots, and was reprinted in two different collections.


Argument From Authority


I’ve dealt with that one in two essays in this set. The supposed fact that 97 per cent of climate scientists think whatever they think, or that leading academies support them, means nothing. Science is not based on authority, but on questioning and testing theories with experiments or observations. A variant is for your opponent to point to your apparent lack of authority — ‘What would you know about it?’


Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)


If people say something often enough, other people will begin to believe it. ‘The science is settled’ is just such a slogan. It isn’t true, and doesn’t stand up to more than a few seconds’ scrutiny, but it has been widely accepted, nonetheless.


Statement Of Conversion:


The speaker tells you that he used to believe in AGW, but he doesn’t now or, conversely, that he used to discount AGW, but not any longer, not since — and then you are likely to get one or other of the bad arguments listed here. The only good basis for such a statement is a straightforward and fact-filled account of the basis of one’s current view with no appeals to authority. Familiar versions of this one are ‘I used to think that too, when I was your age…” People of my generation need to resist that one!


Burden Of Proof


A familiar version of this one is the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can’t make a strong enough case. I call this one the Steven Mosher ploy, because Steven says (correctly) that until sceptics come up with rival theory to explain global warming the orthodoxy will continue to win. That doesn’t mean that the orthodoxy is right, for it is easy to point out all sorts of problems with the AGW scare. But in this case the burden of proof is reversed, and placed on the sceptics. It oughtn’t to be there, because the one with the theory is the one who needs to show that it must be right. Maybe some day sceptics will have a rival theory. I wouldn’t hold my breath.


An underlying problem here is the supposed need to know. Some things are not known properly, and in my view AGW is one of them. CO2 is cited as a necessary cause of warming, because the models can only reproduce warming if CO2 increases are factored in. But that implies that we know everything there is to know, which is plainly not the case.


There seem to be an insistent need, also, to be sure, to be confident, so that governments can make the right decisions. In my view the right decision is to do nothing, and deal with other more important problems. We will know more in due course. But I am not part of the orthodoxy.


The Slide


Here an apparently sensible proposition slides into something much more objectionable, and the best example I know is the so-called precautionary principle. The Wikipedia summarises it like this: if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk. Sounds reasonable? The problem is that the same caveat ought to be applied to the absence of action, or the proposed cure. Shouldn’t we look hard at the consequences of a carbon tax, which on the face of it will make no difference of any discernible kind to temperature, but will cost everybody more?


There are many more poor argumentative styles, but these I think are the important ones. I hope setting them out like this helps, and that readers recognise when they are about to employ one — and resist!


The battlelines #14 My perspective on Climate Change

My perspective on Climate change #15 ‘But what about the precautionary principle?’

#16 A Summary

 

[kahuna1]

Congratulations Humanity
The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985.
Chances of 10% being left in 2050 are less than 1%.
The First Canary in the Coal Mine is DEAD ....

how many are DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...


So far 31 Reefs under survey 2019 ... 5 of them are NEW ...
Of the 26.

IN 2019 ... THIS YEAR .... I count 6 with ZERO cover, main reef being dead ... and scant Outer reef cover ....

Fitzroy Island ... CLOSE a mere 2% verses 32% ... Not good

DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...

Congratulations Mr Trump, Climate deniers, idiots and non scientific people !!

This first Canary is dead, likely massive impact on Marine species diversity i the region. One that took hundreds of millions of year to evolve .... Well done silly HUMANS !

SAD BUT very very correct

I am sure the Turtles which use Green Island as their main hatching ground will LOVE no Coral

Even the dumbest of the dumb can work out some things.

Its wonderful .... Resident Dump ... whoops President Trump. Dumb Donald is 0% still alive ? You had a hunch !! World leader ... what an idiot along with Pauline and the Liberal party policies.

 

[kahuna1]

Sorry but the above ... denial of any issue climate change via LNP ... given Green Island NOW in 2019 ... just surveyed HAD NO HARD CORALS LEFT .... I am not sure WHAT will wake these climate idiots UP. Green Island has been under survey because its one of the ONLY turtle Hatcheries for Leatherback Turtles ...

It’s easy to see why Green Island Cairns has been on the tourist map for over 100 years – first as a basic lodge (grass huts) for passing fishermen and then as an opportunity for day-trippers to experience the reef first-hand.

In fact Green Island has a long list of firsts:

• 1st tourist destination on the Great Barrier Reef – 1880s
• 1st protected coral cay – 1937
• 1st glass bottom boat experience – 1948
• 1st underwater observatory – 1954
• 1st island movie theatre (featuring underwater footage) – 1961
• 1st crocodile exhibit on a sand cay – 1964
  
  http://www.adventuremumma.com/green-island-cairns-turtle-heaven/

NEW FIRST ... NO CORAL ... welcome to climate change ... I note now in the link ... turtle heaven ... is that WITH or WITHOUT Coral ? ... is it heaven or is it hell in 2019 ?

 

[Sdajii]

Sorry but the above ... denial of any issue climate change via LNP ... given Green Island NOW in 2019 ... just surveyed HAD NO HARD CORALS LEFT .... I am not sure WHAT will wake these climate idiots UP. Green Island has been under survey because its one of the ONLY turtle Hatcheries for Leatherback Turtles ...

It’s easy to see why Green Island Cairns has been on the tourist map for over 100 years – first as a basic lodge (grass huts) for passing fishermen and then as an opportunity for day-trippers to experience the reef first-hand.

In fact Green Island has a long list of firsts:

• 1st tourist destination on the Great Barrier Reef – 1880s
• 1st protected coral cay – 1937
• 1st glass bottom boat experience – 1948
• 1st underwater observatory – 1954
• 1st island movie theatre (featuring underwater footage) – 1961
• 1st crocodile exhibit on a sand cay – 1964
  
  http://www.adventuremumma.com/green-island-cairns-turtle-heaven/

NEW FIRST ... NO CORAL ... welcome to climate change ... I note now in the link ... turtle heaven ... is that WITH or WITHOUT Coral ? ... is it heaven or is it hell in 2019 ?

Take a deep breath. Very few people doubt that climate change exists. The questions are how much humans are contributing and much CO2 is contributing.

None of your post relates to this at all.

Additionally, multiple things are destroying coral. Pollution, salinity changes, dredging, and the are no doubt natural fluctuations in coral regardless of these things.

Simply saying "Look, there's a problem! How can anyone doubt that it is caused by x and x is caused by y?" is completely unscientific and holds no water, even if it is caused by x and x is caused by y. You have given no reason to make anyone think it is. Zero evidence, just an hypothesis.

 

[kahuna1]

Oooh conspiracy theory number 34 ?

Bleaching caused by heat is not an issue !!

Must run, still have the cat in the Microwave on high.

 

[Sdajii]

Oooh conspiracy theory number 34 ?

Bleaching caused by heat is not an issue !!

Must run, still have the cat in the Microwave on high.

No one said that. Again, you are resorting to strawman tactics when shown up for using a false argument or being wrong.

 

[kahuna1]

Aliens did it ?

Pauline Hanson whilst snorkeling for a day and declaring like you there is no climate change ... did a pee in the water ,,, and killed 6 different reefs ?

I like your theories. See I am getting the swing of it. Debating what scientists have already well established and your denying any climate issues ... all climate issues ... or is it Pauline peeing ? Its your alternative universe ...

coral is dead... it got bleached via temperature ... what caused water temperature to rise ? Climate change ... or was it bachelor in Paradise ? hmmm awaiting Tuesday nights episode shot in Fiji ... some steamy scene there heated water here ?

Since the people who examine the reefs have observed 3 causes over 40 years, and one reef did not suffer from the tow other ones, .... starfish ,,, or runoff ... 4 did not get runoff and starfish had not been observed in 15 years .... it leaves not many options left ... cooking in hot soup ... till the thing dies turns white and ... well those damm aliens and their ray guns !! Cooked the water ? Not climate related at all !!

 

[wayneL]

For those so interested:

Ridd-P-Chapter-1-from-Climate-Change-The-Facts-2017-IPA.pdf

 

[Sdajii]

Aliens did it ?

Pauline Hanson whilst snorkeling for a day and declaring like you there is no climate change ... did a pee in the water ,,, and killed 6 different reefs ?

I like your theories. See I am getting the swing of it. Debating what scientists have already well established and your denying any climate issues ... all climate issues ... or is it Pauline peeing ? Its your alternative universe ...

coral is dead... it got bleached via temperature ... what caused water temperature to rise ? Climate change ... or was it bachelor in Paradise ? hmmm awaiting Tuesday nights episode shot in Fiji ... some steamy scene there heated water here ?

Since the people who examine the reefs have observed 3 causes over 40 years, and one reef did not suffer from the tow other ones, .... starfish ,,, or runoff ... 4 did not get runoff and starfish had not been observed in 15 years .... it leaves not many options left ... cooking in hot soup ... till the thing dies turns white and ... well those damm aliens and their ray guns !! Cooked the water ? Not climate related at all !!

Again, you twist my words into something I have never said.

Pauline Hanson is a nit wit I have never endorsed.

I have never said there is no climate change or climate issue.

You repeatedly lie.

 

[kahuna1]

I am not twisting your words.
Nor trying to annoy you.
Nor trying to misrepresent you.
I went through every theory you have postulated a few pages ago and addressed them all.

I found them to be the opposite of scientific evidence I and 50,000 scientists find irrevocable.
Unquestionable. Impossible to question in fact.

I did examine your theories, against at times chemical and simple exothermic reactions and found their conclusions lacking, bizarre and against the laws of basic science. I confirmed my limited understanding with the IPCC and the peer reviewed by 24,000 scientists paper and 200 Nobel prize winners from late 2017 and, well, I could not and do not accept your theories. Cause and effect were ignored in favor at times of quite impossible ideas and baseless understanding of events.

In the meantime, all sources, even ones that have less than 1 in a million of being even slightly incorrect are assumed to be incorrect, for that potential error and all findings and data dismissed.


Let alone where your theories led you.
I say this with respect, no anger or taunting.

We agree to totally disagree on science and you with 50,000 scientists from the IPCC most of whom signed off on the 2017 peer review paper on the topic.

I find you position on virtually every issue the IPCC raises to be different and as such, amazing would be a polite way to say that.

 

[Sdajii]

I am not twisting your words.
Nor trying to annoy you.
Nor trying to misrepresent you.
I went through every theory you have postulated a few pages ago and addressed them all.

I found them to be the opposite of scientific evidence I and 50,000 scientists find irrevocable.
Unquestionable. Impossible to question in fact.

I did examine your theories, against at times chemical and simple exothermic reactions and found their conclusions lacking, bizarre and against the laws of basic science. I confirmed my limited understanding with the IPCC and the peer reviewed by 24,000 scientists paper and 200 Nobel prize winners from late 2017 and, well, I could not and do not accept your theories. Cause and effect were ignored in favor at times of quite impossible ideas and baseless understanding of events.

In the meantime, all sources, even ones that have less than 1 in a million of being even slightly incorrect are assumed to be incorrect, for that potential error and all findings and data dismissed.


Let alone where your theories led you.
I say this with respect, no anger or taunting.

We agree to totally disagree on science and you with 50,000 scientists from the IPCC most of whom signed off on the 2017 peer review paper on the topic.

I find you position on virtually every issue the IPCC raises to be different and as such, amazing would be a polite way to say that.

It must be easy to put my words into whatever category you like when rather than looking at my words as they are you imagine they are something else.

 

[Ann]

People seriously think this tax is going to make a difference to what the climate is doing?! What a crock of....

British Steel gets £100m government loan to pay carbon bill

British Steel has secured a £100m loan from the government to pay its EU carbon bill, a source close to the company has said.

The money means the private equity-owned firm will avoid a steep EU fine.

The firm said earlier this month it needed the funds to settle its 2018 pollution bill due at the end of April.

Sky News said the government money was used to pay for the company's carbon credits - and that British Steel would repay the money on commercial terms.

The firm has been hit by a European Union decision to suspend UK firms' access to free carbon permits until a Brexit withdrawal deal is ratified.

The EU's emissions trading system's rules allow industrial polluters to use carbon credits to pay for the previous year's emissions, or trade them to raise money.

Each free permit gives a firm the right to emit a tonne (1,000kg) of carbon dioxide (CO2). More..

 

[kahuna1]

It must be easy to put my words into whatever category you like when rather than looking at my words as they are you imagine they are something else.

It is not hard with your theories abut hard data. CO2 not being the issue.

Nor was a rock hitting the planet 65 million years ago ...

since you admit NOT to reading anything anyone, any science source, not matter how many science and data sources presented said about your theories, because they rubbished them .... telling me I am twisting your words .. its what is called a projections, since you ... seem to be keen to use shrink terms. Your projecting your own actions and blami0ng someone else. Sorry, take ownership of it and your baggage and 34 conspiracy theories that support your understanding or lack of it on climate change.

Here is a 3 minute Utube for you ... come visit on the ice with Jane


No words ... just pictures and noise

 

[Sdajii]

It is not hard with your theories abut hard data. CO2 not being the issue.

Nor was a rock hitting the planet 65 million years ago ...

since you admit NOT to reading anything anyone, any science source, not matter how many science and data sources presented said about your theories, because they rubbished them .... telling me I am twisting your words .. its what is called a projections, since you ... seem to be keen to use shrink terms. Your projecting your own actions and blami0ng someone else. Sorry, take ownership of it and your baggage and 34 conspiracy theories that support your understanding or lack of it on climate change.

Here is a 3 minute Utube for you ... come visit on the ice with Jane


No words ... just pictures and noise

Notice how you most oftendon't even try to discuss the topic, you merely use ad hominem attacks and lie about what I have said and believe then deny having done it then do it again in the same posts?

 

[basilio]

The problem is Sdajii is that you have raved on and on and on and on and on about global warming and the essence of your posts have been to undercut/deny/ dismiss concerns about the reality and causes of this issue.

 

[kahuna1]

The problem is Sdajii is that you have raved on and on and on and on and on about global warming and the essence of your posts have been to undercut/deny/ dismiss concerns about the reality and causes of this issue.

I would agree totally. I have and others have discussed and when your talking about irrefutable evidence, or chemical reactions, that are denied, disputed and ignored.

There is little to be gained with such discussion and views. If a chemical reaction is beyond question and its the basis for someones theory, that it doesn't occur or its effects are minimal, well, its time not to continue any rational discussion.

 

[Sdajii]

The problem is Sdajii is that you have raved on and on and on and on and on about global warming and the essence of your posts have been to undercut/deny/ dismiss concerns about the reality and causes of this issue.

The problem is that with people being so polarised between irrational alarmists who unconditionally believe the extreme exaggerations and the deniers who sometimes go so far as saying that humans aren't having any impact, someone who stands anywhere in the middle is seen as being on the opposite side from almost every observer.

I have never said humans are not contributing to climate change, I have never said climate change is not an issue. People seem incapable of understanding the difference between "This claim has no evidence" and "This claim is false", or between "This statement is exaggerated" and "This statement is the opposite of reality" or between "The system contains and inherent bias" and "The system is putting out a narrative with zero genuine basis".

People are so incapable of making distinctions such as these that they actually believe people making statements similar to the first of the above pairs are making statements similar to the second in the above pairs.

As an example, when I say that climate change is not the biggest problem the world currently faces, or that CO2 is not the biggest problem in terms of environmental damage humans are causing, it is not to say these are not issues at all, just that they are not the biggest ones. CO2 in particular is being used as a financial and political tool for retarding industry and economies in some countries, revenue raising without environmental benefit in many cases, and a distraction technique to avoid people rallying for action against other forms of pollution, land clearing, etc. This does not mean CO2 is of zero consequence. When I say climate science is inherently biased and the predictions are exaggerated, it is not to say that the reality is that there will be no climate change or problems, it is that the situation is being exaggerated. Looking at the situation rationally and objectively, this is very clearly so, but the mainstream narrative cleverly and blatantly dishonestly cooks and misrepresents the figures to make it look like previous predictions were conservative when in reality they were hugely exaggerated. Most people don't bother to look deeply into it, and they just believe what the mainstream media pushes, because anything else is too confusing.


This is a similar problem people are having with politics and many social issues these days.