Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Patricia's avatar

I am a financial adviser and when I first came into the industry many, many years ago I started collecting, every December, the outlook for the next year for financial markets. I quickly realised that these forecasts from the world's largest financial companies amounted to nothing more than 'we are going to see the same trend ie more of what is happening right now'. None of them saw the credit crunch coming. It turned out, upon further delving, that at a psychological level it is better to go with the crowd and be wrong collectively rather than be the one contra voice who might get a forecast wrong and be scoffed at ever more which could also result in loss of future career opportunities. No doubt the same in climate science although worse because it has become something of a religion.

Expand full comment
David Richardson's avatar

This article by Tony B at What's Up With That 14 years ago shows the battle for truth was lost a long time ago.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/

10 to 20 years ago I used to give the odd short lecture at U3A Science & Tech groups and similar ( I am a bog standard Met Guy). I took to prefacing my presentations with a statement appealing to those present to recognise that what I was showing was official commonly agreed data, not contentious or opinion. Even so I would receive abuse because the data would show things, like the extent of Arctic sea Ice, that would be contrary to the "approved" perception. And remember that most of those attending have science or engineering backgrounds and a lifetime of application. If you can't show an engineer empirical data without pushback!!??

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts