Thread by @FamedCelebrity

How can we best describe this to minds addled by decades of propaganda? A THREAD.

Headline: "Earth could face a mass EXTINCTION by 2100: Supercomputer predicts more than a quarter of species will die by the end of the century".

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ar…

1. Remind them that all models only say what they are told to say? And this one was told to say something quite ridiculous?

2. Remind them that "computers" are dumb beasts, mere machines, and that models on them are no different than models on paper?

3. Remind that there are hundreds of demonstrations that there is no reason to worry, in spite of what Experts and rulers say?

Here, for instance:
wmbriggs.com/post/43718/

4. Remind them that there have been DECADES of failed predictions, just like this one, each more hyperbolic than the last. All done by the same methods, and boosted by the same people for the same ends?

5. Show them the shortcomings of this model? Such as the admission that "The model doesn't produce a replica of Earth, but instead aims to build an 'ecologically plausible Earth'".

In other words, it's a rough, gross fiction?

6. Tell them it's more like a video game? E.g.: "we have populated a virtual world from the ground up and mapped the resulting fate of thousands of species across the globe to determine the likelihood of real-world tipping points,' Professor Strona said."

7. Warm them of the fragility of models which purposely build complex feedbacks, which aren't observed, but which modelers think might be real?

Such as the idea of "coextinctions" this model uses, assuming extinctions are like dominoes. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

8. Point up the ridiculousness of the predictions?

"We predict a 17.6% (± 0.16% SE) average reduction of local vertebrate diversity globally by 2100, with coextinctions increasing the effect of primary extinctions by 184.2%".

184.2, and not 184.3 percent.

9. Tell them that if this prediction were true, species would have to start disappearing faster than Republicans asked to vote on Reality-based laws in the next few years? There are only 78 years left to 2100, so there has to be mass die offs starting tomorrow.

10. Should we tell them nobody knows, even, how many species there are now, so that it will difficult to count how many disappear?

11. Shall we quote from the paper, which admits after all the horrible fantasies, this? "An important caveat is that while our virtual species are functionally realistic, they do not have taxonomic or phylogenetic meaning."

Ah.

12. And this?

"Hence, our results reveal local changes in species diversity but do not provide information on global species extinctions per se. Neither does the model claim to produce an Earth replica, but instead aims to build an ecologically plausible Earth."

13. Shall we tell them that SCENARIOS are forecasts, even though the authors seeks to escape responsibility for their foolish model by calling its predictions "scenarios"?

"the model cannot forecast Earth’s future but instead projects relative potential scenarios"

14. And that calling predictions "scenarios" is a low move, that of charlatans, who will be able to shrug when their "scenario" fails by saying "it was only a scenario"?

No. None of this will work. We have been trying these moves on a host of similar "studies". None of it sticks.

People want to believe. They reason smart people told them to worry, so they worry.

They never remember the serial errors and monumental failures of the smart people.

They think, "Wow, this model wasn't even on a computer. But a SUPERcomputer. How can it be wrong?"

Sigh.

Addendum:

Never let them get away with it. There Is No Difference Between A Forecast, A Scenario, or A Projection.
wmbriggs.com/post/13252/