Hacker News Reader

Comment by jb775 | Hacker News Reader

This reminds me of the "Glaciers will melt within X years" studies, which ended up being wrong[1].

[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park...

Could you maybe write a word on what it is that reminds you of that? Or are you just hoping it’s wrong? I mean, you can dig up any number of wrong or right historical predictions, but that doesn’t really help anyone draw any conclusions about this one.

This reminds me of the limits to growth mit model, which is ending up being right all the way back since 1970.

This reminds me that gullible people are still getting fooled by Anthony Watts' inane garbage: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/fact-check-no...

How's his own predictions of a new Little Ice Age in 2016 looking? You know, when the Solar Cycle hits its minimum? Watts not only gets the year wrong, he gets the entire direction wrong. You'd think he'd manage to be a bit less sneering about others predictions when his own are so utterly crap.

This reminds me of how we model things, but there are also variables that change before they actually happen.

I always find it strange that people use forecasting failures as an excuse for inaction on climate change. If you were driving a car and you couldn’t see five feet in front of you, you probably wouldn’t think acceleration was a prudent course of action.

This reminds me: because other studies were wrong. Every other is also wrong.

The 70s and 80s were great times for failed predictions. There’s unfortunately never any accountability with this type of thing, and instead we have a slow erosion of trust and general apathy.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyp...

Taking the most extreme predictions and then pulling them from headlines that misrepresent them, then cherry picking from that is a fairly poor way to organize an argument.

I agree, what models and predictions have come true that have been presented in the headlines?

To start with accurate predictions as a base, then present the models and predictions that failed would put things into perspective.

Trust and apathy is still growing. Whether you like it or not, this is not unimportant. Nature is forcing it up on us. How shall we deal with it?

> Taking the most extreme predictions and then pulling them from headlines that misrepresent them

By the way, you've accurately described what the mainstream media does with climate change (and many other topics). Also, those are the same sources a vast majority of the population uses to get their news.

So, poor or not, it's unfortunately the norm, and as such it erodes the confidence in articles that place a timeline on our doom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com