Hacker News Reader

Comment by zuzululu | Hacker News Reader

but if you keep declaring a time clock every decade only to reset it for the past 50 years, does it not weaken the point of it ? we should've had an apocalypse by now, we haven't and unlikely to so for quite some time.

why are we so eager and unquestioning of the published narratives going to the length of censoring counter theories?

View on HN

Yeah the clock turned out to be silly, but if you interpret it as risk level instead of time, it makes sense. Since the 70s we have been at a near-100% chance this would happen.

so the probability approaches 0% every 10 years and then goes back up to 99% the following year and repeats 5 times ?

that makes little sense to me

What?

"We keep making predictions that never comes true maybe one day we'll be right when I won't be around to find out"

"sir you have cancer, you'll die in five years"

five years later: "HAHA THE DOCTORS ARE ALL STUPID AND WRONG!"

five more years: dead, of cancer

Like an alcoholic saying drinking isn’t bad because he’s been drinking since his twenties and still hasn’t got cirrhosis

By the time it’s an issue it’s too late.

thats a silly take, this is totally different from some pending apocalypse that is repeatedly pushed back when it doesn't happen.

We don't know how much he'll drink before he gets cirrhosis. Now he's 60 and should have had it already. We still think he'll have it despite previously not predicting the timeline correctly.

You seem less interested in whether the analogy is accurate than in making sure or desiring someone is dead by the end of it. I do find it to be weird way to respond to low stakes banter.

argumentum ad cadaver

I don’t think it is, and I don’t think it’s repeatedly pushed back

I just think the science is still being worked out.

But the world is getting hotter, and the scientists know it’s not good for us when the earth heats past a certain point.

But we’re still burning that fuel regardless.

We've had the apocalyptic climate prophecies every decade and towards the end of each they move the goal post again and again.

Then other scientists offer alternative views that point out that flaw and they are automatically not deemed as science despite the geological history of earth's magnetic poles shifting and recorded climate changes.

The fuel we burn barely makes a dent on the overall climate change effect. You are running out of things to blame so you keep moving the goal posts.

So you think this climate change is caused by the magnetic poles shifting?

you are aware that magnetic poles shifts have been happening on earth since its formation and continue to do so ?

You didn’t answer my question, but it’s understandable why you wouldn’t want to if you believe that.

I know magnetic poles shift.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com