←back to thread

Climate Change Tracker

(climatechangetracker.org)
447 points Brajeshwar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
easytiger ◴[] No.37371959[source]
https://extinctionclock.org/#show
replies(3): >>37372271 #>>37372666 #>>37373851 #
phtrivier ◴[] No.37372271[source]
That's some pretty impressive example of misrepresentation. Quote the most lunatic doomsayers, misquote the scientists, t put them on the same foot as politians and TV actors, systemanticaly interpret "we have x years to act to avert problem y" as "problem y will hit in exactly x years", etc...

Almost all the marks hit. "Quine", as we say.

Never mind. Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

replies(1): >>37372679 #
1. Volundr ◴[] No.37372679[source]
The rule appears to be something like `if isDatePassed? then successfullPrediction = "No."`. For example we have:

Hoover dam to be a 'dry hole by 2021': From the MSNBC documentary, Future Earth 2025, quote: "As water levels drop, by 2017 hoover dam will no longer provide drinking water to Las Vegas, Tucson, and San Diego. And it stops generating electricity to Los Angeles. And if nothing is done, the reservoir will be a dry hole by 2021".

This site calls it an unsuccessful prediction, yet there have been tons of water conservation efforts around Lake mead (more specifically the Colorado River). In other words "if we don't do something X will happen" followed by us putting a ton of work into preventing X apparently means the original prediction was wrong.

Other predictions like X could happen in "as little as 50 years" (establishing a lower, but no upper bound), are now marked incorrect 50 years later.