4 ms·

"We have ten years to save the world" - a statement made repeatedly during the last 30 years.

shuntress 8y ago
Please elaborate. Your initial statement seems to be a "follow the leader" style brigade post intended to re-inforce the narrative that global warming is not real.
- war1025 8y ago
  The problem with global warming is that people have turned it into a religion. Yes, we are doing a lot of stupid stuff. Yes, we should work to reduce our impact on the planet. No, we do not have conclusive evidence on what is going to happen. We have models that seem to point at something bad happening. They are probably directionally correct. We can't predict the future. If someone in 1900 had predicted what the next 100 years would be like, they would have missed all of the major events in the century. We aren't any different than the people 100 years ago.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Oletros 8y ago
    > The problem with global warming is that people have turned it into a religion Yap, people negating it or the consequences > We can't predict the future. If someone in 1900 had predicted what the next 100 years would be like, they would have missed all of the major events in the century. We aren't any different than the people 100 years ago. Taking into account that models have predicted within the error bars the temperatures, I think you can't be more wrong
    - war1025 8y ago
      And every economic model in the world has the footnote: "Past returns are not indicative of future results" The data fits the model until it doesn't.
      - Oletros 8y ago
        Ah, are you comparing economic models with climate models? Do you have any evidence that climate models are not good or that they are worthless?
jordan801 8y ago
Yeah, the world, most likely, isn't going to end in ten years. But in ten years, if we don't do anything, fifty years from now, it's all going to be way, way worse.
- gaius 8y ago
  That is completely true. But it is also true that if someone says X will happen in time T and at time T+1 it hadn’t happened then warning of X won’t be taken seriously next time, even if they only meant to highlight the urgency of the situation by presenting a shorter timeframe. It will be difficult to communicate that “this time we really mean it”. That’s the fundamental problem right now.
  - Oletros 8y ago
    > That is completely true. But it is also true that if someone says X will happen in time T and at time T+1 it hadn’t happened then warning of X won’t be taken seriously next time I think we are confussing what scientist say with what media says

Please elaborate. Your initial statement seems to be a "follow the leader" style brigade post intended to re-inforce the narrative that global warming is not real.

war1025 8y ago
The problem with global warming is that people have turned it into a religion. Yes, we are doing a lot of stupid stuff. Yes, we should work to reduce our impact on the planet. No, we do not have conclusive evidence on what is going to happen. We have models that seem to point at something bad happening. They are probably directionally correct. We can't predict the future. If someone in 1900 had predicted what the next 100 years would be like, they would have missed all of the major events in the century. We aren't any different than the people 100 years ago.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Oletros 8y ago
  > The problem with global warming is that people have turned it into a religion Yap, people negating it or the consequences > We can't predict the future. If someone in 1900 had predicted what the next 100 years would be like, they would have missed all of the major events in the century. We aren't any different than the people 100 years ago. Taking into account that models have predicted within the error bars the temperatures, I think you can't be more wrong
  - war1025 8y ago
    And every economic model in the world has the footnote: "Past returns are not indicative of future results" The data fits the model until it doesn't.
    - Oletros 8y ago
      Ah, are you comparing economic models with climate models? Do you have any evidence that climate models are not good or that they are worthless?

jordan801 8y ago

Yeah, the world, most likely, isn't going to end in ten years. But in ten years, if we don't do anything, fifty years from now, it's all going to be way, way worse.

gaius 8y ago
That is completely true. But it is also true that if someone says X will happen in time T and at time T+1 it hadn’t happened then warning of X won’t be taken seriously next time, even if they only meant to highlight the urgency of the situation by presenting a shorter timeframe. It will be difficult to communicate that “this time we really mean it”. That’s the fundamental problem right now.
- Oletros 8y ago
  > That is completely true. But it is also true that if someone says X will happen in time T and at time T+1 it hadn’t happened then warning of X won’t be taken seriously next time I think we are confussing what scientist say with what media says