4 ms·

Or “this national park put up signs saying the glaciers would be gone in 2020, then had to take them down”: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-

Or “this national park put up signs saying the glaciers would be gone in 2020, then had to take them down”: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-202... Tying every observable short-term climate anomaly to CO2 will continue to backfire as often as not, because the truth is nobody can predict whether one year will be snowier than the next, or whether the next major natural disaster will be a hurricane, a flood, or a fire. The overall claim will actually become harder to sell - if that’s your goal.

ceejayoz 7y ago
See, that's a perfect example of this tactic. They got the date wrong by a few years, and the new expected date is 2030. This is now being portrayed as if a major error was made and climate change is debunked, but it's really just an example of how most science includes a margin of error.
- guscost 7y ago
  Would you stake your house on a bet that these glaciers will be gone by 2030? Because if there really is a long-term risk of disaster, you’re basically doing exactly that by crying wolf with flaky short-term claims.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    That standard never seems to be applied in the other direction, oddly enough. Climate deniers pull a Gish Gallop of trivially debunked claims (far beyond a mere "we got the timeline a little wrong"), and still somehow manage to demand to be taken seriously. No, I wouldn't stake my house on it, but I wouldn't bet my house for a 99% chance of winning a million bucks, either.