4 ms·

This seems to have a problem of assuming the timeframe for the fulfillment of vague claims. For example, if the claim: "U.N. Predicts entire nations could be w

This seems to have a problem of assuming the timeframe for the fulfillment of vague claims. For example, if the claim: "U.N. Predicts entire nations could be wiped-off if Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000" was made in 1989, I understand it as "we have until 2000 to work. Afterwards, the nations will be lost at some point". That seems what the source article claims too: > governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. But what is the future point? I have no idea. The website slapped "failed" on this claim, so I guess it's 2000? That's rather useless, it's unresolved at best. Similar story with "Prince Charles: 'Only 8 years to save the planet'", "French Foreign Minister: '500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos'", "Internet as we know will end if net-neutrality is repealed." The last one is particularly funny, as all things, as we know them, will end one day. So it's strictly true. Another issue is not enough claims as "awaited". For example, "'We Are At War,' WHO Head Says, Warning Millions Could Die From COVID-19" is marked as "correct", based on a prediction rather than concrete data. Another sore one is "'Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left.'" made in 2004 and already marked as failed, together with "Britain to have Siberian climate in 20 years" On the presentation side, "link" is the most useless way to indicate forther information. Of course it's a link! But what's behind it? Source? Confirmation? Rebuttal? A little labeling would go a long way. I like the idea, but the execution is a solid 5 out of 10.

TheUndead96 6y ago
I feel the same way. The best-case scenarios on all of the climate change charts have been scratched. 2 degrees of warming is basically a given and the debate is now one of damage control. The lag between action and effect is somewhere between 40 and 50 years. https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous... If all human-induced green houses gasses stopped right now, things would still get worse. Which is why it was important to panic 10 years ago.
shubhamjain 6y ago
I disagree. If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. Similarly, if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse, you can't say, "Hey, I did say at some point it will." '500 days' is particularly funny since I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline. I don't think it hurts to rely on common sense a bit. There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Global cooling, which was a major fear, has long disappeared from Climate Change discussion. Besides, there are many stories with definite timelines that portray the sentiments. For eg, food shortages and global cooling were major doomsday fears in 1970s.
- rhn_mk1 6y ago
  > If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. What's the timeframe then? If you are the person who decides what the person actually meant, you're no longer evaluating facts. Perhaps it's better to just leave out such vague claims altogether. > if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse That's not what any of the examples said though. The examples said "we have only X years to take action, otherwise we may pass the implied point of no return, which will become apparent much later". Unless those examples specify what the point of no return is, they are effectively impossible to evaluate as well. > I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline > There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Of course you can evaluate the claims according to your own opinion, but then you will lose the claim to objectivity (at this point I lose interest personally), and then you risk unwittigly making your list political on top of that.
  - shubhamjain 6y ago
    Fair point about objectivity. Thank you! Yeah, I think it's best to assume nothing at all and be completely fact-driven.
- tomcam 6y ago
  Agreed. Your assessments are at least as commonsensical as Politifact, Snopes, etc.

TheUndead96 6y ago

I feel the same way. The best-case scenarios on all of the climate change charts have been scratched. 2 degrees of warming is basically a given and the debate is now one of damage control. The lag between action and effect is somewhere between 40 and 50 years. https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous... If all human-induced green houses gasses stopped right now, things would still get worse. Which is why it was important to panic 10 years ago.

shubhamjain 6y ago

I disagree. If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. Similarly, if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse, you can't say, "Hey, I did say at some point it will." '500 days' is particularly funny since I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline. I don't think it hurts to rely on common sense a bit. There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Global cooling, which was a major fear, has long disappeared from Climate Change discussion. Besides, there are many stories with definite timelines that portray the sentiments. For eg, food shortages and global cooling were major doomsday fears in 1970s.

rhn_mk1 6y ago
> If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. What's the timeframe then? If you are the person who decides what the person actually meant, you're no longer evaluating facts. Perhaps it's better to just leave out such vague claims altogether. > if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse That's not what any of the examples said though. The examples said "we have only X years to take action, otherwise we may pass the implied point of no return, which will become apparent much later". Unless those examples specify what the point of no return is, they are effectively impossible to evaluate as well. > I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline > There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Of course you can evaluate the claims according to your own opinion, but then you will lose the claim to objectivity (at this point I lose interest personally), and then you risk unwittigly making your list political on top of that.
- shubhamjain 6y ago
  Fair point about objectivity. Thank you! Yeah, I think it's best to assume nothing at all and be completely fact-driven.
tomcam 6y ago
Agreed. Your assessments are at least as commonsensical as Politifact, Snopes, etc.