7 ms·

I'm curious how many of those have were peer-reviewed predictions from credible sources.

by TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

egberts1 5y ago
Those excerpts above were from Newsweek, Times, NYT, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Do I need to point out that none of those are peer-reviewed?
  - egberts1 5y ago
    Most were peer-reviewed. Especially the ozone part.
- adrianN 5y ago
  So, not a single primary source from a peer reviewed journal? The "New Ice Age" thing you cite for example is well known to have never been a majority opinion among scientists. At no point were more papers predicting cooling published than papers predicting warming. Ozone depletion, on the other hand, was a serious peril, until international coordinated action banned the chemicals responsible for it, and the crisis was averted. Similarly, acid rain was a serious problem, until we enacted regulations that almost completely eliminated sulfur dioxide emissions.
- rriepe 5y ago
  HN readers are smart and scientific. Please don't suggest we're somehow vulnerable to the same "doomsday cult" religious tendencies as other humans. In the words of Greta: How dare you! Now buy some carbon credits to atone for your deeds, Denier.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    This page discourages me. The universal premise on HN is that the forecasts are accurate and we need to do something drastic immediately. The forecasts assumed are actually just projections from computer models. The global atmospheric temperature, as measured by satellite, is not doing anything unusual. It continues its gradual increase. We are, after all, still coming out of the last ice age. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was ice a mile thick where I’m sitting. https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_... IMHO, these satellite measurements are the only credible temperature measurements. They show an increase of 0.14 C / decade since 1979. That’s 1.4 C / century, which is inconsequential. Even if the forecasts were correct, China is now emitting more than the US and The EU combined. No significant reduction in CO2 is possible unless China and India make reductions. If we were really concerned about this, we’d be switching away from power generation using fossil fuels. Wait a minute, we are doing that! I believe it’s going to happen over the next couple of decades - either to a methanol economy, a hydrogen economy, or with better batteries. Or all three. And we need modern nuclear power - preferably fusion to supplement photovoltaics. What is my point? This: there is no need to panic. The effect of anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuel is acceptably small, and we will stop doing that in a couple of decades, in any case.
    - rriepe 5y ago
      Check out Ned Nikolov's work. The greenhouse gas model is as flimsy as the Flat Earth. Reading his stuff reminded me of Leah Remini talking about learning of Xenu and the associated lore in Scientology. I can't believe I was so brainwashed.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  The prevalence of cellphones causing cancer headlines in your list suggests that you're intentionally picking articles that have a strong anti-science bend. Really, all you've proven is that articles that are weak on scientific rigor are weak on predictive power.

I'm curious how many of those have were peer-reviewed predictions from credible sources.

egberts1 5y ago

Those excerpts above were from Newsweek, Times, NYT, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Do I need to point out that none of those are peer-reviewed?
- egberts1 5y ago
  Most were peer-reviewed. Especially the ozone part.
adrianN 5y ago
So, not a single primary source from a peer reviewed journal? The "New Ice Age" thing you cite for example is well known to have never been a majority opinion among scientists. At no point were more papers predicting cooling published than papers predicting warming. Ozone depletion, on the other hand, was a serious peril, until international coordinated action banned the chemicals responsible for it, and the crisis was averted. Similarly, acid rain was a serious problem, until we enacted regulations that almost completely eliminated sulfur dioxide emissions.
rriepe 5y ago
HN readers are smart and scientific. Please don't suggest we're somehow vulnerable to the same "doomsday cult" religious tendencies as other humans. In the words of Greta: How dare you! Now buy some carbon credits to atone for your deeds, Denier.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  This page discourages me. The universal premise on HN is that the forecasts are accurate and we need to do something drastic immediately. The forecasts assumed are actually just projections from computer models. The global atmospheric temperature, as measured by satellite, is not doing anything unusual. It continues its gradual increase. We are, after all, still coming out of the last ice age. Fifteen thousand years ago, there was ice a mile thick where I’m sitting. https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_... IMHO, these satellite measurements are the only credible temperature measurements. They show an increase of 0.14 C / decade since 1979. That’s 1.4 C / century, which is inconsequential. Even if the forecasts were correct, China is now emitting more than the US and The EU combined. No significant reduction in CO2 is possible unless China and India make reductions. If we were really concerned about this, we’d be switching away from power generation using fossil fuels. Wait a minute, we are doing that! I believe it’s going to happen over the next couple of decades - either to a methanol economy, a hydrogen economy, or with better batteries. Or all three. And we need modern nuclear power - preferably fusion to supplement photovoltaics. What is my point? This: there is no need to panic. The effect of anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuel is acceptably small, and we will stop doing that in a couple of decades, in any case.
  - rriepe 5y ago
    Check out Ned Nikolov's work. The greenhouse gas model is as flimsy as the Flat Earth. Reading his stuff reminded me of Leah Remini talking about learning of Xenu and the associated lore in Scientology. I can't believe I was so brainwashed.
mywittyname 5y ago
The prevalence of cellphones causing cancer headlines in your list suggests that you're intentionally picking articles that have a strong anti-science bend. Really, all you've proven is that articles that are weak on scientific rigor are weak on predictive power.