4 ms·

The thing with being a prophet is that the prophecies need to come true. Whether the prophet uses computer models and fat piles of data and is called a scienti

The thing with being a prophet is that the prophecies need to come true. Whether the prophet uses computer models and fat piles of data and is called a scientist or not is a detail.

adrianN 5y ago
I mean, sure, we could wait until irreversible catastrophes happen before we listen to the people who predict them, but that sounds a bit stupid to me.
- uCantCauseUCant 5y ago
  "There is no proof of global pandemic ever have happened in our lifetimes, no need to prepare for them." If you get bad news, look at the proportionality of cost preparing for the event compared to the cost of the event. A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost. Same goes for gulf stream collapse. Cost of the for-warning system, cost of agricultural switch of europe to the canadian model, against the cost of not doing so..
  - mucholove 5y ago
    What is worse is that the United States had a warning system. The world depended on it. The budget for it was 800 million dollars. It was removed from the budget in 2018 and I believe the funding ran out September 2019. It only took three months. By March 2020-the administration was putting out $800 BILLION dollars. And since then they’ve put out more. Taiwan—which adopted the US system (and therefore was in Wuhan January 4) had no real outbreak until 2 month ago—and even then, the outbreak was contained. Frustrating…
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      You tend to get the government that you deserve in a democracy.
      - mucholove 5y ago
        I know we call the USA a democracy, but I’m becoming more of a stickler for calling it a Republic. Some of the states are a bit more Democratic than the Federal government. I wonder whether people would take the decisions more seriously if they had to vote on them as they so in Switzerland.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        It probably would but (1) that requires a somewhat educated electorate and (2) it takes a while to get to the point where a system like that operates smoothly. Switzerland has had this system going back to 1848 https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/18480606/index.html https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/18480606/index.html , and at the time who got to vote was not quite the same as how it is today so the system was gradually expanded. If you were to switch overnight to referenda in say the United States the result would be mayhem.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    > A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost. Fair enough. The difficulty arises in context when a menu of risks exist, and resources to mitigate them are insufficient to address all of the risks sufficiently. Choices occur, and consequences follow.
    - danaris 5y ago
      As a country, we collectively have vastly more resources than we need to mitigate all these risks. The problem is that a huge proportion of those resources is being hoarded by the super-rich. As a society, we have collectively decided that allowing massive, unprecedented concentration of wealth is more important than addressing any of the critical issues facing us today. Personally, I disagree with that decision, and believe we should require those who can part with billions of dollars without it affecting their lifestyle in any way to do so for the benefit of all.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  I love conservation amd vote in favor of parks and such at every opportunity. The difference seems to be whether the appeal is to the intellect, or the appeal is to fear.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    The difference seems to be the willingness to spend money now to potentially avert huge costs in the future.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      We could, but the people who think long term are going to be much more worried about where the energy comes from, full stop, rather than the climate. If there is enough energy we can survive anything comfortably. Cities can be moved. If we don't crack that nut then even a pleasant climate will probably see a lot of bloodshed. At any point in this journey the climate problems could have been brushed aside by going nuclear. If we aren't going to go nuclear, then we've done the sensible thing and waited for renewables to be cost competitive.
      - adrianN 5y ago
        Both "going nuclear" and building a sufficient amount of renewable generation capacity counts as "spending money now" for me.
- brnt 5y ago
  Knowing Homo Sapiens, I don't expect any different.
loopz 5y ago
It has not so much to do with prediction, nobody can predict everything. The science is following trends, using models and projections. There are real measures that show more instabilities, signs of weakening and the models explain why with confidence. From that we can anticipate, knowing the accumulated effects from trends may "lag" by 30-50 years. For anticipation, this means events will worsen over that span even if we stop emissions. That greenhouse gases in a closed vessel causes warming when light shines is settled science past 100 years. We see cooling stratosphete and warming troposphere, all in line with the models. It's kind of like discovering your house is on fire, then arguing warmth is good for cooking.

The thing with being a prophet is that the prophecies need to come true. Whether the prophet uses computer models and fat piles of data and is called a scientist or not is a detail.

adrianN 5y ago

I mean, sure, we could wait until irreversible catastrophes happen before we listen to the people who predict them, but that sounds a bit stupid to me.

uCantCauseUCant 5y ago
"There is no proof of global pandemic ever have happened in our lifetimes, no need to prepare for them." If you get bad news, look at the proportionality of cost preparing for the event compared to the cost of the event. A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost. Same goes for gulf stream collapse. Cost of the for-warning system, cost of agricultural switch of europe to the canadian model, against the cost of not doing so..
- mucholove 5y ago
  What is worse is that the United States had a warning system. The world depended on it. The budget for it was 800 million dollars. It was removed from the budget in 2018 and I believe the funding ran out September 2019. It only took three months. By March 2020-the administration was putting out $800 BILLION dollars. And since then they’ve put out more. Taiwan—which adopted the US system (and therefore was in Wuhan January 4) had no real outbreak until 2 month ago—and even then, the outbreak was contained. Frustrating…
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    You tend to get the government that you deserve in a democracy.
    - mucholove 5y ago
      I know we call the USA a democracy, but I’m becoming more of a stickler for calling it a Republic. Some of the states are a bit more Democratic than the Federal government. I wonder whether people would take the decisions more seriously if they had to vote on them as they so in Switzerland.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        It probably would but (1) that requires a somewhat educated electorate and (2) it takes a while to get to the point where a system like that operates smoothly. Switzerland has had this system going back to 1848 https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/18480606/index.html https://www.bk.admin.ch/ch/d/pore/va/18480606/index.html , and at the time who got to vote was not quite the same as how it is today so the system was gradually expanded. If you were to switch overnight to referenda in say the United States the result would be mayhem.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  > A pandemic preparation and proper pre-warn system (as South korea and taiwan had it) would have cost absolutly nothing compared to the pandemic cost. Fair enough. The difficulty arises in context when a menu of risks exist, and resources to mitigate them are insufficient to address all of the risks sufficiently. Choices occur, and consequences follow.
  - danaris 5y ago
    As a country, we collectively have vastly more resources than we need to mitigate all these risks. The problem is that a huge proportion of those resources is being hoarded by the super-rich. As a society, we have collectively decided that allowing massive, unprecedented concentration of wealth is more important than addressing any of the critical issues facing us today. Personally, I disagree with that decision, and believe we should require those who can part with billions of dollars without it affecting their lifestyle in any way to do so for the benefit of all.
smitty1e 5y ago
I love conservation amd vote in favor of parks and such at every opportunity. The difference seems to be whether the appeal is to the intellect, or the appeal is to fear.
- adrianN 5y ago
  The difference seems to be the willingness to spend money now to potentially avert huge costs in the future.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    We could, but the people who think long term are going to be much more worried about where the energy comes from, full stop, rather than the climate. If there is enough energy we can survive anything comfortably. Cities can be moved. If we don't crack that nut then even a pleasant climate will probably see a lot of bloodshed. At any point in this journey the climate problems could have been brushed aside by going nuclear. If we aren't going to go nuclear, then we've done the sensible thing and waited for renewables to be cost competitive.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      Both "going nuclear" and building a sufficient amount of renewable generation capacity counts as "spending money now" for me.
brnt 5y ago
Knowing Homo Sapiens, I don't expect any different.

loopz 5y ago

It has not so much to do with prediction, nobody can predict everything. The science is following trends, using models and projections. There are real measures that show more instabilities, signs of weakening and the models explain why with confidence. From that we can anticipate, knowing the accumulated effects from trends may "lag" by 30-50 years. For anticipation, this means events will worsen over that span even if we stop emissions. That greenhouse gases in a closed vessel causes warming when light shines is settled science past 100 years. We see cooling stratosphete and warming troposphere, all in line with the models. It's kind of like discovering your house is on fire, then arguing warmth is good for cooking.