3 ms·

There have been no shortage of failed predictions. In the scientific valence this is totally fine because the wildest predictions are usually stated with low co

by krrrh 5y ago

There have been no shortage of failed predictions. In the scientific valence this is totally fine because the wildest predictions are usually stated with low confidence, but the ‘environmental movement’ knows no such moderation.

rossjudson 5y ago
The problem for anti-environmentalists is that the broad predictions about the environment (climate change, warming) have been accurate. Everything else is noise. And noise is the problem, on both sides of environment issues. When you say "no shortage of failed predictions", you are able to cherrypick whatever you like, define failure however you like, and produce whatever resulting number you want. That is noise. For environmentalists, straw bans? Stupid, spending valuable social "energy" on something irrelevant -- intentionally triggering the environmental equivalent of road rage in people whose cooperation you need. It's noise.
- krrrh 5y ago
  I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those statements is true, and is also some of the worst noise produced by the movement because it simultaneously reduces trust and drives apathy, pretending that no successes have happened and that science is unrealistically certain. There are no shortage of failed predictions not because of cherry-picking or moving goal posts, but because this is a normal part of the truth seeking process, but the extreme manifestation of it is an unfortunate feature of our media and political cultures. People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.

by krrrh 5y ago

rossjudson 5y ago

The problem for anti-environmentalists is that the broad predictions about the environment (climate change, warming) have been accurate. Everything else is noise. And noise is the problem, on both sides of environment issues. When you say "no shortage of failed predictions", you are able to cherrypick whatever you like, define failure however you like, and produce whatever resulting number you want. That is noise. For environmentalists, straw bans? Stupid, spending valuable social "energy" on something irrelevant -- intentionally triggering the environmental equivalent of road rage in people whose cooperation you need. It's noise.

krrrh 5y ago
I was responding to a comment that said, "The movement has largely failed and gets to watch all their predictions come true." (emphasis added). Neither of those statements is true, and is also some of the worst noise produced by the movement because it simultaneously reduces trust and drives apathy, pretending that no successes have happened and that science is unrealistically certain. There are no shortage of failed predictions not because of cherry-picking or moving goal posts, but because this is a normal part of the truth seeking process, but the extreme manifestation of it is an unfortunate feature of our media and political cultures. People with a bias towards alarmism on this topic imagine that alarmist messages and absolute statements will help to achieve the outcomes they seek, but the last 30 years make it clear that this doesn't work. A more realistic message, focusing on the most likely scenario from the IPCC rather than the worst-case scenario which the IPCC clearly states is to provide an upper bound and is highly unlikely. A straightforward presentation would be more nuanced and encourage the highest impact changes (a small tax that funded the replacement of coal plants with nuclear for instance) rather than proposing net-zero by 2050 which is almost certainly not going to happen based on the tradeoffs of doing so.