3 ms·

I mean New York has had big storms multiple times in its history - that is nothing new and I certainly don't interpret that as being what he intended: https://

by jjcon 4y ago

I mean New York has had big storms multiple times in its history - that is nothing new and I certainly don't interpret that as being what he intended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/10/archives/hurricane-donna-in-60-was-the-last-bad-one.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/08/10/archives/hurricane-donna-... etc etc etc If we are that generous in interpreting him everything he says then becomes non-falsifiable.

refurb 4y ago
And people wonder why there are climate deniers. Trying to talk your way out an prediction that was clearly false just makes it look even worse.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  You appear to arguing against a post that supports your position? Al Gore's prediction is likely wrong (we'll know in 2026), but it did have an important qualifier: "if nothing changes". That to me implies BAU and emissions continuing to steadily rise over that intervening 15-20 year period. In fact they did start to level off not long after that prediction was made though it's a stretch to claim for certain that's the reason the WTC memorial is not, in fact, now underwater. If he had made the prediction for, say, the year 2076 it may have had more scientific merit (but arguably little ability to convince anyone of the urgency of the situation).
  - refurb 4y ago
    Ex post facto rationalization. If his prediction does come true and someone says “but you said BAU but we actually cut emissions”, everyone will wave hands around saying “that doesn’t really matter the prediction was accurate”. Heads you win, tails you win.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      If his prediction does come true despite reducing emissions then we better start looking a whole heap harder for explanations - if it turns out the current scientific consensus has been massively underestimating the likely effect of historic emissions or completely missed some other factor leading to sudden sea level increases then we're truly in strife.

by jjcon 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

And people wonder why there are climate deniers. Trying to talk your way out an prediction that was clearly false just makes it look even worse.

wizofaus 4y ago
You appear to arguing against a post that supports your position? Al Gore's prediction is likely wrong (we'll know in 2026), but it did have an important qualifier: "if nothing changes". That to me implies BAU and emissions continuing to steadily rise over that intervening 15-20 year period. In fact they did start to level off not long after that prediction was made though it's a stretch to claim for certain that's the reason the WTC memorial is not, in fact, now underwater. If he had made the prediction for, say, the year 2076 it may have had more scientific merit (but arguably little ability to convince anyone of the urgency of the situation).
- refurb 4y ago
  Ex post facto rationalization. If his prediction does come true and someone says “but you said BAU but we actually cut emissions”, everyone will wave hands around saying “that doesn’t really matter the prediction was accurate”. Heads you win, tails you win.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    If his prediction does come true despite reducing emissions then we better start looking a whole heap harder for explanations - if it turns out the current scientific consensus has been massively underestimating the likely effect of historic emissions or completely missed some other factor leading to sudden sea level increases then we're truly in strife.