4 ms·
It was refreshing to see Greta delete her "were all doomed in five years tweet from 2018" last week. They also took down the signs in Glacier Park that predicte
by swader999 4y ago
It was refreshing to see Greta delete her "were all doomed in five years tweet from 2018" last week. They also took down the signs in Glacier Park that predicted the glaciers would be gone by now near where I live.
- CatWChainsaw 4y agoSweet, I didn't realize that that automatically means doom is never going to happen.
- jf22 4y agoIs your point that sometimes people get predictions wrong?
- prottog 4y agoNot the GP, but sure, if the people making those wrong predictions are advocating for policy changes that will impoverish so many people.
- DoctorOW 4y agoClimate change is already impoverishing people.
- prottog 4y agoNot as many as cheap energy from fossil fuels are lifting the global poor out of poverty.
- DoctorOW 4y agoFossil field are expensive relative to most renewable sources as well as nuclear. This was before the recent price manipulation by oil companies, which have grown price disparity.
- antisthenes 4y agoWhat happens when all the fossil fuels run out and stop lifting people out of poverty?
- jf22 4y agoHow accurate do people have to be in their predictions to advocate for policy change?
- charbonneau 4y ago[dead]
- prottog 4y agoIf said policy change is a radical departure from status quo that allowed humanity to flourish since the start of the Industrial Revolution, then quite accurate indeed. People can't just bandy about phrases like "abolish fossil fuels" without justifying it with strong evidence. Most climate advocacy, I find, focuses too much on the doom and gloom of what will happen if we continue down our present path, and not enough on the number of lives that have been and will continue to be enriched by easily and cheaply accessible energy from fossil fuels. I am aware of the downsides and by no means think we should pollute for the sake of polluting, but I remain unconvinced by the current alternatives proposed by the overall climate movement.
- ch4s3 4y agoShould they take down those signs? I would personally prefer for things like that to stay up with contextualization about how scientific understanding has changed and why the prediction was wrong.
- PurpleRamen 4y agoThe predictions were not wrong. Society changed, people reacted to Greta and others, and that changed the situation, and thus the predictions. The Pandemia and pausing industries on a global scale did their own share. And as sad as it is, the war in Ukraine was finally a massive boost for changes in Europe's energy-infrastructure. People previously thought it would take decades, what now is finished in some years. The initial predictions at the time were for the situation then, but if the situation changes, the predictions won't become wrong, just outdated.
- ch4s3 4y agoIs that true? And assuming it is, the model was still wrong as an assumption of business as usual is part of that model. But I don't see how any of that could have prevented a glacier from melting by 2023 or the world from being "doomed" by 2018.
- mrmanner 4y agoThe model didn’t _assume_ business as usual. It explained the consequences of business as usual.
- ch4s3 4y agoI'm being charitable by saying "model". Greta was just making shit up when claiming the world would be doomed in 5 years back in 2018. But models don't explain what will happen in the future, they predict and they bake in a lot of assumptions. Any model that predicted an ice free Glacier National Park by 2023 was simply wrong, and it was doubly wrong to post signage that stated the prediction as fact.
- 4y ago
- robertoandred 4y agoThat's of course not what her tweet said. Did you intentionally misread it or just get it through an incorrect grapevine?
- jimmar 4y agoHer tweet was, "A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." Not that far off from, "We're all doomed in five years," because we definitely did not stop using fossil fuels, and in my opinion, wiping out all of humanity would count as doom.
- Ekaros 4y agoSo, what she is saying is that now we are all doomed anyway. So we can as well have fun while we can. So let's just stop this climate change nonsense and party until we all die.
- rad_gruchalski 4y agoIt kind of depends what does the “over the next five years” refers to. I would assume she meant “if we don’t stop using fossil fuels within the next five years, the humanity will get wiped out in some unspecified time”.
- generativenoise 4y agoThat is miles off from "We're all doomed in five years". Still entirely possible though seems improbable that the last 5 years has baked in enough change to doom "humanity". Can't really tell until the system has reached equilibrium, so you really have to wait several decades to properly be able to evaluate the claim. You don't die from jumping off a building you die from hitting the ground.
- jimmar 4y agoI think we agree that you're doomed once you jump off the building, right? It might take a while to fall, but your future is set in stone...or concrete. There are people who argue that from a climate perspective, we are doomed. So what's the choice now? Be less doomed if we cut emissions? Be extra doomed if we don't? Are there meaningful levels of doomed?
- geysersam 4y agoGlaciers are disappearing globally. http://wgms.ch/data/faq/_FAQ_RefGlac_Global_Cum_MB.svg http://wgms.ch/data/faq/_FAQ_RefGlac_Global_Cum_MB.svg
- sbate1987 4y ago[dead]