4 ms·

The predictions were not wrong. Society changed, people reacted to Greta and others, and that changed the situation, and thus the predictions. The Pandemia and

The 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at the time were for the situation then, but if the situation changes, the predictions won't become wrong, just outdated.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 ago
Is 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 ago
  The model didn’t _assume_ business as usual. It explained the consequences of business as usual.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I'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.
scottLobster 4y ago
Haha society changed? In what way? Of the factors you mentioned I'd say that had a negligible impact on climate change if any at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo And we can debate semantics, but the prediction failed to accurately predict the future, as is the norm for climate catastrophists. It's all emotional appeal to whip up the masses to vote, same way gun and ammo prices spike whenever a democrat wins the Presidency. I would hope people who actually have the power to help solve the problem are looking at the issue more objectively.

ch4s3 4y ago

Is 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 ago
The model didn’t _assume_ business as usual. It explained the consequences of business as usual.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I'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.

scottLobster 4y ago

Haha society changed? In what way? Of the factors you mentioned I'd say that had a negligible impact on climate change if any at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo And we can debate semantics, but the prediction failed to accurately predict the future, as is the norm for climate catastrophists. It's all emotional appeal to whip up the masses to vote, same way gun and ammo prices spike whenever a democrat wins the Presidency. I would hope people who actually have the power to help solve the problem are looking at the issue more objectively.