3 ms·
Would it be more scientific to say it is sure it will happen? I suspect the opposite is happening, too many times an environmental catastrophe has been predict
by pingou 4mo ago
Would it be more scientific to say it is sure it will happen?
I suspect the opposite is happening, too many times an environmental catastrophe has been predicted in too certain terms and has not happened, which is why many people lost trust.
And if you think that we shouldn't try to predict but only inform about what has already happened that seems even stranger to me.
- _HMCB_ 4mo agoAll is good. until it’s not.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- moritzwarhier 4mo agoIt's a refusal to engage with the reported information, not an argument. Note that the general sentiment on HN when it comes to other topics is that every slight simplification in reporting on science is unforgivable, Gell-Mann-amnesia-effect, bla bla... For example, it is clickbait to say "cancer" instead of "some types of cancer which we further need to specify" in headline. But it is of course impossible to take scientists seriously when their results are reported as "they observed X, and are there are indications that it could mean Y". Who says "could"? It's way too risky to engage with people who don't tell me exactly what to think!
- _HMCB_ 4mo agoThis ^
- gadders 4mo ago[flagged]
- david-gpu 4mo agoOversimplifying: If global temperatures went down when greenhouse gases went up, it would falsify our current climate models. But we don't see that, do we? Denying climate change for decades is what brought us to the immense challenge we are facing now.
- 8note 4mo agoit wouldnt necessarily. there are also cycles of cooling and warming between the earth and sun. we are however, warming when were supposed to be on an overall cooling trend