Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 91 posts

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#21

Post by mikeash »

assblaster wrote: post #18
SiempreViernes wrote: post #17

So the history of climate change goes something like: confusion about overall sign in the 1960's, mounting evidence for warming due to CO_2 in 1970's, consensus about overall warming caused by human CO_2 emission in the eighties, and then clarifying in the details since then. The fact that there still isn't mainstream discussion about how society must change, but rather eternal growth society is still the default tar…

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) s…

> green holy day

Seriously? You're going to use that phrase and then complain that others aren't trustworthy? Physician, heal thyself.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#22

Post by assblaster »

tzs wrote: post #19
assblaster wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) s…

A large number of those are of the form "If X continues, bad thing Y will happen", and they are being called wrong predictions because bad thing Y did not happen. But Y did not happen because X did not continue, either because we purposefully stopped X from continuing partly to avoid Y, or something replaced X for other reasons unrelated to Y and the new X did not have the properties that could lead to Y.

If X was not happening, then why even say Y will happen?

Consider this prediction: if Hillary Clinton (X) gets elected president in 2016, then 10% of the population in Libya will be killed by US bombing campaigns in 2017 (Y).

Obviously X did not happen, so Y never occurred as a predicted result, but was Y ever a valid prediction? Y might be considered a valid prediction because Hillary Clinton intervened in Libya in the past, resulting in the toppling of Qaddafi and scores of civilians being killed in civil unrest, but it is a wild prediction that is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

So, is there any evidence that the World adopted specific remedies in the 1970s which averted catastrophic Y predicted?

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#23

Post by assblaster »

mikeash wrote: post #21
assblaster wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) s…

> green holy day Seriously? You're going to use that phrase and then complain that others aren't trustworthy? Physician, heal thyself.

I am just quoting the link provided, I think it was necessary to keep that part of the quote because it reveals bias by the link author.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#24

Post by conistonwater »

assblaster wrote: post #23
mikeash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> green holy day Seriously? You're going to use that phrase and then complain that others aren't trustworthy? Physician, heal thyself.

I am just quoting the link provided, I think it was necessary to keep that part of the quote because it reveals bias by the link author.

If the quote is that bad, why post it at all?

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#25

Post by mikeash »

Certhas wrote: post #11
js8 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fight to minimize fossil fuel would benefit from a more realistic (i.e. humble) approach IMO. I am not sure what you mean by "more humble approach". We do NOTHING.

Hear hear. The idea that only if scientists had been less vocal, less advocating about the implications of their research, we might have done something is asinine. It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police. We've now started making a serious effort at de-carbonization. Market forces are starting to act in favor of green technologies in some sectors. Let's hope it's not…

> It's a bit like telling people they shouldn't get so emotional about being shot by police.

I'd say it's much more than a bit like that. The exact same tactics are used in both places.

It's a standard technique to complain about the technique rather than the message. For police violence, riots are (rightfully, to be clear) met with "you should protest peacefully." Then peaceful protests are met with "you shouldn't be so disruptive." Peaceful protests organized to avoid busy roads are criticized for being annoying or using up police resources for crowd control or leaving too much trash behind. Non-protest speech is criticized for being out of place. And finally we reach a point where people do nothing but kneel to draw attention to the issue, and they're still criticized for being disrespectful. The message is always, "I agree with what you say, but I don't agree with how you're saying it." But they'll never agree with how it's said.

Same deal with climate change. Supposedly well meaning critics are always saying that we should tone it down. But it doesn't matter whether the message is "We're all going to die if we don't do something drastic" or "there might be a temperature increase with a mix of good and bad effects." The message is never good enough.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#26

Post by mikeash »

assblaster wrote: post #23
mikeash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> green holy day Seriously? You're going to use that phrase and then complain that others aren't trustworthy? Physician, heal thyself.

I am just quoting the link provided, I think it was necessary to keep that part of the quote because it reveals bias by the link author.

Why did you choose such a biased source in the first place, then?

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#27

Post by js8 »

assblaster wrote: post #18
SiempreViernes wrote: post #17

So the history of climate change goes something like: confusion about overall sign in the 1960's, mounting evidence for warming due to CO_2 in 1970's, consensus about overall warming caused by human CO_2 emission in the eighties, and then clarifying in the details since then. The fact that there still isn't mainstream discussion about how society must change, but rather eternal growth society is still the default tar…

I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s. Past mistakes matter because people generally won't trust the naysayers when they've been proven wrong so obviously that grade school children won't trust them. From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/21/18-examples-of-the-sp... >Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) s…

And yet, despite your claim:

"I think that alarmism has hurt climate science ever since the 1960s."

Only one person in the above quotes is talking about climate (10, 18). And you could certainly find 10 climate "skeptics" who have been horribly wrong in the 90s.

I don't understand who is exactly being hurt by alarmism. Most people choose to ignore it anyway. Maybe you could provide some example where overzealous application of ecological policies have hurt society.

Re: Earth Day and the Hockey Stick: A Singular Message

#30

Post by chrisseaton »

ninkendo wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #28

I was always confused about what people meant by 'hockey stick growth'... until I worked out they mean ice hockey stick growth. A normal hockey stick wouldn't be very impressive growth!

What kind of hockey stick were you referring to?

Normal hockey sticks have a little curl that goes back on itself - not great growth!

https://www.hockeydirect.com/Catalogue/Hockey-Sticks/Grays-H...

Hockey sticks that you use to play ice hockey have a long straight line that goes up and to the right, like strong linear growth.

https://puckstop.com/product/true-xc9-acf-youth-hockey-stick

Post reply on HN