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

Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

kpax.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#61

Post by JustSomeNobody »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #40
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could nail it every time and they'd still deny it. Look at flat Earthers.

It's 2020 and the glaciers are still there. Do you deny they still exist? Making predictions for things like climate on a year to year basis is a recipe for failure. The scale of the entire system is too large for predictions of such accuracy and do far more harm than good. "Soon" would have been a fine word to use here. Going with 2020 was just asking for a hit in credibility.

Saying "soon" is fodder for deniers as well. My point stands; they'll always deny it up until they're boiling in their own sweat.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#62

Post by shadowgovt »

bureaucrat wrote: post #52
dalth wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm, wasn't the overpopulation craze something from the 60s? It's funny how that turned out: exactly the opposite! I wonder if "climate change" will go that way.

Overpopulation excluded the factor of "technology innovation". Climate scaremongers are doing the same.

TBH, most of the climate "scaremongers" I see in the news are pressing for transition to sustainable energy sources ASAP, and the concern is that the political work required to make it happen in a timescale that avoids severe ecological disruption is missing.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#63

Post by viggity »

maxerickson wrote: post #31
rainyMammoth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#65

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

zacharytelschow wrote: post #30
0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

I like the part where global warming bloviators cry the sky is falling and make exact predictions then when it doesn't occur insult those that disagree and say they don't understand science. Wouldn't a long string of failed predictions be indicative of failure to understand...?

> Wouldn't a long string of failed predictions be indicative of failure to understand...?

No, the number of failures is completely meaningless, just as the number of successes is. The only thing that is relevant is the ratio of success vs. failure, somehow weighted appropriately based on the certainty claimed for the prediction and to correct for duplicated predictions.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#66

Post by SlipperySeaCow »

bureaucrat wrote: post #46
SlipperySeaCow wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fires are obviously much worse due to high temps

That could be your imagination. Australia's temperature is quite in the normal range, similar to that of 1960s. https://weatherspark.com/h/y/149434/2020/Historical-Weather-... https://weatherspark.com/h/y/149434/1960/Historical-Weather-...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-n...

Hottest year on record for Australia was 2019 (just ended).

Almost 3 degrees F over average.

High temperatures dry things out and make them easier to burn

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#67

Post by take_a_breath »

zacharytelschow wrote: post #30
0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

I like the part where global warming bloviators cry the sky is falling and make exact predictions then when it doesn't occur insult those that disagree and say they don't understand science. Wouldn't a long string of failed predictions be indicative of failure to understand...?

==like the part where global warming bloviators cry the sky is falling==

I wonder if this comment will contain any bias?

==Wouldn't a long string of failed predictions be indicative of failure to understand...?==

Climate change deniers have a long string of failed predictions [1]. Would you say that is indicative of a failure to understand?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/1...

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#68

Post by wolco »

minikites wrote: post #48
ThomPete wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…

It's changing a lot, it's a big problem, it's almost entirely because of humans, and we should do everything we can. https://xkcd.com/1732/

Should we do everything we can? A mass killing would reduce gases is that on the table? Let's agree to stop dealing in absolutes

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#69

Post by powowow »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17
0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

Yah, it's a real shame that the fossil fuel (and adjacent) industries spent decades spreading misinformation and disinformation, and funding the hell out of any effort that created even the tiniest bit of doubt in the public mind (be it fringe research or straight PR).

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#70

Post by cm2187 »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17
0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

Also the fact that climate change is being weaponised as an anti-capitalist vehicle by the left doesn't help persuading conservatives that it may be real/man-made/of the stated magnitude.
Post reply on HN