Hard News: Phew, what a scorcher?
76 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
the end was nigh with Y2K and Sars and Bird-Flu, etc. Sure, these things were problems but they were not, and have not (yet!), been nearly as serious as some predicted.
But people did things precisely to prevent them becoming serious.
I know there is an element of the old elephant powder joke here, but these examples don't really support your case.
There is also a precautionary principle at work there, namely that we do things about risks where the probability is less than certain because the consequences are severe enough to warrant it. You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about preventing future problems and should just wait until they have happened.
-
ron,
But people did things precisely to prevent them becoming serious
So, what you're saying is that nothing is being done about climate change?
Russell, thanks for the articles.
I note that the RealClimate article complains that the popular press distorted the findings of science to propogate the myth of an impending ice age. But surely the writer fails to see the wood for the trees. It is the popular press which is largely behind the current position that climate change is all bad and is the fault of all of us. I'm sure you'll agree that scientists take a rather different, somewhat less cynical and more moderate, view.
-
ron,
You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about preventing future problems and should just wait until they have happened.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. My main point is that we should not believe the doom and gloom merchants because they are invariably wrong.
Second we should do what we can but spending billions of dollars on climate change may not be economic, especially if the expenditure of such money in other areas would produce greater benefits.
-
My main point is that we should not believe the doom and gloom merchants because they are invariably wrong.
Then I don't follow you. If a prediction says "X will happen if nothing is done", and someone DOES do something, and then X doesn't happen, then we can't draw any conclusions about the validity of the original prediction. All the examples you cited were cases where states did take action. Therefore, they are not evidence that doom and gloom merchants are inevitably wrong.
-
If a prediction says "X will happen if nothing is done", and someone DOES do something, and then X doesn't happen, then we can't draw any conclusions about the validity of the original prediction
Quite, we (at my place of employment) spent years preparing for Y2K, had we done nothing, I doubt the world would have ended, but I do believe we'd have had core software down for some time. Preventative fixes were made.
-
All the examples you cited were cases where states did take action.
Except the Bird Flu thing - IIRC that wasn't so much "an epidemic will happen unless we..." as "an epidemic will happen.".
All the action I saw taking place was mitigation measures for when the epidemic happens - stockpiling Tamiflu, planning for disposal of extra corpses, etc etc. -
ron,
All the examples you cited were cases where states did take action. Therefore, they are not evidence that doom and gloom merchants are inevitably wrong.
Stephen,
When people make predictions, they are either right or wrong. A lot of people did make predictions about impending doom in regard to the examples I gave. They were clearly wrong. I don't think you can have your cake and eat it. Well, maybe you can but it will only make you fat!
-
What I am eating is not cake.
-
Ron.... If I predict you'll crash your car if you continue driving with your eyes closed.... and you open them and dont crash.... does that mean my prediction was wrong?
-
Nicely put FletcherB.
-
che <--- applauds "that man fletcher with the power of reason".
-
ron,
Ron.... If I predict you'll crash your car if you continue driving with your eyes closed.... and you open them and dont crash.... does that mean my prediction was wrong?
Let's see, Fletcher. If I go into my local TAB and ask to put a bet on the AB's to win the World Cup, but only on the assumptions that none of their players will get injured during the tournament, that the grounds will be firm, and that the other teams won't be at their best, the TAB will accept my bet, right? Thought not.
-
Er... non sequiteur?
-
Poo. spelled it wrong after checking it anyway.
-
ron,
Er... non sequiteur?
How exactly?
-
It does not follow as a riposte to FletcherB's speculation. It is a non sequitur.
-
Look at it this way then.
Suppose the ABs didn't bother practising & relied on talent & attitude alone, I could predict that they will not win the world cup. But because they practise, that prediction may not come true.
Had they continued not practising, do you not think the prediction might eventuate?
The TAB is a red herring.
-
"Let's see, Fletcher. If I go into my local TAB and ask to put a bet on the AB's to win the World Cup, but only on the assumptions that none of their players will get injured during the tournament, that the grounds will be firm, and that the other teams won't be at their best, the TAB will accept my bet, right? Thought not."
I'm not sure what the TAB has to do with it...
But.... my point is, if all those precursors to your prediction dont come to the party.... then the result is that we dont know if your prediction is correct or not..... as opposed to knowing it was wrong.
-
ron,
I'm not sure what the TAB has to do with it...
I would've thought that it was obvious. The TAB wouldn't accept my bet under the conditions referred to. Conversely, I cannot go to the TAB, place a bet, and then, when I lose, say that my assumptions on which I based my bet were wrong, so therefore I should get a refund.
What you seem to be saying is that all those doom and gloom merchants are being silly because their predictions are based on selective and partial information of what might happen to the planet if the worst possible scenario happened and we did nothing. Well, yes, I agree. But the assumptions on which such an outcome is based are similar to those required to swallow a Hollywood storyline.
-
All I'm saying is if the predicted outcome doesnt come to pass..... it might be because the prediction was completely wrong, or it might be because steps were taken to avoid the outcome.
Frequently, bad things are predicted precisely so that avoiding steps will be taken...
Yes, doom and gloom merchants often over-state the case, or state worst-case scenarios.... and frequently mass media, over-hype those predictions, either through mis-understanding or need for sensationalism.... and this should be avoided if at all possible.
But some of your examples were of real problems, where the extent of the problem was minimised or removed precisely through the publicity associated with it. Y2K "bug" specifically. Many computer systems WOULD have crashed or behaved in unpredictable ways, IF software fixes hadnt been developed, released, and implemented.
How did you know there was a bug-fix to download and install? Publicity.
And I'm still at a loss to see how whether or not the TAB will take a given bet, has anything to do with whether predicted outcomes that are avoided by taking action are the same as wrong predictions.
-
But some of your examples were of real problems, where the extent of the problem was minimised or removed precisely through the publicity associated with it. Y2K "bug" specifically. Many computer systems WOULD have crashed or behaved in unpredictable ways, IF software fixes hadnt been developed, released, and implemented.
How did you know there was a bug-fix to download and install? Publicity.
IIRC, it was IBM that first acknowledged the problem and got the rest of the industry together on it. There was years of work before it made mainstream news.
On the day, of course, the job had been done well enough , but the fact was, no one really knew whether all critical systems had been fixed. Paul Brislen was Computerworld's man on deck that New Year's Eve, and the IDG news service was taking a keen interest in what happened in New Zealand, for obvious reasons
-
What you seem to be saying is that all those doom and gloom merchants are being silly because their predictions are based on selective and partial information of what might happen to the planet if the worst possible scenario happened and we did nothing.
Can you point at any of these doom and gloom merchants? Presumably they don't include the IPCC or the Gore movie, as neither of them fulfill your requirements.
-
Dutton et al. are talking about the gloom and doom merchants (eg, Al Gore), who of course wouldn't have a vested interest in promoting their theories.
Ah, sorry, it seems you are characterising Al Gore as someone who is being silly because his predictions are based on selective and partial information of what might happen to the planet if the worst possible scenario happened and we did nothing.
Have you actually seen the movie? The one where he says, this is a really bad scenario that might happen if we do little or nothing, and here are some things we can do to prevent that really bad scenario?
To go from there to, as far as I can make out, "what Gore says will happen if we don't do anything won't happen because we will do something and therefore he's a doom and gloom merchant and what he says might happen if we don't do anything won't happen simply because doom and gloom merchants are always wrong" seems a bit of a leap. As well as a mouthful.
-
ron,
Have you actually seen the movie? The one where he says, this is a really bad scenario that might happen if we do little or nothing
Yes, I have seen the movie. And obviously Gore is a doom and gloom merchant (and unfortunately not an economist). Why talk about the flooding of Ground Zero, as Gore does? Is there any point to it? Well, yes, there is; it makes for a sensational picture.
The trouble is, I don't - and I'm sure many others don't - want sensationalism, I want the truth. Gore's so-called doco does, after all, have the word 'truth' in the title. So why does Gore have so much difficulty articulating the truth without resorting to sensationalism? Could it be that the truth isn't as sexy? Could it be that the truth isn't inconvenient at all?
-
Hmm, sceptics don't often mention ozone depletion in their examples of wacky doomsayers. Why is that different to the Y2K bug or climate change?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.