[vasco]

Why put a number on it? Every number so far has been wrong. Can we agree on the negative impacts of humans on an environment conducive to humanity without putting obviously wrong timings on predictions? I bet your intention is to provoke urgency but to most people it just causes an eye roll because it's not true, whereas the underlying ideas are true.

[pretzel5297]

Very much agree. It's a pretty common mistake to bundle real information with obviously wrong details and lose credibility. Especially in the eyes of people looking for a reason to discredit the argument.

[jackmott42]

The disingenuous people who discredit climate change will do so no matter how serious people act. There is no point in changing behavior on their account.

[griffzhowl]

The point is to convince people who are undecided. Using information that's known to be false or weakly supported is then short-sighted and counterproductive, because enough false predictions will turn up that those undecided will tune out entirely

[qsera]

>Using information that's known to be false or weakly supported

But where does such information originate from? Is laypeople just making it up?

[griffzhowl]

It applies to anyone knowingly using false information to try to influence people

[cultofmetatron]

cod fishing boats used to have to be wary of the catch being so big that it would tip the boat.

We have no real frame of reference for what we've already lost.

[vasco]

Of course we do, you just gave an example. In fact if we truly didn't, then there would be no problem.

[snaking0776]

I think their point is that discounting the time estimates is more a constant shifting of the window of what we expect more than them being de-facto incorrect. They’re more off by degree (e.g. an XX% reduction vs complete extinction) than being worthless. As the example points out a large reduction can be very similar to an annihilation it’s just that we are only used to what we know so we constantly shift what is normal.

[tclancy]

You have sailed past the point. There were so, so many cod it was hard not to catch a bunch. That isn’t a metric, it’s an indicator that most likely meant vast unseen numbers. The tip of the iceberg is a metaphor for a reason, though it may become an anachronism within our lifetimes.

[vasco]

The argument is that we didn't notice, not that it's a predictor or whatever. And we noticed, so the argument is not good.

[tbrownaw]

Weakening predictions until they become unfalsifiable seems like an odd approach to being taken seriously.

[vasco]

So make predictions about stuff that happens next year and be right about them. The problem is that strongly predicting what will happen in 30 years has always been wrong so far. My point is just focus on what you know. Anyone can say whatever about 30 years from now and ride that for the next 29.

[dTal]

>strongly predicting what will happen in 30 years has always been wrong so far

No it hasn't, this is climate change denialist nonsense. In fact no less a figure than ExxonMobil correctly predicted the trajectory of global CO2 levels and corresponding increase in warming as far back as the 1970s and their predictions remain accurate today.

[vasco]

I've been alive long enough that my hometown was supposed to be underwater several times already. Climate change is real and predictions have also been very wrong.

[luqtas]

because whales can communicate into the thousands of kilometers range and nowadays, because of marine traffic, they are luck to get into the hundred meters

micro-plastics into the ocean don't have a good prognosis on numbers reduction

global warming has a huge effect on oceanic life

and so on. maybe the number is much worse

[dTal]

>Every number so far has been wrong

No it hasn't.