News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs. Parent comment

Re:Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gon... by zacharytelschow on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:31PM (#22006024)
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...?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gon... by take_a_breath on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:40PM (#22006147)
==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...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gon... by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Thursday January 09, 2020 @04:39PM (#22006138)
> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]