Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider
by ip26 on Sunday June 28, 2020 @01:31PM
(#23670430)
If better models of climate change allow us to predict more precisely what will happen, we may be able to get people to care more. If we can say with a high degree of certainty that City X is going to see 4.5x as many terrible hurricanes every year, then the people of City X may have a more vested interest than if we say "there will probably be more hurricanes".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider
by hannob on Sunday June 28, 2020 @02:49PM
(#23671095)
The counterexample is Australia.
We can say with high certainty that the great barrier reef will die unless some miracle happens and the world limits warming to 1.5°. And even then most of the reef will be gone. Yet Australia is a country that basically has no real climate policy at all, they still plan for decades of new(!) coal extraction.
Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider
by ip26 on Sunday June 28, 2020 @04:21PM
(#23671738)
That is an excellent counterexample. It defies comprehension.
Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider
by imtringued on Monday June 29, 2020 @04:36AM
(#23675625)
The problem is that nobody cares about your model. If it's too grim then people will refuse to believe it. If it's too optimistic people won't do anything.