Weakening predictions until they become unfalsifiable seems like an odd approach to being taken seriously.
replyVery 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.
replydeleted
reply[dead]
replycod fishing boats used to have to be wary of the catch being so big that it would tip the boat.
replyWe have no real frame of reference for what we've already lost.
Of course we do, you just gave an example. In fact if we truly didn't, then there would be no problem.
replyYou 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.
replyI 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.
reply