Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

But the models aren’t wrong. They’re surprisingly accurate. Some media reporting has been alarmist, choosing absolute worst cases and stating them as fact.

But in general, the changes we’ve seen so far are in line with predictions and there’s no reason to be more skeptical than normal of this science.

(As a side note, the resource extraction required to run a petrol engine is also not very green and often connected to human rights abuses. Not to downplay the issues in lithium sourcing, there are horrible conditions that need to be fixed, but the solution is not “oil”.)



No they are not "surprisingly accurate". I have actually made more money in direct bets AGAINST climate models. From 1970 to present. Indeed, the challenge I make to climate doomsayers is simple: make one prediction in the 5 year out timeframe and stick to it. I'll simply take the opposite. So far, I have won... every time. Let me have a look at my trading accounts: cenovus up, pembina up, taiwan semi up, everything else down. And that is the current recession. Now, I am worried about china, so I may trade the tsm. The only "surprise" for me is that alcoa is down. I'll ride that one.

The "no oil" people may be right; that would make me a horrible person. But, make the prediction -- I'll "convert" if it comes true. Science for the win.


Yes, they are in fact, "surprisingly accurate."

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo...


> direct bets AGAINST climate models...

None of the things you mention after this sentence have anything to do with climate models.

> cenovus up, pembina up, taiwan semi up

At best, this is equivalent to saying health nuts have been disproven because you made money buying Coca Cola stock.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: