Trump and Trump supporters keep using the Y2K Fallacy, and it is driving me crazy

With all the endless volume on both FaceBook and EvC I'm sure some, perhaps even a lot of useful information comes through both of these. There's hardly any point in making an artificial distinction, FaceBook bad, EvC good, four legs good, two legs . . .

But all this useful information just gets drowned out by the rest of the noise (that post of yours I'm responding to here is a perfect example!). I suppose in the long run more is better than less. If you have a limited number of "official" outlets that are "fact-checked" (by whom, exactly?) you're bound to get more of a Soviet than a Western outlook on life. So, I guess, Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom . . .

Anyway, good luck with all that.

The prediction involved sea level rise that did not, in fact, happen. The prediction was not about storm surge. Storm surge has hit many times before Sandy (before New York was New York, even!) The Great Storm of 1693, for example, or the 1788 storm that left the Battery in ruins, or the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane that flooded NY City up to Canal street in 1821, or the 1893 hurricane that washed away Hog Island, or the Long Island Express that hit in 1938.

It's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

You are incorrect.

The source was, in fact, James Hansen. His West Side Highway prediction assumed a 100% increase in CO2.
Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
There's been about a 30% increase (so far) and the sea level rise measured (so far) is in centimeters, not tens of meters.
Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov

You would know this if you'd bothered to read my post
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=885382#m885382

Sigh.

Nobody reads my posts. I don't know why I bother posting.

I posted the sources at
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=885382#m885382

I clearly wasn't implying they were some sort of consensus, merely pointing out that if you're going to try to persuade people to do something about the environment (which is a good thing to be doing, whether it involves reducing CO2 emissions or heavy metal pollution or agricultural nitrate runoff or . . . ) it helps if you're accurate, rather than hyperbolic.

As far as I can see, the "fact-checking" in both places consists of some posters looking at other peoples' posts and doing some research (or not, as the case may be) before making replies to dispute (or agree with) those posts.

Oh, by all means, scare them.

But if the scary things you say turn out to be untrue, then you've shot yourself in the foot, haven't you?

If it feels unethical, it probably is. Besides, crying wolf (which is what inaccurate predictions are, really) is unlikely to convince anyone, isn't it?

You're missing the distinction between convincing people of things that do not conflict with their current views and convincing people of things that run contrary to their current views.

If you make predictions which turn out to be alarmist hype you may not have problems with people who already believe you (they just shrug it off with the reasonable statement that predictions of the future are never 100% certain). On the other hand, people who are skeptical of you in the first place may have their preconceptions confirmed.

But the whole point is to convince people to change their behavior so you CAN save the environment. If you shoot yourself in the foot by making predictions that turn out to be alarmist hype, people won't change their behavior and you've endangered the environment.

I think this started with a discussion about global warming predictions that turned out to be inaccurate.

It's an interesting question, a case of "does the end justify the means?" when you think of how to persuade people to save the planet. Maybe it's like a game of chess. You can sacrifice a lot, if you succeed in checkmating your opponent. If however, you don't succeed, you're in a worse position.

That's silly. People posting on Facebook post links all the time, to actual facts as often as posters do here.

I was just speaking to the fact-checking on various online forums, not to party affiliations.

So, what do you think, is it useful in dealing with such people to cry wolf? To make alarmist predictions that won't stand the test of time?

If yes, why?

If no, what's your alternative?

That may well be. But a casual glance at this evcforum.net website also will show an inordinate, nay heaping pile of opinions (with or without links).

Even more, a lot of the posts could be characterized as "blather" rather than being dignified with the title of "opinion."

Look at your own post, you know, the cleverly argued one beginning "Bullshit. . . . "

Perhaps FaceBook has less "information" in relation to chatter compared to evcforum (though the fact that the name of the forum implies that evolution is something to be disputed indicates that . . . perhaps not), but even so, what is your problem? Did someone cite a post from FaceBook that got your goat?