Some of these are a little odd. You classify the "Coronavirus pandemic could cause 40 million deaths if left unchecked" as false, with the explanation that though we're still in the pandemic, it will never reach that high.
But the claim was specifically that it could cause that amount of deaths "if unchecked" and no preventative measures were put in place. But preventative measures were put in place? The claim isn't proven false by the current situation since the conditions that the claim was talking about didn't occur.
If I made the claim "If I don't eat today, I will get hungry", ate food and therefore didn't get hungry, I wouldn't say my initial claim was invalid.
The same model predicted 96K deaths for Sweden, a country that eschewed lockdown measures or mask mandates [1]. The deaths topped at around 6K in Sweden. Sweden did take some precautions like restricting large gatherings but not enough to have an effect of this magnitude.
Ensure you're tracking whether the populace is taking additional measures that are not mandated, and suddenly it starts to explain the error almost completely.
Remember, policies do not execute themselves, and lack of policy does not imply lack of action.
Other problems are also caused by wrong, simplistic models. E.g. SEIR might have estimated the total death count correctly, but not the timing or location at all. (Because the model is isotropic.)
Plugging in annualized data for various airborne viruses into a Bayesian anomalous diffusion model gives much closer timings. Though there are a few models with varying base assumptions and the estimator used a mixture. (One using Spanish flu, next using common cold, another using seasonal flu. Separately the worst case is... common cold variant.)
> The coronavirus could kill millions of Americans: ‘Do the math,’ immunization specialist says
How is that failed? Do we have a crystal ball that says it's all over/ this virus can't possibly mutate into something deadlier? I do agree it feels "unlikely" but marking it as "failed" is just a prediction at this point.
what's even funnier is that the next prediction is already marked as "correct" even though we haven't touched 1Million global deaths yet.
> 'We Are At War,' WHO Head Says, Warning Millions Could Die From COVID-19
--- on a different note, this is also strange:
> 21 Indian cities will run out of ground water by 2020 Link Failed Resources 2030-40 2019
So it's made in 2019, but is it about 2020 or about 2030-40? Seems unlikely that it really is about 2020 if it was made in 2019.... unless it was all but guaranteed to become true (and then I'd like to know how they avoided it).
> Coronavirus pandemic could cause 40 million deaths if left unchecked
What data can we base this on? Humanity has taken measures to ensure that the pandemic doesn't get to those levels, so any real-world data is obviously going to be much less than 40 million.
This seems to have a problem of assuming the timeframe for the fulfillment of vague claims. For example, if the claim:
"U.N. Predicts entire nations could be wiped-off if Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000"
was made in 1989, I understand it as "we have until 2000 to work. Afterwards, the nations will be lost at some point". That seems what the source article claims too:
> governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
But what is the future point? I have no idea. The website slapped "failed" on this claim, so I guess it's 2000? That's rather useless, it's unresolved at best.
Similar story with "Prince Charles: 'Only 8 years to save the planet'", "French Foreign Minister: '500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos'", "Internet as we know will end if net-neutrality is repealed."
The last one is particularly funny, as all things, as we know them, will end one day. So it's strictly true.
Another issue is not enough claims as "awaited". For example, "'We Are At War,' WHO Head Says, Warning Millions Could Die From COVID-19" is marked as "correct", based on a prediction rather than concrete data.
Another sore one is "'Scottish skiing industry had no more than 20 years left.'" made in 2004 and already marked as failed, together with "Britain to have Siberian climate in 20 years"
On the presentation side, "link" is the most useless way to indicate forther information. Of course it's a link! But what's behind it? Source? Confirmation? Rebuttal? A little labeling would go a long way.
I like the idea, but the execution is a solid 5 out of 10.
I disagree. If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years. Similarly, if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse, you can't say, "Hey, I did say at some point it will." '500 days' is particularly funny since I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline.
I don't think it hurts to rely on common sense a bit. There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years. Global cooling, which was a major fear, has long disappeared from Climate Change discussion.
Besides, there are many stories with definite timelines that portray the sentiments. For eg, food shortages and global cooling were major doomsday fears in 1970s.
> If you're making a claim that we are in an economic bubble, you can't claim victory if there's a stock market crash after twenty years.
What's the timeframe then? If you are the person who decides what the person actually meant, you're no longer evaluating facts. Perhaps it's better to just leave out such vague claims altogether.
> if you're saying that only X years left before things take turn for the worse
That's not what any of the examples said though. The examples said "we have only X years to take action, otherwise we may pass the implied point of no return, which will become apparent much later". Unless those examples specify what the point of no return is, they are effectively impossible to evaluate as well.
> I don't see what climate models give such a definite timeline
> There's absolutely no scientific reason to think that Britain will turn into Siberia in four years.
Of course you can evaluate the claims according to your own opinion, but then you will lose the claim to objectivity (at this point I lose interest personally), and then you risk unwittigly making your list political on top of that.
I feel the same way. The best-case scenarios on all of the climate change charts have been scratched. 2 degrees of warming is basically a given and the debate is now one of damage control. The lag between action and effect is somewhere between 40 and 50 years.
The claim 'Britain to have Siberian climate in 20 years' was made in 2004 (according to the table) and its status is 'failed'. Last time I checked it isn't 2024 yet.
I think it will still be a fail then, but that is besides the point.
The mass extinction ones are true by most definitions of "mass extinction", no? Am I missing something that flags the alarming prediction as true, false, or undecided?
Not sitting well with the HN hive mind, but I love it. Thanks for a fun and well-executed idea. I predict this comment will be at -4 points by 10am PST 9/2/2020!
Update: happy to say my statement was wrong, and that I had no intention of using HN’s proclivities against itself to keep the comment score above water.
The idea behind this is brilliant, and I support the sentiment. Unfortunately, for this to work effectively, you really need to be accurate and precise. As others pointed out, a lot of the items lacks sources and/or have questionable verdicts.
The list ought to include more of the correct instances of alarmism, and there are plenty to choose from. As they were semi-predictable events (aside from the exact year and severity), it should be possible to dig up roughly correct warnings about the 1929, 1999 and 2008 stock market bubbles, the rise of Hitler, the threat of a major terrorist attack circa 2001, and the severe health effects of adding lead to gasoline.
But the claim was specifically that it could cause that amount of deaths "if unchecked" and no preventative measures were put in place. But preventative measures were put in place? The claim isn't proven false by the current situation since the conditions that the claim was talking about didn't occur.
If I made the claim "If I don't eat today, I will get hungry", ate food and therefore didn't get hungry, I wouldn't say my initial claim was invalid.