
Show HN: Alarmism.watch – I made a website that tracks alarmist predictions - shubhamjain
https://alarmism.watch/
======
autophagian
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.

~~~
virgilp
Or

> 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).

~~~
jhthenerd
Similarly

> 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.

------
rhn_mk1
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.

~~~
shubhamjain
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.

~~~
rhn_mk1
> 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.

~~~
shubhamjain
Fair point about objectivity. Thank you! Yeah, I think it's best to assume
nothing at all and be completely fact-driven.

------
mosselman
At least make things accurate:

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.

------
JoshuaDavid
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?

I'm on mobile so it might be a display issue.

------
tomcdonnell
More specific claims have been made and held accountable at
[http://longbets.com](http://longbets.com).

------
roelb
Think this should show the status as a percentage of the predicted value, not
a boolean "failed". 99% would still be marked here as Failed?

------
tomcam
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!

~~~
tomcam
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.

------
mekkkkkk
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.

------
jtthe13
Mind you, Even a broken clock is right twice a day...and it only takes one
alarmist prediction to turn out to be true to make it an utter disaster.

------
CiTyBear
Very interesting. However many "Failed" lack of sources.

The links used as proof are usually Think Tank which are far from objectives
about information.

------
bluquark
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.

~~~
shubhamjain
Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I plan to include more of those.

