TX and @dt79 awesome posts. I have some questions later (after 1st round because March Madness y’all), but thanks for spending the time!
1 Like
That article is an example of what I consider irresponsible. 1st, it’s incredibly vague–theres no time point to falsify the prediction. Since 2100 is usually the year by which predictions are determined in climate papers, at any point in the next 81 years due to any reason not necessarily climate change (including civil war or political unrest) someone could make the "I told you so claim. It’s been done before in other areas for political gain. To me this is so vague as to be meaningless, although it’s only a personal opinion.
2nd, when the chaos doesn’t happen by the perceived due date - 2000 - the laypeople will feel that climate change is a non-issue (look at the recent polls where climate change ranks in the 20s as far as “most important and pressing issues” in US citizens minds). This isn’t true.
Please copy and paste what you two claim I’ve misquoted.
That’s why I posted the link. Most of what I see in the media regarding climate change are these types of doomsday predictions which never seem to materialize. Hence, I take with a grain of salt any claim humans are irrevocably destroying the planet. I look at how drastically the climate has changed eons before humans started using carbon fuels in massive amounts and can’t help but think what we do is a drop in the bucket.
Given the article is 30 years old it’s possible that changes made between then and 2000 did have a positive effect. But the article also didn’t state when we would see these catastrophes after 2000.
How about you post the quote which states the world will see huge disasters in 2000.
Excellent point and echoes my opinion. Whether you believe that there will eventually be a rapture (driven by God or Cthulu or whoever you believe in) or that eventually the sun will reach the end of its life, swell to a red giant star and swallow the planet, the earth is doomed either way. What we do as humans likely has little effect on the outcome. We do not have data gathered over long enough periods of time to accurately project our effect on the planet as a whole.
LOL.
I hope the folks buying a hybrid don’t actually believe they are saving the planet. It takes more carbon emissions to produce the batteries that power hybrids than one will ever save.
Check out how they strip mine for the lithium that powers all of our devices. It’s an eye opener for sure. Everyone wants to save the planet until you show them what kind of damage it takes to make the phones and tablets they are addicted too.
This is one of my favorite examples of misplaced environmentalism. Protesting oil rigs in something made from oil:
1 Like
I think the “destroying the planet” bit isn’t really all that much about the “planet.” It’s about human ability to exist on said planet.
It’s a planet. She’s gonna be fine even if we start nuking each other
Yeah, but they do that somewhere else. That’s in like Africa or something.
I saw a documentary a while back on the mining and business practices for the lithium and cadmium. They are absolutely horrible. I think the SJWs would have their hands a little too full with those folks though- a bunch of Chinese and African mercs. with ak-47 and zero fucks.
2 Likes
You gotta love these tidbits of hypocrisy.
1 Like
“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
If you have an issue with what the author wrote, take it up with the AP.
Edit: Guess what? The warming trend didn’t stop and yet somehow I honeymooned in the Maldives after 2000.
How many times has the year 2100 end date been revised? Was this the date they picked back in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s or is this a new prediction? If this date is a relatively new guideline could they have picked a date so far in the future to further avoid the continual embarrassment of having predicted climate catastrophes never occur?
If an organization is going to pick a date that we’ve destroyed the world by “unless we change our wicked ways” it should be within reach. Like 2030 or some time at which the readers children will come of age, not 2100. 2100 is too far away.
That’s just basic goal setting and incentivizing. If it’s too out of reach, why try?
2030 though- that’s when my kid turns 17. No one wants to fuck over their own kid, right?
Ya gotta make it about the children.
1 Like
Since you threw out the retard word I’m going to ask if English is your first language. Nowhere in that quote does it say that disasters will hit by 2000. It doesn’t say when they will hit at all.
That’s quite true. It’s also one of my issues with it. Climate change has the ability to impact every human on this planet, but statements like those made in the article don’t do anything positive and in my opinion tend to push others toward a negative opinion on the topic when the prediction is so vague. Whether or not it’s correct, it just doesn’t pass the smell test for many people. How do you, as a layperson, even measure its accuracy at that point? You don’t.
As far as I am aware 2100 has been used in modelling papers for quite some time as a stopping point for simulations and prospective climate effects. Several reasons for this, including the hypothesis that decade long and generational variations will play a smaller role than long term trends at the century mark.
. Some papers use other targets, like the “point of no return” for action. These can vary depending on the paper, the model chosen, and the outlook.
Of course, when the paper was written plays a large role. In recent years I’ve seen various points of no return between mid 2020s and 2035, and of course older papers had earlier deadlines (as your article mentions 2000).
If a doctor tells someone he has cancer and six months to live and they are still alive 7 months later, does that mean they don’t have cancer after all?
It’s like those shows with 600 pound people who are told they will be dead within a year. If they make it one more year are they not morbidly obese and don’t need to change their dietary habits?
There’s the joke about the man who jumps off a tall building, who is heard saying as he passes each floor, so far so good.
Was this directed at me, or someone else? I’m fairly certain I neither wrote nor implied anything like what you are trying to say.
He also shows them the lumps. And biopsy results.
Now how about if a doctor just walks up to you and without any testing, examination, not even a handshake, and says "You have cancer. But if you give me trillions of dollars I might be able to help. We don’t know what the problem is, mind you. We just need to get started on a solution first, then figure out what it is. ".
Then you say “wait a sec…” and a crowd shouts you down as a denier.
Then you point out the changes that have been taking place for aeons, and you’re accused of requiring an unachievable standard of proof.
Mind you, the cancer the doctor was referring to is a big grey mass between your ears, so it could be understood that he was alarmed to find that some people do have it.
So cancer was probably a bad analogy.
2 Likes
You are trying to use a reductio ad absurdom argument to bolster what you feel the crux of the article is. In this case though, the claim is already absurd (faulty prediction based on some iffy data) and has not proven true - just like every end of the world prediction.