I think it is something like 12 years left to take drastic action to prevent most of the most severe effects of climate change.
AOC, Gore, Kerry, Sanders
If you need 100 seconds to bring a train to a stop, and you are 112 seconds away from a collision, how much time do you have to act?
The time it takes to change your diaper.
Many have been for decades now.
Here’s a site with a bunch of links to failed doomsday predictions by scientists and politicians going back decades. Lots of interesting reading.
1 Like
And I bet you read none of them.
Several articles reference the same scientist, Paul Ehrlich, and he has responded to criticisms made about his predictions. But I wouldn’t expect the article posted to present both sides of the argument.
It’s funny how ignorant people can be when they want to believe a narrative. They seem to be unaware of changes we have made with regard to the environment such as stricter emissions standards with cars or the Montreal Protocol. Hmmmm, maybe some of these things actually worked.
Interestingly, one of the referenced predictions from the past mentioned wild fires so maybe they weren’t all wrong after all.
Of course zecarlo. None of those links are real failed climate predictions by NASA scientists, university professors and high level politicians.
Computational resources, measurement techniques and technologies, alternative energy generation, etc…these are some of the means we have now that the Anasazi, Axumites, and Akkadians did not have. These tools allow us to predict, detect, mitigate environmental changes. Why do these not count? Is your argument not rather like saying smallpox vaccines are not science, and smallpox detection is not relevant…but smallpox palliatives are? What other term can we apply to climate science and renewable energy, if not “means to mitigate” and “capabilities we have developed”?
This has always been the case. The IPCC, the COP, every country’s climate change apparatus includes these figures you mention. The suggestion that scientists are driving everything is a canard. Just look at how easily scientists are shoved aside in Covid policy in most countries, and you get a good idea of how little clout they actually have. In fact, the biggest issue is that scientists are rarely involved in any decision-making at all. At the risk of “appealing to authority/secret knowledge” I can tell you that I know for certain that many meetings around climate change action are often conducted entirely without input from climate science experts.
I said this somewhere above, but it’s worth repeating: if we as a species have split down the middle, some deciding that we have to take steps to avoid drastic changes, and others claiming it’s mostly bullshit, both sides cannot be right. There is an objective reality, no matter what our group pushes us to believe. This is worth reflecting upon.
It’s also worth thinking about why one is right or wrong. Being right for the wrong reasons will simply reinforce a flawed model.
2 Likes
Of course you avoided the point of my post. Did you Google Montreal Protocol? That’s rhetorical.
99% of wildfires are caused by humans throwing a cigarette, not putting out the campfire or arson
You’re completely misunderstanding me. The point is that they DO count. They count so much, in fact, that there is no indication now or anywhere on the horizon that the deaths by weather event graph I linked above will become u-shaped. It includes all natural disasters, but the weather events are clearly highlighted.
But we’ve still got doomsday predictions front and center with no shortage of radical policies being advanced to avert these predicted outcomes.
And the dryer the conditions, the more flammable things become, no?
Those same doomsday predictions that got cfcs banned?
Hmmmm…
Of course they do…in florida, wildfires in the everglades is a natural cycle of the environment
The problem is humans are building everywhere and there is very little environment left
I think that’s the point.
My point was the doomsday fear mongers…they cannot be trusted because they have an agenda, no?
That’s been my point as well, but apparently this is deeply contentious.
Saving the planet? How dare they.
Agenda is not a word with a positive or negative connotation. So saying someone has an agenda doesn’t imply anything without knowing what the agenda is.
Saving the planet and making millions from fear tactics are two different things