comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not better than that. It's how he goes with every discussion on here.
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And when I say they have got the impacts wrong, we are seeing more extreme weather than forecasted for the amount of temperature rises.
They aren't wrong in a sense that gives credence to your views that we can all carry merrily on, they are wrong in a sense that more alarm should be given to the issuem
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Macron also holds all the cards because we import huge amounts of energy from Europe, and the French state energy company not only runs all our nuclear power stations, but are building the additional two due to come online
Seeing as both sides have differing stats, im guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, and you are just enjoying your confirmation bias.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And when I say they have got the impacts wrong, we are seeing more extreme weather than forecasted for the amount of temperature rises.
They aren't wrong in a sense that gives credence to your views that we can all carry merrily on, they are wrong in a sense that more alarm should be given to the issuem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why politicians shouldn't be sensationalising then I guess. The one that stuck with me for many years was Al Gore and the ice caps gone soundbite. I'm sure that was meant to have happened 10 years ago according to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, if you are following the conversation, and they have shrink by ~85%
Again though, I'd love to see the actual quote form Al Gore, I wouldnt be surprised to see some "Could"s in a statement that's being presented as fact.
What you should be far more concerned about is the 85% of ice that's gone. I've reflects sunlight back out of the atmosphere, it's part of the tipping points that start the cascade.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Macron also holds all the cards because we import huge amounts of energy from Europe, and the French state energy company not only runs all our nuclear power stations, but are building the additional two due to come online
Seeing as both sides have differing stats, im guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, and you are just enjoying your confirmation bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think Thorg is guilty also of confirmation bias.
I'll wait for someone more impartial to take a look at the data before I draw a conclusion.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know they haven't provided the evidence as per the agreement? Because the Tories said so? One party is unilaterally deciding that the evidence provided by these boats is not sufficient.
Boris doesn't need an election in order to be obtuse and Macron is better off because he doesn't have to make Brexit work. Boris is in more sheet than Macron. Easier to win an election.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
-----
Facts cannot be confirmation bias. Fact is the French are far more credible than the Tories. Are you saying that's not a fact?
Unlike you, I didn't make any declarations as to who is telling the truth. I only said the French are more credible.
You on the other hand immediately and wholeheartedly believe the Tories without second thought in spite of all their lies and deceit. Can't you think for yourself?
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice quick work buddy. What about the other points?
My point is that with many predictions being wrong it’s hard to follow them and treat them as gospel now.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Macron also holds all the cards because we import huge amounts of energy from Europe, and the French state energy company not only runs all our nuclear power stations, but are building the additional two due to come online
Seeing as both sides have differing stats, im guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, and you are just enjoying your confirmation bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think Thorg is guilty also of confirmation bias.
I'll wait for someone more impartial to take a look at the data before I draw a conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok let me know when you find that person because you won't find him or her here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plenty of people on here I trust to look at it impartially, you are just getting confused by the fact that measured and reasonable people come down as being pro EU, because it makes sense in every way, as them just being rabid pro EU remoaners.
We are seeing month by month the predictions of "project fear" coming to pass and still you cling to the idea that you can just dismiss everyone who thinks brexit was a mistake as being unreasonable. You are so far across on the brexit side of the debate you can't differentiate between moderates and extreme remainers.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice quick work buddy. What about the other points?
My point is that with many predictions being wrong it’s hard to follow them and treat them as gospel now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your kilimanjaro thing isn't even accurate,
The passage in his book these "wrong predictions" refer to were actually the worries of what "Could" happen by an expert, rather than absolute predictions made by Al Gore himself.
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 16 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not dismissing anything mate it’s not one of the other ie. dismissal or full support. There’s loads in the middle. I’m explaining why it’s hard for me to fully support change without acknowledging the effects of reversing that which has lifted well over a billion people out of extreme poverty.
Thanks for that link, I will click on it now and read it later.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
I don't know why Sat Nav always has to tell anyone who disagrees with him that his argument is based on facts and theirs isn't. It's always his go to defence, when actually he is just cherry picking which facts he likes and the ones he doesn't become 'hypothetical'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate disaster denialists are now in the same camp as Flat Earthers, the antivax crew and holistic medicine worshippers in terms of the degree of their disagreement with the scientific consensus.
It just isn’t a debate anymore unless you’re down with rejecting the scientific method and an infinitude of empirical evidence.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
-----
Facts cannot be confirmation bias. Fact is the French are far more credible than the Tories. Are you saying that's not a fact?
Unlike you, I didn't make any declarations as to who is telling the truth. I only said the French are more credible.
You on the other hand immediately and wholeheartedly believe the Tories without second thought in spite of all their lies and deceit. Can't you think for yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree the French are more credible, just as a result of the sheer number of lies and corruption we are seeing from the Tories.
But I also don't trust them enough to just dismiss whatever information Andrew Neil has seen, out of hand.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice quick work buddy. What about the other points?
My point is that with many predictions being wrong it’s hard to follow them and treat them as gospel now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your kilimanjaro thing isn't even accurate,
The passage in his book these "wrong predictions" refer to were actually the worries of what "Could" happen by an expert, rather than absolute predictions made by Al Gore himself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the other things? Are the current predictions not Amos what ‘could’ happen and therefore we need to make changes? Or is it definitive / guaranteed millions of acres of deserts and flooding as you mentioned earlier; is that a ‘could happen’ scenario or a will happen scenario?
In truth both France and the UKgov are at fault. There are clearly defined dispute resolution protocols in the TCA which neither side are keeping to.
However I do have some sympathy for the French as the UKgov has made the (political) decision to hold up/delay French permits. As they sold the TCA to the UK public claiming the UK had 'taken back control' of its fishing territories, when in fact it had not.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 16 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not dismissing anything mate it’s not one of the other ie. dismissal or full support. There’s loads in the middle. I’m explaining why it’s hard for me to fully support change without acknowledging the effects of reversing that which has lifted well over a billion people out of extreme poverty.
Thanks for that link, I will click on it now and read it later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one has
A) suggested that we need to reverse anything
B) suggested that if that were to happen, we would do nothing to ease any consequence.
Only you are doing so.
REDUCING consumerism by means of repairable items still leaves a huge market for what would doubtlessly be more expensive items, as well as manufacturing parts to fulfill the right to repair.
That work will all take place at existing facilities, which is also why they need to be made more environmentally efficient and friendly. The solution isn't one or the other, it's a fair bit of both.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 1883 of 4853
1884 | 1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's not better than that. It's how he goes with every discussion on here.
posted on 1/11/21
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And when I say they have got the impacts wrong, we are seeing more extreme weather than forecasted for the amount of temperature rises.
They aren't wrong in a sense that gives credence to your views that we can all carry merrily on, they are wrong in a sense that more alarm should be given to the issuem
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Macron also holds all the cards because we import huge amounts of energy from Europe, and the French state energy company not only runs all our nuclear power stations, but are building the additional two due to come online
Seeing as both sides have differing stats, im guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, and you are just enjoying your confirmation bias.
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And when I say they have got the impacts wrong, we are seeing more extreme weather than forecasted for the amount of temperature rises.
They aren't wrong in a sense that gives credence to your views that we can all carry merrily on, they are wrong in a sense that more alarm should be given to the issuem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why politicians shouldn't be sensationalising then I guess. The one that stuck with me for many years was Al Gore and the ice caps gone soundbite. I'm sure that was meant to have happened 10 years ago according to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, if you are following the conversation, and they have shrink by ~85%
Again though, I'd love to see the actual quote form Al Gore, I wouldnt be surprised to see some "Could"s in a statement that's being presented as fact.
What you should be far more concerned about is the 85% of ice that's gone. I've reflects sunlight back out of the atmosphere, it's part of the tipping points that start the cascade.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Macron also holds all the cards because we import huge amounts of energy from Europe, and the French state energy company not only runs all our nuclear power stations, but are building the additional two due to come online
Seeing as both sides have differing stats, im guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, and you are just enjoying your confirmation bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think Thorg is guilty also of confirmation bias.
I'll wait for someone more impartial to take a look at the data before I draw a conclusion.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know they haven't provided the evidence as per the agreement? Because the Tories said so? One party is unilaterally deciding that the evidence provided by these boats is not sufficient.
Boris doesn't need an election in order to be obtuse and Macron is better off because he doesn't have to make Brexit work. Boris is in more sheet than Macron. Easier to win an election.
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
-----
Facts cannot be confirmation bias. Fact is the French are far more credible than the Tories. Are you saying that's not a fact?
Unlike you, I didn't make any declarations as to who is telling the truth. I only said the French are more credible.
You on the other hand immediately and wholeheartedly believe the Tories without second thought in spite of all their lies and deceit. Can't you think for yourself?
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice quick work buddy. What about the other points?
My point is that with many predictions being wrong it’s hard to follow them and treat them as gospel now.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 8 seconds ago
These guys definitely sound like reasonable, good-willed people we should be in a union with
https://mobile.twitter.com/afneil/status/1455096194393329674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On what grounds did the boats fail to provide evidence? Who decides what evidence is enough? The Tory Government?
France have their own version of these facts. The boats have provided the evidence, its just the Tories being obtuse and stoking the flames again.
Why would you believe anything these truth twisters say? The French are infinitely more credible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules in the agreement we signed. They have provided no evidence they have fished there before or GPS. Boris doesn't have an election to win this year, Macron does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Macron also holds all the cards because we import huge amounts of energy from Europe, and the French state energy company not only runs all our nuclear power stations, but are building the additional two due to come online
Seeing as both sides have differing stats, im guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle, and you are just enjoying your confirmation bias.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think Thorg is guilty also of confirmation bias.
I'll wait for someone more impartial to take a look at the data before I draw a conclusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok let me know when you find that person because you won't find him or her here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plenty of people on here I trust to look at it impartially, you are just getting confused by the fact that measured and reasonable people come down as being pro EU, because it makes sense in every way, as them just being rabid pro EU remoaners.
We are seeing month by month the predictions of "project fear" coming to pass and still you cling to the idea that you can just dismiss everyone who thinks brexit was a mistake as being unreasonable. You are so far across on the brexit side of the debate you can't differentiate between moderates and extreme remainers.
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice quick work buddy. What about the other points?
My point is that with many predictions being wrong it’s hard to follow them and treat them as gospel now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your kilimanjaro thing isn't even accurate,
The passage in his book these "wrong predictions" refer to were actually the worries of what "Could" happen by an expert, rather than absolute predictions made by Al Gore himself.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 16 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not dismissing anything mate it’s not one of the other ie. dismissal or full support. There’s loads in the middle. I’m explaining why it’s hard for me to fully support change without acknowledging the effects of reversing that which has lifted well over a billion people out of extreme poverty.
Thanks for that link, I will click on it now and read it later.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago
I don't know why Sat Nav always has to tell anyone who disagrees with him that his argument is based on facts and theirs isn't. It's always his go to defence, when actually he is just cherry picking which facts he likes and the ones he doesn't become 'hypothetical'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate disaster denialists are now in the same camp as Flat Earthers, the antivax crew and holistic medicine worshippers in terms of the degree of their disagreement with the scientific consensus.
It just isn’t a debate anymore unless you’re down with rejecting the scientific method and an infinitude of empirical evidence.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 4 minutes ago
Have you found a new buzz term to use now? Is it confirmation bias when Thorgen days France are infinitely more credible than the UK, or when the circlejerk gets in full flow and this thread turns into an EU supremacy group?
-----
Facts cannot be confirmation bias. Fact is the French are far more credible than the Tories. Are you saying that's not a fact?
Unlike you, I didn't make any declarations as to who is telling the truth. I only said the French are more credible.
You on the other hand immediately and wholeheartedly believe the Tories without second thought in spite of all their lies and deceit. Can't you think for yourself?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd agree the French are more credible, just as a result of the sheer number of lies and corruption we are seeing from the Tories.
But I also don't trust them enough to just dismiss whatever information Andrew Neil has seen, out of hand.
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 seconds ago
Average Global Temperatures
And within 15 to 20 years of this, the earth will be warmer than it has been in the past 100,000 years,” Hansen said. According to the Star-Phoenix, his model predicted that “by the year 2020 we will experience an average temperature increase of around three degrees [Celsius], with even greater extremes.”
Global emissions
In 1978, The Vancouver Sun cited a paper in the journal Science. University of Washington researcher Minze Stuiver predicted that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have doubled by 2020.
We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level.”
Snows of Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.”
“At this rate, all of the ice will be gone between 2010 and 2020,’ said Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at Ohio State University. ‘And that is probably a conservative estimate.”
Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth also predicted that there would be no snow on Kilimanjaro in 2020.
Yet in February 2020, The Times of London reported that the “Staying power of Kilimanjaro snow defies Al Gore’s gloomy forecast.”
That took me 2 minutes to find those examples of what was predicted for 2020 which haven’t come to pass.
How can you all be SO confident of these current predictions?
I’m not being confrontational here, I just want to know. It’s people like me who need convincing; not yourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever heard of confirmation bias? You've already told us how hard it is to make accurate predictions. Yet you are willing to use some anecdotes based on the same concept to back up your claims?
How about finding some predictions that have actually come to pass? Obviously some predictions will not be exact.
Since 1912 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice fields have shrunk around 85% in area, decreasing from 12 square kilometres in size to just 1.85 square kilometres. That pace seems to be accelerating, as the glaciers shrunk 26% in area between 2000 and 2007"
So a couple of guys got the date on which snow would vanish wrong and you're using that to make your case? Fact is the snow is disappearing. Who the fack cares on which date it will be completely gone?
You're better than that Satty. Took me less than a minute btw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice quick work buddy. What about the other points?
My point is that with many predictions being wrong it’s hard to follow them and treat them as gospel now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your kilimanjaro thing isn't even accurate,
The passage in his book these "wrong predictions" refer to were actually the worries of what "Could" happen by an expert, rather than absolute predictions made by Al Gore himself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the other things? Are the current predictions not Amos what ‘could’ happen and therefore we need to make changes? Or is it definitive / guaranteed millions of acres of deserts and flooding as you mentioned earlier; is that a ‘could happen’ scenario or a will happen scenario?
posted on 1/11/21
In truth both France and the UKgov are at fault. There are clearly defined dispute resolution protocols in the TCA which neither side are keeping to.
However I do have some sympathy for the French as the UKgov has made the (political) decision to hold up/delay French permits. As they sold the TCA to the UK public claiming the UK had 'taken back control' of its fishing territories, when in fact it had not.
posted on 1/11/21
Amos = also 😂
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 16 minutes ago
Nice you found one extreme example to back up your dismissal of climate change, I liken it to the way you have routinely misrepresented death forecasts for covid, taking "up to" or "could" as absolutes.
The truth is that climate models have been predicting this accurately, scarily so since the 70s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
And what they have seemingly got wrong is the impacts we are seeing from their highly accurate forecasts, you will note on the above link that the actuals have followed the mean predictions, whereas your dismissal of such forecasts has always focussed, and continues to do so on the headline worthy upper amounts.
Which is great for the people who dont want it addressed, that's literally why they do it, why they draw attention to the extreme predictions of "could" rather than the far more alarming reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not dismissing anything mate it’s not one of the other ie. dismissal or full support. There’s loads in the middle. I’m explaining why it’s hard for me to fully support change without acknowledging the effects of reversing that which has lifted well over a billion people out of extreme poverty.
Thanks for that link, I will click on it now and read it later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one has
A) suggested that we need to reverse anything
B) suggested that if that were to happen, we would do nothing to ease any consequence.
Only you are doing so.
REDUCING consumerism by means of repairable items still leaves a huge market for what would doubtlessly be more expensive items, as well as manufacturing parts to fulfill the right to repair.
That work will all take place at existing facilities, which is also why they need to be made more environmentally efficient and friendly. The solution isn't one or the other, it's a fair bit of both.
Page 1883 of 4853
1884 | 1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888