Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a middling prediction. Take a look at the graph on the link I provided.
The headlines such as the prediction in Al gore's book, that you use to dismiss these consequences were a "could happen" looking at the top predictions, the reality is that the climate is following the mean predictions scarily accurately, and that's where this takes us.
You seem overly hung up on the timeframe of 20-30 years, which "could" be 40-50 if we successfully divert from that line, rather than the billions displaced and starving as an inevitably of a lack of action.
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you going to do to ease the consequences? What’s being proposed to counter the slowing of lifting people out of extreme poverty and reducing child mortality?
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a middling prediction. Take a look at the graph on the link I provided.
The headlines such as the prediction in Al gore's book, that you use to dismiss these consequences were a "could happen" looking at the top predictions, the reality is that the climate is following the mean predictions scarily accurately, and that's where this takes us.
You seem overly hung up on the timeframe of 20-30 years, which "could" be 40-50 if we successfully divert from that line, rather than the billions displaced and starving as an inevitably of a lack of action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mentioned 20/30 years mate, I’m just sticking with what has been said.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hilarious being taught confirmation bias by people who will instinctively side with literally another country waging economic war against our own country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I've said, I'd rather see the actual data than either sides spin.
This is laughable, especially from a brexiter who used to parrot lines about the failing EU, and how it was all going to break apart, how we held all the cards, and us leaving would lead them to financial ruin. Etc etc.
You parrot all these tired pro brexit tropes, yet you accuse them of economic war, when it was literally one of the things you voted in a referendum for.
And it was just al gore there were others mentioned, you’re just sticking to al gore and the maybes/could be/might possibly type caveats.
As I asked; are these predictions also could bes and maybes? Or are they definitive?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats just convenient, isn't it.
A couple of guys got the date wrong.
But undeniable fact is that the ice caps are going, which is what actually matters.
If the ice caps are going and thats not debateable, then why does it matter to you that some projections are erroneous?
Don't you think we've got bigger fish to fry?
Must we make all projections accurate in order to prove the point?
Somebody predicted the decrease in ice caps and boy, did they get that one right.
If wrong projections are persuasive to you then why aren't correct ones having the same effect? Is it because you're not looking to establish truth, you're looking for confirmation for what you wish was true?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
And it was just al gore there were others mentioned, you’re just sticking to al gore and the maybes/could be/might possibly type caveats.
As I asked; are these predictions also could bes and maybes? Or are they definitive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you should actually read the links provided to you, before continuing the conversation
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats just convenient, isn't it.
A couple of guys got the date wrong.
But undeniable fact is that the ice caps are going, which is what actually matters.
If the ice caps are going and thats not debateable, then why does it matter to you that some projections are erroneous?
Don't you think we've got bigger fish to fry?
Must we make all projections accurate in order to prove the point?
Somebody predicted the decrease in ice caps and boy, did they get that one right.
If wrong projections are persuasive to you then why aren't correct ones having the same effect? Is it because you're not looking to establish truth, you're looking for confirmation for what you wish was true?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, we’re talking about twenty or thirty year old predictions which were made when we had *far, far* less data to work with and before there was a scientific consensus on the matter.
We’ve probably learnt more about how the climate is changing and what that means in the last five years than we learned in the previous quarter of a century.
More data, better understanding of the processes, improved theories = better predictions.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 2 minutes 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 3 minutes ago
Hilarious being taught confirmation bias by people who will instinctively side with literally another country waging economic war against our own country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I've said, I'd rather see the actual data than either sides spin.
This is laughable, especially from a brexiter who used to parrot lines about the failing EU, and how it was all going to break apart, how we held all the cards, and us leaving would lead them to financial ruin. Etc etc.
You parrot all these tired pro brexit tropes, yet you accuse them of economic war, when it was literally one of the things you voted in a referendum for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have me confused with someone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not.
You have been posting here long enough that I'm sure plenty of others have seen you post such pro-brexit mistruths.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hilarious being taught confirmation bias by people who will instinctively side with literally another country waging economic war against our own country.
-------
So we should side with the UK no matter what? This isn't the 18th century. We prefer truth and fact, not biased reasoning. It takes a big man to admit when you're wrong and that's how we roll, otherwise we wouldn't call ourselves civilised if we are slaves to our patriotic emotions.
The UK is waging economic war against itself. Typical of you to blame others.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why it's OK for French fishing boats to not have proof of having fished in the relevant waters before, and why the UK should let them fish there anyway? There is a unified response from the Tories and the stand in Labour guy Ed Miliband.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again how do you know they don't have the evidence? Because the Tories said so? The French say the evidence adduced is sufficient.
Also, what's your thoughts on the Tories lieing that the UK had taken back control of its waters? That was a lie so its mindboggling that you still chose to believe them without second thought.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 19 seconds ago
It is also hilarious the "truth guy" WWSPD, ever present when the UK puts even a toe nail out of line in a Brexit agreement, all of a sudden feels sympathy for France when they don't want the fish licensing rules applied to their boats and demand the UK just let them fish there anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS
OK believe what you want and then rage about it.
More has been spent in real terms on climate research in the last decade than was spent in the whole of the 20th century.
We have better instruments to measure all kinds of different changes in the atmosphere, on the ground and in the water; we have a lot more people working in more sub-specialties; we have a much wider and deeper data sets; we have more powerful resources with which to manage and model that data; we have an immeasurably better understanding of the relationships between the different kinds of changes which are happening than we had a generation ago.
It’s like comparing the quality of the predictions kids in a year seven science class might make about the results of a chemical reaction with those a postgrad might make be able to make.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 19 seconds ago
It is also hilarious the "truth guy" WWSPD, ever present when the UK puts even a toe nail out of line in a Brexit agreement, all of a sudden feels sympathy for France when they don't want the fish licensing rules applied to their boats and demand the UK just let them fish there anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS
OK believe what you want and then rage about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 19 seconds ago
It is also hilarious the "truth guy" WWSPD, ever present when the UK puts even a toe nail out of line in a Brexit agreement, all of a sudden feels sympathy for France when they don't want the fish licensing rules applied to their boats and demand the UK just let them fish there anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS
OK believe what you want and then rage about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I will believe the unified cross party response from the UK above a French manlet with an election to win and the EU superfan group on this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you will believe the chronic liars who lied to you about the fishing agreement itself to begin with? Yeah, that makes it likely that they're now telling the truth.
Be my guest.
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why it's OK for French fishing boats to not have proof of having fished in the relevant waters before, and why the UK should let them fish there anyway? There is a unified response from the Tories and the stand in Labour guy Ed Miliband.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it there are no provisions in the TCA in respect of historic access to waters - but quotas for each MS.
The fact is, this is the new normal, and disputes such as this will be played out (irrespective if merited or not) for years to come. From memory, post 2025, permits/quotas will be negotiated annually. What could go wrong...
Looks like the Tories were outsmarted and outclassed by the EU in every facet of this deal. All they can do now is lie some more.
That's what happens when you send boys to do mens work.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why it's OK for French fishing boats to not have proof of having fished in the relevant waters before, and why the UK should let them fish there anyway? There is a unified response from the Tories and the stand in Labour guy Ed Miliband.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it there are no provisions in the TCA in respect of historic access to waters - but quotas for each MS.
The fact is, this is the new normal, and disputes such as this will be played out (irrespective if merited or not) for years to come. From memory, post 2025, permits/quotas will be negotiated annually. What could go wrong...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning mucker.
Hope you and yours are well.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 1884 of 4911
1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888 | 1889
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a middling prediction. Take a look at the graph on the link I provided.
The headlines such as the prediction in Al gore's book, that you use to dismiss these consequences were a "could happen" looking at the top predictions, the reality is that the climate is following the mean predictions scarily accurately, and that's where this takes us.
You seem overly hung up on the timeframe of 20-30 years, which "could" be 40-50 if we successfully divert from that line, rather than the billions displaced and starving as an inevitably of a lack of action.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 1 minute ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you going to do to ease the consequences? What’s being proposed to counter the slowing of lifting people out of extreme poverty and reducing child mortality?
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a middling prediction. Take a look at the graph on the link I provided.
The headlines such as the prediction in Al gore's book, that you use to dismiss these consequences were a "could happen" looking at the top predictions, the reality is that the climate is following the mean predictions scarily accurately, and that's where this takes us.
You seem overly hung up on the timeframe of 20-30 years, which "could" be 40-50 if we successfully divert from that line, rather than the billions displaced and starving as an inevitably of a lack of action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mentioned 20/30 years mate, I’m just sticking with what has been said.
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 3 minutes ago
Hilarious being taught confirmation bias by people who will instinctively side with literally another country waging economic war against our own country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I've said, I'd rather see the actual data than either sides spin.
This is laughable, especially from a brexiter who used to parrot lines about the failing EU, and how it was all going to break apart, how we held all the cards, and us leaving would lead them to financial ruin. Etc etc.
You parrot all these tired pro brexit tropes, yet you accuse them of economic war, when it was literally one of the things you voted in a referendum for.
posted on 1/11/21
And it was just al gore there were others mentioned, you’re just sticking to al gore and the maybes/could be/might possibly type caveats.
As I asked; are these predictions also could bes and maybes? Or are they definitive?
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats just convenient, isn't it.
A couple of guys got the date wrong.
But undeniable fact is that the ice caps are going, which is what actually matters.
If the ice caps are going and thats not debateable, then why does it matter to you that some projections are erroneous?
Don't you think we've got bigger fish to fry?
Must we make all projections accurate in order to prove the point?
Somebody predicted the decrease in ice caps and boy, did they get that one right.
If wrong projections are persuasive to you then why aren't correct ones having the same effect? Is it because you're not looking to establish truth, you're looking for confirmation for what you wish was true?
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
And it was just al gore there were others mentioned, you’re just sticking to al gore and the maybes/could be/might possibly type caveats.
As I asked; are these predictions also could bes and maybes? Or are they definitive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you should actually read the links provided to you, before continuing the conversation
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 minutes 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats just convenient, isn't it.
A couple of guys got the date wrong.
But undeniable fact is that the ice caps are going, which is what actually matters.
If the ice caps are going and thats not debateable, then why does it matter to you that some projections are erroneous?
Don't you think we've got bigger fish to fry?
Must we make all projections accurate in order to prove the point?
Somebody predicted the decrease in ice caps and boy, did they get that one right.
If wrong projections are persuasive to you then why aren't correct ones having the same effect? Is it because you're not looking to establish truth, you're looking for confirmation for what you wish was true?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, we’re talking about twenty or thirty year old predictions which were made when we had *far, far* less data to work with and before there was a scientific consensus on the matter.
We’ve probably learnt more about how the climate is changing and what that means in the last five years than we learned in the previous quarter of a century.
More data, better understanding of the processes, improved theories = better predictions.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 2 minutes 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 3 minutes ago
Hilarious being taught confirmation bias by people who will instinctively side with literally another country waging economic war against our own country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst I've said, I'd rather see the actual data than either sides spin.
This is laughable, especially from a brexiter who used to parrot lines about the failing EU, and how it was all going to break apart, how we held all the cards, and us leaving would lead them to financial ruin. Etc etc.
You parrot all these tired pro brexit tropes, yet you accuse them of economic war, when it was literally one of the things you voted in a referendum for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have me confused with someone else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly not.
You have been posting here long enough that I'm sure plenty of others have seen you post such pro-brexit mistruths.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
Hilarious being taught confirmation bias by people who will instinctively side with literally another country waging economic war against our own country.
-------
So we should side with the UK no matter what? This isn't the 18th century. We prefer truth and fact, not biased reasoning. It takes a big man to admit when you're wrong and that's how we roll, otherwise we wouldn't call ourselves civilised if we are slaves to our patriotic emotions.
The UK is waging economic war against itself. Typical of you to blame others.
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 5 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why it's OK for French fishing boats to not have proof of having fished in the relevant waters before, and why the UK should let them fish there anyway? There is a unified response from the Tories and the stand in Labour guy Ed Miliband.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again how do you know they don't have the evidence? Because the Tories said so? The French say the evidence adduced is sufficient.
Also, what's your thoughts on the Tories lieing that the UK had taken back control of its waters? That was a lie so its mindboggling that you still chose to believe them without second thought.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 19 seconds ago
It is also hilarious the "truth guy" WWSPD, ever present when the UK puts even a toe nail out of line in a Brexit agreement, all of a sudden feels sympathy for France when they don't want the fish licensing rules applied to their boats and demand the UK just let them fish there anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS
OK believe what you want and then rage about it.
posted on 1/11/21
More has been spent in real terms on climate research in the last decade than was spent in the whole of the 20th century.
We have better instruments to measure all kinds of different changes in the atmosphere, on the ground and in the water; we have a lot more people working in more sub-specialties; we have a much wider and deeper data sets; we have more powerful resources with which to manage and model that data; we have an immeasurably better understanding of the relationships between the different kinds of changes which are happening than we had a generation ago.
It’s like comparing the quality of the predictions kids in a year seven science class might make about the results of a chemical reaction with those a postgrad might make be able to make.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 19 seconds ago
It is also hilarious the "truth guy" WWSPD, ever present when the UK puts even a toe nail out of line in a Brexit agreement, all of a sudden feels sympathy for France when they don't want the fish licensing rules applied to their boats and demand the UK just let them fish there anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS
OK believe what you want and then rage about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/11/21
Raging
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - I got 5 on it. (U1282)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 19 seconds ago
It is also hilarious the "truth guy" WWSPD, ever present when the UK puts even a toe nail out of line in a Brexit agreement, all of a sudden feels sympathy for France when they don't want the fish licensing rules applied to their boats and demand the UK just let them fish there anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS
OK believe what you want and then rage about it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I will believe the unified cross party response from the UK above a French manlet with an election to win and the EU superfan group on this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you will believe the chronic liars who lied to you about the fishing agreement itself to begin with? Yeah, that makes it likely that they're now telling the truth.
Be my guest.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why it's OK for French fishing boats to not have proof of having fished in the relevant waters before, and why the UK should let them fish there anyway? There is a unified response from the Tories and the stand in Labour guy Ed Miliband.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it there are no provisions in the TCA in respect of historic access to waters - but quotas for each MS.
The fact is, this is the new normal, and disputes such as this will be played out (irrespective if merited or not) for years to come. From memory, post 2025, permits/quotas will be negotiated annually. What could go wrong...
posted on 1/11/21
Looks like the Tories were outsmarted and outclassed by the EU in every facet of this deal. All they can do now is lie some more.
That's what happens when you send boys to do mens work.
posted on 1/11/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Titliv - Ben Shapiro fanboy, and what about those milkers(U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Golf Club Defecator (U3126)
posted 3 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me why it's OK for French fishing boats to not have proof of having fished in the relevant waters before, and why the UK should let them fish there anyway? There is a unified response from the Tories and the stand in Labour guy Ed Miliband.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it there are no provisions in the TCA in respect of historic access to waters - but quotas for each MS.
The fact is, this is the new normal, and disputes such as this will be played out (irrespective if merited or not) for years to come. From memory, post 2025, permits/quotas will be negotiated annually. What could go wrong...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning mucker.
Hope you and yours are well.
Page 1884 of 4911
1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888 | 1889