13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Rustic]

I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter

How many trillions would we have to spend on windmills to ensure that precipitation patterns never ever change? How will we know when we've succeeded?

Indeed.....

But when did costs ever matter to a progressive?

Because the deficits shrink under Democrats & skyrocket under Republicans?

Lol
You obviously don’t understand economics

 

[RealDave]

then why did they need to come to a consensus???
just let the science speak for itself,,,,

the consensus is needed to insure that the science comes to the right conclusions.

The consensus says AGW is real.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.

No evidence for that. You are lying.

It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.

This is why we need to act now.

This is why we can;t do notrhing until the effects to become so great that we have no choice.

You put your own children's future as risk & you allow your ignorance to ignore it.

Quit beimng a bunch of Trumptards & get off your ignorant asses & do something to help future generations.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

higher levels CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temperatures

Proven science.

no it isnt,,,
theyve only come to a consensus because the science failed,,,

 

[Rustic]

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.

I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

You arent approaching it correctly. Scientists arent concerned because they hold some ideal for "exact temperature", and temperature will always vary across the globe. They are concerned because the climate is changing rapidly. They would express similar concern, were the climate colling rapidly due to human actions.

The "ideal temperature" line of thought is a red herring invented by paid climate change liars.

Lol
Go along with your plan to save the world, it does not require our participation

 

[RealDave]

It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.

No evidence for that. You are lying.

It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.

This is why we need to act now.

This is why we can;t do notrhing until the effects to become so great that we have no choice.

You put your own children's future as risk & you allow your ignorance to ignore it.

Quit beimng a bunch of Trumptards & get off your ignorant asses & do something to help future generations.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

higher levels CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temperatures

Proven science.

no it isnt,,,
theyve only come to a consensus because the science failed,,,

PROVEN SCIENCE

higher levels of CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.

You can stomp your feet, scream & pout all you want. It is science.

 

[RealDave]

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.

I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

You arent approaching it correctly. Scientists arent concerned because they hold some ideal for "exact temperature", and temperature will always vary across the globe. They are concerned because the climate is changing rapidly. They would express similar concern, were the climate colling rapidly due to human actions.

The "ideal temperature" line of thought is a red herring invented by paid climate change liars.

Lol
Go along with your plan to save the world, it does not require our participation

It actually does. But hety, those who refuse will be paying higher prices in order to use products that emit too much CO2.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.

No evidence for that. You are lying.

It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.

This is why we need to act now.

This is why we can;t do notrhing until the effects to become so great that we have no choice.

You put your own children's future as risk & you allow your ignorance to ignore it.

Quit beimng a bunch of Trumptards & get off your ignorant asses & do something to help future generations.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

higher levels CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temperatures

Proven science.

no it isnt,,,
theyve only come to a consensus because the science failed,,,

PROVEN SCIENCE

higher levels of CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.

You can stomp your feet, scream & pout all you want. It is science.

how do you know the earth doesnt want a higher number???

did you ask it???

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.

I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

You arent approaching it correctly. Scientists arent concerned because they hold some ideal for "exact temperature", and temperature will always vary across the globe. They are concerned because the climate is changing rapidly. They would express similar concern, were the climate colling rapidly due to human actions.

The "ideal temperature" line of thought is a red herring invented by paid climate change liars.

Lol
Go along with your plan to save the world, it does not require our participation

It actually does. But hety, those who refuse will be paying higher prices in order to use products that emit too much CO2.

But hety, those who refuse will be paying higher prices in order to use products that emit too much CO2.

Carbon taxes!!!!

Excellent idea. The Dem platform in 2020 needs to be higher income taxes, carbon taxes and open borders.

Git 'er done!!

 

[Cellblock2429]

Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.

Well, we know what Republicans think of science.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

/——-/ Out of 500,00 of scientists in the US, they surveyed 2,533. Fake poll.
Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.
My source: How many scientists are there in the US


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[RealDave]

Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.

Well, we know what Republicans think of science.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

/——-/ Out of 500,00 of scientists in the US, they surveyed 2,533. Fake poll.
Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.
My source: How many scientists are there in the US


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You counting Dentists & Doctors & Chemists? Don't you think it should be climtologists?

 

[skookerasbil]

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

Actually s0n, most folks not hysterical like you about this. In fact, very few are. Your rants are embraced by a very small number if people.

Are you feeling like a dick yet? If not, you should be.

Meatheads like you have been hysterical over climate change for two decades now. Fortunately, the rest of the world worries waaaaay more about many other genuine concerns in life.

So you can scream from now until the cows come home.....but there's no evidence anybody else is caring!

Dont be such a dick and get some real responsibilities in life. This way you won't get hysterical about stupid stuff.


No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study

Actually, we are in the majority.

Only Trumptards are so stupid so as to ignore it.

A majority of banner gazers!

If the consensus science is correct, why zero climate change action?

It's because the public is unimpressed. Highly unimpressed.

Nobody is calling their representative demanding climate change action.....only those who tend to the hysterical are all ocd about 3mm sea rise. I mean, c'mon now.....the perpetually miserable who need more to do in life sit home and angst about bleaching coral.....

So you don;t think there is anything being done to fight AGW? Are ypu blind or just stupid.

The Paris Accord for one.

Several states have told Trump to fuck off & doing their own actions.

Thinking people have taken actions.

Dumbass people like you, no so much.

But if my side is such a vast minority with an irrelevant opinion, why are you so flipping angry?

I'll tell you why.....because your side is l0siNg. In epiC fashion btw.

And the Paris Accord is dead you dummy...........all of those climate accords are symbolic jokes only! They never come within a billion miles of the stated objectives.....duh.

You progressives are always pissed because you're all so certain you have the only answers......BUT NOBODY IS GIVING A SHIT!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Even the st00pidest of the st00pid realize that spending bizzilions of $ to fight climate change while China opens new coal plants every month is beyond retarded.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.

No evidence for that. You are lying.

It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.

This is why we need to act now.

This is why we can;t do notrhing until the effects to become so great that we have no choice.

You put your own children's future as risk & you allow your ignorance to ignore it.

Quit beimng a bunch of Trumptards & get off your ignorant asses & do something to help future generations.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

higher levels CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temperatures

Proven science.

no it isnt,,,
theyve only come to a consensus because the science failed,,,

PROVEN SCIENCE

higher levels of CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.

You can stomp your feet, scream & pout all you want. It is science.

But it only matters how many people care.

Otherwise, it's a big old billboard in the middle of the countryside that folks can honk at as the drive on by.

If the science doesnt transcend beyond it's own field, it stands like a statue in a playground. People can admire it if they want.

 

[skookerasbil]

EIA Report Says Coal Still King on State-by-State Basis

 

[skookerasbil]

Progressives take bows all day about "the science"!!

We're all real proud of them.

But to conservatives, THIS is cause for serious bowing shit!!>>>

https://renewablesnow.com/news/rene...-fuels-to-rule-till-2040-eia-projects-583589/

 

[RealDave]

EIA Report Says Coal Still King on State-by-State Basis

Your article said only 18 states relied more on coal.

 

[RealDave]

Even the st00pidest of the st00pid realize that spending bizzilions of $ to fight climate change while China opens new coal plants every month is beyond retarded.

China still needs to grow their electric grid. The coal plants are modern, cleaner plants. They are working toreduce emsions aside from their needed growth.

Are you saying no developing countries can expand their grid?

 

[RealDave]

I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.

Lol
you watch too many movies made by child molesting Hollywood types, political correctness has made you fucking retarded

Child molesting types run for Senate in Alabama & you & your party supports them.

Lol
Michelle Obama called Weinstein a ‘good friend,’ was silent for days on allegations

People call Trump their friend.

 

[skookerasbil]

Idealistic philosophy is ghey

Coal, particularly worldwide, will DOMINATE for many, many decades according to Obama's and Trumps recent EIA Reports!

Think I'll take their research over Dave's opinion

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody wants renewables....thats why solar power still provides well under 2% of our electricity......

https://renewablesnow.com/news/rene...-fuels-to-rule-till-2040-eia-projects-583589/

@www.whosnotwinning.com