13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[RealDave]

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

You said coal dominated in every state. That was not true.

 

[RealDave]

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

The EIA looked ahead to 2050. Coal falls further behind natural gas & renewables.

 

[Rustic]

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

The EIA looked ahead to 2050. Coal falls further behind natural gas & renewables.

Lol
Coal is vital to the northern plains, without fossil fuels The northern plains would be a waste land... fact

 

[Flopper]

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?

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

 

[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

The EIA looked ahead to 2050. Coal falls further behind natural gas & renewables.

But when one operationally defines "further", its laughable. I guess those on your side can take solace in that. I couldnt.....seeing that solar/ wind combined will still be less than 10% by mid- century. A joke.

Mental- case states like California are now seeing citizens paying 10% of their net income for energy.......renewable gheyness. Guess progressives like you think that's awesome. Wont fly in most other places.....they'll throw the fuckers out on their oysters as fast as a windmill goes down in a wind gust!

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

You know what....all these years of posting in here.....you are the most astute board member I've seen. So utterly fatalistic dude....pretty cool stuff seeing all the members in here such slaves to the matrix.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Most of the coal powered power plants China is building are in developing countries. The size of the plants and other reason make nuclear plants impractical. However, domestically, China is making great strides toward reducing greenhouse gases. They now have 45 nuclear power plants in operation and have 15 under construction. China has more solar energy capacity than any other country in the world, at a gargantuan 130 gigawatts. By 2040, they plan to increase there capacity by 300%. China has committed to eliminating internal combustion engines by 2040. By 2030, the sale of new petroleum powered vehicles will be illegal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Most of the coal powered power plants China is building are in developing countries. The size of the plants and other reason make nuclear plants impractical. However, domestically, China is making great strides toward reducing greenhouse gases. They now have 45 nuclear power plants in operation and have 15 under construction. China has more solar energy capacity than any other country in the world, at a gargantuan 130 gigawatts. By 2040, they plan to increase there capacity by 300%. China has committed to eliminating internal combustion engines by 2040. By 2030, the sale of new petroleum powered vehicles will be illegal.

How many new nuke plants should we build here?

 

[Flopper]

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?

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

You know what....all these years of posting in here.....you are the most astute board member I've seen. So utterly fatalistic dude....pretty cool stuff seeing all the members in here such slaves to the matrix.

Thanks for the complement, but I'm not a board member.

 

[Bush92]

Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

How large of a human population can the Earth support? The pop of the Earth has almost tripled since I was a kid (3 billion to about 8.5 billion).

That’s why wars are a good thing. Also famine and disease in Third World is a good thing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

Why would human population decrease? In the Jurassic era C02 was 5 times higher, plants and animals grew huge.


.

 

[skookerasbil]

China is indeed seeing significant growth in renewables....but only dummies spike the football!

China is also building 300 new coal plants between now and 2030!! >> China’s power industry calls for hundreds of new coal power plants by 2030

Paris Climate Treaty!!


I get that there is virtue in seeing the glass half full instead of half empty. But I mean.....c'mon now!!

 

[Muhammed]

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.

Is it warming or cooling? It depends.

At ~2:30 in the video, professor Bob Carter explains it in terms that even you laypersons should be able to comprehend.

 

[2aguy]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing. If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around. So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them. The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.

Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?

Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe..I always feel embarrassed for them, it's like who you trying to fool?

View attachment 265812

Then their top scientists get caught lying, as they did in the Climate gate scandal......and NASA keeps getting caught "adjusting" data...

 

[Flopper]

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?

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

Why would human population decrease? In the Jurassic era C02 was 5 times higher, plants and animals grew huge.


.

A number reasons. As world temperatures rise, there will be dramatic changes in weather patterns. Central America and Mexico and much of the southern US would become a desert, population would migrant north. A number of Caribbean islands would be abandoned. The US heartlands which is the source of much of the grain that feed hundreds of millions of people would move north toward Canada. Much of China and India's agriculture would disappear as Siberia becomes the major source of food for large parts of the world. Island nations such as Japan and New Zealand would loose much it's land mass. However, the biggest problem would be the coral reefs. Almost all of them would die creating a huge shortage of seafood. The result would be famine and wars.

BTW You can't compare the Jurassic period to the period of major climate we expect in the 21st century for a numbers reasons. First, we have far less animal and plants. Volcanic activity of earth is far less today. The Jurassic period lasted over 50 millions. The climatic change is expected to start causing major problems on earth between 50 and 100 years from now. It will continue until CO2 levels in the atmosphere drops. Since man is the primary cause for the rise, it will drop when man is no longer the cause. That will occur when there is a worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases or when the world's population is low enough that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

Why would human population decrease? In the Jurassic era C02 was 5 times higher, plants and animals grew huge.


.

A number reasons. As world temperatures rise, there will be dramatic changes in weather patterns. Central America and Mexico and much of the southern US would become a desert, population would migrant north. A number of Caribbean islands would be abandoned. The US heartlands which is the source of much of the grain that feed hundreds of millions of people would move north into Canada. Much of China and India's agriculture would disappear as Siberia becomes the major source of food for large parts of the world. Island nations such as Japan and New Zealand would loose much it's land mass. However, the biggest problem would be the coral reefs. Almost all of them would die creating a huge shortage of seafood. The result would be famine and wars.

BTW You can't compare the Jurassic period to the period of major climate we expect in the 21st century for a numbers reasons. First, we have far less animal and plant species. Volcanic activity of earth is far less today. The Jurassic period lasted over 50 millions. The climatic change is expected to start causing major problems on earth between 50 and 100 years from now. It will continue until CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop. Since man is the primary cause for the rise, it will drop when man is no longer the cause. That will occur when there is a worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases or when the world's population is low enough that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal.

Yeah but we'll all be in our boxes for scores of years by then and no matter....we cant do dick about it anyway!!

Any worldwide effort will depend on one thing only: costs.....as always. Which means renewables are out of the question.

 

[RealDave]

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing. If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around. So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them. The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.

Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?

Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe..I always feel embarrassed for them, it's like who you trying to fool?

View attachment 265812

Then their top scientists get caught lying, as they did in the Climate gate scandal......and NASA keeps getting caught "adjusting" data...

Your "climategate" was debunked years ago. There were no lies.

Now, you accuse NASA?

This is the part where you people's ignorance is the problem.

Data is often adjusted. For example a temperature station in an urban area might always read higher because of the concrete & roof tops. This would be adjusted.

The unemployment rate is seasonally ADJUSTED.

Some historical charts concerning money are adjusted for inflation.

You people are just too stupid to be alive.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.

Why would human population decrease? In the Jurassic era C02 was 5 times higher, plants and animals grew huge.


.

A number reasons. As world temperatures rise, there will be dramatic changes in weather patterns. Central America and Mexico and much of the southern US would become a desert, population would migrant north. A number of Caribbean islands would be abandoned. The US heartlands which is the source of much of the grain that feed hundreds of millions of people would move north into Canada. Much of China and India's agriculture would disappear as Siberia becomes the major source of food for large parts of the world. Island nations such as Japan and New Zealand would loose much it's land mass. However, the biggest problem would be the coral reefs. Almost all of them would die creating a huge shortage of seafood. The result would be famine and wars.

BTW You can't compare the Jurassic period to the period of major climate we expect in the 21st century for a numbers reasons. First, we have far less animal and plant species. Volcanic activity of earth is far less today. The Jurassic period lasted over 50 millions. The climatic change is expected to start causing major problems on earth between 50 and 100 years from now. It will continue until CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop. Since man is the primary cause for the rise, it will drop when man is no longer the cause. That will occur when there is a worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases or when the world's population is low enough that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal.

Yeah but we'll all be in our boxes for scores of years by then and no matter....we cant do dick about it anyway!!

Any worldwide effort will depend on one thing only: costs.....as always. Which means renewables are out of the question.

So you have no kids? Thank God.

 

[mamooth]

At ~2:30 in the video, professor Bob Carter explains it in terms that even you laypersons should be able to comprehend.

Then why don't you explain it in your own words, to show that you understand, and then we can discuss it.

Please proceed.

If you don't understand, and you're trying to hide that fact, just yell something like "But it's in the video!" as a way of evading.

 

[mamooth]

There is climate change, man has nothing to do with it.

Can you tell us how decreasing solar output causes warming?

What's that? Your cult masters didn't inform you that solar output has been decreasing since 1970? My, my. If they lied to you about something that basic, they must have lied to you about everything.

Are you going to ask them why they misled you? Of courses you won't. Good cultists don't question sacred cult dogma. You're going to run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots, thank them for lying to you, and beg for more lies.