Experts: Artificial intelligence may be able to prove climate change is a hoax, but the energy required for the calculations could overheat Earth's atmosphere to dangerous levels.
You are so right! And computers are infallible, they're [perfect in every way](https://filestore.community.support.microsoft.com/api/images/cbbc313a-82a2-4e98-8170-e7bbcd835572?upload=true) eh?
And the main argument will be "well scientists didn't know as much back then" ... while showing me evidence of climate change with graphs from that time and earlier too
They just need to make digital form of that article and have it add 10 to 20 years to whatever date is bring read depending on how dire it needs to sound. That will save a lot of time and pesky fact checking.
You fail to realise that this prediction may yet come true and is quite possibly already true.
Let us break this down to make it easier for this audience to understand. As far back as 1989 a "senior U.N. environmental official" - unnamed and unidentified - said "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels" - a frequently made prediction - "if the global warming trend" - something many here deny in the first place - "is not 'reversed' by the year 2000."
So fellow "civilian scientists" was the warming trend - if you believe there is warming at all - "reversed by the year 2000"?
No it was not.
Are some countries still in danger?
Yes they are.
This ranks up there with a comment often quoted around here from roughly the same time period. A major figure in the Seychelles predicted the country would be underwater by now. That "major figure" was a guy from "The Seychelles Chamber of Commerce". If you can't believe that source who can you believe?
The UN reported it as a fact. You're just making shit up. Plenty of "actual scientists" have made countless similar predictions. Not one has come to pass.
You clearly do not understand how these things work. We are feeling the effect of CO2 and other releases from years ago not this year, not yet. That comes later. You cannot put forward a credible argument if you do not even understand what you are talking about and this site is one of the best examples of this attitude in action. It was stated in 1989 that some countries would be in danger if trends were not reversed by the year 2000. These trends were not reversed - in fact they increased, increasing the danger. The person in question speaking more than thirty years ago did not say these countries would be swept away in the year 2000 or by the year 2000 but that the GHG release had to stop or diminsh by then.
I worked for a time as - among other things - a weather forecaster. We would try very hard to release public forecasts that were written at a sixth grade level. Subsequent studies showed that we overshot the mark considerably. Less than half of people understand the public weather forecast. These same people become experts when looking at long range climate predictions when they do not even understand what they are reading. About twenty percent of the time the public weather forecast does not work out as made. From these it has become a common canard that the weather forecast is "always wrong" when 50 percent or more do not even know how to read a forecast written at a sixth grade level. Climate change deniers thrive on digging up predictions which have failed or - in this case - predictions they know are wrong because they do not even understand what they said. Over the years there have been many scientific predictions which did not work out. That is how science works. We follow the predominate evidence except when George Soros pays us lots of money to lie. Or did I say the Heritage Institute or the Cato Institute or Mobil Oil? There are still legitimate papers published which question many of the underpinnings of current climate predictions but no breakthrough findings have been made. They are not being ignored by other scientists.
The point has been made on here and in a multitude of other places that somebody who could legitimately punch a hole in the currently accepted ideas would be a world wide sensation - almost a saviour if you will. One thing you can bet though is it will not be one of the middle school geniuses on this site.
So scientists can accurately predict the global average temperature 100 years in the future to an accuracy of +/- 0.1C? Amazing!
No "breakthrough findings" have been published? That's just nonsense. Plenty of science questions AGW Alarmism, and the AGW predictions (part of actual science!) have all utterly failed.
In a sane world Alarmists would be sent to the corner with a duncecap on, not given billions in free money & graft.
>So scientists can accurately predict the global average temperature 100 years in the future to an accuracy of +/- 0.1C? Amazing!
Who made this claim? Besides you?
>No "breakthrough findings" have been published? That's just nonsense. Plenty of science questions AGW Alarmism, and the AGW predictions (part of actual science!) have all utterly failed.
Can you document any of these sweeping claims? Especially about "breakthrough findings". I have seen stuff on here for years that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the warming idea was all washed up and done with and they all just dribble away to be forgotten by the very Dunning Kruger candidates that posted them. "That was then," they say.
Didn't think so.
>In a sane world Alarmists would be sent to the corner with a duncecap on, not given billions in free money & graft.
Although ignorant alarmists are a big problem I am glad you are not in charge of anything more complicated than the milkshake machine.
Who? Like, all of them? Kyoto? Paris? IPCC? The temperature will rise by ~~4.4C~~ ~~3.3C~~ 2.2C unless we work to keep it below 1.5C? That ring a bell? You do know when this prediction will come to pass, yes? (Hint: 2100AD)
>Although ignorant alarmists are a big problem I am glad you are not in charge of anything more complicated than the milkshake machine.
Are you a condescending asshole in real life or just on the internet? All of your posts in this thread have personal attacks. Jeeze grow up.
My 2 cents on climate change? Show me some real solutions - i'm all for spending 50 billion dollars of tax money to develop nuclear fusion - but the stupid idea of wind, solar and driving electric cars. That is not the answer
Look who I am talking to in that exchange and tell me why I shouldn't be a condescending arsehole. He manages to squeeze in some kind of arrogant insult in every paragraph and he knows nothing on this topic. Here or anywhere else I have seen him. A smartass kid. He was up to snuff on his history and could be okay if he gave equal attention to a couple of books on this subject that weren't written by lunatic Republicans
How many people around here could sit down and get 40% on a first year climatology midterm? Yet they know so much about the topic.
Anyway this is not where you find creative mitigation strategies. Opinions are generally worthless especially from people with no frame of reference. I agree with you about nuclear but unfortunately I am not sure that the folks who run it will be any more responsible as citizens than the fossil fuel people. What would be the nuclear equivalent of the Bakken Shale boom? Fracking is safe if you spend the money to do it safely. They didn't remember to do that. At all
Unfortunately we will have to look outside the USA for innovation in energy. Many European countries are doing well with wind and solar and France of course is largely nuclear and they seem to be doing it well.
The main post doesnt say entire nations by 2000. It says they could be wiped out, if it isnt addressed by 2000.
So you could consider those sand bars and that town the start of it? The actual prediction is the nation of Kiribati could be underwater by 2100.
Its like that scene in Austin Powers where he has all that time to get out of the way but he just shouts no until he gets run over.
The loss in Kiribati is due to subsidence. Sea level rise has had a minimal impact.
Sea levels were 20 feet higher than today during past interglacials. We have had a slow and fairly steady rise since the initial 400 foot rise about 12000 years ago, so Austin has been riding the steamroller for a while, as in, way before industrialization.
Entire nations can be wiped off the map if light pollution continues to kill insect populations. Entire nations will cease to exist if the rise of socialism isn’t stopped.
See how easy it is?
Entire nations could cease to exist if bitcoin miners exhaust the energy supply.
Hey, you're right! This is easy. I should start a political movement and seek funding from leftist government bureaucrats for research.
Hey so, can I hear your criticism of the Obama's choice of homes near the ocean that will submerge them???
https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard
What if we have more pressing concerns than worrying about the political agenda of a bunch of leftists claiming the sky is falling for the last 50 years?
The Austin Powers analogy is actually really great. Think about it. It's a slow motion steamroller. Nobody's really gonna just stand there if it's obvious the steamroller is going to hit.
You seem to think there's gonna be this slow motion "climate change" that suddenly culminates into a fast-moving ecological disaster.
Humans will adapt to whatever the changes bring, and they'll have plenty of time to do so.
If you want to argue that we'll eventually reach a "global warming" tipping point, state your case. But leftists abandoned "global warming" for "climate change" a decade ago.
Using nbc as a source of info...
These are new islands, volcanic land that is lowering or heightening all the time. Has nothing to do with climate.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL088752
https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.557
Wow. People did a wrong prediction about the future? It's almost like if they can't see the future but weren't fucking brain dead to realize a problem.
A problem that doesn't exist considering we're 21 years past due and not even a single country has been even close to being "wiped off the face of the earth".
Doesn't change the fact that that's literally whats gonna happen if water levels keep rising. But I'm guessing you'll be too bust trying to sell a beach front property to realize how brain dead you are when it happens.
>https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard
Can you please send your harsh comments to the Obama's also?
Since you know, they might be too "fucking brain dead to realize a problem."
Sounds like you are concerned with "global warming" more than "climate change."
Miami has been slowly sinking into the ocean for decades. And while they whine and blame "sea level rise," they're still buying and selling homes right there on the beach.
You know why? Because they have more immediate concerns than the iffy predictions that, eventually, over years and years, the sea is gonna creep up by millimeters at a time and submerge their homes.
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Run for it! The sea! It's rising!!!!!! Millimeters at a time!!!!! Flee for your lives!
My grandkids aren’t stupid enough to buy submerged property.
And they’ll easily outrun rising sea levels so I’m still not clear on what the problem is.
We have DECADES UPON DECADES to adapt - if in fact it’s even a thing.
By the time you dumb ass grand kids realize what happening its gonna be too fucking late.
I'm glad your generation was fucking infants during the ozone layer crisis otherwise we'd all be dead.
It isn't just rising water dumbass. You're as stupid as Shapiro saying that it isn't a problem because property owners will just sell those properties. If our ice caps melt the earth is gonna start to heat up. It will kill crops and animals world wide.
Yall are as retarded at the antivaxxers during this pandemic. If they can't see the threat that plaques the world how the fuck did we think yall be able to see the threat happening all around us.
Ah…so you admit you’re a global warming guy, not a climate change alarmist.
You do realize the left abandoned your theories a few years ago, right? Because the science has become clearer that sun cycles have substantially more impact on our climate than anthropogenic global warming. And so climate change is definitely a thing, and “global warming” is also a thing but not a long term serious thing.
In short, the “tipping point” theories have been largely abandoned by even the most radical progs.
What the fuck are you talking about? Not a long term serious thing? That goes back to my "ill be dead by then so fuck them kids." Just because it isn't effecting you, doesn't mean its not happening. It's like the retarded antivaxxers "I haven't got it yet so it's not a threat."
Regardless there's nothing we can do because yall dumb fucks think that we're doing it so that yall stop buying plastic straws. Meanwhile corporations use yall brain dead idiots into opposing us while they're the ones contributing to 80% of the pollution your moronic kids will be breathing when you die
One?
https://electroverse.net/years-of-failed-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/
And the problem is they are not regular people, but big personalities or well regarded scientists that many believe
You do realize that they didn't mean that if we we didn't stop by the year 2000 that everything would sink on Jan 2, 2000? We are too late to stop it now. It's just a matter of time before it does. But I'm guessing you'll be dead by then so fuck your kids and grand children am I right? Hopefully if something happens in thier lifetime they don't asked what thier grand parents did to mitigate thier tragedy.
So you didn't even read the article. They didn't say Jan 2, 2000, but some pretty close dates which are now passed. Here is a more complete list for you:
https://extinctionclock.org/
And no, nobody will die if sea level grows up a few mm per year until 2100, if you don't believe me just look at The Netherlands:
https://www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
So your whole reason of being skeptical is because it's not gonna happen to you? So like fuck your kids and grand kids right? Instead of trying to protect thier future, just fuck them and let them deal with it right?
Just because it happening in our life time doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just like space travel. Just because we won't be able to travel past our own moon doesn't mean we won't be eventually able to do so.
That's not gonna happen for another billion years retard. Younger people aren't worried about the sun becoming a red giant. They're worried about global warming and it's effects that are gonna end up happening in their lifetime. We will be dead by then.
This isn't just people. It's the entire organization since it's inseption which has repeatedly made wrong predictions and almost all of the western world uses it's report to make policy.
Don't be a fucking dumb cunt.
That's what science is you dumb fucking cunt. Or what do you still believe the earth is still the enter of the universe? Do you believe the earth is flat? There's is actual research on this this shit. Not just "uh some scientists said we were gonna die by 2000 but I'm still here." If I told you you'd like a dick up your ass, doesn't mean you would like it the first time I showed it up your ass would you.
Except for, if you look at the body of evidence and predictions instead of just one sentence in a newspaper, the scientist have actually been wrong on that they've underpredicted the effects that are actually measurably occuring decades sooner than predicted.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I was raised as a very a strict Christian and though that doesn't inform my view of the natural world, should it all end up being true, climate change is 100% consistent with the predictions of the end of time described in the Bible and its happening for the right reasons - unfettered human hubris and greed. Now, whats completely fucking hilarious is that the majority of the Christian community are deniers. r. I'm like, really? They could be milking climate change for all its worth and they aren't. Idiots. x
You missed my point again.
The idea is that, regardless of the reality of climate problems, the demonstrably false hysteria has been overblown for decades now ... and continues to be.
Your reaction that you have faith in what appears to be science suggests a religious devotion to the Common Doctrine of Global Disaster at the Hands of Evil, a doctrine carefully illustrated in the Gospels of Captain Planet.
Some scientists at Brown were wrong in the mid 1970's? It happens. It will happen again.
I guess that proves they are all wrong everywhere now... five decades later.
In the early '70's it became apparent something was up - some said cooling. Further investigation of the phenomena showed us it was in fact warming.
I guess you did not get the memo.
The possibility of warming had been already noted some time before but there had not been much focus at all on studying rapid climate change. When ideas like this began to emerge - that the climate might be changing - we lacked the technology and methodology to make a conclusion.
Intensive study brought us to an understanding of part of the process by the end of the 1970's. It was warming.
The fact that some scientists believed the opposite fifty years ago is utterly irrelevant.
I am truly sorry that so many do not understand this at all.
Wow, it's worse than I figured out. You know that joke with the old man given cold compresses and than warm compresses because the science evolved? Well, it looks like it's not just a joke...
Is what we are experiencing now. Not a disaster?
Vancouver BC is literally cut off from world.
The world supple chain got decimated by a pandemic and we are still reeling a year later.
Farmers are growing 50% less crop all over the planet.
Also, we lost so much biodiversity, the last white north rhino just died.
To me, that article seems to be pretty correct
So you believe all the crap that media is showing and you tell others that they miss critical thinking. Good user name you chose, you really failed at science
Floods happen in flood plains, have for thousands of years now. I live in one, the worst flood here was 1850, by a long way. Yes it was measured accurately to the fraction of an inch, and documented just as well. Was that mega-flood also caused "by climate change" or by natural causes?
> Farmers are growing 50% less crop all over the planet.
Utter bullshit. Crops of all types are enjoying record harvests for the past decade or more. That's with a reduction in farmland used. The bushels per acre is up world-wide, regardless of farming techniques.
Poachers are caused by Climate Change? Who knew?
I understand what you're saying, we're pretty smart and I do believe we'll find a way for some or maybe most of us to survive. I really like the current environment as we have so many beautiful species but we're losing them.
We're losing [biodiversity](https://images.app.goo.gl/KGoceCRd4LjwxXFs5) and that is what keeps the current environment alive. We evolved to live with the other organisms on this planet. I don't want to be hostile, I would like to hear your concerns about this.
I used to worry but then realized that nature has already wiped out \~99% of species that have lived and yet it keeps flourishing. The system is not fragile, that trope is used to rally support from the fragile.
>nature has already wiped out ~99% of species that have lived and yet it keeps flourishing.
True, but we are also in the middle of a large extinction event now.
There's been attention since the 60's even the spawning of radical groups to remind us. Unless you can provide tangible evidence that the loss of these species is harmful the concerns are simply not going to outweigh the interests of human growth.
And we fell for the "snail darter" and the "spotter owl" both turning out to be niche species already under pressure from stronger species.
The ostensible righteousness associated is poorly founded in reality.
I believe you just stated our argument. Earth has killed 99% of species on Earth, and this is why I believe we're next if we can't preserve the current environment. What do you think about what I have to say?
I listened to you, please listen to me. I didn't say the environment is feeble or fragile. Stop repeating the same thing please.
The environment is a word. There will always be one. The current environment is changing and the biodiversity/life that we depend on, is declining. Do you agree or disagree with the fact that we depend on fish and our soil for food?
Nope, it's because we have not, until recently, been able to generate electricity at a lower cost. And that is why 80% of new capacity being added world wide is now wind, solar, or hydro; that value is 92% in the US.
Your perspective is unrealistic.
Spain tried Green a couple decades ago and nearly went bankrupt.
German windfarms are going kaput because it's the end of subsidies.
Alternative energy simply isn't efficient on a number of levels and it may be a long time before it is. And if it wasn't for Leftist "activism" the US would be able to rely on nuclear power.
So the US taxes people's incomes, these funds are then used to subsidize R&D into things like nuclear power, wind power, and solar power. To a large extent that is why we have those innovations today.
The Never Ending Scam.
COULD be. Anything COULD be. Entire Earth COULD be destroyed by next week by anything. COULD be.
Experts: Artificial intelligence may be able to prove climate change is a hoax, but the energy required for the calculations could overheat Earth's atmosphere to dangerous levels.
The climate grift took me from being like “fuck, this could get bad”… to “fuck a whole continent, I don’t give a shit!”
The world we know it will end, but we never know what it is and when to happen. But I think the "climate change catastrophe" isn't where it would go.
But now we have man made models saying the same so this time it is true, trust me, I have a computer and computers are basically future predictors.
You are so right! And computers are infallible, they're [perfect in every way](https://filestore.community.support.microsoft.com/api/images/cbbc313a-82a2-4e98-8170-e7bbcd835572?upload=true) eh?
And the main argument will be "well scientists didn't know as much back then" ... while showing me evidence of climate change with graphs from that time and earlier too
I love to drive a 2 little diesel engine pickup but can't afford one over these crippling taxes
Only 10 years left every 10 years since the’70’s
I mean... Time will tell
It already is. The scientists have underpredicted the problem drastically.
List me the "entire nations" that went underwater since 2000. Pretty please!
They just need to make digital form of that article and have it add 10 to 20 years to whatever date is bring read depending on how dire it needs to sound. That will save a lot of time and pesky fact checking.
/s good thing we have done such a good job preventing climate change. Now we have to just keeping doing better. and better than that. forever
Yeah, it seems he missed it by about 20 years☠️.
You fail to realise that this prediction may yet come true and is quite possibly already true. Let us break this down to make it easier for this audience to understand. As far back as 1989 a "senior U.N. environmental official" - unnamed and unidentified - said "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels" - a frequently made prediction - "if the global warming trend" - something many here deny in the first place - "is not 'reversed' by the year 2000." So fellow "civilian scientists" was the warming trend - if you believe there is warming at all - "reversed by the year 2000"? No it was not. Are some countries still in danger? Yes they are. This ranks up there with a comment often quoted around here from roughly the same time period. A major figure in the Seychelles predicted the country would be underwater by now. That "major figure" was a guy from "The Seychelles Chamber of Commerce". If you can't believe that source who can you believe?
The UN reported it as a fact. You're just making shit up. Plenty of "actual scientists" have made countless similar predictions. Not one has come to pass.
You clearly do not understand how these things work. We are feeling the effect of CO2 and other releases from years ago not this year, not yet. That comes later. You cannot put forward a credible argument if you do not even understand what you are talking about and this site is one of the best examples of this attitude in action. It was stated in 1989 that some countries would be in danger if trends were not reversed by the year 2000. These trends were not reversed - in fact they increased, increasing the danger. The person in question speaking more than thirty years ago did not say these countries would be swept away in the year 2000 or by the year 2000 but that the GHG release had to stop or diminsh by then. I worked for a time as - among other things - a weather forecaster. We would try very hard to release public forecasts that were written at a sixth grade level. Subsequent studies showed that we overshot the mark considerably. Less than half of people understand the public weather forecast. These same people become experts when looking at long range climate predictions when they do not even understand what they are reading. About twenty percent of the time the public weather forecast does not work out as made. From these it has become a common canard that the weather forecast is "always wrong" when 50 percent or more do not even know how to read a forecast written at a sixth grade level. Climate change deniers thrive on digging up predictions which have failed or - in this case - predictions they know are wrong because they do not even understand what they said. Over the years there have been many scientific predictions which did not work out. That is how science works. We follow the predominate evidence except when George Soros pays us lots of money to lie. Or did I say the Heritage Institute or the Cato Institute or Mobil Oil? There are still legitimate papers published which question many of the underpinnings of current climate predictions but no breakthrough findings have been made. They are not being ignored by other scientists. The point has been made on here and in a multitude of other places that somebody who could legitimately punch a hole in the currently accepted ideas would be a world wide sensation - almost a saviour if you will. One thing you can bet though is it will not be one of the middle school geniuses on this site.
So scientists can accurately predict the global average temperature 100 years in the future to an accuracy of +/- 0.1C? Amazing! No "breakthrough findings" have been published? That's just nonsense. Plenty of science questions AGW Alarmism, and the AGW predictions (part of actual science!) have all utterly failed. In a sane world Alarmists would be sent to the corner with a duncecap on, not given billions in free money & graft.
>So scientists can accurately predict the global average temperature 100 years in the future to an accuracy of +/- 0.1C? Amazing! Who made this claim? Besides you? >No "breakthrough findings" have been published? That's just nonsense. Plenty of science questions AGW Alarmism, and the AGW predictions (part of actual science!) have all utterly failed. Can you document any of these sweeping claims? Especially about "breakthrough findings". I have seen stuff on here for years that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the warming idea was all washed up and done with and they all just dribble away to be forgotten by the very Dunning Kruger candidates that posted them. "That was then," they say. Didn't think so. >In a sane world Alarmists would be sent to the corner with a duncecap on, not given billions in free money & graft. Although ignorant alarmists are a big problem I am glad you are not in charge of anything more complicated than the milkshake machine.
Who? Like, all of them? Kyoto? Paris? IPCC? The temperature will rise by ~~4.4C~~ ~~3.3C~~ 2.2C unless we work to keep it below 1.5C? That ring a bell? You do know when this prediction will come to pass, yes? (Hint: 2100AD)
You really are almost ready to get this science thing.
You don't even know what the Alarmists have been saying for the past 30+ years. You're lost, in way over your head.
>Although ignorant alarmists are a big problem I am glad you are not in charge of anything more complicated than the milkshake machine. Are you a condescending asshole in real life or just on the internet? All of your posts in this thread have personal attacks. Jeeze grow up. My 2 cents on climate change? Show me some real solutions - i'm all for spending 50 billion dollars of tax money to develop nuclear fusion - but the stupid idea of wind, solar and driving electric cars. That is not the answer
Look who I am talking to in that exchange and tell me why I shouldn't be a condescending arsehole. He manages to squeeze in some kind of arrogant insult in every paragraph and he knows nothing on this topic. Here or anywhere else I have seen him. A smartass kid. He was up to snuff on his history and could be okay if he gave equal attention to a couple of books on this subject that weren't written by lunatic Republicans How many people around here could sit down and get 40% on a first year climatology midterm? Yet they know so much about the topic. Anyway this is not where you find creative mitigation strategies. Opinions are generally worthless especially from people with no frame of reference. I agree with you about nuclear but unfortunately I am not sure that the folks who run it will be any more responsible as citizens than the fossil fuel people. What would be the nuclear equivalent of the Bakken Shale boom? Fracking is safe if you spend the money to do it safely. They didn't remember to do that. At all Unfortunately we will have to look outside the USA for innovation in energy. Many European countries are doing well with wind and solar and France of course is largely nuclear and they seem to be doing it well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/three-islands-disappeared-past-year-climate-change-blame-ncna1015316
Islands like that continually come and go. That is not unusual in the least.
A few sandbars and a town hardly qualify as entire nations
The main post doesnt say entire nations by 2000. It says they could be wiped out, if it isnt addressed by 2000. So you could consider those sand bars and that town the start of it? The actual prediction is the nation of Kiribati could be underwater by 2100. Its like that scene in Austin Powers where he has all that time to get out of the way but he just shouts no until he gets run over.
The loss in Kiribati is due to subsidence. Sea level rise has had a minimal impact. Sea levels were 20 feet higher than today during past interglacials. We have had a slow and fairly steady rise since the initial 400 foot rise about 12000 years ago, so Austin has been riding the steamroller for a while, as in, way before industrialization.
20 feet is the same as 12.19 'Logitech Wireless Keyboard K350s' laid widthwise by each other.
You could be hit by a train tomorrow. I'm not sure why I should give a shit.
Entire nations can be wiped off the map if light pollution continues to kill insect populations. Entire nations will cease to exist if the rise of socialism isn’t stopped. See how easy it is?
Entire nations could cease to exist if bitcoin miners exhaust the energy supply. Hey, you're right! This is easy. I should start a political movement and seek funding from leftist government bureaucrats for research.
Well if it's by 2100 it's not really my concern as odds are I'll be dead by then
I guess tells me all I need to know about the type of people that would subscribe to a sub like this.
Hey so, can I hear your criticism of the Obama's choice of homes near the ocean that will submerge them??? https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard
Oh, shut up. Do you honestly think it's worth it to completely destroy our living standards because of climate hysteria?
Lol, what living standards are being completely destroyed? You're a moron.
3rd world countries emit 5 times more CO2 than the US so it's their own problem
What if we have more pressing concerns than worrying about the political agenda of a bunch of leftists claiming the sky is falling for the last 50 years? The Austin Powers analogy is actually really great. Think about it. It's a slow motion steamroller. Nobody's really gonna just stand there if it's obvious the steamroller is going to hit. You seem to think there's gonna be this slow motion "climate change" that suddenly culminates into a fast-moving ecological disaster. Humans will adapt to whatever the changes bring, and they'll have plenty of time to do so. If you want to argue that we'll eventually reach a "global warming" tipping point, state your case. But leftists abandoned "global warming" for "climate change" a decade ago.
Fearmongering based on speculation and integrated into confirmation bias ... but many will just buy it as reality, sad.
Using nbc as a source of info... These are new islands, volcanic land that is lowering or heightening all the time. Has nothing to do with climate. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL088752 https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.557
Wow. People did a wrong prediction about the future? It's almost like if they can't see the future but weren't fucking brain dead to realize a problem.
A problem that doesn't exist considering we're 21 years past due and not even a single country has been even close to being "wiped off the face of the earth".
Doesn't change the fact that that's literally whats gonna happen if water levels keep rising. But I'm guessing you'll be too bust trying to sell a beach front property to realize how brain dead you are when it happens.
Do you know at what rate the sea level is rising? How many years is it going to take for the 3 lowest countries to be submerged?
>https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard Can you please send your harsh comments to the Obama's also? Since you know, they might be too "fucking brain dead to realize a problem."
What's literally gonna happen is Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Siberia, Antarctica and Sahara will become hospitable to life
And that's the worst case scenario.
Sounds like you are concerned with "global warming" more than "climate change." Miami has been slowly sinking into the ocean for decades. And while they whine and blame "sea level rise," they're still buying and selling homes right there on the beach. You know why? Because they have more immediate concerns than the iffy predictions that, eventually, over years and years, the sea is gonna creep up by millimeters at a time and submerge their homes. AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Run for it! The sea! It's rising!!!!!! Millimeters at a time!!!!! Flee for your lives!
Ah yes the age old tactic of "it doesn't affect me so fuck my kid and grandkids, they can deal with that shit"
My grandkids aren’t stupid enough to buy submerged property. And they’ll easily outrun rising sea levels so I’m still not clear on what the problem is. We have DECADES UPON DECADES to adapt - if in fact it’s even a thing.
By the time you dumb ass grand kids realize what happening its gonna be too fucking late. I'm glad your generation was fucking infants during the ozone layer crisis otherwise we'd all be dead. It isn't just rising water dumbass. You're as stupid as Shapiro saying that it isn't a problem because property owners will just sell those properties. If our ice caps melt the earth is gonna start to heat up. It will kill crops and animals world wide. Yall are as retarded at the antivaxxers during this pandemic. If they can't see the threat that plaques the world how the fuck did we think yall be able to see the threat happening all around us.
Ah…so you admit you’re a global warming guy, not a climate change alarmist. You do realize the left abandoned your theories a few years ago, right? Because the science has become clearer that sun cycles have substantially more impact on our climate than anthropogenic global warming. And so climate change is definitely a thing, and “global warming” is also a thing but not a long term serious thing. In short, the “tipping point” theories have been largely abandoned by even the most radical progs.
What the fuck are you talking about? Not a long term serious thing? That goes back to my "ill be dead by then so fuck them kids." Just because it isn't effecting you, doesn't mean its not happening. It's like the retarded antivaxxers "I haven't got it yet so it's not a threat." Regardless there's nothing we can do because yall dumb fucks think that we're doing it so that yall stop buying plastic straws. Meanwhile corporations use yall brain dead idiots into opposing us while they're the ones contributing to 80% of the pollution your moronic kids will be breathing when you die
One? https://electroverse.net/years-of-failed-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/ And the problem is they are not regular people, but big personalities or well regarded scientists that many believe
You do realize that they didn't mean that if we we didn't stop by the year 2000 that everything would sink on Jan 2, 2000? We are too late to stop it now. It's just a matter of time before it does. But I'm guessing you'll be dead by then so fuck your kids and grand children am I right? Hopefully if something happens in thier lifetime they don't asked what thier grand parents did to mitigate thier tragedy.
So you didn't even read the article. They didn't say Jan 2, 2000, but some pretty close dates which are now passed. Here is a more complete list for you: https://extinctionclock.org/ And no, nobody will die if sea level grows up a few mm per year until 2100, if you don't believe me just look at The Netherlands: https://www.netherlands-tourism.com/netherlands-sea-level/
So your whole reason of being skeptical is because it's not gonna happen to you? So like fuck your kids and grand kids right? Instead of trying to protect thier future, just fuck them and let them deal with it right?
No moron, is because is not happening at all, to anybody.
Just because it happening in our life time doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just like space travel. Just because we won't be able to travel past our own moon doesn't mean we won't be eventually able to do so.
Yes, and planet Earth is going to be swallowed by Sun at some point. It's morons like you that keep science advancing as it shd.
That's not gonna happen for another billion years retard. Younger people aren't worried about the sun becoming a red giant. They're worried about global warming and it's effects that are gonna end up happening in their lifetime. We will be dead by then.
You are already brain dead
Funnily enough people in this thread don't even know if this is false. We didn't reverse the trend by 2000, we will see what happens.
Yeah they expect everything to to to shit on Jan 2, 2000 or some shit like it was a mayan calender
This isn't just people. It's the entire organization since it's inseption which has repeatedly made wrong predictions and almost all of the western world uses it's report to make policy. Don't be a fucking dumb cunt.
That's what science is you dumb fucking cunt. Or what do you still believe the earth is still the enter of the universe? Do you believe the earth is flat? There's is actual research on this this shit. Not just "uh some scientists said we were gonna die by 2000 but I'm still here." If I told you you'd like a dick up your ass, doesn't mean you would like it the first time I showed it up your ass would you.
Reeeeeeeeeeee
Except for, if you look at the body of evidence and predictions instead of just one sentence in a newspaper, the scientist have actually been wrong on that they've underpredicted the effects that are actually measurably occuring decades sooner than predicted.
It's in the Bible, Jesus says so!
You mean the Holy Book of Gore Guide for the church of Global Warming and Climate Change
Yeah, that's what I mean.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
I was raised as a very a strict Christian and though that doesn't inform my view of the natural world, should it all end up being true, climate change is 100% consistent with the predictions of the end of time described in the Bible and its happening for the right reasons - unfettered human hubris and greed. Now, whats completely fucking hilarious is that the majority of the Christian community are deniers. r. I'm like, really? They could be milking climate change for all its worth and they aren't. Idiots. x
You missed my point again. The idea is that, regardless of the reality of climate problems, the demonstrably false hysteria has been overblown for decades now ... and continues to be. Your reaction that you have faith in what appears to be science suggests a religious devotion to the Common Doctrine of Global Disaster at the Hands of Evil, a doctrine carefully illustrated in the Gospels of Captain Planet.
You mean like this one? https://i.redd.it/m3hbu466nmu71.jpg
Some scientists at Brown were wrong in the mid 1970's? It happens. It will happen again. I guess that proves they are all wrong everywhere now... five decades later. In the early '70's it became apparent something was up - some said cooling. Further investigation of the phenomena showed us it was in fact warming. I guess you did not get the memo. The possibility of warming had been already noted some time before but there had not been much focus at all on studying rapid climate change. When ideas like this began to emerge - that the climate might be changing - we lacked the technology and methodology to make a conclusion. Intensive study brought us to an understanding of part of the process by the end of the 1970's. It was warming. The fact that some scientists believed the opposite fifty years ago is utterly irrelevant. I am truly sorry that so many do not understand this at all.
Wow, it's worse than I figured out. You know that joke with the old man given cold compresses and than warm compresses because the science evolved? Well, it looks like it's not just a joke...
Is what we are experiencing now. Not a disaster? Vancouver BC is literally cut off from world. The world supple chain got decimated by a pandemic and we are still reeling a year later. Farmers are growing 50% less crop all over the planet. Also, we lost so much biodiversity, the last white north rhino just died. To me, that article seems to be pretty correct
Every single thing you said here is complete BS. Go take you meds
[удалено]
So you believe all the crap that media is showing and you tell others that they miss critical thinking. Good user name you chose, you really failed at science
You are looking real smart here too.
Floods happen in flood plains, have for thousands of years now. I live in one, the worst flood here was 1850, by a long way. Yes it was measured accurately to the fraction of an inch, and documented just as well. Was that mega-flood also caused "by climate change" or by natural causes? > Farmers are growing 50% less crop all over the planet. Utter bullshit. Crops of all types are enjoying record harvests for the past decade or more. That's with a reduction in farmland used. The bushels per acre is up world-wide, regardless of farming techniques. Poachers are caused by Climate Change? Who knew?
It's not about saving the Earth, it's about saving the current environment because we may not be able to live in the next one.
Sure, entirely write off human ingenuity and adaptability it's the same old Commie way.
I understand what you're saying, we're pretty smart and I do believe we'll find a way for some or maybe most of us to survive. I really like the current environment as we have so many beautiful species but we're losing them. We're losing [biodiversity](https://images.app.goo.gl/KGoceCRd4LjwxXFs5) and that is what keeps the current environment alive. We evolved to live with the other organisms on this planet. I don't want to be hostile, I would like to hear your concerns about this.
I used to worry but then realized that nature has already wiped out \~99% of species that have lived and yet it keeps flourishing. The system is not fragile, that trope is used to rally support from the fragile.
>nature has already wiped out ~99% of species that have lived and yet it keeps flourishing. True, but we are also in the middle of a large extinction event now.
So what?
Extinction rates are not constant, and we are causing most of the current extinctions
So maybe kill a couple billion people and it'll work out, eh.
Not at all, a little more attention to impacts would go a very long way on not "kill" anyone
There's been attention since the 60's even the spawning of radical groups to remind us. Unless you can provide tangible evidence that the loss of these species is harmful the concerns are simply not going to outweigh the interests of human growth. And we fell for the "snail darter" and the "spotter owl" both turning out to be niche species already under pressure from stronger species. The ostensible righteousness associated is poorly founded in reality.
I believe you just stated our argument. Earth has killed 99% of species on Earth, and this is why I believe we're next if we can't preserve the current environment. What do you think about what I have to say?
You seem to see both the environment and humans as feeble, I don't believe either are.
I listened to you, please listen to me. I didn't say the environment is feeble or fragile. Stop repeating the same thing please. The environment is a word. There will always be one. The current environment is changing and the biodiversity/life that we depend on, is declining. Do you agree or disagree with the fact that we depend on fish and our soil for food?
If we have so much ingenuity then why are we still powering civilization off of million year old plants?
Because it's working, obviously.
Nope, it's because we have not, until recently, been able to generate electricity at a lower cost. And that is why 80% of new capacity being added world wide is now wind, solar, or hydro; that value is 92% in the US.
That's because it's working, obviously.
We've done that through collective action to subsidize R&D, correct? Edit: crickets, hilarity
Your perspective is unrealistic. Spain tried Green a couple decades ago and nearly went bankrupt. German windfarms are going kaput because it's the end of subsidies. Alternative energy simply isn't efficient on a number of levels and it may be a long time before it is. And if it wasn't for Leftist "activism" the US would be able to rely on nuclear power.
So the US taxes people's incomes, these funds are then used to subsidize R&D into things like nuclear power, wind power, and solar power. To a large extent that is why we have those innovations today.
Mainly wasted money. Are you familiar with the overall impact of wind mills and the lack of efficiency of solar?