• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doomsdays that didn't happen: Think tank compiles decades' worth of dire climate predictions

Your argument is essentially a strawman argument. The vast majority of scientists involved in climate science have not ever, nor do they now agree with the apocalyptic predictions that referenced in your OP.

Those "predictions" having not ever come from climate science community in the first place. Our denier's BS article even cites Paul Ehrlich whose warnings had nothing to do with climate change (having well predated that issue) but overpopulation. As is usual with FartzNews propaganda and its purveyors on sites like this they really are morons when it comes to making a case. But then again, their target audience is moron so no need really to be factual or even plausible.
 

So?

No. That is not at all the only "meteorological information" we've gotten. Jesus.

Why do we have CO2 data going back hundreds of thousands of years? Several studies have been conducted analyzing CO2 data from ice cores.

Ice cores are not exact meteorological data- they are proxies. If you cant even figure this out on a basic level then it's pointless trying to argue with you.

I had a professor who spent eight years debating and analyzing data to get published in Nature. It is incredibly difficult to get published there. Every piece of your study is picked apart relentlessly by PhDs. I guess you believe its all just a made up show where they pretend to spend years looking at data in order to keep their jobs?
Absolutely. Paleoclimatology is an inexact science- just estimates of estimates, with no systematic measurements. Nature magazine has gotten things wrong many times.

The scientists you malign have advanced degrees and education. They're highly intelligent. They're not falsifying their work for the sake of job security in order to keep falsifying their work. That's nonsensical. They don't need to spend their entire careers making stuff up for the sake of job security.
Appeal to authority fallacy.

'One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.'
-Carl Sagan

Those "predictions" having not ever come from climate science community in the first place.
Its clear you didnt even bother to read the article: Erlich, James Hansen, Stephen Schneider, George Kukla, SI Rasool and others are all cited in newspaper clippings by name, and they are or were prominent climate scientists when those reports came out. You arent fooling anyone.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions | Competitive Enterprise Institute
 
Last edited:
You didnt debunk anything. All youve done was make some silly ad homs, just like the rest of your kind. Address the topic or go somewhere else.



LOL first you people claim there is a scientific consensus about this, now youre denying all these predictions were ever made by them, even though prominent scientists from NASA and the UN did so and were proven to be quacks. Why cant you people ever be consistent?

The "ad homs" as you so cutely refer to them are always well-earned. And it's funny that you now claim
prominent scientists from NASA and the UN did so and were proven to be quacks
when the article you used for the pile of garbage does not cite a single corroborating example. The one saving grace you have is that you're really terrible at this.
 
[h=2]Tim Flannery “Has Plenty Of Company In The Dunce’s Corner” …Climate Science’s Long List Of Failed Predictions[/h]By P Gosselin on 30. January 2015
Good article at Quadrant magazine here on the background behind the many failed predictions of disaster in climate science and the strange characters behind them. Hat tip: reader Stefan. ======================== Warmists Take the Hardest Hits Anyone can be a prophet of doom…. Why can’t the global-warming catastrophe industry convince the public that the scare underwriting […]
 
[h=2]Year 2000 Predictions By ‘The Guardian’ Turn Out To Be Complete Failures…Southern Europe Has Become Wetter![/h]By P Gosselin on 26. March 2019
By Kirye and Pierre Gosselin In December 2000, environment correspondent Paul Brown wrote here at The Guardian that global warming threatened “to create a dust belt around the globe” and that the Sahara had “crossed the Mediterranean” and forced “thousands to migrate as a lethal combination of soil degradation and climate change” turned “parts of […]
 
So?



Ice cores are not exact meteorological data- they are proxies. If you cant even figure this out on a basic level then it's pointless trying to argue with you.


Absolutely. Paleoclimatology is an inexact science- just estimates of estimates, with no systematic measurements. Nature magazine has gotten things wrong many times.


Appeal to authority fallacy.

'One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.'
-Carl Sagan

I just got through giving you a nod at how bad you are at making your case which gives you a bit a comic cover for this but you've outdone yourself with this post. Ice core samples contain trapped CO₂ which is hard data. I can't even imagine what you think you mean by calling that "proxies" but I'm sure it will be hilarious to have you attempt to explain it. And quote mining a tiny nugget of what Carl Sagan said is getting pretty desperate not to mention dangerous. But since you obviously put a lot of stock in what that brilliant scientist thought, here's a much longer and more pertinent statement from him that I'm sure you will respect:

The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2, into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful: Even a one- or two- degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences. In the burning of coal and oil and gasoline, we are also putting sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Like Venus, our stratosphere even now has a substantial mist of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. Our major cities are polluted with noxious molecules. We do not understand the long- term effects of our course of action.

But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests and encouraging domestic animals to graze on and destroy grasslands. Slash-and-burn agriculture, industrial tropical deforestation and overgrazing are rampant today. But forests are darker than grasslands, and grasslands are darker than deserts. As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining, and by changes in the land use we are lowering the surface temperature of our planet. Might this cooling increase the size of the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect still more sunlight from the Earth, further cooling the planet, driving a runaway albedo2 effect?

Our lovely blue planet, the Earth, is the only home we know. Venus is too hot. Mars is too cold. But the Earth is just right, a heaven for humans. After all, we evolved here. But our congenial climate may be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows. The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. A few million years ago, when human beings first evolved on Earth, it was already a middle-aged world, 4.6 billion years along from the catastrophes and impetuosities of its youth. But we humans now represent a new and perhaps decisive factor. Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth? Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished.
Dr. Sagan certainly doesn't sound like he was one of you.
 
Sounds like a poorly written and biased Fox News Article whose purpose is to make boomers feel better about destroying the planet as they die off.

WalMart is selling small containers of PlaDoh for fifty cents. I'll pay for your jar so you can enjoy it in quiet, along with other snowflakes all scared and such. Good thing you have CNN which doesn't write anything "poorly" or show the slightest bit of "bias."
What do you know about past misrepresentations of climate liars anyway? Why don't you tell us.

The Global Warming Fraud
 
I just got through giving you a nod at how bad you are at making your case which gives you a bit a comic cover for this but you've outdone yourself with this post. Ice core samples contain trapped CO₂ which is hard data. I can't even imagine what you think you mean by calling that "proxies" but I'm sure it will be hilarious to have you attempt to explain it.
I'll explain it for you. Ice core samples may provide "hard data" but all data is subject to interpretation and that is where global warming alarmists go berserk for Billions of dollars. They lie and have been repeatedly caught lying, but strangely people like you continue to defend them.

And quote mining a tiny nugget of what Carl Sagan said is getting pretty desperate not to mention dangerous. But since you obviously put a lot of stock in what that brilliant scientist thought, here's a much longer and more pertinent statement from him that I'm sure you will respect:

No he does NOT "put a lot of stock" in what Sagan wrote. Nor do I. After reading several of his books, I wrote to his publisher citing error after error after Left-wing hateful attack, on Christians in particular. Sagan responded to me by letter, ignoring all the points I cited in his several books and he simply asked me to buy his newest book. Writing for millions, that was Smiley Sagan.

"Sex was invented." - Carl Sagan



Dr. Sagan certainly doesn't sound like he was one of you.

Quite correct. Sagan was an Eco-Hypocrite of the highest order, and an Agnostic Hypocrite, whose funeral services were held at St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York City.

Sagan: "We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2, into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically."

1.3 parts per MILLION annual increase, of which the human contribution is less than 5%. This is "dramatic" increase? When water vapor is 15,000 parts per million? Please, whitey......
 
I just got through giving you a nod at how bad you are at making your case which gives you a bit a comic cover for this but you've outdone yourself with this post. Ice core samples contain trapped CO₂ which is hard data. I can't even imagine what you think you mean by calling that "proxies" but I'm sure it will be hilarious to have you attempt to explain it. And quote mining a tiny nugget of what Carl Sagan said is getting pretty desperate not to mention dangerous. But since you obviously put a lot of stock in what that brilliant scientist thought, here's a much longer and more pertinent statement from him that I'm sure you will respect:


Dr. Sagan certainly doesn't sound like he was one of you.

Your ignorance is remarkable.

What Are “Proxy” Data?


In paleoclimatology, or the study of past climates, scientists use what is known as proxy data to reconstruct past climate conditions. These proxy data are preserved physical characteristics of the environment that can stand in for direct measurements. Paleoclimatologists gather proxy data from natural recorders of climate variability such as tree rings, ice cores, fossil pollen, ocean sediments, corals and historical data. By analyzing records taken from these and other proxy sources, scientists can extend our understanding of climate far beyond the instrumental record. . . .

[h=3]Ice Cores[/h][FONT=&quot]
ice-core-hole_0.jpg
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Located high in the mountains and near the poles, ice—another type of proxy data—has accumulated from snowfall over many millennia. Scientists drill through the deep ice to collect ice cores, which often have distinct layers in them. These layers contain dust, air bubbles, or isotopes of oxygen, differing from year to year based on the surrounding environment, that can be used to interpret the past climate of an area. Ice cores can tell scientists about temperature, precipitation, atmospheric composition, volcanic activity, and even wind patterns. See Picture Climate: What Can We Learn from Ice? to learn more about how scientists study climate using ice cores. . . . [/FONT]


What Are “Proxy” Data? | National Centers for Environmental ...



National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | NCEI offers access to the most significant archives of oceanic, atmospheric, geophysical and coastal data. › news › what-are-proxy-data



Ice Cores. Located high in the mountains and near the poles, ice—another type of proxy data—has accumulated from snowfall over many millennia. Scientists drill through the deep ice to collect ice cores, which often have distinct layers in them.
 
Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions | Fox News





I'm glad that at least some in the MSM are reporting that this apocalyptic climate nonsense as just that, nonsense.

NO! NO! NO! - This time it'll really happen!

:roll:

When in reality:
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

"change-the-entire-economy thing" driven by idiotic public policies that would leave the left in political power of everything?

Hard Pass.

This sounds far more promising and far less disruptive to the economy, freedom and liberty.
 
Here is an archive of that news report from 1989: U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

Look what they wrote, then ask yourself if those things actually came true... hint: they didnt.

They appear to be correct, or at best undetermined at this point, to me. I suspect you (and others) may be misreading the very first sentence. Here it is:

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

I suspect you're reading it to imply that nations will be wiped off the earth by the year 2000, according to this prediction. In fact, what the prediction says (as anyone who has read Strunk and White's would know) is that we have until the year 2000 to reverse climate change, or the inevitable result will be that nations (later clarified to island nations) could be wiped off the earth. The article doesn't say how long that process will take, but it does seem to be underway. Last I hear the Maldives are experiencing some pretty serious consequences of sea level rise, as are the Marshal Islands.

So it appears the prediction is true, as far as I can tell.
 
Yeah, it's not like climate change is going to affect on the economy. Might deny that as well if you're going to deny the science. I wonder--have you sort come up with the excuses, new denials and lies you're going to need when all of the predictions do come true if the science denial and lying are successful at preventing the measures needed to address the devastation of climate change. I'd love to read some of them if you've already got a few ready.

Tell me, what was it that caused all the previous heating and cooling periods over the eons? Man had NOTHING to do with any of them, but now we can fix it?
 
You bring up some good points, namely that we dont know what is triggering the change other than a suspicion of CO2 emissions. But I would counter your other point that a change is not too far off by simply stating that all this may just be a result of a natural cycle- and may not be manmade at all.

The problem with looking into the past for answers is nothing remains the same. Everything has changed. The moon is further away, the earth is spinning slower, we have multiple continents, ocean currents have changed, progression of the earth, man has caused changes, etc. Even a small impact or a super volcano and everything can change drastically. Plus whether the know-it-all want to admit it there are too many factors yet unknown to say anything for sure when it comes to climate. We will continue to make new discoveries that will most likely change everything we think we know right now. I am willing to bet there is still more we don't know than what we do know.
 
You didnt debunk anything. All youve done was make some silly ad homs, just like the rest of your kind. Address the topic or go somewhere else.



LOL first you people claim there is a scientific consensus about this, now youre denying all these predictions were ever made by them, even though prominent scientists from NASA and the UN did so and were proven to be quacks. Why cant you people ever be consistent?

Just doubling down on the lies doesn't make your case stronger although that seems to be the ****bag formula. BTW, there's no contradiction in saying there's a scientific consensus and calling out the lies about dire predictions, especially since I cited one of those predictions that not only has already happened but came much earlier than the projections had indicated. Maybe you should go looking for another Carl Sagan snippet that you think makes your case better.
 
That sources was mostly about sporadic news stories over many decades.

While the evidence of the urgent need for action on manmade global warming is today so overwhelming that all the world's leading scientific societies acknowledge that fact. Like for example these 31 organizations.

https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf

There the evidence today is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

While deniers can't even agree on if it we will have global cooling or global warming.

'In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”'

The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz

While you also have a lot of crazy claims from deniers, like for example that the president of United States have claimed that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

But but but....Sean Hannity said there's nothing to worry about. Come on, who knows more about climatology, Hannity, or the tens of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject?

Ask nearly any Trump supporter, and they will tell you Hannity knows more.
 
Just doubling down on the lies doesn't make your case stronger although that seems to be the ****bag formula. BTW, there's no contradiction in saying there's a scientific consensus and calling out the lies about dire predictions, especially since I cited one of those predictions that not only has already happened but came much earlier than the projections had indicated. Maybe you should go looking for another Carl Sagan snippet that you think makes your case better.

Someone who doesn't know ice cores are proxies has no business discussing climatology.
 
Tell me, what was it that caused all the previous heating and cooling periods over the eons? Man had NOTHING to do with any of them, but now we can fix it?

Not one of the major climate changes you allude which occurred "eons" ago have anything to do with the current climate changes. And unlike all of those ancient events which took place over thousands to tens of thousands to million year periods, the current period of warming has occurred with lightning speed by comparison and can be accurately timed with the immense increase in the burning of coal and oil over the past two hundred years.
 
Someone who doesn't know ice cores are proxies has no business discussing climatology.

That's hilarious coming from the completely science-stupid climate-denying rightwing lie chorus. You seem to labor under the mistaken idea (that probably applies to just about every fact-based issue) that I dismissed the concept of proxy science. The person to whom that comment was directed suggested that being a proxy made ice-core data less valid. That is false, of course, but I fully understand why you'd try to twist that.
 
That's hilarious coming from the completely science-stupid climate-denying rightwing lie chorus. You seem to labor under the mistaken idea (that probably applies to just about every fact-based issue) that I dismissed the concept of proxy science. The person to whom that comment was directed suggested that being a proxy made ice-core data less valid. That is false, of course, but I fully understand why you'd try to twist that.

Sorry, but you can't lie your way out of your error. You said ice cores are not proxies. That's an ignorance-based mistake.
 
NO! NO! NO! - This time it'll really happen!

:roll:

When in reality:


"change-the-entire-economy thing" driven by idiotic public policies that would leave the left in political power of everything?

Hard Pass.

This sounds far more promising and far less disruptive to the economy, freedom and liberty.


Which is what the hysteria-mongering republicans will be doing everything they can to spread that lie...well, obviously started doing from day 1.
 
Not one of the major climate changes you allude which occurred "eons" ago have anything to do with the current climate changes. And unlike all of those ancient events which took place over thousands to tens of thousands to million year periods, the current period of warming has occurred with lightning speed by comparison and can be accurately timed with the immense increase in the burning of coal and oil over the past two hundred years.

And you can prove your claims how?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If you don't even know the words of science why do you think your qualified to comment? Oh, wait. Trump***per. Carry on.
 
Which is what the hysteria-mongering republicans will be doing everything they can to spread that lie...well, obviously started doing from day 1.

The quote is from AOC's chief of staff, former, I think.

Pretty clear the 'Climate Change' hoax is little more than a means for a political power grab by the left. Why else would the Obama's buy a $15M house at sea level?

Rather then turning nation's economies upside down and inside out, this seems far more reasonable a solution to what is claimed to be the real problem.


CO2 Removal | Climeworks – Capturing CO2 from Air
https://www.climeworks.com › co2-removal
Carbon dioxide removal, also known as negative emissions technologies, covers a number of technologies which reduce the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. These include: Bioenergy in combinations with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
 
So?



Ice cores are not exact meteorological data- they are proxies. If you cant even figure this out on a basic level then it's pointless trying to argue with you.


Absolutely. Paleoclimatology is an inexact science- just estimates of estimates, with no systematic measurements. Nature magazine has gotten things wrong many times.


Appeal to authority fallacy.

'One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.'
-Carl Sagan


Its clear you didnt even bother to read the article: Erlich, James Hansen, Stephen Schneider, George Kukla, SI Rasool and others are all cited in newspaper clippings by name, and they are or were prominent climate scientists when those reports came out. You arent fooling anyone.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions | Competitive Enterprise Institute

Carl Sagan would be appalled at how you're misapplying his quote. I grew up watching his show and reading his books. He's one of the people who inspired me to pursue a career in the sciences. Let's take a closer look: "Authorities must PROVE their contentions like everybody else." Prove. As in, provide evidence for, have it peer reviewed, and debated on its own merits. All the studies I linked have passed this rigorous process.

Regarding your absurd contention about proxies: you sound like one of those people who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old because we can't trust radiocarbon dating. Since we haven't had weather satellites for 800,000 years, systematic measurements (to borrow your term) of ice samples are as good as it gets.

> "Appeal to authority fallacy."

You're clearly not understanding my point. I'm not saying "scientists are smart so accept what they say if they don't provide evidence and get it peer reviewed". I'm asking you this question: why would all these smart, promising people waste their lives falsifying evidence, and pretend to debate their data for years, for the sake of some liberal agenda?

> "So?"

I assume you're joking. You asked for evidence to prove that soil is being degraded globally. I provided it.
 
Back
Top Bottom