Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 104

Thread: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

  1. #41
    Sage
    chuckiechan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    California Caliphate
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,247

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Or: The UN predictions are actually starting to happen.

    If you actually looked at the AP article referenced by your screed, it has a major issue: Almost none of the predictions are given an actual date. E.g. Brown predicted 3 feet of sea level rise, but he didn't say that would happen by 2000; what he said was "if we don't take emissions seriously by 2000, then there will be consequences." It is not surprising, of course, that deniers lock into the most unfavorable interpretation possible.

    That said, Brown predicted....
    • Entire nations like the Maldives threatened by sea level rise? Check.
    • Bangladesh getting flooded and people displaced? Check.
    • Egypt increasingly vulnerable to floods? Check.
    • Climate change refugees? Check. (In fact, quite a few of the Central American migrants to the US are fleeing the effects of climate change.)
    • Temperatures rising 1-7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020? Well, the IPCC actually predicted 3C by 2030; of that, 0.75C was due to CFCs, which were largely eliminated due to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. We are currently at 0.75C of warming, so yep, that's another check mark.
    • Much of the warming can't be stopped without action? Check. (We've already locked in lots of warming; at this point, we're just trying to avoid the worst case scenarios.)

    The only thing the AP article was really off about was claims that the Midwest would be hit by major droughts. Instead, California got stuck with the droughts, and the Midwest is getting flooded by additional precipitation due in part to.. yep... climate change. Not too bad for a 30 year old prediction.





    Just stop. If global temperatures were completely unaffected by CO2 and CH4 and other gases, we'd still need climate scientists. They'd have plenty of work to do if there was no major crisis.

    And if you think that money causes bias, then did you check Daniel Turner's funding sources? Surprise! He works for "Power the Future," which is basically a tiny anti-environmentalist PR group funded by the Koch Brothers, who own the largest private fossil fuel in the world. He's written op-eds promoting drilling in ANWR. He also used to be director of strategic communications for Koch Industries. So why does he get a pass...?



    Pot, kettle, black. Climate change deniers would prefer to choke on their own tongues before admitting they got anything wrong -- even though they are constantly proven wrong.

    Back in the real world, a lot of the predictions made in the early 90s are now just starting to be seen. We're seeing more heat waves; more droughts; more precipitation (which doesn't offset the droughts); agricultural seasons are changing; sea level is rising... the list goes on.
    It has been that way in the past.

    BTW, exactly what is your weather goal? Hotter, colder, no change at all? Will we still have seasons. I vote for summer!
    We killed God, family, and community. Now itís killing us.
    When I sound crazy, itís because I think you are.
    America belongs to the rest of the world. Your job is to pay for it.
    Racism is not being able to read racist rap lyrics out loud because you are white.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:05 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    13,518

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    After 4 pages of feeble warmists replies, it is made clear that can't address post one article in any detail at all.
    That's because there are basically no real details in the article.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything." - Rosa Diaz

    "When the mistakes fall disproportionately on one side, it is no respect for the notion of truth to pretend that everything is even." - Lee McIntyre

  3. #43
    Sage
    flogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Wokingham, England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,690

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by lwf View Post
    The Milankovitch cycles explain the natural variation in climate throughout the history of the earth. According to the Milankovitch cycle, the earth should be undergoing a cooling period if natural forces are at work. The fact that global temperatures are increasing flies in the face of our understanding of the Milankovitch cycle, and the only thing that has changed from previous warming cycles is human activity.
    So you obviously don't realise the Milankovitch cycles span periods of hundreds of thousands of years and are consequently quite irrelevant to the much shorter timescale of my illustrated graph ?

  4. #44
    Guru
    lwf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    3,353

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoS View Post
    From your own link:

    Huge differences between fact and theory- this one has not been confirmed, not by any means. Also, the blog you linked to labels this as empirical evidence- which is pretty much just a hypothesis.
    It is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It hasn't been "confirmed" much in the same way as the theory of evolution hasn't been confirmed. Many technically unproven theories are currently considered scientific laws and accepted as axioms by the vast majority of the scientific community, including climate change and AGW.

    You can still reject these premises as unproven if you so desire, and I can reject yours. But if mine have the support of 99% of climate scientists around the world, and yours are supported by a fringe community of largely discredited pseudo-scientists, which do you think is more likely to reflect reality?

  5. #45
    Guru
    lwf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    3,353

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by flogger View Post
    So you obviously don't realise the Milankovitch cycles span periods of hundreds of thousands of years and are consequently quite irrelevant to the much shorter timescale of my illustrated graph ?
    figure 2.4 climate change 2008 - reconstructions of the nothern hemispheric.eps.75dpi.jpg

    Northern Hemisphere temps over the last thousand+ years

  6. #46
    Minister of Love
    PoS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oceania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,077

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by lwf View Post
    It is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It hasn't been "confirmed" much in the same way as the theory of evolution hasn't been confirmed. Many technically unproven theories are currently considered scientific laws and accepted as axioms by the vast majority of the scientific community, including climate change and AGW.
    I know what a theory is, and manmade AGW isnt anywhere near it- right now its a hypothesis, with only correlation/causation support (which is a fallacy) based on CO2 levels.

    You can still reject these premises as unproven if you so desire, and I can reject yours.
    I dont have one. My position is that we dont know.

    But if mine have the support of 99% of climate scientists around the world, and yours are supported by a fringe community of largely discredited pseudo-scientists, which do you think is more likely to reflect reality?
    First of all its supposed to be 97%, not 99%, and that figure is a cherry picked lie: The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol | Environment | The Guardian

    Even if we count an appeal to authority as an argument just to humor your position, its still silly- because science isnt decided by consensus, but by proving things right.

    So no, the science hasnt been decided. Far from it in fact.

  7. #47
    Guru
    lwf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    PNW
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    3,353

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by PoS View Post
    I know what a theory is, and manmade AGW isnt anywhere near it- right now its a hypothesis, with only correlation/causation support (which is a fallacy) based on CO2 levels.


    I dont have one. My position is that we dont know.


    First of all its supposed to be 97%, not 99%, and that figure is a cherry picked lie: The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol | Environment | The Guardian

    Even if we count an appeal to authority as an argument just to humor your position, its still silly- because science isnt decided by consensus, but by proving things right.

    So no, the science hasnt been decided. Far from it in fact.
    Same could be said of the theory of evolution. People are welcome to reject it, but they will continue to be in a shrinking minority as more and more evidence for it is accumulated. At this point, those who reject AGW as a conspiracy are more likely to have an agenda than those who accept it as scientific law.

  8. #48
    Minister of Love
    PoS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oceania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,077

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by lwf View Post
    Same could be said of the theory of evolution. People are welcome to reject it, but they will continue to be in a shrinking minority as more and more evidence for it is accumulated. At this point, those who reject AGW as a conspiracy are more likely to have an agenda than those who accept it as scientific law.
    Everyone has an agenda, including those that perpetuate the 97% consensus lie and the constant doom about a coming climate apocalypse.

  9. #49
    Educator

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,054

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    That's because there are basically no real details in the article.
    No warmists can't ANSWER the QUESTION:

    Daniel Turner: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    That is the headline, now the content from 1989 you seem to have forgotten,

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ 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.

    Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

    He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

    Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
    bolding mine

    The statements are specific enough, that is why you and other warmists try to marginalize it with dishonest statements.

    The reality is they were waaaay off on their predictions, and that it never happened at all.

    You can't sweep this hysteria away...….
    Last edited by Sunsettommy; 07-11-19 at 12:25 PM.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    32,771

    Re: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

    Quote Originally Posted by lwf View Post
    It is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It hasn't been "confirmed" much in the same way as the theory of evolution hasn't been confirmed. Many technically unproven theories are currently considered scientific laws and accepted as axioms by the vast majority of the scientific community, including climate change and AGW.

    You can still reject these premises as unproven if you so desire, and I can reject yours. But if mine have the support of 99% of climate scientists around the world, and yours are supported by a fringe community of largely discredited pseudo-scientists, which do you think is more likely to reflect reality?
    Your ignorance is noted.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •