• 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!

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

Grand Mal said:
Ohferchristsake. Is every negative thing apocalyptic in your world? Do you really not know how words work? They each mean something, usually each word has a different meaning. Note I said usually. I draw your attention to the word usually in case you don't understand that it doesn't mean always. See how it works? Try to learn to use that principle automatically. It might prevent you from embarrassment in the future.

Again, bad does not mean apocalyptic. Only apocalyptic means apocalyptic. Once you get the semantics down pat, you can look at this exercise in logic- everything apocalyptic is bad but not every bad thing is apocalyptic.

Hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...

Apocalyptic language has become the stock in trade of climate activists.
 
Jack Hays said:
Apocalyptic language has become the stock in trade of climate activists.
Click to expand...

Apocalyptic is the language I'm up afainst here. Climate change deniers drop apocalyptic language on the table every time the discussion comes up- gives them an easy rebuttal. Guys like PoS, Lord of Planar and you need apocalyptic language to argue against and if apocalyptic language isn't offered to you, you supply it. Just to make it easy for you.
I've repeated umpteen times examples of how global warming has made a pain in the ass for some people and all I get back is another denier rebutting apocalyptic language.
Makes me wonder why I bother. Everything I say gets ignored while another climate change denier argues against apocalyptic language.
Tell you what. Next time I decide to participate in a climate change discussion I'll just post a series of ________________________________________ and all you guys can fill the blanks with apocalyptic language and have a party with the stuff you've been rehearsing in case you get a chance to use it.
Apocalyptic language is all you guys got. Without apocalyptic language you'd have nothing to get excited about. You'd have to actually look at what's happening instead of denying what you hope someone will say will happen.

You love apocalyptic language. Admit it.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Apocalyptic is the language I'm up afainst here. Climate change deniers drop apocalyptic language on the table every time the discussion cones up- gives them an easy rebuttal. Guys like PoS, Lord of Planar and you need apocalyptic language to argue against and if apocalyptic language isn't offered to you, you supply it. Just to make it easy for you.
I've repeated umpteen times examples of how global warming has made a pain in the ass for some people and all I get back is another denier rebutting apocalyptic language.
Makes me wonder why I bother. Everything I say gets ignored while another climate change denier argues against apocalyptic language.
Tell you what. Next time I decide to participate in a climate change discussion I'll just post a series of ________________________________________ and all you guys can fill the blanks with apocalyptic language and have a party with the stuff You've been rehearsing in case you get a chance to use it.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one using apocalyptic language. Nor are climate skeptics trying to frighten the public. I don't think you really have a point.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the one using apocalyptic language. Nor are climate skeptics trying to frighten the public. I don't think you really have a point.
Click to expand...

The guy I was arguing with was rebutting apocalyptic language I never used. Did you even read the exchange before you involved yourself?
I definitely have a point but It's not the one you guys have rehearsed for so here we are, back at "apocalyptic language".
 
Grand Mal said:
The guy I was arguing with was rebutting apocalyptic language I never used. Did you even read the exchange before you involved yourself?
I definitely have a point but It's not the one you guys have rehearsed for so here we are, back at "apocalyptic language".
Click to expand...

As you wish.
 
AProudLefty said:
I love their liberal usage of the word "apocalyptic". :lamo
Click to expand...

Yes, and . . . ?

[h=1]The Schellnhuber Equation[/h]Posted on 04 Dec 19 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 22 Comments
Graham Readfearn has an article in the Guardian titled: “Scientist’s theory of climate’s Titanic moment the ‘tip of a mathematical iceberg’ Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control.’” drawing our attention to an article in Nature by Timothy Lenton, Johan Rockström, Owen Gaffney, Stefan Rahmstorf, Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen … Contin
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, and . . . ?

[h=1]The Schellnhuber Equation[/h]Posted on 04 Dec 19 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 22 Comments
Graham Readfearn has an article in the Guardian titled: “Scientist’s theory of climate’s Titanic moment the ‘tip of a mathematical iceberg’ Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control.’” drawing our attention to an article in Nature by Timothy Lenton, Johan Rockström, Owen Gaffney, Stefan Rahmstorf, Katherine Richardson, Will Steffen … Contin
Click to expand...

Damages to the Earth is not the same as it being apocalyptic.
 
Takes layers of incompetence to create mindless catastrophic hyperbole


With Alarmism off the dial, it’s nice to see some pushback coming from the near end of the science-scare. If journalists had asked questions like this back in 1988, it would have been all over by 1989.
Why Climate Alarmism Hurts Us All

Michael Shellenberger, Forbes, does some research on the wilder climate claims. What a novel experiment! He gets answers (at least for now) by taking the line, as he says in his twitter account, “Climate change is real but there’s NO SCIENCE for apocalyptic claims”. So he’s a believer that is concerned about the needless rising anxiety and panic.
When the media says “billions will die” Shellenberger wanted to know why. He just pulled on that string and it all unravelled…
It takes a layers of incompetence to wind up an atmospheric spectral change into Death To Billions. Mass delusion and catastrophic hyperbole just doesn’t come from nowhere — it’s starts with incompetent scientists who never ask each other hard questions, not even in the tea rooms. They tell journalists ambiguously phrased, cherry picked lines which are then amped up by the media, who also ask no hard questions and go on to misquote and exaggerate. By then it’s a junkyard of science communication, and that’s when attention-seeking zealots get hold of what they thought were scientific pronouncements and turn them into bumper stickers of enviro-biblical jello.
Firstly the worst quotes come from an XR Activist, not a scientist (why do the media repeat these claims?).
Shellenberger just followed the claims:
I wanted to know what Extinction Rebellion was basing its apocalyptic claims upon, and so I interviewed its main spokesperson, Sarah Lunnon.
“It’s not Sarah Lunnon saying billions of people are going to die,” Lunnon told me. ”The science is saying we’re headed to 4 degrees warming and people like Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center and Johan Rockström from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research are saying that such a temperature rise is incompatible with civilized life. Johan said he could not see how an Earth at 4 degrees (Celsius) warming could support a billion or even half-billion people.”
Lunnon is referring to an article published in The Guardian last May, which quoted Rockström saying, “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that” at a 4-degree temperature rise.
So the XR activist thought it was from a scientist. But when Shellenberger interviewed the scientists it turned out they didn’t say that (well, not exactly):
Rockström… told me that the Guardian reporter had misunderstood him and that he had said, “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate eight billion people or even half of that,” not “a billion people.”
So The Guardian had to make a correction — not 7.5 billion deaths then, only 4 billion (well, that’s alright then?):
Rockström said he had not seen the misquote until I emailed him, and that he had requested a correction, which the Guardian made last Thursday. Even so, Rockström stood by his prediction of four billion deaths. . . .

 
AProudLefty said:
Damages to the Earth is not the same as it being apocalyptic.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]"Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control.’”[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]"Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control.’”[/FONT]
Click to expand...

"In a comment article in the journal Nature Schellnhuber and colleagues explained that to understand the climate emergency we needed to quantify the relationship between risk (R) and urgency (U). Borrowing from the insurance industry, the scientists define risk (R) as the probability of something happening (p) multiplied by damage (D). For example, how likely is it that sea levels will rise by a metre and how much damage will that cause. Urgency (U) is the time it takes you to react to an issue (τ) “divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T)”, they wrote."
 
AProudLefty said:
"In a comment article in the journal Nature Schellnhuber and colleagues explained that to understand the climate emergency we needed to quantify the relationship between risk (R) and urgency (U). Borrowing from the insurance industry, the scientists define risk (R) as the probability of something happening (p) multiplied by damage (D). For example, how likely is it that sea levels will rise by a metre and how much damage will that cause. Urgency (U) is the time it takes you to react to an issue (τ) “divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T)”, they wrote."
Click to expand...

Yup. Apocalypse dressed up in "sciencey" language
 
Jack Hays said:
Yup. Apocalypse dressed up in "sciencey" language
Click to expand...

If, by the author's example, losing Greenland is a global apocalypse, then you have a weird sense of the word.
 
AProudLefty said:
If, by the author's example, losing Greenland is a global apocalypse, then you have a weird sense of the word.
Click to expand...

99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet present in 1900 is still there today. The author's claim is apocalyptic nonsense.
 
Jack Hays said:
As you wish.
Click to expand...

You wanna have a go? Where I live, on the Gulf of Georgia, shellfish aquaculture has thrived since the local Natives started it hundreds of years ago. One reason is the upwelling of deep water nearby bringing nutrients up from below. In the past few years the industry has suffered because the cold water dissolves CO2 easily and that makes the pH level drop slightly, which inhibits shell formation in some species. This has resulted in layoffs.
That's one. Up north the longer warm season has had a bad (not apocalyptic, please note It's not apocalyptic) a bad effect on underground infrastructure. There's not a lot of money up there so this is definitely a pain in the butt. Repeat, not apocalyptic but it's global warming being a problem.
There. No mention of the end of the world. Does that mean It's all trivial? Do we ignore the issue until it becomes apocalyptic and then decide to pay attention? That might never happen, probably won't ever happen, but I guess It's not a problem as long as it only affects people a long way from you.
 
Jack Hays said:
99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet present in 1900 is still there today. The author's claim is apocalyptic nonsense.
Click to expand...

Ok. But it isn't a global apocalyptic nonsense.
 
Grand Mal said:
You wanna have a go? Where I live, on the Gulf of Georgia, shellfish aquaculture has thrived since the local Natives started it hundreds of years ago. One reason is the upwelling of deep water nearby bringing nutrients up from below. In the past few years the industry has suffered because the cold water dissolves CO2 easily and that makes the pH level drop slightly, which inhibits shell formation in some species. This has resulted in layoffs.
That's one. Up north the longer warm season has had a bad (not apocalyptic, please note It's not apocalyptic) a bad effect on underground infrastructure. There's not a lot of money up there so this is definitely a pain in the butt. Repeat, not apocalyptic but it's global warming being a problem.
There. No mention of the end of the world. Does that mean It's all trivial? Do we ignore the issue until it becomes apocalyptic and then decide to pay attention? That might never happen, probably won't ever happen, but I guess It's not a problem as long as it only affects people a long way from you.
Click to expand...

Not only are they not apocalyptic, they're probably not even problems out of the ordinary.

[h=2]Surprise: Ocean acidification quite good for some shells[/h]
Wait, wait – someone made an assumption that carbon life forms would not like more carbon, and that they might not be able to adjust to a change even after surviving for 100 million years of other changes. But now researchers are surprised that some shells are not only as good in an “acidic environment” but might be even better. Indeed formanifera turned out to micromanage pH levels so that in the right spot, where they need a higher pH, they can create that. The researchers say “such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before” and wonder “what if” the majority of organisms can do this?
More carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air also acidifies the oceans. It seemed to be the logical conclusion that shellfish and corals will suffer, because chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater. But now a group of Dutch and Japanese scientists discovered to their own surprise that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new insight.
Researchers from the NIOZ (Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research) and JAMSTEC (Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) found in [...]
 
Grand Mal said:
Ohferchristsake. Is every negative thing apocalyptic in your world? Do you really not know how words work? They each mean something, usually each word has a different meaning. Note I said usually. I draw your attention to the word usually in case you don't understand that it doesn't mean always. See how it works? Try to learn to use that principle automatically. It might prevent you from embarrassment in the future.

Again, bad does not mean apocalyptic. Only apocalyptic means apocalyptic. Once you get the semantics down pat, you can look at this exercise in logic- everything apocalyptic is bad but not every bad thing is apocalyptic.

Hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...

First you said the world is probably not gonna end, but the effects are occurring right now = your words, plain and simple.

AProudLefty said:
I love their liberal usage of the word "apocalyptic". :lamo
Click to expand...

Good point, since its liberals who use it all the time.
 
AProudLefty said:
The author is a liberal? Then why did you post a link to that article?
Click to expand...

The author points out to liberals like your idol AOC who says that the world will end, so he is right on the money by describing their BS as apocalyptic. You get it now?
 
PoS said:
The author points out to liberals like your idol AOC who says that the world will end, so he is right on the money by describing their BS as apocalyptic. You get it now?
Click to expand...

What made you think I never got it?
 
Jack Hays said:
Not only are they not apocalyptic, they're probably not even problems out of the ordinary.

[h=2]Surprise: Ocean acidification quite good for some shells[/h]
Wait, wait – someone made an assumption that carbon life forms would not like more carbon, and that they might not be able to adjust to a change even after surviving for 100 million years of other changes. But now researchers are surprised that some shells are not only as good in an “acidic environment” but might be even better. Indeed formanifera turned out to micromanage pH levels so that in the right spot, where they need a higher pH, they can create that. The researchers say “such an active biochemical regulation mechanism has never been found before” and wonder “what if” the majority of organisms can do this?
More carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air also acidifies the oceans. It seemed to be the logical conclusion that shellfish and corals will suffer, because chalk formation becomes more difficult in more acidic seawater. But now a group of Dutch and Japanese scientists discovered to their own surprise that some tiny unicellular shellfish make better shells in an acidic environment. This is a completely new insight.
Researchers from the NIOZ (Royal Dutch Institute for Sea Research) and JAMSTEC (Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology) found in [...]
Click to expand...

So what's your point? Are you saying that global warming is beneficial to some species? No argument there, but It's a backpedal from global warming isn't happening. And still doesn't refute or even adress anything I said.
 
PoS said:
First you said the world is probably not gonna end, but the effects are occurring right now = your words, plain and simple.



Good point, since its liberals who use it all the time.
Click to expand...

Done with you. You don't understand simple things, or pretend you don't, and I'll be damned if I will chase you around in semantic circles.
The last word is yours. Make it good.
 
Grand Mal said:
So what's your point? Are you saying that global warming is beneficial to some species? No argument there, but It's a backpedal from global warming isn't happening. And still doesn't refute or even adress anything I said.
Click to expand...

I have never said there was no warming. I believe that warming came to an end in 2016.
You didn't say anything that really requires a reply.
 
AProudLefty said:
What made you think I never got it?
Click to expand...

Because you seem confused.

Grand Mal said:
Done with you. You don't understand simple things, or pretend you don't, and I'll be damned if I will chase you around in semantic circles.
The last word is yours. Make it good.
Click to expand...

There's no semantic circles, I'm quoting you directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom