patrick.net

Science used to try to understand nature. Now some scientists are trying to predict and control nature.

We can't even predict and control the weather.

anon_8f378 says

All the deniers make the same logical error---presuming that one needs 100% proof. Life is lived uncertainty. All decisions are made by amassing as much data and determining the best course of action. Whether it's limiting risk or maximizing potential outcome, there is never complete data.

Not correct, every bold prediction about climate change has fallen flat on its face so far. Now the predictions just keep on coming with more urgency and alarm, yet no one can actually show me sea level rise or an accurate climate model from the past.

Onvacation says

Wouldn't I see, hear, and or feel the train coming?

You're going with option B, then. At least you are consistent.

Onvacation says

We can't even predict and control the weather.

Actually we do a pretty darn good job of predicting the weather.

Malcolm says

Not correct, every bold prediction about climate change has fallen flat on its face so far. Now the predictions just keep on coming with more urgency and alarm, yet no one can actually show me sea level rise or an accurate climate model from the past.

Or even just say that a 100ppm increase in CO2 will result in X degree C/F Global Average Temperature Increase

Malcolm says

Not correct, every bold prediction about climate change has fallen flat on its face so far. Now the predictions just keep on coming with more urgency and alarm, yet no one can actually show me sea level rise or an accurate climate model from the past.

That's not true. What happened is that statements of what MIGHT happen were turned into "bold predictions" and memes by dishonest members of the AGWC. And than parroted on sites like this as if they were true.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Or even just say that a 100ppm increase in CO2 will result in X degree C/F Global Average Temperature Increase

That wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the AGWC.

anon_1fe2e says

It has worked with a very small population with fairly minor climate changes over longer periods than we are talking about now. If you are wrong as the vast majority of scientists say you are, then the likely changes that you are dismissing will not be dealt with by simple adaptation. They will cause enormous upheaval - mass migration, huge food shortages, wars, the loss of many coastal cities, etc., etc. This needs to be tackled to the best of our abilities to mitigate the damage.
You like asking the same question and then pretending you haven't got an answer. How about you answer me these two questions? If I'm wrong about climate change, what will the consequences be? If you're wrong...

Most scientists in this so called vast majority that have opinions on this matter have never taken a single climatology, environmental, or geology class in their life. I have a bachelors in Chemistry, PhD in Physical Chemistry and a minor in Geological Sciences. None of that even qualified for me to develop an educated opinion on climate change.

The enormous upheaval scenario is ludicrous and anyone that believes otherwise is incapable of understanding time scales. Mass migration? Doubtful. The time scale that these changes are predicted to occur on is over the course of centuries. Yet, the left wants to characterize a bunch of people packing up their belongings and fleeing a flood. The time scale that these changes occur on are a full order of magnitude larger than it takes to build a major city.

The idea of food shortages is completely laughable. Florida's growing season lasts longer than New Englands. Why is that? I'd like you to cite one year since the 1940s that the food supply has drastically decreased. It hasn't and it won't. With the onset of automation, the amount of agricultural production is poised to go up even more.

If you're wrong, we waste trillions of dollars for a problem that didn't exist. People who think we are doomed are the real science deniers who can't fathom how we can easily adapt.

theoakman says

we waste trillions of dollars for a problem that didn't exist.

I think that's Al Gore's plan, he needs the money, it's expensive for him to heat and cool that 12,000 sq ft mansion of his.

theoakman says

People who think we are doomed are the real science deniers who can't fathom how we can easily adapt.

Oh, now you went and did it. The Alarmists can NEVER answer the question on how people can adapt and live year round on the Arctic Circle and how people can adapt and live year round on the Equator.

But, but, but, a 1.7 degree F rise over 130 years is CATASTROPHIC.... We're all going to be "wet bulbed" to death!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anon_3b28c says

That's not true. What happened is that statements of what MIGHT happen were turned into "bold predictions" and memes by dishonest members of the AGWC. And than parroted on sites like this as if they were true.

Wrong again, I have heard this stuff over and over for my whole life. It is never what might happen, it is always non-debatable scientific fact that these things will happen. if the actual results were the same as what was predicted over recent decades, it would be a moot point. No one would care about indiscernible changes to global temperatures and sea levels. Since you don't believe me, here are some of the best of climate change alarmists over time.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0kL81bgKZnw

Malcolm says

Wrong again, I have heard this stuff over and over for my whole life. It is never what might happen, it is always non-debatable scientific fact that these things will happen. if the actual results were the same as what was predicted over recent decades, it would be a moot point. No one would care about indiscernible changes to global temperatures and sea levels. Since you don't believe me, here are some of the best of climate change alarmists over time.

I concur completely, I've literally heard this since the 2nd Grade, something like 35 years ago.

This is a good one as well. These are permanent records. You alarmists will never be able to back-pedal and say such idotic lies as, "they were saying what MIGHT happen, not "bold predictions."

Hey, when there are numerous times in these historic compilations where they actually say, "scientists predict.....," that tends to mean they are making a prediction. As alarming as they were, even back then, I think most reasonable minds would consider them bold.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lDNkAkl89wA