Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

    Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

    Prince Charles’ recent pronouncement that we have only 18 months to save the planet from man-made global warming was followed up by a BBC report telling an identical tale. (Is there something in the Thames?) Nothing new here, though. The same wild, irresponsible guesses have been made for decades, and so far none has been right.

    “Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges,” BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath wrote last week with great certitude.

    “Observers recognize that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.”

    The year 2020, McGrath continued, “is a firm deadline” because “one of the world’s top climate scientists … eloquently addressed” the danger in 2017.

    We’ve had “firm” deadlines before. Nothing happened. But we’re supposed to believe this one is really “firm.” That it can’t be ignored. Forget all those previous predictions of doom, they tell us, because this time they have it right. And maybe the window is not even 18 months. Those grand ruminators at Think Progress are sure we have only 14 months.

    While the alarmists are busy today foretelling the coming climate disaster, they’ve conveniently forgotten the encyclopedic catalog of failed predictions. They just delete them from memory much the way that Moscow erased historical figures whose existence reflected poorly on the Soviet way, or displeased the thugs in power.

    But some remember those frenzied forecasts. Following is but a small taste of a smorgasbord of baloney:
    • Al Gore once declared that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases” were taken within the next decade, “the world will reach a point of no return,” eventually suffering “a true planetary emergency.” That was 13 years ago.
    • Gore is of course the same fellow who in the mid- to late-2000s kept telling us the Arctic Ocean would soon be ice-free. The ice, which is still there, had grown thicker and had wider coverage in 2014 than when Gore made his prediction. Earlier this year, before the growing season had ended, Wattsupwiththat reported the “2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years.”
    • In January 2009, former NASA scientist and corporate witch hunter James Hansen swore that the incoming president had a mere four years to save the world.
    • Later in the year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Thames, again) said there remained “fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more.”
    • Also in 2009, 124 months ago, the prince of Wales worried out loud the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself.
    • 2009 was a particularly looney year. Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote “we have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it. … We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.”
    • While speaking to then-Secretary of State John Kerry in May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Nearly 1,900 days have passed since. The chaos is in the foreign minister’s head.
    • In 2015, mayors from around the world signed a statement that said the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees” Celsius had arrived.
    • Almost 20 years ago, in Y2K, the British Independent quoted a climate researcher who said in coming years the children of England “just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Thirteen years later, that same newspaper told readers to “stand by for icy blasts and heavy snow.”


    Despite the weight of mistaken forecasts, the alarmists plod on. Even in the most recent editorial on this site regarding global warming hysteria, a few reader comments, which proved the point of that particular piece, indicate that the madness might be untreatable.

    (One reader accused us of being “funded by the oil companies, and conservative movements.” Our response: If only. We’re funded by no one. What little revenue we have comes from a few generous readers hitting our tip jar and some minimal advertising. But of course the comment was not intended to illuminate — it was uttered to discredit our work through a made-up link to “evil” corporations and institutions. The aim is to poison and end the discussion, and is typically employed as a last-ditch effort to save a failed argument.)

    The alarmists never consider that there could be other factors in the observed changes, that it’s possible the temperature record is hopelessly flawed, the predictive models faulty, the research “proving” their point itself corrupt. There were references in the comments made to the “facts” — for instance, half of the ocean reefs are dead, whales have starved, rising sea levels are threatening civilization — but no effort was made to show a direct link from these observations to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. We’re simply supposed to believe. Just because.

    Which should be expected, because it’s not possible to make that connection. Correlation is not the same as causation. And any gap between the two grows wider with each additional component that affects climate. A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.

    Not outside of human control, though, is the burning of fossil fuels, which the alarmists say is overheating Earth due to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide released in combustion. But also released into the atmosphere are particulates, which have a cooling effect because they reflect solar energy back toward the sun. What of this, we ask the fearmongers?

    Though there exists reasonable doubt, the alarmists desperately want to believe. Have to believe. Worse, they feel compelled to make everyone else believe. Express doubt in their narrative and expect to be talked down to, ridiculed, written off as a rube, or worse, labeled a puppet of malign interests.

    But just as they have been wrong through decades of missed predictions, they’re also wrong in their accusations against the “deniers.” They, of course, don’t see it that way. True believers will never admit they’re wrong, even when their own eyes show them they’ve been mistaken.

    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      "...they’ve conveniently forgotten the encyclopedic catalog of failed predictions. They just delete them from memory..."

      Or they "adjust" the historic data to make the prediction "correct", a practice that I liken to painting a target around where your arrow landed and declaring it a bullseye.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        More proof that it's a religion with the faithful. It's just like those so-called Christians who keep setting a date for the Rapture. And when it doesn't happen, they do it again.



        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

          Prince Charles’ recent pronouncement that we have only 18 months to save the planet from man-made global warming was followed up by a BBC report telling an identical tale. (Is there something in the Thames?) Nothing new here, though. The same wild, irresponsible guesses have been made for decades, and so far none has been right.

          “Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges,” BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath wrote last week with great certitude.

          “Observers recognize that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.”

          The year 2020, McGrath continued, “is a firm deadline” because “one of the world’s top climate scientists … eloquently addressed” the danger in 2017.

          We’ve had “firm” deadlines before. Nothing happened. But we’re supposed to believe this one is really “firm.” That it can’t be ignored. Forget all those previous predictions of doom, they tell us, because this time they have it right. And maybe the window is not even 18 months. Those grand ruminators at Think Progress are sure we have only 14 months.

          While the alarmists are busy today foretelling the coming climate disaster, they’ve conveniently forgotten the encyclopedic catalog of failed predictions. They just delete them from memory much the way that Moscow erased historical figures whose existence reflected poorly on the Soviet way, or displeased the thugs in power.

          But some remember those frenzied forecasts. Following is but a small taste of a smorgasbord of baloney:
          • Al Gore once declared that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases” were taken within the next decade, “the world will reach a point of no return,” eventually suffering “a true planetary emergency.” That was 13 years ago.
          • Gore is of course the same fellow who in the mid- to late-2000s kept telling us the Arctic Ocean would soon be ice-free. The ice, which is still there, had grown thicker and had wider coverage in 2014 than when Gore made his prediction. Earlier this year, before the growing season had ended, Wattsupwiththat reported the “2019 Arctic sea-ice extent is already higher than the previous four years and six out of the last 14 years.”
          • In January 2009, former NASA scientist and corporate witch hunter James Hansen swore that the incoming president had a mere four years to save the world.
          • Later in the year, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Thames, again) said there remained “fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more.”
          • Also in 2009, 124 months ago, the prince of Wales worried out loud the world had “less than 100 months” to save itself.
          • 2009 was a particularly looney year. Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote “we have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it. … We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours.”
          • While speaking to then-Secretary of State John Kerry in May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” Nearly 1,900 days have passed since. The chaos is in the foreign minister’s head.
          • In 2015, mayors from around the world signed a statement that said the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees” Celsius had arrived.
          • Almost 20 years ago, in Y2K, the British Independent quoted a climate researcher who said in coming years the children of England “just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Thirteen years later, that same newspaper told readers to “stand by for icy blasts and heavy snow.”


          Despite the weight of mistaken forecasts, the alarmists plod on. Even in the most recent editorial on this site regarding global warming hysteria, a few reader comments, which proved the point of that particular piece, indicate that the madness might be untreatable.

          (One reader accused us of being “funded by the oil companies, and conservative movements.” Our response: If only. We’re funded by no one. What little revenue we have comes from a few generous readers hitting our tip jar and some minimal advertising. But of course the comment was not intended to illuminate — it was uttered to discredit our work through a made-up link to “evil” corporations and institutions. The aim is to poison and end the discussion, and is typically employed as a last-ditch effort to save a failed argument.)

          The alarmists never consider that there could be other factors in the observed changes, that it’s possible the temperature record is hopelessly flawed, the predictive models faulty, the research “proving” their point itself corrupt. There were references in the comments made to the “facts” — for instance, half of the ocean reefs are dead, whales have starved, rising sea levels are threatening civilization — but no effort was made to show a direct link from these observations to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. We’re simply supposed to believe. Just because.

          Which should be expected, because it’s not possible to make that connection. Correlation is not the same as causation. And any gap between the two grows wider with each additional component that affects climate. A non-exhaustive list of climate inputs includes the sun, the moon, Earth’s rotation, Earth’s orbit, ocean currents, volcanic activity, and clouds, all of which are beyond man’s control.

          Not outside of human control, though, is the burning of fossil fuels, which the alarmists say is overheating Earth due to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide released in combustion. But also released into the atmosphere are particulates, which have a cooling effect because they reflect solar energy back toward the sun. What of this, we ask the fearmongers?

          Though there exists reasonable doubt, the alarmists desperately want to believe. Have to believe. Worse, they feel compelled to make everyone else believe. Express doubt in their narrative and expect to be talked down to, ridiculed, written off as a rube, or worse, labeled a puppet of malign interests.

          But just as they have been wrong through decades of missed predictions, they’re also wrong in their accusations against the “deniers.” They, of course, don’t see it that way. True believers will never admit they’re wrong, even when their own eyes show them they’ve been mistaken.

          The people writing the article and those sucked into its anti-science idiocy are simply ignorant.

          The 18 month caution has to do with stopping a trend and avoiding a certain long term goal of keeping the temperature growth this century < 1.5 degrees C.

          think of steering a supertanker. The last chance to make a certain turn is miles away because of its mass. And just like the supertanker, if one doesn't begin a turn early enough, it will be off course. In the climate arena, if we don't act soon, there simply will be too much CO2 in the atmosphere to keep growth below that goal. And the reality is, there probably is no way to stop it anyway because of political realities like the anti-science nutcases running the government in the US, and China and 3rd world countries whose local myopic economic concerns outweigh any global climate concerns.

          No - I'm not really back - but I'm stupid enough to look-in on things from time to time and since none of the regulars have spoken up about the idiocy represented here, I figured I'd at least start the charge.

          Carry on.

          Jim
          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            The people writing the article and those sucked into its anti-science idiocy are simply ignorant.

            The 18 month caution has to do with stopping a trend and avoiding a certain long term goal of keeping the temperature growth this century < 1.5 degrees C.

            think of steering a supertanker. The last chance to make a certain turn is miles away because of its mass. And just like the supertanker, if one doesn't begin a turn early enough, it will be off course. In the climate arena, if we don't act soon, there simply will be too much CO2 in the atmosphere to keep growth below that goal. And the reality is, there probably is no way to stop it anyway because of political realities like the anti-science nutcases running the government in the US, and China and 3rd world countries whose local myopic economic concerns outweigh any global climate concerns.

            No - I'm not really back - but I'm stupid enough to look-in on things from time to time and since none of the regulars have spoken up about the idiocy represented here, I figured I'd at least start the charge.

            Carry on.

            Jim
            There's nothing quite so persuasive in engendering change than being told that one is a nutcase.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              The people writing the article and those sucked into its anti-science idiocy are simply ignorant.

              The 18 month caution has to do with stopping a trend and avoiding a certain long term goal of keeping the temperature growth this century < 1.5 degrees C.

              think of steering a supertanker. The last chance to make a certain turn is miles away because of its mass. And just like the supertanker, if one doesn't begin a turn early enough, it will be off course. In the climate arena, if we don't act soon, there simply will be too much CO2 in the atmosphere to keep growth below that goal. And the reality is, there probably is no way to stop it anyway because of political realities like the anti-science nutcases running the government in the US, and China and 3rd world countries whose local myopic economic concerns outweigh any global climate concerns.

              No - I'm not really back - but I'm stupid enough to look-in on things from time to time and since none of the regulars have spoken up about the idiocy represented here, I figured I'd at least start the charge.

              Carry on.

              Jim
              Thanks. Good to know you're still out there.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                There's nothing quite so persuasive in engendering change than being told that one is a nutcase.
                "weak point - accuse louder"
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  ...anti-science nutcases running the government in the US...
                  Also known as liberals.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Also known as liberals.
                    Anti-science because they don't believe in alternative facts or statements like 'truth isn't truth'?
                    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chuckles View Post
                      Anti-science because they don't believe in alternative facts or statements like 'truth isn't truth'?
                      "Alternative facts" as in facts that are ignored by liberals because they don't support their narrative.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        "Alternative facts" as in facts that are ignored by liberals because they don't support their narrative.
                        Facts like your sub-glacial Antarctic cityscape?
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          18 months from now is January 2021. At least they could have picked a summer month so they could claim how right they are because it is hot outside.

                          They need better apocalypse planning.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            18 months from now is January 2021. At least they could have picked a summer month so they could claim how right they are because it is hot outside.

                            They need better apocalypse planning.
                            They DID pick a summer month!

                            for those who live upside down, anyway.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              18 months from now is January 2021. At least they could have picked a summer month so they could claim how right they are because it is hot outside.

                              They need better apocalypse planning.
                              Al Gore always seemed to pick the coldest days of the year to rant and rave about global warming. It was almost like he did it on purpose. Of course global warming hucksters try to tell us that bitter cold is exactly what we should expect from a warming climate.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Electric Skeptic, Today, 10:28 AM
                              0 responses
                              8 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 05:50 PM
                              8 responses
                              81 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 05:19 PM
                              3 responses
                              19 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Kate22, Yesterday, 08:56 AM
                              18 responses
                              159 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Maranatha  
                              Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:06 AM
                              2 responses
                              38 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Working...
                              X