{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/6/2015 8:38:50 PM
19
Nothing you can do will deter these idiots, they'll just keep spouting off about how the scientists are wrong and their opinion is right.
Don't even try.
English
-
Yes, these idiots didn't believe Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute when he warned us in 1988 that Manhattan would be partially submerged and plagued by window-breaking high winds by 2008. Thanks, idiots, now I need to take a gondola to get pizza when I visit New York. The idiots also didn't believe Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, IPCC author and leading force behind the Kyoto Protocol, when he warned us in 1990 that by 1995, the Midwest would be in dust bowl conditions, dust would destroy computers and strip paint off houses, there would be food riots, and Americans would cross illegally into Mexico for migrant labor. Thanks, idiots! Now I pick fruit with dust in my eyes. The idiots also didn't believe the UN Environment Program 2005 report that warned us that by 2010, there would be 50 million climate refugees globally. Thanks, idiots! Now I just hope India lets me out of this refugee camp. The idiots also didn't believe Al Gore when he warned us in 2009 that by 2013, the North Pole would be ice free in the summer. Thanks, idiots! Now I just hope the ice solidifies in time for Santa to rebuild his workshop. You guys are dumb dumb DUMB and should have listened before it was too late!! But you can still make it right. Just give all your money to the next scientist with a scary prediction. Remember, they are SCIENTISTS. Who are we to question SCIENCE?!?
-
[quote]Yes, these idiots didn't believe Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute when he warned us in 1988 that Manhattan would be partially submerged and plagued by window-breaking high winds by 2008. Thanks, idiots, now I need to take a gondola to get pizza when I visit New York. The idiots also didn't believe Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, IPCC author and leading force behind the Kyoto Protocol, when he warned us in 1990 that by 1995, the Midwest would be in dust bowl conditions, dust would destroy computers and strip paint off houses, there would be food riots, and Americans would cross illegally into Mexico for migrant labor. Thanks, idiots! Now I pick fruit with dust in my eyes. The idiots also didn't believe the UN Environment Program 2005 report that warned us that by 2010, there would be 50 million climate refugees globally. Thanks, idiots! Now I just hope India lets me out of this refugee camp. The idiots also didn't believe Al Gore when he warned us in 2009 that by 2013, the North Pole would be ice free in the summer. Thanks, idiots! Now I just hope the ice solidifies in time for Santa to rebuild his workshop. You guys are dumb dumb DUMB and should have listened before it was too late!! But you can still make it right. Just give all your money to the next scientist with a scary prediction. Remember, they are SCIENTISTS. Who are we to question SCIENCE?!?[/quote]
-
You are cherry picking, yes there are some predictions that have been wrong. [b]That doesn't mean the entire scientific community is wrong[/b]
-
Edited by OurWildebeest: 12/6/2015 11:09:25 PMEach one of these people (other than whoever wrote the UN report) was a titan of the field at the time of the statement. The Goracle seems to have gone silent, but the others are still titans of the field. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/apr/29/climate-scientist-james-hansen-legacy https://www.edf.org/news/statement-dr-michael-oppenheimer-chief-scientist-environmental-defense So the biggest names possible predict Manhattan partially underwater in 20 years, North Pole gone in four years, and America in dust bowl conditions in five years. The dates come and go, nothing happens. "Eh, can't win em all." But the current and upcoming predictions are totally reliable? At some point, being correct (or at least admitting that you don't know yet) matters. There is a word for situations where you are praised not for being correct, but for the fervor of your beliefs. That word is not "science."
-
If your argument relies on "well this person was wrong once" you need to actually get an argument.
-
Edited by OurWildebeest: 12/7/2015 12:06:02 AMMy argument is "every single falsifiable prediction of effects you can see without lab equipment has been wrong." But, did you notice, that wasn't one person? And it wasn't minor little errors ("he said 32.7 but it was 32.4!!")? It was possibly the three biggest names plus a UN team, saying four LUDICROUS things that did not come true in the slightest. The other guy we talked about (Holdren), in 1971, was trying to get people to scatter soot on the North Pole to melt it and avoid a global tsunami when the ice age makes polar ice so thick it slams down on the water. Where are they now: Hansen - retired with honors and praise Oppenheimer - celebrity Princeton professor Holdren - "White House science czar" Goracle - ?? If I wanted to make a name for myself as a climate scientist, I would make up the most crazy doomsday scenario possible and say it is happening in five years. When I am wrong, there will be no consequences. Because unlike every other scientific field, being right is not a priority.
-
So your argument is against the motives of the mentioned individuals. Crazy predictions are irrelevant to things we are observing happen that confirm anthropogenic climate change.
-
Well - you are acting as though I am pointing out oddball quacks. The guys I am pointing out are patron saints. Especially Hansen. Google them ... Meantime, I am not aware of any falsifiable predictions that have come true, that a regular person can see without equipment. More wildfires - no, per Forbes, there were more in 1950 More drought - no, per Nature, the number has been steady for 60 years More hurricanes - we are in the longest stretch in U.S. history without a major hurricane making continental U.S. landfall, 10 years (Sandy was a category 1 until just before landfall) More powerful hurricanes - highest windspeed recorded was Camilla in 1969, second highest was Andrew in 1992 Less snow, more snow - uh OK I guess? But "wait and see, it will all come true one day" ...
-
Edited by Britton: 12/7/2015 1:29:58 AMThat a regular person can see without equipment? So you mean it has to be verifiable by walking outside and remembering how it used to be compared to now? Come on dude. You're better than that. Also, your argument is based on some extremely selective cases, and doesn't even address the clear data we have showing what has been actually happening, and it also doesn't argue against the very basic and understandable concepts behind it. But if you are insistent on discussing predictions fine. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/ http://m.livescience.com/25367-first-ipcc-climate-report-accurate.html Honestly I care very little for predictions in climate science due to the insane number of variables that come into play, which is why I look to what has been actually happening instead to see that there has been a clear trend, and any fool can see that if things do not change that trend will continue. So if your case is that we should take all predictions with a grain of salt, then I agree. We should, however, be able to look at what we has already been happening and be able to come to an agreement to go away from the course of action that lead to those things. Also, for natural events like fires, hurricanes, etc just saying more or less doesn't tell anyone anything about the overall climate picture. A changing climate will have many different effects that just totaling up some numbers won't capture.
-
That you can see without equipment meaning, not CO2 levels rising. I can't measure that. And it just begs the question anyway. What if, in 100 years, we can barely tell a difference? Which is my guess, BTW. I would be a lot less suspicious of it were it not for the stream of ridiculous and ultimately incorrect predictions, like the ones I mentioned. Those are not oddities I found in obscure places, those were how this was sold to the public, repeatedly. And they are not called on it, because their heart was in the right place, or something like that.
-
What if a beer truck crashes and I drink it all? I don't play the what if game.
-
Edited by OurWildebeest: 12/7/2015 12:41:02 PMI don't know if you follow health news. You probably saw at least a little about the saturated fat/heart disease link being revisited. 50+ years, everybody knew that eating cholesterol and saturated fat clogged your arteries. There was "good cholesterol" so it could be a bit more nuanced. But saturated fat, bad. Doctors knew it. Researchers knew it. Nurses knew it. Everybody knew it. This is after the best research possible, with millions of test subjects, numerous strategies attempted to improve the situation, cadavers studied. Then one day - oops, nevermind. Today, a fringe field that is highly politicized, studying a more complex, larger "patient" who is much harder to test theories on, in which every verifiable prediction other than rising CO2 levels has either A) proven wrong or B) may or may not be outside normal fluctuations, this should determine a big chunk of global policy? And if you question it, you are a medieval dolt who doesn't understand science? If I can say the Midwest will be a dustbowl in five years, nothing happens after 5-10-15-20-25 years, and my career hums along ... As well as the other examples (my list was not exhaustive I assure you) ... And if you doubt me, you are an anti-science dullard ... I mean, we are talking about the best con of all time. Snake oil, except snake oil that it is socially unacceptable to criticize, or refuse to buy. "If you use snake oil, you will be more alert!" You try it and feel drowsy. "Aha, it worked! It is also a sleep aid!"
-
Basically you're saying "what if we make the world a better place for nothing?"
-
[quote]What if a beer truck crashes and I drink it all.[/quote] You'd be dead because you drank an entire truck.
-
I didn't say how fast i would drink it all.
-
You can't drink a truck, Britton.
-
Nope, I drank all the beer from a truck in this what if scenario.
-
Ahh. [spoiler]That's quite a lot of beer, Britton. Would you really drunk 200-800 gallons of Angry orchard? [/spoiler]
-
In the name of science.
