4 ms·

The worst predictions of warming, which has basically been disproven already you can ignore the 8.5 black/red circles, have all been untrue to date. The doomsa

The worst predictions of warming, which has basically been disproven already you can ignore the 8.5 black/red circles, have all been untrue to date. The doomsayers have been predicting the end of the world forever, this time they are just using climate change as their mayan calendar. The world can get 10 celcius warmer and nothing is wrong; it'll make the earth that much better. Bring it on.

ben_w 8y ago
> The worst predictions of warming, which has basically been disproven already you can ignore the 8.5 black/red circles, have all been untrue to date. Took me a while to realise you were talking about the other picture you linked to. Those are RCP8.5, where “RCP” means “Representative concentration pathway”. We’re just below the mean estimate for that, but closer to that than to the RCP6.0. A bigger problem is that you can’t simultaneously say that 8.5 F is a “worst” prediction and say that “10 C is great”. As I’ve said on another thread, I don’t expect us to have long term climate problems, because I’m happy to project the current exponential growth of PV for another 20 years — but you don’t get to just pretend that world experts are wrong just because you don’t like the conclusions they bring to you. After all, plenty of civilisations have ended, and that’s what worries (other) people.
- sleepysysadmin 8y ago
  >Those are RCP8.5, where “RCP” means “Representative concentration pathway”. We’re just below the mean estimate for that, but closer to that than to the RCP6.0. Which it's important to see the claim or prediction. When there are 4 predictions and only the most extreme option is predicting any real change. It's VERY disingenuous to only include the worst prediction. >A bigger problem is that you can’t simultaneously say that 8.5 F is a “worst” prediction and say that “10 C is great”. I disagree. You can absolutely discuss the point being made. It's the worst prediction that we already know is NOT happening. That stands on it's own. But moreover, even if it's true. It doesn't matter. Global warming is going to be just fine. It's doomsayers who have blown it out of proportion. >As I’ve said on another thread, I don’t expect us to have long term climate problems, My prediction by looking at the eocene period is that we will have long term climate changes. Except they will change for the better. >but you don’t get to just pretend that world experts are wrong just because you don’t like the conclusions they bring to you. This is an appeal to authority AND appeal to the masses. Double logical fallacy when you assert this. So far, the predictions made over the last 30 years have been wrong. Al Gore's predictions that by 2020 florida will be under water to a significant degree? That hasn't happened yet, I'm sure it's going to happen in the next 9 months... >After all, plenty of civilisations have ended, and that’s what worries (other) people. Prove that climate change will destroy the world or destroy our civilization. There has been MANY predictions now that have been outright falsified. The United Nations predicted that we were completely and utterly doomed to extinction if we didnt do as they say by the year 2000. That was wrong. They reissued their hoax and said 2012. That was wrong. IF you also are astutue these climate change doomsday hoaxes also lined up with Y2K and the Mayan Calendar hoaxes. Sorry but at this point I'm done with these doomsday hoaxes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmYdSF7bKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmYdSF7bKg http://4hiroshimas.com/ http://4hiroshimas.com/ This is doomsayer hoaxes.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Way to miss all my core points. > It's the worst prediction that we already know is NOT happening. That stands on it's own. False. All observations are between “business as usual” emissions — which we are not in fact producing, in part because of these models — and the second most extreme model. What you’re doing is the equivalent of slowing your car from 90 to 80, saying that disproves fuel consumption estimates based on going at 90, and then saying that you should burn fuel even faster because — oh, I don’t know, let’s say because it makes more jobs for the oil industry or something to keep with the analogy. > My prediction by looking at the eocene period is that we will have long term climate changes. Except they will change for the better. Nobody is denying the existence of long term climate changes. Congratulations on your straw man. Or nut picking, if you can find a counter example of someone. You have not demonstrated why anyone else should believe such changes (let alone ones occurring 100,000 times faster) are “better”, given how much the world has changed since then. Given this temperature change is caused by CO2 rather than, say, giant space mirrors, we have a further problem. CO2 levels corresponding to “burn all the fossil fuels” (timeframes practically irrelevant) cause demonstrable cognitive impairment: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 Of course, I give 3:1 odds that you will dismiss this claim without making a serious attempt to refute it. I’m not going to bother listing all the other things that need to be handled to prevent various civilisation existential risks as you ask for later. The fact you’re calling it “doomsaying” proves to me that you already understand the severity, you’re just refusing to believe it. Of course, given who you cite as examples, perhaps you’re looking in all the wrong places for knowledge, which brings me to my next point… > Al Gore's predictions that by 2020 florida will be under water to a significant degree? Is a perfect example of why I appeal to authorities. Gore is a politician who misrepresented the work of the scientists he intended to cite. Speaking of citations… > The United Nations predicted that we were completely and utterly doomed to extinction if we didnt do as they say by the year 2000 What are you talking about? I can’t even find references to this with Google. (Not that any of this matters, I’m a techno-optimist; if we get through the next 20 years, I expect to witness star lifting extend the lifespan of Sol by a factor of ten).

ben_w 8y ago

> The worst predictions of warming, which has basically been disproven already you can ignore the 8.5 black/red circles, have all been untrue to date. Took me a while to realise you were talking about the other picture you linked to. Those are RCP8.5, where “RCP” means “Representative concentration pathway”. We’re just below the mean estimate for that, but closer to that than to the RCP6.0. A bigger problem is that you can’t simultaneously say that 8.5 F is a “worst” prediction and say that “10 C is great”. As I’ve said on another thread, I don’t expect us to have long term climate problems, because I’m happy to project the current exponential growth of PV for another 20 years — but you don’t get to just pretend that world experts are wrong just because you don’t like the conclusions they bring to you. After all, plenty of civilisations have ended, and that’s what worries (other) people.

sleepysysadmin 8y ago
>Those are RCP8.5, where “RCP” means “Representative concentration pathway”. We’re just below the mean estimate for that, but closer to that than to the RCP6.0. Which it's important to see the claim or prediction. When there are 4 predictions and only the most extreme option is predicting any real change. It's VERY disingenuous to only include the worst prediction. >A bigger problem is that you can’t simultaneously say that 8.5 F is a “worst” prediction and say that “10 C is great”. I disagree. You can absolutely discuss the point being made. It's the worst prediction that we already know is NOT happening. That stands on it's own. But moreover, even if it's true. It doesn't matter. Global warming is going to be just fine. It's doomsayers who have blown it out of proportion. >As I’ve said on another thread, I don’t expect us to have long term climate problems, My prediction by looking at the eocene period is that we will have long term climate changes. Except they will change for the better. >but you don’t get to just pretend that world experts are wrong just because you don’t like the conclusions they bring to you. This is an appeal to authority AND appeal to the masses. Double logical fallacy when you assert this. So far, the predictions made over the last 30 years have been wrong. Al Gore's predictions that by 2020 florida will be under water to a significant degree? That hasn't happened yet, I'm sure it's going to happen in the next 9 months... >After all, plenty of civilisations have ended, and that’s what worries (other) people. Prove that climate change will destroy the world or destroy our civilization. There has been MANY predictions now that have been outright falsified. The United Nations predicted that we were completely and utterly doomed to extinction if we didnt do as they say by the year 2000. That was wrong. They reissued their hoax and said 2012. That was wrong. IF you also are astutue these climate change doomsday hoaxes also lined up with Y2K and the Mayan Calendar hoaxes. Sorry but at this point I'm done with these doomsday hoaxes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmYdSF7bKg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGmYdSF7bKg http://4hiroshimas.com/ http://4hiroshimas.com/ This is doomsayer hoaxes.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Way to miss all my core points. > It's the worst prediction that we already know is NOT happening. That stands on it's own. False. All observations are between “business as usual” emissions — which we are not in fact producing, in part because of these models — and the second most extreme model. What you’re doing is the equivalent of slowing your car from 90 to 80, saying that disproves fuel consumption estimates based on going at 90, and then saying that you should burn fuel even faster because — oh, I don’t know, let’s say because it makes more jobs for the oil industry or something to keep with the analogy. > My prediction by looking at the eocene period is that we will have long term climate changes. Except they will change for the better. Nobody is denying the existence of long term climate changes. Congratulations on your straw man. Or nut picking, if you can find a counter example of someone. You have not demonstrated why anyone else should believe such changes (let alone ones occurring 100,000 times faster) are “better”, given how much the world has changed since then. Given this temperature change is caused by CO2 rather than, say, giant space mirrors, we have a further problem. CO2 levels corresponding to “burn all the fossil fuels” (timeframes practically irrelevant) cause demonstrable cognitive impairment: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 Of course, I give 3:1 odds that you will dismiss this claim without making a serious attempt to refute it. I’m not going to bother listing all the other things that need to be handled to prevent various civilisation existential risks as you ask for later. The fact you’re calling it “doomsaying” proves to me that you already understand the severity, you’re just refusing to believe it. Of course, given who you cite as examples, perhaps you’re looking in all the wrong places for knowledge, which brings me to my next point… > Al Gore's predictions that by 2020 florida will be under water to a significant degree? Is a perfect example of why I appeal to authorities. Gore is a politician who misrepresented the work of the scientists he intended to cite. Speaking of citations… > The United Nations predicted that we were completely and utterly doomed to extinction if we didnt do as they say by the year 2000 What are you talking about? I can’t even find references to this with Google. (Not that any of this matters, I’m a techno-optimist; if we get through the next 20 years, I expect to witness star lifting extend the lifespan of Sol by a factor of ten).