4 ms·

Could you share some of these confident predictions regarding global warming?

by avip 7y ago

lliamander 7y ago
Confident predictions regarding climate change over the past 100 or so years[0] [0] https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/goosey-goosey-gander.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/goosey-goosey-gander.ht...
- avip 7y ago
  I see one prediction from an actual modern climate scientist. It reads: "So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years. . . Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know . . . We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually."
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >I see one prediction from an actual modern climate scientist. The original conversation was regarding all public statements, not scientists. This is more about journalists than scientists. >...and consider how it applies to all the people who have made confident predictions over the years regarding global warming.
    - avip 7y ago
      Who cares what journalists say? IPCC and nasa reports are publicly available and use plain language anyone can read.
      - jshevek 7y ago
        > Who cares what journalists say? IPCC and nasa reports are publicly available and use plain language anyone can read. Investigating geological or ecological truth is one thing, investigating causes and consequences for widespread ignorance and bad policy decisions is another. You and I are approaching this from different angles. Unfortunately, journalists have power to shape our society. I would argue that as a group, they have more power than scientists.
        cies 7y ago
        Sadly journalists seem even more in the pocket of big biz than scientists.
        jshevek 7y ago
        > Sadly journalists seem even more in the pocket of big biz than scientists. I think you may be suggesting that there have been journalists who push climate denialism at the behest of the oil industry? My apologies if I misunderstood, but I would agree emphatically. There are also other jouranlists who push climate alarmism because alarmism sells.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > I see one prediction from an actual modern climate scientist. That's a nice "No True Scotsman" right there. Unless, of course, you can give me a non-arbitrary reason why Dr. David Barber of the University of Manitoba speaking in 2008 is a "pre-modern" climate scientist, whereas Dr. James Hansen of NASA writing in 2009 is a "modern" climate scientist.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      That's a good point. The conversation is about a history of irresponsible public statements, but the evidence for this history is dismissed with: >actual modern climate scientist With this rhetorical technique, it could be impossible to provide evidence. Who gets to decide what makes a climate scientist 'modern'? Disregarding alleged 'non-modern' climate scientists is the last thing we should do when discussing prior decades of alarmism.
    - avip 7y ago
      The quote's from a newspaper. However, I did your job (again) digging into that man's actual predictions, and he was wrong not once.
      - lliamander 7y ago
        > The quote's from a newspaper. Is the quote a fabrication? > However, I did your job (again) digging into that man's actual predictions, and he was wrong not once. How magnanimous of you. Care to provide a link since you already did the work? Also, you've failed to provide a clarification for what you mean by "modern" scientist. You put the sole blame for these false predictions in the lap of journalists if you want, but is it still a problem? If not, what changed? And if the bright folks at NYT and National Geographic can get it so wrong, what hope do the rest of us have?
    - outworlder 7y ago
      I've seen this game played countless times. "Sources?" Then you do the job of googling for them. Retrieve a few relevant sources. And they proceed to shoot them down, even moving goalposts if necessary. They might come back with their own confirmation biased sources. This instance is even more egregious. There is a growing mountain of evidence for climate change. Multiple books, across multiple disciplines, can and have been written. Numerous peer reviewed papers. What's more infuriating is that you don't need climate scientists to corroborate climate change. Because it's not a prediction anymore, climate has been changing already. Disciplines as diverse as geology and biology can detect the effects. If you want to do projections, sure, biologists may not be able to help. But if you want to see the effects today, they certainly can. With such an enormous pile of data, I can't believe this is a legitimate discussion.
jshevek 7y ago
Here is a decent place to start [for anyone truly unaware of the history of bad climate predictions]: https://www.bing.com/search?q=bad%20climate%20predictions https://www.bing.com/search?q=bad%20climate%20predictions
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ggreer 7y ago
Here's an AP article from 31 years ago[1]. > A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. ... > The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. Since that article was published, atmospheric CO2 has gone from 355ppm to 410ppm (a 15% increase). Global surface temperature has risen 0.6°C since 1989 (1.1°F). Sea level has risen by 8 centimeters. I realize the UN official wasn't a scientist or an expert, but neither are many of the people quoted in articles about climate change today. Global warming is a bad thing, but it's not as bad as a lot of media & activists are portraying it. It's not an existential risk. 1. https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
- int_19h 7y ago
  This sounds like it refers to various island nations in the Pacific, which are, indeed, under existential thread from global warming and the associated sea level rise.

Could you share some of these confident predictions regarding global warming?

by avip 7y ago

Could you share some of these confident predictions regarding global warming?

Confident predictions regarding climate change over the past 100 or so years[0] [0] https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/goosey-goosey-gander.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2010/10/goosey-goosey-gander.ht...

avip 7y ago
I see one prediction from an actual modern climate scientist. It reads: "So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years. . . Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know . . . We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually."
- jshevek 7y ago
  >I see one prediction from an actual modern climate scientist. The original conversation was regarding all public statements, not scientists. This is more about journalists than scientists. >...and consider how it applies to all the people who have made confident predictions over the years regarding global warming.
  - avip 7y ago
    Who cares what journalists say? IPCC and nasa reports are publicly available and use plain language anyone can read.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      > Who cares what journalists say? IPCC and nasa reports are publicly available and use plain language anyone can read. Investigating geological or ecological truth is one thing, investigating causes and consequences for widespread ignorance and bad policy decisions is another. You and I are approaching this from different angles. Unfortunately, journalists have power to shape our society. I would argue that as a group, they have more power than scientists.
      - cies 7y ago
        Sadly journalists seem even more in the pocket of big biz than scientists.
        jshevek 7y ago
        > Sadly journalists seem even more in the pocket of big biz than scientists. I think you may be suggesting that there have been journalists who push climate denialism at the behest of the oil industry? My apologies if I misunderstood, but I would agree emphatically. There are also other jouranlists who push climate alarmism because alarmism sells.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > I see one prediction from an actual modern climate scientist. That's a nice "No True Scotsman" right there. Unless, of course, you can give me a non-arbitrary reason why Dr. David Barber of the University of Manitoba speaking in 2008 is a "pre-modern" climate scientist, whereas Dr. James Hansen of NASA writing in 2009 is a "modern" climate scientist.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    That's a good point. The conversation is about a history of irresponsible public statements, but the evidence for this history is dismissed with: >actual modern climate scientist With this rhetorical technique, it could be impossible to provide evidence. Who gets to decide what makes a climate scientist 'modern'? Disregarding alleged 'non-modern' climate scientists is the last thing we should do when discussing prior decades of alarmism.
  - avip 7y ago
    The quote's from a newspaper. However, I did your job (again) digging into that man's actual predictions, and he was wrong not once.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > The quote's from a newspaper. Is the quote a fabrication? > However, I did your job (again) digging into that man's actual predictions, and he was wrong not once. How magnanimous of you. Care to provide a link since you already did the work? Also, you've failed to provide a clarification for what you mean by "modern" scientist. You put the sole blame for these false predictions in the lap of journalists if you want, but is it still a problem? If not, what changed? And if the bright folks at NYT and National Geographic can get it so wrong, what hope do the rest of us have?
  - outworlder 7y ago
    I've seen this game played countless times. "Sources?" Then you do the job of googling for them. Retrieve a few relevant sources. And they proceed to shoot them down, even moving goalposts if necessary. They might come back with their own confirmation biased sources. This instance is even more egregious. There is a growing mountain of evidence for climate change. Multiple books, across multiple disciplines, can and have been written. Numerous peer reviewed papers. What's more infuriating is that you don't need climate scientists to corroborate climate change. Because it's not a prediction anymore, climate has been changing already. Disciplines as diverse as geology and biology can detect the effects. If you want to do projections, sure, biologists may not be able to help. But if you want to see the effects today, they certainly can. With such an enormous pile of data, I can't believe this is a legitimate discussion.

jshevek 7y ago

Here is a decent place to start [for anyone truly unaware of the history of bad climate predictions]: https://www.bing.com/search?q=bad%20climate%20predictions https://www.bing.com/search?q=bad%20climate%20predictions

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ggreer 7y ago

Here's an AP article from 31 years ago[1]. > A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. ... > The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. Since that article was published, atmospheric CO2 has gone from 355ppm to 410ppm (a 15% increase). Global surface temperature has risen 0.6°C since 1989 (1.1°F). Sea level has risen by 8 centimeters. I realize the UN official wasn't a scientist or an expert, but neither are many of the people quoted in articles about climate change today. Global warming is a bad thing, but it's not as bad as a lot of media & activists are portraying it. It's not an existential risk. 1. https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

int_19h 7y ago
This sounds like it refers to various island nations in the Pacific, which are, indeed, under existential thread from global warming and the associated sea level rise.