4 ms·

There is no climate catastrophe. That’s simply a modern version of the superstition you lament. The end of the world is always conveniently just 12 years away.

There is no climate catastrophe. That’s simply a modern version of the superstition you lament. The end of the world is always conveniently just 12 years away. I’m old enough to remember the Prophesy of Al Gore (peace be upon him) and how none of that came to pass. 2009: “the North Pole will be ice free by 2013.” I also remember the dire predictions of acid rain, the ozone hole, and numerous other proclamations that stirred up the anti-capitalist faithful. There’s always some sort of catastrophe just looming just over the horizon of the next election. Televangelists have made careers from warning the faithful that their doom is assured — unless you reprint (and contribute.) The climate alarmist crowd has taken pages right out of the tent-revival handbook of the 19th century. Snake oil.

ikrenji 4y ago
mega droughts, record heat waves, wildfires, more numerous and violent storms of all kind but sure there is no problem with the climate. shaping the climate doesn’t happen overnight and if no action is taken now the world will be very different in 50-100 years. just because dinosaurs lived on a hotter earth doesn’t mean than 10 billion people can comfort at do so too ...
puppable 4y ago
The only reason you're not hearing about the acid rain or the ozone hole anymore are because decisive international action was taken to stop both, and wouldn't you know it, it worked. And, are you really "old enough to remember" a single politician mis-stating a climate forecast during a speech, or are you just "old enough to remember" seeing it repackaged into a meme on social media a decade or so after the fact? Either way, it is an asinine basis for your leading claim.
otikik 4y ago
The world is a very complex system and it is of course logical that people will not be completely accurate in their numbers and dates. > the North Pole will be ice free by 2013 The tendency is unmissable if you look at the data[1]. People might have been wrong about the exact date at which it would happen, but you should not let the exactitude of the date distract you. It will eventually happen (unless something changes drastically). And we honestly don't know how the weather will behave on an iceless Earth. Some people speculate that the arctic ice is a sort of heat shield. It makes some sense intuitively: all that white ice reflects a lot of heat back up. Once it is gone... the blue water will absorb and accumulate more heat. > I also remember the dire predictions of acid rain, the ozone hole, and numerous other proclamations that stirred up the anti-capitalist faithful. Everyone is starting to feel the change, it's no longer "just words". If you have not started yet you will start feeling it soon. In my country (Spain), this summer we have had 3 heatwaves in a row, as well as two very unusual clouds of Sahara dust, the first of which reached Finland. I was born in the south of Spain, were's the hottest. When I was little the max summer temp used to be 41 degrees Celsius (105F). Now it's 47C(116F). Max temperatures have increased through the Iberian Peninsula, 41C is "the new normal" in all places except some coastal fortunates and some very northern regions. My options for escaping the summer heat are dwindling. In the United States my understanding is that the most visible exponent is the extreme drought, in particular the water levels in the Colorado river basin seems worrisome. You might find more information about where you live in [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline [2] https://www.drought.gov https://www.drought.gov
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > People might have been wrong about the exact date at which it would happen, but you should not let the exactitude of the date distract you. Herbert W. Armstrong predicted that 1936 would be doomsday, and then that 1943 would be doomsday after 1936 came and went, and then that 1972 would be doomsday after 1943 came and went, and then that 1975 would be doomsday after 1972 came and went. How would you rebut that sentence if he said it in 1973 or 1974? Or if Harold Camping, who did basically exactly the same thing, said it? Why wouldn't that rebuttal apply equally to your use of it? > Some people speculate that the arctic ice is a sort of heat shield. It makes some sense intuitively: all that white ice reflects a lot of heat back up. But isn't the reason that the ice is at the poles that hardly any of the Sun's heat gets there?
  - howenterprisey 4y ago
    We aren't/weren't trending towards the doomsday mentioned in your examples in any measurable way. By contrast, climate trends are well-documented.
  - rtpg 4y ago
    I don’t know the numbers, the thought experiment on the last point: Imagine that without ice the ambient temperature is 5 degrees C. And that the area being ice rather than dark colored rock causes a drop of about 10 degrees C. So the ambient temperature in the area is under 0. But as it melts for reasons then this cooling effects disappears and now the thing is basically gone forever. Not commenting too much on the actual theory but you could easily imagine an ecosystem disappearing due to these kinds of changes
blibble 4y ago
acid rain and the ozone hole were fixed by regulation
magicalhippo 4y ago
> 2009: “the North Pole will be ice free by 2013.” I'll agree that was hyperbole, but interestingly this[1] article featured just the other day in the news here, about how a research vessel reached the north pole several days ahead of schedule because there was significantly less ice than expected. The scientists interviewed said conditions had changed drastically over the last 10 years. So maybe add 20 years to Gore's prediction? [1]: https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/forskningsskipet-ff-_kronprins-haakon_-nadde-nordpolen-for-tiden_-lite-is-bekymrer-forskerne-1.16050896 https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/forskningsskipet-ff-_kron...
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I think anyone with even a passing understanding of the data can summarily dismiss your "argument", which is full of logical fallacies. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from about 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to 415 today. Yes, figuring out all the impacts and feedback loops is incredibly difficult, but it requires only a passing understanding of physics to understand how being on track to doubling the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will result in a massively warmer planet.

ikrenji 4y ago

mega droughts, record heat waves, wildfires, more numerous and violent storms of all kind but sure there is no problem with the climate. shaping the climate doesn’t happen overnight and if no action is taken now the world will be very different in 50-100 years. just because dinosaurs lived on a hotter earth doesn’t mean than 10 billion people can comfort at do so too ...

puppable 4y ago

The only reason you're not hearing about the acid rain or the ozone hole anymore are because decisive international action was taken to stop both, and wouldn't you know it, it worked. And, are you really "old enough to remember" a single politician mis-stating a climate forecast during a speech, or are you just "old enough to remember" seeing it repackaged into a meme on social media a decade or so after the fact? Either way, it is an asinine basis for your leading claim.

otikik 4y ago

The world is a very complex system and it is of course logical that people will not be completely accurate in their numbers and dates. > the North Pole will be ice free by 2013 The tendency is unmissable if you look at the data[1]. People might have been wrong about the exact date at which it would happen, but you should not let the exactitude of the date distract you. It will eventually happen (unless something changes drastically). And we honestly don't know how the weather will behave on an iceless Earth. Some people speculate that the arctic ice is a sort of heat shield. It makes some sense intuitively: all that white ice reflects a lot of heat back up. Once it is gone... the blue water will absorb and accumulate more heat. > I also remember the dire predictions of acid rain, the ozone hole, and numerous other proclamations that stirred up the anti-capitalist faithful. Everyone is starting to feel the change, it's no longer "just words". If you have not started yet you will start feeling it soon. In my country (Spain), this summer we have had 3 heatwaves in a row, as well as two very unusual clouds of Sahara dust, the first of which reached Finland. I was born in the south of Spain, were's the hottest. When I was little the max summer temp used to be 41 degrees Celsius (105F). Now it's 47C(116F). Max temperatures have increased through the Iberian Peninsula, 41C is "the new normal" in all places except some coastal fortunates and some very northern regions. My options for escaping the summer heat are dwindling. In the United States my understanding is that the most visible exponent is the extreme drought, in particular the water levels in the Colorado river basin seems worrisome. You might find more information about where you live in [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline [2] https://www.drought.gov https://www.drought.gov

josephcsible 4y ago
> People might have been wrong about the exact date at which it would happen, but you should not let the exactitude of the date distract you. Herbert W. Armstrong predicted that 1936 would be doomsday, and then that 1943 would be doomsday after 1936 came and went, and then that 1972 would be doomsday after 1943 came and went, and then that 1975 would be doomsday after 1972 came and went. How would you rebut that sentence if he said it in 1973 or 1974? Or if Harold Camping, who did basically exactly the same thing, said it? Why wouldn't that rebuttal apply equally to your use of it? > Some people speculate that the arctic ice is a sort of heat shield. It makes some sense intuitively: all that white ice reflects a lot of heat back up. But isn't the reason that the ice is at the poles that hardly any of the Sun's heat gets there?
- howenterprisey 4y ago
  We aren't/weren't trending towards the doomsday mentioned in your examples in any measurable way. By contrast, climate trends are well-documented.
- rtpg 4y ago
  I don’t know the numbers, the thought experiment on the last point: Imagine that without ice the ambient temperature is 5 degrees C. And that the area being ice rather than dark colored rock causes a drop of about 10 degrees C. So the ambient temperature in the area is under 0. But as it melts for reasons then this cooling effects disappears and now the thing is basically gone forever. Not commenting too much on the actual theory but you could easily imagine an ecosystem disappearing due to these kinds of changes

blibble 4y ago

acid rain and the ozone hole were fixed by regulation

magicalhippo 4y ago

> 2009: “the North Pole will be ice free by 2013.” I'll agree that was hyperbole, but interestingly this[1] article featured just the other day in the news here, about how a research vessel reached the north pole several days ahead of schedule because there was significantly less ice than expected. The scientists interviewed said conditions had changed drastically over the last 10 years. So maybe add 20 years to Gore's prediction? [1]: https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/forskningsskipet-ff-_kronprins-haakon_-nadde-nordpolen-for-tiden_-lite-is-bekymrer-forskerne-1.16050896 https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/forskningsskipet-ff-_kron...

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I think anyone with even a passing understanding of the data can summarily dismiss your "argument", which is full of logical fallacies. Atmospheric CO2 has gone from about 280 ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to 415 today. Yes, figuring out all the impacts and feedback loops is incredibly difficult, but it requires only a passing understanding of physics to understand how being on track to doubling the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will result in a massively warmer planet.