3 ms·

Models. Prediction with no long term history of being correct. It's a doomsday cult. I would recommend going back to watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and s

by collyw 4y ago

Models. Prediction with no long term history of being correct. It's a doomsday cult. I would recommend going back to watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and see how many of the catastrophic predictions have come true.

Swenrekcah 4y ago
Exxon mobile scientists predicted all this in the 1970s with pretty good accuracy: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- collyw 4y ago
  The climate has always changed. Predicting the climate getting warmer when coming out of a mini ice age is hardly ground breaking. We were promised Manhattan would be underwater by now, that glaciers would be gone. https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/ https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-na...
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    This is cherrypicking. Sure, predictions vary and some turn out to be too pessimistic, others too optimistic. The general trend is clear however and has been for decades.
    - collyw 4y ago
      Cherrypicking is exactly what both sides do. Every extreme weather event is now pointed at as "evidence". It would be nice to have both sides heard and debated instead of the hysteria led media we get. Look into Bjorn Lomborg. I have no idea how accurate his stuff is, but he is the only one that actually seems to take a pragmatic approach to the problem and looks at the bigger picture
      - Swenrekcah 4y ago
        No it’s not. The trend is clear, the world is warming, we know the mechanism, we know the cause and we can calculate at least some of the results and we know they’re bad. People saying “oh but things are always changing, there used to be an ice age” and things like that, completely ignore the pace of change. You don’t need to panic but please don’t bury your head in the sand.
floodle 4y ago
This is a false dichotomy.
- collyw 4y ago
  Modern day crystal ball reading with some complicated maths to give it the air of credibility

by collyw 4y ago

Swenrekcah 4y ago

Exxon mobile scientists predicted all this in the 1970s with pretty good accuracy: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
collyw 4y ago
The climate has always changed. Predicting the climate getting warmer when coming out of a mini ice age is hardly ground breaking. We were promised Manhattan would be underwater by now, that glaciers would be gone. https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-national-parks-gone-by-2020-signs/ https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/the-telling-tale-of-glacier-na...
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  This is cherrypicking. Sure, predictions vary and some turn out to be too pessimistic, others too optimistic. The general trend is clear however and has been for decades.
  - collyw 4y ago
    Cherrypicking is exactly what both sides do. Every extreme weather event is now pointed at as "evidence". It would be nice to have both sides heard and debated instead of the hysteria led media we get. Look into Bjorn Lomborg. I have no idea how accurate his stuff is, but he is the only one that actually seems to take a pragmatic approach to the problem and looks at the bigger picture
    - Swenrekcah 4y ago
      No it’s not. The trend is clear, the world is warming, we know the mechanism, we know the cause and we can calculate at least some of the results and we know they’re bad. People saying “oh but things are always changing, there used to be an ice age” and things like that, completely ignore the pace of change. You don’t need to panic but please don’t bury your head in the sand.

floodle 4y ago

This is a false dichotomy.

collyw 4y ago
Modern day crystal ball reading with some complicated maths to give it the air of credibility