4 ms·

The same thing that's continued to happen: We adapt and create solutions. People have been screaming "everyone will die!!!" via religious based prophecies for.

The same thing that's continued to happen: We adapt and create solutions. People have been screaming "everyone will die!!!" via religious based prophecies for... all of human history. The Cult Of Climate Change is no different: a little bit of truth and a lot of faith in Revelations and the unavoidable apocalypse. Prophecies like "all the icecaps will be gone by 2020" and "billions will die from starvation" (hint: those forecasts failed) https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocal... This is no different than the people who follow the pastor that's wrong about the date of Jesus' second coming. every year he looks at the numbers and says "next year, on x date". That date comes. and goes. and the faithful see the failed prophecy and he goes "oh look... I was wrong... it's really next year on y date". The faithful see this each year and their faith grows stronger as each failed prophecy means the next one MUST be true. What do we think will happen? More failed prophecies. The Church of Climate Doom faithful becomes more convinced that theirs is the One True Faith as each prediction continues to prove them right.

rootusrootus 3y ago
The problem with your argument is comparing climate science to religion. There -is- actual science to support the climate doomers. You can cherry pick headlines all you want, but the models have actually been pretty decent so far. Even a little too conservative. But it's a political problem in the end, anyway, not a science one.
- iamegypt 3y ago
  [flagged]
- wernercd 3y ago
  "there is actual science" There is SOME truth. but not all of it. Just like there is truth in religions - be nice to your neighbors. Do unto others. Truth. surrounded by bullshit (religion, dogma, etc). There is truth and "actual science"... but there's also half truths, lies, bad prophecies, etc. "you can cherry pick" likewise, you can cherry pick some facts about carbon... and then ignore stuff like the destruction required to make batteries, the inability to recycle a MASSIVE fuckton of "green" (wind mill blades, batteries, solar panels, etc - all ending up in land fills). "models" yeah... except that models are limited, have increasing error rates and you end up with the spaghetti modeling with the simple stuff like weather for next week - much less the weather for next year. Speaking of cherry picking... you'll cherry pick one or two models from a decade ago and ignore the 100+ others that are wrong. "political not science" it's both. and religious. It's faith in models that have been cherry picked while ignoring inconvenient truths about "green" solutions that are based on bad models that can't be proven and that don't cover all the possibilities. the problem with your response is your apparent faith in science and, like a Catholic who will downplay problems with priests, you'll ignore the parts you are uncomfortable with. climate change is real (little c, little c). Has been happening for... all of history. Climate Change is not (big C, big C). It is a religion. One is based on facts and science. the other is based on faith.

rootusrootus 3y ago

The problem with your argument is comparing climate science to religion. There -is- actual science to support the climate doomers. You can cherry pick headlines all you want, but the models have actually been pretty decent so far. Even a little too conservative. But it's a political problem in the end, anyway, not a science one.

iamegypt 3y ago
[flagged]
wernercd 3y ago
"there is actual science" There is SOME truth. but not all of it. Just like there is truth in religions - be nice to your neighbors. Do unto others. Truth. surrounded by bullshit (religion, dogma, etc). There is truth and "actual science"... but there's also half truths, lies, bad prophecies, etc. "you can cherry pick" likewise, you can cherry pick some facts about carbon... and then ignore stuff like the destruction required to make batteries, the inability to recycle a MASSIVE fuckton of "green" (wind mill blades, batteries, solar panels, etc - all ending up in land fills). "models" yeah... except that models are limited, have increasing error rates and you end up with the spaghetti modeling with the simple stuff like weather for next week - much less the weather for next year. Speaking of cherry picking... you'll cherry pick one or two models from a decade ago and ignore the 100+ others that are wrong. "political not science" it's both. and religious. It's faith in models that have been cherry picked while ignoring inconvenient truths about "green" solutions that are based on bad models that can't be proven and that don't cover all the possibilities. the problem with your response is your apparent faith in science and, like a Catholic who will downplay problems with priests, you'll ignore the parts you are uncomfortable with. climate change is real (little c, little c). Has been happening for... all of history. Climate Change is not (big C, big C). It is a religion. One is based on facts and science. the other is based on faith.