Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    428
    Reputation
    988
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    Quote Originally Posted by stanmsl View Post

    Look at it from an economic point of view, taking action against climate change and being wrong about it would still solve a lot of problems, a lot better than doing nothing.
    I don't know about the economic point of view you allude to, but there can be no mistake that polluting the atmosphere is not a good thing.

    However, as Kru-Kut says there is simply not enough evidence to support climate change as being a man-made phenomenon. Without a control group there is little to argue about.

    So, without that control group what evidence do we have to offer? The only statistics we have are our own weather records, and since accurate worldwide records only go back about 150 years or so I would say that this is simply not long enough to form any sort of reasonable hypothesis.

    World Weather Records

    Even if you dispute this piece of info, what of the 5 or 6 widely recognised ice-ages:

    Timeline of Glaciation

    Are these also man-made?

    Climate change happens, that is a simple truth, but to put it on mankind is IMO absolutely nonsensical.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  2. #22
    Senior Member Azure Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,373
    Reputation
    16200
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    The problem is that climate science has been hijacked by interests groups (for or against climate debate) wanting to make money.

    If you notice the the first iterations of the IPCC reports put a greater priority to utilize mitigation strategies like addressing deforestation. As the subsequent new IPCC reports have come out they have put less emphasis on such mitigation strategies and more on economic strategies like carbon taxes. The fundamental problem with a carbon tax is that like the United States' Clean Water and Clean Air Acts is accountability. Pollution doesn't stop at a boundary of a state or country so either all the countries are all in or you can't do anything realistically.

    Plus, a carbon tax doesn't do anything to stop excess carbon from reaching the atmosphere while planting of forests is the best long term strategy for carbon sequestration to put it back into the earth. And that is what is the crux of the problem with the climate debate. The debate is taking a problem to the earth's climate that will evolve over thousands of years and making it sound like it is an urgent problem within the next two decades. It is a long term problem associated with a cycle that is long overdue and planting of forests is the best long term strategy. Even if humans are accelerating the process a little bit or a whole lot the strategies that must be in place have to be long term thinking in mind. What frustrates me is when I bring up the planting of forests with some climate scientists is that they argue it takes too long to build a forest. It is true that it takes too long to build a forest relative to the life span of an average human. But in terms of geologic time the growth of a forest is very quick (eg 50 years). If the worst of climate change is within 100 years the planting of forests is the #1 way to deal with carbon sequestration problem due to excess carbon in the atmosphere.

    With that said when there is an increase in carbon in the atmosphere you are going to see more water vapor suspended in the atmosphere and you have methane that also accelerates this feedback process of global warming which is the greenhouse effect. This excess vapor has to come down as precipitation. That is why before every ice age in the history of the earth we have observed massive greening and warming of the earth. But continued precipitation at the north and south poles is enough to generate enough ice to deflect and absorb most solar radiation which creates a feedback system (more ice at poles---->less solar radiation----> greater opportunity for ice to spread--->even more less solar radiation).

    Right now NASA has observed an overall greening of the earth which is true. What isn't true is that there has been a climate change in most of the world. Climate is defined by weather patterns over a 30 year period. Anthropogenic influenced climate has been debated since the early 1930s and earlier which shows it is a hot topic of debate for almost 100 years with humanity. To put that in perspective the theory of plate tectonics has been around only since the 1970s which is a relatively new theory while human induced climate change theory has been around twice as long.

    National Geographic has covered the issue of potential global cooling in the 1970s to the global warming heading into the 1990s. Most of the predictions have been wrong and most predictions assume the worst case scenario using models with limited data sets. Models that are legit are the ones that use the data we have available. Models that generate future data are by definition not real models but called projections. The problem is that mass media is calling these projections as models and thus further fueling a lot of confusion and misinformation. Worse, many scientists fail to counter this narrative by tacitly approving such miscommunication when they should know better. A model can't make data...data is used to make a model. It is as simple as I can explain it.

    Right now all the prediction of global warming temperatures have been wrong by half. Sea level rise predictions are also wrong by nearly half. Basically these numbers and trends point to what we have observed normally during other interglacial periods of the earth's history. Studying of the different oxygen isotopes in the ice cores reinforces that what we are seeing so far is normal.

    So while the debate if human induced climate change is significant or not at all what is certain is that we are seeing a greener earth right now. If I was to guess why the predictions are wrong regarding global climate change here is the following:

    1. Models don't account for solar flare activity.

    2. The heat capacity of water as a vapor or liquid makes it one of the best ways to buffer sudden heat spikes. That is why water is often used at coal power plants and nuclear power plants. The earth's ocean's due to waters heat capacity doesn't experience massive extreme temperature changes compared to land. On land for example in Arizona, USA you can have a hot day and then a very, very cold night with a difference of 20 degrees celsius (35 degrees F).

    3. Very little major volcanic activity has lead to increased to solar radiation for the last few decades.

    As for ozone layer and banning CFCs:

    We as humanity banded together given the data we had on hand during that time and everyone was on the same page to address CFCs destroying the earth's ozone layer. When it comes to this issue of environmentalism it is always all or nothing. Either everyone is on board or else the effort falls apart. Ironically enough decades later we as humanity have discovered that the earth has the ability repair the ozone layer on its own!

  3. #23
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4,729
    Reputation
    22964
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    Quote Originally Posted by stanmsl View Post
    Unfortunately I don't have your duplicate planet for a control group in my back pocket. We do however have a ton of evidence...…….
    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    The cry for more and more evidence is a red herring. Neither you, nor I, nor kru-kut, nor probably anyone else on this forum would be able to read and make an informed evaluation of all the evidence one way or another. We don't have the expertise. We don't have the time. The same is true of the evidence that disease is mostly caused by germs, or that carbon has six protons in the nucleus.

    Pretty much every scientific fact that we believe, we believe on authority. There's really no other way, besides getting out there and putting up your own wind sock and meteorology station. The climate change debate, the evolution debate, the flat earth debate is 99.9% not about climate change, but about the processes and institutions of science itself.

    Science is a human activity. It's something that people do. That is, it is not an equal and opposite of the humanities - it is a product, a child of the humanities. Natural philosophy is one of the grand programs of human thought, to make sense of this physical world we see around us. What we are seeing is what happens when the foundation of all philosophy - reason - is attacked by the very people that should be defending it. Attacked out of envy at the scale of the success of natural philosophy, attacked out of sheer spite, because math is hard. The humanities should be coming out to defend science against the attacks of rhetorical unreason, because scientists are not equipped to fight that kind of battle. But the opposite is happenning.

    What needs to happen is that schools should explain to the kids how science gets done. What universities and institutions do, what the role of publication and peer review is. Because to the man on the ground, the ivory tower looks mostly like a scam aimed at taxpayer money.

    The question isn't "But what about sparks from electric motors?", it's "Why should I believe the IPCC?"

  4. #24
    Senior Member stanmsl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    THE ENGLISH COUNTRYSIDE
    Posts
    114
    Reputation
    744
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    You are right man made climate change is not proven...………………………………………………...

    Tobacco companies also used the phrase "not proven" when confronted with the vast evidence that their product kills. My religious relatives used the phrase "not proven" when I confronted them with the vast evidence that the earth is billions of years old. In fact every flavour of anti science and conspiracy theorist will use the phrase "not proven". Strictly speaking they are all correct, "proven" as in absolute 100% certainty does not exist in science. We can be 99.99 percent certain of something but never 100. You can dismiss anything you want on the basis of it being not proven so the phrase is meaningless. To dismiss something on the basis we are only 97% sure is nonsensical but standard conspiracy theorist thinking.

    Yes the climate has changed in the past before humans were here, we know the natural reasons why these things happened. The current warming however is not tied to a known natural reason but the green house gasses that humans are producing. 97% of the scientists who actually study the earths climate agree on this, a small amount of debate has and will always exist as with every scientific subject.

    Most of the debate that takes place now is between non scientists, the general public, journalists, politicians. These people can easily be swayed by the convincing but bogus, pseudoscientific arguments put forward by deniers (like the volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans). There is also the obvious psychological motivation, it's more comfortable for people to believe it's not happening / a hoax / natural / exaggerated.

    Non scientists like Al Gore and Prince Charles do more harm than good with unrealistic predictions which is what triggered this thread in the first place. Some actions of climate change activists do not help matters and only give fuel to the deniers. Don't even get me started on Greenpeace……...

    Then you have the political problem, the right sticks it's fingers in it's ears and pretends it's not happening. The left says the only solution is to go back to how we lived hundreds of years ago and mixes climate change with other leftist causes which I definitely do not agree with. The realistic solution lies between these 2 extremes...

    A conservative solution to climate change https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0

    Many people have implied or stated outright that it's all a hoax/conspiracy to control people / raise taxes etc. The best way to debunk most conspiracy theories is put yourself in the position of the alleged conspirator(s) and work from plan to event.

    * Fossil fuels are polluting and unsustainable in the long term as it is. It makes no sense to manufacture a problem like global warming where the primary solution is to stop burning fossil fuels which is something you are going to have to do anyway.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...he_environment
    The world has a very long list of man made environmental problems, you wouldn't go to all the trouble of manufacturing global warming/faking data/paying off scientists all to control people and raise taxes when you could simply do it with these problems that already exist.

    * Climate is a complicated subject. It makes no sense to manufacture an environmental problem that is difficult to sell to the general public and get them on board when you could just use something a lot easier.

    * Humans do not exactly have a good track record of worldwide co operation, it only takes India and China not to play ball with cutting emissions and the rest of the world is wasting it's time. Many people who fully accept global warming can still use the "why should I when China argument". Why manufacture an environmental problem that's unlikely to be solved.

    * Humans by their very nature tend to be short term thinkers and the climate is a long term issue making it much harder to get the public on board with your plan.

    * Green taxes in general are easily avoidable, people are fined for littering, charged for single use plastic bags etc. Don't litter and take a canvas bag with you every time you go shopping...you will never pay anything. If you can't do simple little things like this you deserve to be taxed. Green taxes are effectively taxes on laziness.

    * High tax in general as practiced by the left side of the political spectrum does not work, rich people leave the country and foreign investors stay away, it becomes counterproductive.

    Nobody has ever explained to me exactly how it's all about "CONTROL"

    And finally.............

    Growing up and first reading about global warming, fossil fuels etc as a teenager I made a decision never to have a car as future governments would always make it more costly to drive. I have always walked, cycled and used public transport.

    There are 2 massive benefits to this decision. Firstly I'm physically fitter and healthier than anyone else my own age outside an athletics club. Second I save an absolute ton of money making it the best financial decision of my life (after not getting married obviously)

    Who loses as a result of this ??? The government of course, a quarter of a century's (so far) worth of fuel duty, road tax, VAT on repairs and of course parking/speeding fines they have lost out on from myself. It must run into tens of thousands of pounds by now.

    Is my life really being controlled by some leftist/liberal/socialist/communist agenda ? I don't think so somehow.

    The best solution for you as an individual? Plan ahead and adopt an minimalist lifestyle as a lot of MGTOWS are doing anyway. You can be location independent and can move and live anywhere. If water becomes a problem for example (not enough, causing droughts, or too much, causing sea levels to swallow up your house), you can just move, and do so whenever you want and before there’s a problem.

  5. #25
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    1,307
    Reputation
    6303
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    97% of the scientists who actually study the earths climate agree on this, a small amount of debate has and will always exist as with every scientific subject.
    Data was doctored and forged to reflect global warming, all eyes are focused on manufactured falsified data, the math is wrong. Glaciers melted, they're coming back again, Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, spewing more "so called" green house gasses and particulate matter than the entire industrial revolution. Temperatures cooled to below average by 3 f. across the planet for about 3 years, the skiing was breath taking with record snowfall with minimal melting and cool summers. All done, from the Himalayas to the Marianas trench, a little Pinatubo dust settled everywhere, just like Fukushima when viewed by Avogadro's 6.02214129 x 1023 t . The data doesn't take into consideration cause and effect on a molar level, otherwise absorption by the creation of other chemical compounds. The scientific trust was violated when the data was blatantly falsified. Avogadro's views were rejected too, but that didn't make him wrong, only rejected while 97% of scientists were wrong.

    The sky is still blue and it's not falling, look at the obvious, look at the tremendous volume of material and its "time prints" locked in Earth's crust, look at all the chemical reactions for all that material to have taken place, I find it insulting to call any human short sighted when it's just possible that person is wearing blinders fabricated by someone else...


  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    428
    Reputation
    988
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    @stanmsl

    You have raised so many points here I am unable to address all of them because, as Mr. Wombat stated above, most of us are not qualified to do so. So let me address those I can:

    You are right man made climate change is not proven
    Nor can it be, that is the point. There is simply not enough evidence to point one way or the other, so why are people pointing fingers?


    97% of the scientists who actually study the earths climate agree on this, a small amount of debate has and will always exist as with every scientific subject.
    Who are these scientists? Where do they get their funding? Before believing in any ‘scientific’ study these questions must be answered. Most of the so-called scientific study is carried out by groups with an agenda or sponsored by those with an agenda and thus results tend to get skewed, and as for those carried out by university scholars, well we all know where their interests lie. I think this could easily account for at least 95% of the 97% you mention.

    Then you have the political problem, the right sticks it's fingers in it's ears and pretends it's not happening. The left says the only solution is to go back to how we lived hundreds of years ago and mixes climate change with other leftist causes which I definitely do not agree with. The realistic solution lies between these 2 extremes
    I would normally take the same view as you on this, in any argument the truth normally lies somewhere in between. While some on the right may well be ‘sticking their fingers in their ears’ most seem to be saying show me some real evidence and then I’ll listen – there is a difference.

    The world has a very long list of man made environmental problems, you wouldn't go to all the trouble of manufacturing global warming/faking data/paying off scientists all to control people and raise taxes when you could simply do it with these problems that already exist.
    Politicians will jump on any bandwagon that suits their interests, this is just one of many. Divide and conquer is the oldest rule in the book, if we can throw enough conflicting information out there we can take advantage of the confusion.

    Humans by their very nature tend to be short term thinkers and the climate is a long term issue making it much harder to get the public on board with your plan.
    Nonsense. Politicians in democratic countries tend to be short term thinkers as they want to take the credit when their plans bear fruit, the last thing they want is to lay the seeds and then the next political leader claims the fruit as their own.
    Last edited by Jackoff; October 1, 2019 at 2:33 AM.
    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    All we can do is keep ourselves from all those who don't deserve it. – Dave Matthes

  7. #27
    Senior Member rkspsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Delhi, India
    Posts
    292
    Reputation
    963
    Type
    Poltergeist

    Re: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

    Quote Originally Posted by stanmsl View Post
    ...
    Growing up and first reading about global warming, fossil fuels etc as a teenager I made a decision never to have a car as future governments would always make it more costly to drive. I have always walked, cycled and used public transport.

    There are 2 massive benefits to this decision. Firstly I'm physically fitter and healthier than anyone else my own age outside an athletics club. Second I save an absolute ton of money making it the best financial decision of my life (after not getting married obviously)

    Who loses as a result of this ??? The government of course, a quarter of a century's (so far) worth of fuel duty, road tax, VAT on repairs and of course parking/speeding fines they have lost out on from myself. It must run into tens of thousands of pounds by now.

    Is my life really being controlled by some leftist/liberal/socialist/communist agenda ? I don't think so somehow.

    The best solution for you as an individual? Plan ahead and adopt an minimalist lifestyle as a lot of MGTOWS are doing anyway. You can be location independent and can move and live anywhere. If water becomes a problem for example (not enough, causing droughts, or too much, causing sea levels to swallow up your house), you can just move, and do so whenever you want and before there’s a problem.
    I also dont use cars. Mostly because I dont need to travel anywhere in the first place, except to a park to walk, which is itself walking distance from my home. And yet, I cannot live without all the industrialization around me. I cannot go full jungle mode primitive, because my work takes most of my time, I cannot take out time for that kind of lifestyle. I cannot change my work because I love my work. And to add to that, it involves computers, lots and lots of hours working on it. And computers are manufactured in industries.

    I also rely on modern medical facilities, to quickly cure me of common ailments so I can go back to my work. And this also requires industries, for equipment, for producing drugs, etc.

    My point is, a solution which involves radically changing lifestyle, is not really a solution for a lot of people, including me. I am okay with some aspects of minimalism, but there is a very hard limit on it. I wont willingly go beyond that point. Yes I agree, that makes it possible for the system (government, corporations etc) to have some control over me. Its also the fact that if some SHTF happens, I will be very lucky to survive on my own. In fact, if marooned on an island with a bunch of people, I have zero skills to contribute to the group, except being a bit physically stronger than the average guy around in terms muscle strength (and not fighting skill). I cant cook, cant hunt, cant identify which plant is which, cant make tools, dont know how to walk around in wilderness without getting injured, cant run too fast or too long, etc. In other words, I am gambling. Taking a risk that bad shit wont happen around me and I can get away with not knowing all those skills, and instead focus on my work which can contribute to society only in terms of leisure (art, games, software).

    This guy explains my viewpoint a lot better :

    A clever fighter not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. His victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom, nor credit for courage. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

    Sun Tzu in The Art of War
    MGTOW is about making no mistakes against gynocentrism.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 27, 2018, 7:57 PM
  2. Is this true?
    By Wally in forum Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 13, 2018, 6:48 AM
  3. My Predictions for 2016
    By Neroke in forum Philosophize
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: February 6, 2017, 3:58 PM
  4. If this is true, god help us!
    By Isocrates in forum Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 21, 2015, 8:55 AM
  5. If this be True.....
    By Ike3 in forum Lounge
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 24, 2014, 12:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •