It is funny to see so many non-scientists deny climate change when the consensus among scientists is unanimous that climate change is a fact. It is like the flat earthers or evolution deniers at this point.
shareIt’s far worse than that, to me. Although I agree with your sentiment, flat earthers and evolution deniers aren’t working against a movement that has a single purpose of saving the planet before it’s too late.
The thing that I find really difficult to comprehend is what on earth climate change deniers feel is the benefit of not reducing waste, pollution and the overuse of natural resources. Even if they don’t believe in the impending natural disasters we face and are already seeing, what is their problem with cleaning up our planet and moving to renewable resources and easing back on the raping of the only planet we can conceivably live on in the near future? It makes no discernible sense to me.
"...a movement that has a single purpose of saving the planet before it’s too late."
Aww! My sweet Summer child...
its undoubtably the greatest existential threat to civilization. Thats not rhetoric or exaggeration, its a fact
shareI agree that climate changing will no doubt more or less end us, I do not see how mankind could survive a new ice age.
However, that has nothing to do with Greta's little cult. It will happen regardless, no matter what we do.
We could have never produced any emissions of any kind and it would still happen.
And if you still believe that Friday's for Future is about climate, you weren't paying attention.
FFF is about political revolution. "Climate change" is just the catalyst, though I strongly believe Greta does believe in what she says. Like her claiming to be able to see CO² in the air, when we know that's impossible but oh well. :)
I also like FFF terms and conditions. "Just stop everything now!"
> Said the smartphone using teenager that never worked for anything in their life who grew up in the middle class without existential threats in their life.
Like the almost maniacal bashing of SUV drivers, acting like they are the devil reincarnate and solely responsible for everything evil on this planet when by all we know today, cutting traffic 100% in Germany for example, it would have an impact of, what was it, 0,02% on global emissions? Yeah totally worth it!
Also, why are Greta and FFF not protesting in China or India?
It's all a farce. It's about MONEY, not climate.
"However, that has nothing to do with Greta's little cult. It will happen regardless, no matter what we do.
We could have never produced any emissions of any kind and it would still happen."
theres no such thing as Gretas little cult. she is simply regurgitating the accepted science. its like her saying gravity exists. your like or dislike of the messenger changes nothing.
"And if you still believe that Friday's for Future is about climate, you weren't paying attention.
FFF is about political revolution. "Climate change" is just the catalyst, though I strongly believe Greta does believe in what she says. Like her claiming to be able to see CO² in the air, when we know that's impossible but oh well. :)
"
cool story
"I also like FFF terms and conditions. "Just stop everything now!"
> Said the smartphone using teenager that never worked for anything in their life who grew up in the middle class without existential threats in their life.
"
again cool story
"Like the almost maniacal bashing of SUV drivers, acting like they are the devil reincarnate and solely responsible for everything evil on this planet when by all we know today, cutting traffic 100% in Germany for example, it would have an impact of, what was it, 0,02% on global emissions? Yeah totally worth it!
Also, why are Greta and FFF not protesting in China or India?"
We cant even get half the American politicians to admit man made climate change is real and not a conspiracy hoax. we are supposed to pressure china? LOLL
"It's all a farce. It's about MONEY, not climate"
LOL okay buddy
"cool story"
"again cool story"
"LOL okay buddy"
Spoken like a true intellectual titan...
"Accepted science" already disqualifies you anyways.
Nobody is even denying climate CHANGE aside from some seriously troubled religious fundamentalists perhaps who believe the Earth is 5000 years old, but these people are beyond help and can be ignored.
People - including scientists - argue about the actual effect we humans have on it and what might be things we could do that actually would have an impact. Blindly shouting to get rid of cars "because bad" is neither realistic nor helpful and we know - thanks to science - that the impact would be so abysmal, it literally makes no difference, aside from destroying the western economy even more.
And as long as China and India do whatever they want, it also does not matter what literally the rest of the world does. It will. Not. Change. A thing!
You would know this, if you'd actually read scientific data and do some research instead of blindly parroting the doomsdayers who somehow know for certain we are all damned to Hell but actually don't understand the topic they're discussing... well... "discussing" I should say.
There are THEORIES and MODELS. There is not a single established version that definitely explains how much we really impact climate change. Leaning back with "lol cool story bruh" while relying on the logical fallacy of an anonymous authority as in "science" is not a compelling argument whatsoever.
""cool story"
"again cool story"
"LOL okay buddy"
Spoken like a true intellectual titan...
"
LOL intellectual titan. stop talking. Yes sorry I dont let Fridays for future dictate how I see climate science
"Nobody is even denying climate CHANGE aside from some seriously troubled religious fundamentalists perhaps who believe the Earth is 5000 years old, but these people are beyond help and can be ignored."
What reality do you live in.....seriously come back to this one. if you think man made climate change is only denied by the religious, you might be slow.
"People - including scientists - argue about the actual effect we humans have on it and what might be things we could do that actually would have an impact. Blindly shouting to get rid of cars "because bad" is neither realistic nor helpful and we know - thanks to science - that the impact would be so abysmal, it literally makes no difference, aside from destroying the western economy even more.
And as long as China and India do whatever they want, it also does not matter what literally the rest of the world does. It will. Not. Change. A thing!"
so in other words "theres some question fo how much and how so therefore im going to change the topic and say extremists are just yelling ban cars"
good one....... Did I say china and India shouldn't change? seriously stop embarrassing yourself.
im describing political reality. you live in la la land where on religious young earth's deny man made climate change. you dont know wtf you are talking about
"You would know this, if you'd actually read scientific data and do some research instead of blindly parroting the doomsdayers who somehow know for certain we are all damned to Hell but actually don't understand the topic they're discussing... well... "discussing" I should say.
"
the irony of all your dumbs statements then claiming im a doomsayer who doesnt know the science hahahhahahh
"There are THEORIES and MODELS. There is not a single established version that definitely explains how much we really impact climate change. Leaning back with "lol cool story bruh" while relying on the logical fallacy of an anonymous authority as in "science" is not a compelling argument whatsoever."
Yes and they all point to man made climate change being real
https://youtu.be/Pm8msUaTqnU
please stop talking. you've embarrassed yourself enough today
You don't even understand the topic, keep on going about "climate change" and after I corrected you, you now switched to "man made climate change" STILL not grasping what I said earlier and by the way what your source also mentions - like many many others and which was my point to begin with.
I quote myself again, maybe this time you'll get it...
"People - including scientists - argue about the actual effect we humans have on it and what might be things we could do that actually would have an impact."
Again: The actual EFFECT. Not IF there is any effect - that is out of the question.
You are a raging idiot. You do not listen, you anticipate. You did put me in the "climate change denier" corner from the very start instead of actually reading what I'm saying, and here you are telling me about embarrassing myself, what a joke!
I neither deny climate change nor that we as humans do influence it.
What I did is the same that the scientific community is doing for decades: pointing out that the actual effect is unclear and topic of much debate and conflicting data.
End of fucking story, welcome to my ignore list.
You don't even understand the topic, keep on going about "climate change" and after I corrected you, you now switched to "man made climate change" STILL not grasping what I said earlier and by the way what your source also mentions - like many many others and which was my point to begin with."
Nothing has switched. we are talking about the science of man made climate change.
-climate temperature changing is a fact
-man being the cause of the increase in climate change is the theory.
-this is backed up by evidence
"I quote myself again, maybe this time you'll get it...
"People - including scientists - argue about the actual effect we humans have on it and what might be things we could do that actually would have an impact."
show me please the undue list of institutions who debate this. I can provide you over 200 who agree with me. the consensus agrees with me. please show me your list.
'Again: The actual EFFECT. Not IF there is any effect - that is out of the question."
"You are a raging idiot. You do not listen, you anticipate. You did put me in the "climate change denier" corner from the very start instead of actually reading what I'm saying, and here you are telling me about embarrassing myself, what a joke!
"
"only young age religious people dispute its happening"
again how dumb are you?
"I neither deny climate change nor that we as humans do influence it.
What I did is the same that the scientific community is doing for decades: pointing out that the actual effect is unclear and topic of much debate and conflicting data."
cool story bro. SO why re you even talking?
another reply you made to someone else
"I'm not the on with "lulz" in my vocabulary, nor do I believe in conspiracy theories.
You're an idiot, simple as that. Welcome to my ignore list. *shrug*"
oh you re one of those tirggered conservatives who need safe spaces. imagine being so fragile. how sad
Actually, flat earthers, evolution deniers, Bigfoot believers, and Bermuda Triangle believers have a lot in common with anthropogenic climate change believers. All are myths that have resulted from pseudoscience and ignorance. If denying the conclusions of ideologically driven pseudoscience makes no discernible sense to you, it's your lack of discernment ability that's at fault.
shareIt's like an asteroid is headed toward the Earth, and a vocal minority insists the whole thing is a hoax being perpetrated by the aerospace and defense industries to boost profits - maybe at the behest of Satanic pedophiles. 😎 They are vehemently opposed to the deflection plan and can actually elect enough politicians to force us to stop and patronize them while time ticks down. These fools are talking about how much money you want to spend, or asking "What about my job?". It's insanity. What part of extinction event don't you understand?
This is just a slower moving disaster. Theoretically, that's a good thing. We have more time. Unfortunately it means that the type of person who ignores chest pains and dismisses them as nothing until they have a heart attack will tend to explain away the litany of climate related events as flukes. Then (when they can't do that anymore) switch over to some BS about natural cycles. A definite and not-too-distant date of doom would provoke a more effective response.
“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” - Samuel Johnson
Many live in that "state":
https://ibb.co/RQbRLqF
Most actually have no opinion on it but they're lumped with the % that agree there is climate change hence the 97% count.
shareI don't know anyone who denies climate change. Everyone, including flattards, knows there have been several ice ages and just as many warming periods. This means that the Earth warms and cools in cycles, and there will come a time again when the Earth is again covered in glaciers on a good percentage of it's surface.
What is in debate is whether the Earth is in an artificial warming cycle now from the direct effect of human goings on. There are many "credible" scientists who have a differing opinion than the alarmists.
The grant money must flow!
shareThe same we can say that no credible scientist denies Aliens are visiting Earth.
Climate Change and UFOs have a lot in common: in both cases, it could or it could not be true. In both cases, there's no actual evidence that allows to make a credible argument to support or deny it. Climate Change models have systematically failed (the poles would have melted about a decade ago if they were right), so it's hard to support it with anything but faith. On the other hand, the models being wrong doesn't mean the opposite is true.
The trick with scientific consensus is to dismiss those who say "there's no evidence enough neither to support or deny it".
If you took scientific consensus about UFOs the same way you do about Climate Change, scientific consensus would be that Aliens walk the Earth. Why? Because people usually take one of two positions: some people believe in UFOs, many others say "who knows? if they're here, what's sure is that there's no evidence". Since this last group neither supports or denies, you can dismiss them, gather the rest and conclude that scientific consensus supports UFOs!! Isn't that amazing?
And the funniest part is that this is not even a joke. This is how modern "scientific consensus" work.
What kind of actual evidence do you think scientists need to make a credible argument?
shareWell, climate change theories are based in some models that allegedly predict climate change.
What kind of evidence you need? The same you ask to any other scientific model. One highly valued evidence is being able to explain known reality with a more simple model. That's not the case here: climate change models are like "mecano" algorithms with hundreds of little adjustments.
Another possible evidence is to be able to, well, predict. That didn't happen neither.
What remains is the "consensus". To make it clear: "consensus" was never considered a valid evidence in science. It seems that modern "science" doesn't need to work, you just need to have lots of dudes agreeing.
Of course, to obtain that "consensus" you make some kind of referendum among scientist that, eeek, it's not even anonymous. So each scientist has to "vote" publicly, in an environment where you ability to pay your bills next year depends on whether you're funded, and that depends on what you "vote" about the scientific bureaucracy official narrative.
In a nutshell, modern "science" has changed scientific evidence for some voting system which is not even anonymous by scientists that know they can end working in a McDonald if their funds aren't renewed. Amazing progress, huh?
Is Climate Too Complex to Model or Predict? Scientists say no.
https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict/
I repeat: climate models are extremely complex with hundreds of little adjustments. In science, or at least in what used to be called science, simplicity is highly valued.
Nobody is talking about whether the system is or is not too complex to model. The issue is that if you model a system, the more complex is your model, the more accurate the prediction should be to have that model even considered. At least, that's how science used to work. The article builds a strawman and starts answering a position that it's not really the one debated. Nice starting.
The rest is the usual "model jumping". I've seen articles like this before. Since you have (literally) dozens of models, the article picks the model or the window that serves best at that moment and then jumps.
He talks about the Hansen model to defend climate change models accuracy. Well, the Hansen model had conservative scenarios that basically meant that global warming would stay constant. In a nutshell: no climate change. So, is he sticking during the rest of the article to that model and these scenarios?... heheee, good joke, the model is completely dismissed after that 😂
Then you have statements like "The actual rate of ice melting has been a full 40 percent faster than the average of the IPCC model predictions.". Well, according to the average IPCC model predictions, poles should have already melted years ago. So... beg your pardon? A statement like that smells fishy.
Where's the trick? Well, you have several climate change models published every year, carefully adjusted give a short term prediction (about 3 to 5 years) that follow the trend at that moment. Medium-long term, the adjustments lose weight and the models go wild. Since the models are shoehorned and heavily adjusted to be very conservative for 3-5 years, any small short term change (increase or decrease) will involve the trend going X% faster or slower that those early years shoehorned prediction.
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
That's logical, and that means nothing. It's a natural consequence of including heavy short term adjustments. The same will happen in any model about any phenomenon which is build that way.
If you create a model to replicate traffic variation starting next Monday at 10 in the morning, and then you include heavy model adjustments so the model gives you exactly both the measured traffic and the measured traffic variation at that moment, with the model sticking to the measured trend until, let's say, 11 in the morning, any short term change during that hour will make the traffic faster or slower than the prediction. It's just a logical Mathematic anomaly that it's likely to happen, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in the other one.
It says nothing about medium-long term prediction, which are systematically failing. Picking it as an argument is ludicrous.
The article is dishonest debate. But it serves the official narrative, so it's OK.
https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c
The planet is just fine, the people are f---ed.
You're right, the planet is fine. But the climate-heads are too ignorant of climate history and what science actually means to understand. You are talking above their intelligence level.
share