So when someone speaks of the 12 year deadline in terms to indicate it is a falsehood and needlessly alarming, you are thinking they mean this source instead of the AOC quote?
- Status
T
twf
Guest
It comes through every once in a while on these threads… “no one is going to stop me from running the AC on high in my entire 2500 square foot house all summer long!” or “no one is going to stop me from driving three cars!” That’s all it comes down to.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is no political dimension. It is solely a question of science.
Oh, they would be an issue - if they were wrong. But they’re not. At least not to the extent you represent.
Those investments don’t go to scientists. They go to companies and the people who run them. I don’t think there are many climate scientists who also run solar or wind energy companies.
I don’t believe any political guys. Not your guys. Not my guys.
The amount of subsidies they got would not even pay for the advertising budget of big oil.
No, not really. There was no way of knowing ahead of time they were going to fail.
I’ll talk about the Green New Deal, but not about the people who support it.
The response to a “climate emergency” is a separate topic from the question of whether there really is a climate emergency. I gather that this thread is about the latter.
They didn’t bring up any points. They just signed there names to a declaration of things they believed. Since they did not say why they believe those things, there is nothing to address. I thought the whole point of mentioning 500 scientists was an appeal to their authority. If that is the case, let’s see who they are and what authority they should be credited for. (Ambassadors have no scientific authority of their own.)
I mentioned nothing about any program to address a climate emergency.
If there is any response to a climate crisis, it won’t flow to the IPCC.
Last edited:
Still waiting for an answer.
when someone speaks of the 12 year deadline in terms to indicate it is a falsehood and needlessly alarming, you are thinking they mean your source instead of the AOC quote?
It would answer for why there is such issue and such accusations of straw man. But given the AOC quote matches so precisely it is difficult to believe someone is making the mistake honestly.
Pick your poison.
when someone speaks of the 12 year deadline in terms to indicate it is a falsehood and needlessly alarming, you are thinking they mean your source instead of the AOC quote?
It would answer for why there is such issue and such accusations of straw man. But given the AOC quote matches so precisely it is difficult to believe someone is making the mistake honestly.
Pick your poison.
Speaking for myself, and has to do with undue economic burden being placed upon people without a proven understanding of the facts.
Time after Time doom has been predicted.
Time after Time it fails to come true.
But somehow I am supposed to change my lifestyle for the next doomsday prediction.
Perhaps if there was some track record of predictions proven right I may be inclined to listen.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Leaf . . .
Wall Street investors OWN big oil.
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
Leaf, you have been quite careful to distance yourself from that 12 year prophecy. Going so far as to announce you won’t talk about that person anymore. Perhaps you might now be ready to repudiate that prophecy. Or perhaps you just wish we would stop talking about it?
There is a point to this which you are intentionally being obtuse to: that is the degree to which you’re willing to see taxes forced from the rest of us to “remedy” global warming according to those scientists who support your cause. Without numbers and probabilities and yes … prophecies, what tax policy is there? You profess to have none. To me, that means maybe you’re not willing to talk about that because you know in advance how scared we’d be if we knew.
There is a point to this which you are intentionally being obtuse to: that is the degree to which you’re willing to see taxes forced from the rest of us to “remedy” global warming according to those scientists who support your cause. Without numbers and probabilities and yes … prophecies, what tax policy is there? You profess to have none. To me, that means maybe you’re not willing to talk about that because you know in advance how scared we’d be if we knew.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The prophesy, as you call it, was hyperbolically and unscientifically represented by AOC, but it is based on a serious and scientifically projection that is much less sensational. You want me to repudiate the whole thing, but that would deny the truth of the scientific result the formed the basis of AOC’s speech. Perhaps she does not understand the science. I don’t really care.
And once again I will remind you I have not said anything about taxes and remediation because I have nothing to say on it. I am not hiding anything.
And once again I will remind you I have not said anything about taxes and remediation because I have nothing to say on it. I am not hiding anything.
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
I thought I’d check in again and see if we have that list of names for the 500 scientists yet. Let me know.
Was it hyperbole?
She seemed pretty serious to me.
Perhaps there is documentation to back this assertion?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Just like Trump sounded serious when he said he could shoot someone in Time Square and still keep his supporters. Of course AOC was making a political speech to rally the troops. Of course it was hyperbole.
Irrelevant.
Evidence of this is lacking.
But I am sure you will have no problem posting it.
You do have a source for this…right?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You can believe what you want. I don’t really care, since this is not a thread about AOC at all.LeafByNiggle:
Irrelevant.
Evidence of this is lacking.
But I am sure you will have no problem posting it.
You do have a source for this…right?
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . .
Anyone who says there is a climate emergency, is appropriate to discuss (along with their alarmist claims). Especially when they are helping make policy decisions.
This is a thread about the fact that “There is No Climate Emergency”.
Anyone who says there is a climate emergency, is appropriate to discuss (along with their alarmist claims). Especially when they are helping make policy decisions.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
After all, it is very unfair to quote her when it doesn’t support the cause.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t quote her when it does support the cause either. That would be just silly if I did that.LeafByNiggle:
After all, it is very unfair to quote her when it doesn’t support the cause.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle . . . .
Once again. From the bullet points from the scientists . . .
Not from the scientists . . .
Except when it concerns “uncertainties amd exaggerations”.
Once again. From the bullet points from the scientists . . .
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
- There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
Not from the scientists . . .
- Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, but ignore the issue if politicians like AOC are using their political platform to propagate these exaggerations.
- There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm, but you are not allowed to tell anybody there is no cause for panic because Leaf says so. So if an influential politician DOES propagate such “panic and alarm”; remember . . . then you cannot talk about it.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
C
Cathoholic
Guest
You link to an article that refers to the Paris Accords which states . . .
Part of “dealing” includes information propagation.
Predictions that don’t pan out are fake science.
You conflate a few true scientific studies and come up with a cornucopia of excuses for other studies that don’t pan out.
The reason they don’t pan out, is because of something obvious, that you refuse to admit.
We do not have all the variables.
If you know all the variables, and can analyze them into a predictable pattern, you can continue to predict the results . . . . Accurately.
So these bogus prophecies ARE talking about the science.
You just don’t like it, because there is no answer other than to diminish the people involved (like you did with AOC. It is irrelevant that she is a “freshman”. She still has a vote. She still sets policy. And she still gets scientific information from consultation).
Bernie Sanders is not a “freshman” and he says the same thing.
. . . if we don’t cut emissions in 11 years, will we leave the planet UNINHABITABLE??
Or does Benie not consult either?
Or is “policy” off limits when the scientists explicitly talk about “policy tools”?
And if so when?
Six months after the (now) eleven year cut off?
Two years?
Two thousand years?
You don’t know do you?
Don’t worry. Scott Denning doesn’t know either.
Why not?
Because you do not have trustworthy enough models.
So they cannot reliably be used as public policy.
That’s the point of the scientists admonition here.
500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’ World News
"Appropriate financial flows" = money from me. And you. And etc.
Part of “dealing” includes information propagation.
Is policy.
No I don’t.
Predictions that don’t pan out are fake science.
You conflate a few true scientific studies and come up with a cornucopia of excuses for other studies that don’t pan out.
The reason they don’t pan out, is because of something obvious, that you refuse to admit.
We do not have all the variables.
If you know all the variables, and can analyze them into a predictable pattern, you can continue to predict the results . . . . Accurately.
So these bogus prophecies ARE talking about the science.
You just don’t like it, because there is no answer other than to diminish the people involved (like you did with AOC. It is irrelevant that she is a “freshman”. She still has a vote. She still sets policy. And she still gets scientific information from consultation).
Bernie Sanders is not a “freshman” and he says the same thing.
.
According to YOUR science guys . . .
. . . if we don’t cut emissions in 11 years, will we leave the planet UNINHABITABLE??
Or does Benie not consult either?
Or is “policy” off limits when the scientists explicitly talk about “policy tools”?
And if so when?
Six months after the (now) eleven year cut off?
Two years?
Two thousand years?
You don’t know do you?
Don’t worry. Scott Denning doesn’t know either.
Why not?
Because you do not have trustworthy enough models.
So they cannot reliably be used as public policy.
That’s the point of the scientists admonition here.
- Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely
plausible as POLICY TOOLS.
You are MAKING their point by your evasive replies.
Last edited:
- Status