Climate Change News collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Somebody at Breitbart didn’t do their homework.
Click to expand...
CAGW predictions are 10-12ft in sea level rise, which would devastate much of NYC, especially during storm surges.

Why did you low ball the figure?
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Somebody at Breitbart didn’t do their homework.
Click to expand...
CAGW predictions are 10-12ft in sea level rise, which would devastate much of NYC, especially during storm surges.

Why did you low ball the figure?
Click to expand...
CAGW? “Citizens Against Government Waste” is the first hit I get on Google for those initials.

And even 10-12 feet would not touch Hudson Yards development.
 
Last edited:
But, but, but,…, that phrase was right there in the video you posted - a video that was recorded in 2008. It could not been an after-the-fact excuse.
Click to expand...
But it always morphs INTO an
"after the fact excuse" when these religious prophecies fail to pan out.

.

.

I meant to say “LeafByNiggle” not LifeSite here. (I either copied and pasted wrong or my android did not copy from my finger capture and kept LifeSite from something else I was doing).

I will go and edit it and suggest you do that too for accuracy for the benefit of future readers.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
But, but, but,…, that phrase was right there in the video you posted - a video that was recorded in 2008. It could not been an after-the-fact excuse.
Click to expand...
Impossible. You can’t take a statement made in 2008 that says “This is only what might happen” and pretend that the statement was inserted by some time-traveller who saw that a firm prediction was failing and went back in time to plant that excuse to prevent egg on the faces of those who made the prediction. If they said this in 2008 then clearly they knew in 2008 that this was not a prediction.

Besides, even if it were as you say, this is just an ABC special. It is not as claim by the scientific community (yes, there is such a thing!) that fell through. The fact is that the scientific community never did make the kind of outlandish claims you are saying they did, which makes this one big straw man argument.

But I would like to know more about what you think of Breitbart using CNN’s decision to “prove” their point. That is, after all, how we got started on this line, and I think I showed it was a particularly inept attempt by Breitbart.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
You can’t take a statement made in 2008 that says “This is only what might happen”
Click to expand...
You (not “you” personally) always do this.

You say this or that prediction due to catastrophic global warming.

It doesn’t come true.

Then you guys hide behind the mantra of “well it was only a possibility of what MIGHT happen.”

Or you say something like . . .

. . . it was never the prevailing view.

As I said. There are no “prevailing views” because most science people are not stupid enough to put their reputations on the line and say something like the earth will change forever as we know it within twelve years, or New York City will be under water in a few short years, or the polar ice cap will “fall off the shelf” in a matter of months" or some other ridiculous claim that everyone has already heard.

When these rapture prophecies fail . . . you guys never just come out and say . . . Yeah. That was dumb.

Or that really was propaganda.

Or these stupid phony predictions just serve to HURT the credibility of the whole global warming game.

And as these “prophecies” occur, you just sit back silently not saying a thing against these “false prophets”.

Then later as the proohecies wilt, you make up excuses about “prevailing” views, or say, “we only said it MIGHT happen”.

This is not persuasive.

For all others, watch as much of the Earth 2100 spoof as you can stand.

Watch how science people allow themselves to be interviewed and put up to give this video extra gravitas.

Then when you are done laughing, ask yourself where the “scientific” global warming people were in 2009 condemning this as trash?

They won’t do that. Even if they KNOW (KNEW) it was trash.

But I will tell you what LeafByNiggle.

I am going to give you a chance right here and now, to either back the false claim about the world ending as we know it in twelve years.

I want you to define what you think it means.

And I want to hear you embrace the prophecy.

Or I want to hear you disavow the prophecy and those making it.

That is my invitation here to you.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . .
You can’t take a statement made in 2008 that says “This is only what might happen”
Click to expand...
If you want to make the case that climate scientists are making predictions and then pretending they didn’t really mean them as predictions, then cite some real scientific predictions, for example from the IPCC, not from some ABC special. Cite some actual climate predictions by a significantly large group of scientists that failed spectacularly. I draw a very clear distinction between what “someone says” (even someone with a degree) and what the majority of scientists say. Please respect that distinction and don’t bother putting up any more Time Magazine or ABC specials or other popular media sources, because I refuse to defend them. (I have no reason to defend them, as I think they are probably just as untrustworthy as you do.)
Then you guys hide behind the mantra of…
Click to expand...
The term “you guys” groups too many different people. Some of them may hide behind such a mantra. Others may not. I do not place myself in the first group, nor do I wish to defend those in the first group.
Or you say something like . . .

. . . it was never the prevailing view.
Click to expand...
I only say that because it is factually true. It is not an opinion. The extreme view represented by the 2008 ABC special was not supported by the scientific community. You can check the published papers. You will not find very much agreement with that video among climate scientists.

continued…
Click to expand...
 
continuing:
40.png
Cathoholic:
As I said. There are no “prevailing views” because most science people are not stupid enough to put their reputations on the line and say something like the earth will change forever as we know it within twelve years, or New York City will be under water in a few short years, or the polar ice cap will “fall off the shelf” in a matter of months" or some other ridiculous claim that everyone has already heard.
Click to expand...
They are not stupid enough to place their reputations on the line for something they don’t even believe. That is why they did not make it the “prevailing view.” But there are actual concrete predictions that climate scientists have been making and continue to be making. For these predictions the climate scientists have not hesitated to put their reputations on the line. Of course these predictions are not quite so outlandish as the popular media stories. Nevertheless they are serious enough to cause concern. These are the predictions you should be focusing on. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms that could be made against these predictions, and some scientists are making them, like Roy Spencer.
Then when you are done laughing, ask yourself where the “scientific” global warming people were in 2009 condemning this as trash?
Click to expand...
This is a faulty argument based on the silence of the climate scientists. The answer, of course, is that climate scientists did not agree with everything in the ABC special report. But climate scientists have a job to do, and that job is not to fight the social media wars or waster their time going public to refute every outlandish statement anyone makes in the media. They are generally quite private people, preferring to work through the system of publishing papers and peer review. They literally couldn’t get any work done if they took upon themselves of correcting ABC or Al Gore or anyone else who opens their mouth about climate change. So the silence of the scientists regarding the ABC special means nothing with regard to their tacit acceptance of the content of that report. Most of them may not even have been aware that it had aired.
But I will tell you what LeafByNiggle.

I am going to give you a chance right here and now, to either back the false claim about the world ending as we know it in twelve years.

I want you to define what you think it means.

And I want to hear you embrace the prophecy.

Or I want to hear you disavow the prophecy and those making it.

That is my invitation here to you.
Click to expand...
That’s “super easy - barely an inconvenience” (you really should look that one up. I think you will enjoy it.) Of course I disavow such predictions. I am not invested in them or in the people who make them.
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
don’t bother putting up any more Time Magazine or ABC specials or other popular media sources, because I refuse to defend them
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you to defend them

I’m asking you to distance yourself from these propaganda efforts.

But global warming supporters won’t.

And in their silence, they are complicit.

From an alarmist perspective . . . Complicit in de-legitimizing the whole global warming eco-movement by continually letting these slide by.

Or

Or from a “deniers” perspective . . . . Complicit in necessitating your (not “you” personally) constant backtracking. If you are so “scientific” call out the phony science scammers.

But you (they) don’t because you want to have it both ways.

You want to be able to say “See. I told you so!” If by some miracle these things become true.

But since you don’t really believe them yourself, you always want to maintain a plausable deniability to attempt to recapture the credibility that your movement threw away (“It was never a prevailing view among US” or “THEY only said it MIGHT happen”).

And I am offering you a way out of those attacks against the credibilty of the global warming community Leaf.

You can embrace the 12 year prophecy, or oppose it and help regain needed street cred for the cause.

Or you can do what I said would likely occur.
You can remain silent on it (which is in and of itself a choice).

What’s it going to be?

Edit:

LeafByNiggle . . .
Of course I disavow such predictions.
Click to expand...
Sorry Leaf. I did not see your answer on that when I wrote the above.

OK.

Did you SAY you disavowed it here on CAF when AOC was out prophecying that 12 year view? (I sure could have missed it. Would you mind linking to them?)
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
The extreme view represented by the 2008 ABC special was not supported by the scientific community.
Click to expand...
So what?

I’m just using that as an example.

You can deny/embrace the 12 year issue right here and now.

Remember. PR is important too.

If we can just get our global warming credibility back, we can win over the conservatives and get Trump going on saving the planet while we ignore China and India.

Let’s get the job done!

Edit: See above post edit.
 
Last edited:

.


.

12yeargwhoax

.

Now I know what you are going to say here @LeafByNiggle.

You will say “well these guys are not scientists.” (Cory and AOC)

And I agree.

But since they are high profile politicians I think we need to hold them accountable to affrim or deny what they say. (Are they lying? Do they talk to BAD scientists? If so, I want to KNOW WHO these bad “scientists” are so we never accept what they say again! Don’t you?)

Leftists for example have no trouble doing that with “Trump”.

So it is only fair to increase the accountability factor.

And why doesn’t the left ask AOC or Cory,
“WHO in the heck is telling you guys this stuff?”

AOC talks like this is some sort of sacrosanct scientific consensus.

(Do we mean it ISN’T really scientifically based and she is out touting “false facts” and the media is giving her a PASS on what you and I see as a 12-year phony prediction??)

LeafByNiggle on the twelve year global warming hysteria . . .
Of course I disavow such predictions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
We each have our agendas. You want me to join you in an orgy of media-bashing regarding predictions of global warming, and I want you to dwell on the laughable way in which Breitbart tried to discredit CNN or global warming without researching where in the heck Hudson Yards is. It does not look like either of us is going to get what we want.
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
I want you to dwell on the laughable way in which Breitbart tried to discredit CNN or global warming without researching where in the heck Hudson Yards is.
Click to expand...
I dwelled on it Leaf and it is still irrelevant.

If New York City is underwater, having a higher perch for their building will be virtually as disasterous.

And if the ABC special were true (but the dates a little off), there were large waves crashing all over the city.

And it was ridiculous.

And there was plenty of time for the global warming people to point out the “ridiculousness” of it all.

I didn’t ask you to “media bash” here although admittedly I think the media is part of the problem.

I asked specifically asked about Cory and AOC and their prophecies.

Here it is again . . .
LeafByNiggle . . .
Of course I disavow such predictions.
Click to expand...
Sorry Leaf. I did not see your answer on that when I wrote the above.

OK.

Did you SAY you disavowed it here on CAF when AOC was out prophecying that 12 year view? (I sure could have missed it. Would you mind linking to them?)
Click to expand...
And this . . .
Leftists for example have no trouble doing that with “Trump”.

So it is only fair to increase the accountability factor.

And why doesn’t the left ask AOC or Cory,
“WHO in the heck is telling you guys this stuff?”

AOC talks like this is some sort of sacrosanct scientific consensus.

(Do we mean it ISN’T really scientifically based and she is out touting “false facts” and the media is giving her a PASS on what you and I see as a 12-year phony prediction?? )
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It’s good to see more articles like this one.

www.engadget.com

Is it time we gave nuclear power another chance?

350 parts per million. That's the figure scientists agree is the "safe" upper limit of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Beyond that point, it's increasingly likely that our planet will become inhospitable for the humans that cling to its surface. Crops will fail, sea levels will rise and...
www.engadget.com www.engadget.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top