Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong. Global cooling turned out to be a miscalculation.Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.
So, the point of the thread seems to be:
1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome
2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.
Acid rain is still with us. It’s just not as politically convenient for marxists as AGW is because acid rain is too geographically isolated.
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population asJust like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
Polar Bears International are making extreme claims in order to hype donations from easily frightened dupes.
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!
Jo
There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,
This is your argument?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
/——-/ Enough to provide cheap reliable energy.The climate hysterical will never get that all the data in the world doesnt matter unless the public cares. The public is very aware of the data....they just dont buy the bomb thrower tales. Because they've seen them be wrong a billion times.....st00pid jerkoffs!
Congress....no matter who is holding court.....could not give two shits about the science. Because nobody is calling......doy.
The only people not responding to the data are conservatives who it as just a political issue rather than a scientific call to change.
How many new nuke plants should we build?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
Will it hurt you to use paper instead of plastic bags?
Or use reusable straws instead of plastic ones.
Or to use energy saving light bulbs that last longer than the traditional ones.
Or using less gas that is better for your lungs anyway.
Or fishing alternative energy sources other than burning up fossil fuels.
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population asJust like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
Polar Bears International are making extreme claims in order to hype donations from easily frightened dupes.
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!
Jo
There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,
This is your argument?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
WE created it, we can fix it.
Quit acting like it just nature.
I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.
So, the point of the thread seems to be:
1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome
2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.
My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.
The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.
Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.
All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.
Brilliant plan.
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population as
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!
Jo
There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,
This is your argument?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
WE created it, we can fix it.
Quit acting like it just nature.
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
How many new nuke plants should we build?
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population as
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!
Jo
There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,
This is your argument?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
WE created it, we can fix it.
Quit acting like it just nature.
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
How many new nuke plants should we build?
Where is this extra CO2 coming from?So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.
There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,
This is your argument?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
WE created it, we can fix it.
Quit acting like it just nature.
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
How many new nuke plants should we build?
Cause and effect is always present. Is it anthropogenic? Perhaps.... So it's every breath you exhale.
Jo
So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.
So, the point of the thread seems to be:
1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome
2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.
My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.
The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.
Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.
All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.
Brilliant plan.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.
There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,
This is your argument?
Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
Jo
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
WE created it, we can fix it.
Quit acting like it just nature.
In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.
It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?
Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.
How many new nuke plants should we build?
How long ago???? In the past, these changes took centuries & allowed animals to adapt.
If we don't want to build plants that could ill thousands when a earthquake hits and creates waste that taken ten thousand years to become safe, we don't want green energy,. I get it. We have 15 fukushima style nuclear plants along a major fault line in the central US.
Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.
I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.
- We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
- In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end leading into the next ice age."
- We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.
- The oceans would be dead.
- Global Cooling would destroy the world.
…a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.
- Acid rain would destroy our forests.
It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.
- Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.
The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”
- We would deplete our natural resources.
In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."
- We would run out of oil.
1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."
— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)
Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
"We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
— March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle
1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
"M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."
- The polar ice caps would melt.
The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.
According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.
But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.
Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”
In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”
Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.
- Manhattan would be underwater.
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
- People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.
In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
- Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.
Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
- “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”
Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.
18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI
Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.
