- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A helpful list of failed past predictions about Global Climate Change.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 11:20 am to bmy
Posted on 7/29/19 at 11:20 am to bmy
quote:
2) why are you almost exclusively using the predictions and statements of politicians and public figures instead of documents like the IPCCs or respected journals?
This is hilarious. Why don't you go check out what the IPCC says about their own assumptions about the modeling that was used to put together the Paris deal? Hint: the creators of the models themselves understand that using the word "forecasts" are too misleading to the public and that "projections" is the correct wording. Their assumptions from just 10 years ago have been mostly proven false and inaccurate.
0
Posted on 7/29/19 at 11:41 am to bmy
quote:
Non-political scientific follow up" use your god damned brain to figure out why this is a dumb phrase
Let me explain to you how it works.
There are scientific methods that can be used to arrive at a politically motivated conclusion. It happens all the time.
The fact that you dont know this confirms a lot about why you believe what you believe.
Have you never heard of research from big pharma where a drug is successful in 1 out of 40 trials and they use that 1 trial to get FDA approval? Happens all the time...
Not to mention the IPCC was already caught fudging numbers, but hey that wouldn't happen again, now would it?
Poor foreign nations have IMMENSE FINANCIAL MOTIVATION to have America participate in their scam. These countries want the money but no one will ever hold them accountable.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 11:44 am to TygerTyger
Al Gore has become super rich from lying and conning simpletons.
He hasn’t created anything. He hasn’t built anything. He hasn’t performed any legitimate research.
He’s just spoken a bunch of worthless, phony, and hypocritical crap.
He hasn’t created anything. He hasn’t built anything. He hasn’t performed any legitimate research.
He’s just spoken a bunch of worthless, phony, and hypocritical crap.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:02 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
emphasis on tree planting, etc.
Has anything been scientifically measured for this? Has there been any non-political scientific follow up to anything you've listed?
There was a study that estimated the number of trees on the planet at roughly 400 Billion. Based on their research, they determined that we needed to double the number of trees to 800 Billion to have any impact on carbon dioxide emissions.
Well, the next time they did the count, they came up with over 3 trillion trees on the planet AND decided that based on their research that we still needed to double the number of trees on the planet to have any impact on carbon dioxide emissions.
"Hey guys, sorry about the first set of bullshite, but you can take our second set of research to the bank."
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:06 pm to Allyn McKeen
quote:
There was a study that estimated the number of trees on the planet at roughly 400 Billion. Based on their research, they determined that we needed to double the number of trees to 800 Billion to have any impact on carbon dioxide emissions. Well, the next time they did the count, they came up with over 3 trillion trees on the planet AND decided that based on their research that we still needed to double the number of trees on the planet to have any impact on carbon dioxide emissions.
yeah yeah.... but if someone has planted even one tree that's a positive, and going to count in the list of things that have been done to save the planet from what was declared utter doom.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:07 pm to bmy
quote:
2) why are you almost exclusively using the predictions and statements of politicians and public figures instead of documents like the IPCCs or respected journals?
quote:
1) steps have been taken and maybe their warnings were more effective than you give them credit for
Steps have been taken to line the pockets of lobbyists and politicians. Non-profit groups have aided more than any gov program or source of green energy.
quote:
1) steps have been taken and maybe their warnings were more effective than you give them credit for
Their own workers explain the illegitimacy of their "research." Talk to real scientists that aren't paid to push the globalist narrative of "climate change."
Conservatives are all for protecting the environment... it's the name. Conserve. It' conservative donations that are largely responsible for keeping national parks at their prosperous level recently. We would support renewable energy if an effective alternative was discovered. Solar and wind are not effective, require vast amounts of land to power even a single 1000 populous town.
You really need to research why IPCC's push their narrative, what models they use, drop, and how there is little to no actual science behind their subject sampling and then who lines their pockets. Maybe even talk to a few physicists and non-climate scientists. For the majority in that profession(not all) their line of work is about as useful as a diversity committee. Both are just financial gains for someone else.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:12 pm to bmy
quote:
1) steps have been taken and maybe their warnings were more effective than you give them credit for
2) why are you almost exclusively using the predictions and statements of politicians and public figures instead of documents like the IPCCs or respected journals?
Both of your points are fricking stupid, ANY non government funded scientist/engineer that does research in climate or thermodynamics and heat transfer(like me) disagree with man made climate change. Mans effect, short of a worldwide thermonuclear war, is minimal to none. You climate alarmists are the dumbest frickers on the planet.
The real thing we need to focus on is getting the plastic and shite out of the ocean, but for that to work we have to get China and India on board which is near impossible.
This post was edited on 7/29/19 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:16 pm to Zach
quote:
1. The Global Govt crowd. Changing the environment cannot be done piecemeal with each nation. There needs to be a global central power. Think UN in charge of World Land. The Climate crisis is the best way to justify getting rid of national sovereignty.
2. Scientists making money from grants. If you want the check prove that climate change is real.
3. De-developers. Think Ted Kacinsky (Unibomber's manifesto). They oppose economic progress and want man to return to a more natural state at one with the forests and the birds. Toffler covers this well in The Third Wave about how some people just resisted the shift from agrarian to industrial and now from industrial to info tech.
4. Smash and Grab. These are business insiders who see profit in govt regulations hurting one industry and helping another. But it's not all about buying stock in solar or wind. It's waiting until an oil stock hits bottom, buying it for pennies on the dollar and then profiting when it goes back up because wind and solar don't work.
5. Big Insurance. They benefit from overstating risk and raising premiums.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:27 pm to bmy
What are you insinuating here? Are political leaders just pulling doomsday timelines out of their asses, or do they get their figures from the ample supply of grant hungry climate scientists?
Posted on 7/29/19 at 12:43 pm to memphisplaya
quote:
memphisplaya
This guy gets it. The IPCC uses a 300 year projection like it's credible
On top of the 300 year time horizon, they also use a 2.5% discount rate to calculate SCC. Anybody in Finance knows how retarded it is to 1. Attempt to forecast something 300 years from now and 2. The effects of using a 7.5% discount rate (Obama admin recomendation) versus a 2.5% rate. The two people that made the models that the IPCC uses acknowledge how unreliable it is, yet were supposed to take seriously to make policy decisions.
Posted on 7/29/19 at 2:19 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
What are you insinuating here? Are political leaders just pulling doomsday timelines out of their asses, or do they get their figures from the ample supply of grant hungry climate scientists?
More like politicians obviously have an agenda. It's their job. So they search for scary sounding language or anything that may support a policy and run with it.
Lefties doing it with alarmism
Righties doing it with herpderp CO2 is good for the planet
Posted on 7/29/19 at 2:27 pm to cokebottleag
Global disasters I’ve missed in my lifetime:
Ice Age return
Acid Rain
Ozone Hole Mass Expansion
Killer Bees
Y2K
And people don’t understand why I’m skeptical ??
Ice Age return
Acid Rain
Ozone Hole Mass Expansion
Killer Bees
Y2K
And people don’t understand why I’m skeptical ??
Posted on 7/29/19 at 2:27 pm to bmy
quote:
Just saying that it's retarded to point at a prediction and say it failed without considering that humans did some good.
I agree with this, but the people who are saying this sthit today are the same people that were saying it before.
The narrative of today's world is not that people have done good and are making up for past mistakes, its that people are horrible and the world is ending in 12 years.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News