patrick.net

bob2356 says

What is your backup plan if you are wrong?

Don't need one. There are more imminent issues than me trying not to exhale because it might do something.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

three were roughly accurate

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of the First Earth Day In 1970. Expect More This Year.

https://fee.org/articles/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/


https://fee.org/media/28346/co2.png?width=600&height=434.14211438474877

3 predictions on the first Earth Day in 1970:

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. 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….”

10. 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.”

drB6 says

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

They aren't dire enough to be interesting.

drB6 says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

drB6 says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

It's not a lie, Gore WAS wrong, and spectacularly so. That is the truth and you need to accept it to have a rational discussion.

drB6 says

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

If we do that, then it will appear we have time to solve the problem and don't have to throw as much cash at it as possible, as soon as possible.

mell says

It's not a lie, Gore WAS wrong, and spectacularly so. That is the truth and you need to accept it to have a rational discussion.

"Alternative Facts got in the way of our Modelling. Fuck the Facts, believe the Models."

drB6 says

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

Man makes about 3% of the atmospheric co2.

If we totally eliminated manmade co2 it would make little difference even if you believe co2 warms the earth.

Onvacation says

Man makes about 3% of the atmospheric co2.

Per year or total? And even 3% MIGHT make a difference.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

I understand. However, it would be better to have an academic, non-emotional discussion and have people who personally very obviously benefit from holding one or another viewpoint not participate. Also, the question always is "what to do". Denier side says that nothing needs to be done, and that is wrong for many reasons even if global warming is insignificant. Giving money to terror-sponsoring Middle Easterners or crazy Chavistas should be enough to develop some other energy sources. As someone pointed out, population control is one way (less E needed), and developing nuclear is another possibility.