Drachenfels1999 t1_je6ttd0 wrote
According to Discovery magazine in the late 80's, the Eastern Seaboard was supposed to be flooded by 2015, and the Obama's recently bought prime ocean front property on Martha's Vineyard. I wouldn't be too worried
ialsoagree t1_je70gef wrote
"I base my science exclusively on 80s articles of Discovery and the real estate decisions of a multimillionaire who will be dead long before any negative effects of climate change affect his real estate. I are SMRT!"
Drachenfels1999 t1_je9epkx wrote
I bet you are always the smartest person in the room.
Impossible_Oil_3662 t1_je7hpt0 wrote
I mean there were supposed to be major floodings and mass crops failures back when I watched the news in 1995 and still those "Doomsday" events haven't kicked in. Sry guys, but you people just wait and push the doomsday date further and further into the future. Start thinking critically.
ialsoagree t1_je7k4ro wrote
"I saw on a tabloid that xyz was suppose to happen and didn't. So I use that tabloid as a reason to reject all science!"
The issue is, when you talk about "what the news said" and then use that to not reject news, but to reject science, I'm not really sure what point you think you're making.
If you want to show me a peer reviewed research article from the 1990's that made a claim about something that would happen by the 2020's and it hasn't happened, go ahead. But if all you have is "bUt ThE nEwS sAiD!!!!!" I don't really care.
I get my science from peer review, not the news.
Drachenfels1999 t1_je9f912 wrote
lol, there's never a shortage of angry redditors looking to get their pitchforks out.
Serious_Guy_ t1_jea9vfv wrote
My country just had unprecedented major flooding over a huge part of the country just weeks ago, with huge crop losses in the affected parts. Just because they were the worst floods in recorded history doesn't mean they will be the worst this decade. Sure, some other parts of the country that normally have consistent year round rainfall were suffering drought. But hey, we're not starving yet so everything is fine, right? Surely there's no way that having weather extremes that break records almost every year on a worsening trajectory will impact our food security in the long term, right?
BoringWebDev t1_jeb5rjh wrote
Yes keep your head in the sand like the good little worker you are.
[deleted] t1_je7g76l wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je7zes7 wrote
Things that never happened for $200 Alex.
[deleted] t1_je87mo2 wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je890pm wrote
>5 year junk prediction: https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1637916406141394944?lang=en
First, that's a child. Are you saying you trusted children? Or are you merely engaging in bad faith arguments?
Second, that's not what she said, even if she wasn't a child. She was speaking quite rightly of the impacts of locking in climate change that will occur over the next 50-100 years, the actions we undertake today having ripples for generations after.
>https://weatherspark.com/h/m/137170/2023/3/Historical-Weather-in-March-2023-in-Taipei-Taiwan#Figures-Temperature
The definition of anecdote.
What has the temperatures worldwide looked like?
It that temperatures are increasing on a worldwide scale.
But, please, do go on quoting children incorrectly as if it is actual evidence to support your point.
[deleted] t1_je8b11u wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8bc3d wrote
>She was quoting James Anderson, a "renowned climate scientist".
And, again, you are still misrepresenting what was said.
>Like it or not, people like her have clout and status. Don't try and backpedal, cause you'd probably like this tweet if you saw it.
I didn't. I pointed out that it didn't state what you claimed it did.
Perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time...I dunno, whatever it is you do instead.
>And ya some places are got a degree or two warmer in a relatively short amount of time in Earth's history. Some didn't. You can come drink lemonade with me in my old folks home in 50 years time and admit I was right.
The amount of warming currently going on is unprecedented in the entire history modern humans have been on this planet.
The only comparable periods (and still slower and less dramatic) of climate change are linked to population collapse and large numbers of civilizational declines throughout our history.
>You can come drink lemonade with me in my old folks home in 50 years time and admit I was right.
LOL. You think you will be able to afford an old folks home. Cute.
[deleted] t1_je8ffqi wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8g7o8 wrote
>Okay Spoon feed me. Tell me word for word what she said.
I already did. I see my comment about reading still applies.
> I am unantagonistically trying to understand your argument here. Because it looks clear to me what she said and implied.
No, you are not. You are pulling up a five year old post from a child.
If you want to genuinely understand unantagonistically, why don't you try reading the three links I already posted. Unlike you, I read, and I don't rely on the words of children or individual scientists to draw my conclusions.
[deleted] t1_je8m5j6 wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8odpw wrote
>So at first, you denied the 5 year prediction was made (which it was).
No. I denied that was the claim. It wasn't. You know this. That is also explained in the twitter link itself, and admitted to later by the twitter's original 'gotcha' author.
>You denied that the temperature in my city has remained the same (which it has).
No, I pointed out an anecdote does not data make. Since you don't know what climate means in the phrase "climate change", suffice to say I must insist that it doesn't start and end at the borders of your city.
>Then you imply that civilizational collapse is going to occur due to temperature change. Which is exactly what Greta said in the first place (and never happened).
I implied it by pointing to the examples of past human civilizational collapse under better conditions. The past is not always an accurate predictor of the future, but only a fool that thinks climate starts and ends based on human political boundaries would suggest it isn't at all connected or meaningful to learn from our past.
>Nice. We've come full circle. Fact is, yes the temperature's gonna change in places (see links you provided) and we're gonna adapt.
Maybe. Maybe many many people will die. It's fine to say you don't care as long as you get to sip lemonade at the end. Being a sociopath isn't crime.
[deleted] t1_je8r3fp wrote
[deleted]
Spoonfeedme t1_je8rw2k wrote
>What is the alternative to adaptation and confidence in human ingenuity?
Actual adaptation to mitigate the looking predicted catastrophic change in climate? You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie to me and yourself to avoid confronting the possibility of the world being severely damaged the change that is occuring, to the point of attempting to claim that it isn't.
Doing nothing isn't adaptation.
>Which we are not.
Who is we? There are already tens of thousands of deaths occuring each year thanks to climate change, either directly or thanks to the stress that change is placing on existing fragile systems.
Your statements remind me of the villas outside London in the 4th century, still enjoying their baths, oblivious to reality.
[deleted] t1_je8veky wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments