Something else for science skeptics to deny

That so many so easily jump between these positions and hedge them against each other underscores the lack of intellectual honesty behind any of them.

I'm far more concerned with the national debt in 2080 and the gang from Good Times dragging the country down the toilet than I am with cyclical weather patterns.

People should think long and hard before aligning themsellves with anything this guy has tto say.

When I was growing up, I survived the Ice Age that was predicted.

When I was a young adult, I survived the polar ice caps melting and the planet being turned into Waterworld.

If I'm still around in 67 years, I imagine I'll survive the Great Urban Inferno. I'll probably put on a hat, turn the air conditioner on, or maybe drink some water.

Better stock up on the bottled stuff, then.

Mock ye not the holy consensus, lest ye be deemed an Enemy of Science!!!11

Why do you hate science so much, $corp?

Because I am deemed its enemy, obviously.

I'm sure the tap will work just fine in 2080.

But if you have power outages, the stuff coming out of the tap might not be potable. And don't count on having water pressure every day, either.

WF's Luddites and Flat Earthers don't really hate science. The love Shiny Science, the kind that prompts them to run out and buy the latest gadgets to impress their friends, the kind that makes NASA the One Big Exception to Smaller Gubmint.

What they hate is anything that suggests their comfortable lives might somehow, someday, be less comfortable. Ask $corp about the increases in air quality problems and lung disease in his province since fracking, and he'll tell you there's no such thing...until it affects someone he knows, and then you'll hear Outrage!!11!

Is there any criteria for the number of times something has to be exposed before it becomes embarrassing to repeat it?

He is big on asserting that debunked theories put forth by a minority represent mainstream science. It's his way of "proving" that science is wrong.

Interesting since I wasn't taking any sort of stance at all.....just pointing out what the article actually said.

So... you posted some sketchy, half-baked crap knowing we wouldn't Chicken Little the way you'd prefer that we do... and when we don't, we're "playing to type." Yeah, whatever.

Does thinking about what he has to say get you long and hard?

Here's another thing for which you should send all your moneys to Algore, turn off your electricity and stop driving your car:

[yt=PANIC!]7ZY4SgZf_GQ[/yt]

Once again a theory with 0% direct proof.

To be honest.

I DO NOT CARE.

Even if I live to my goal of 92, that is fully 21 years before 2080.

Even my daughter will be 80 by the time this rolls around. Perhaps if she has children that can be one of their pet projects.

Besides, the U.S. should not be so centered around New York city anyway.

At the risk of invoking the wrath of the "no math in the Red Room" crowd...

That's either a double-digit typo, or you're telling us you were born in 1867 and don't know that 1980 has come and gone. But I guess being 146 years old would affect the memory a bit...

The other ironic thing about this thread is that skepticism is integral to good science. Blind faith in Science is completely backwards. Especially blind faith in bad Science like the material in the OP.

I'm from the desert, so its's all good in the hood.

Y'know, 15 years back, I remember it being noted that earth's population had just exceed 6 billion.
In 1980, it was 4.5 billion
In 1970, it was 3.5.

45 years and we've doubled the number of humans on the planet... I suspect that may have had some sort of effect.

Well, it's certainly increased my level of general annoyance.

But you'll buy every Doomsday Economic Prediction for a dollar.