What is the deal with the "12 year obsession" by Climate Changers?

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Dayton Kitchens, Mar 18, 2019.

  1. Order2Chaos

    Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,217
    Location:
    here there be dragons
    Ratings:
    +11,468
    12 years is about how long we have to curb emissions drastically in order to remain below 1.5°C warming. Beyond that, we have to employ active measures to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere or the amount of sunlight getting trapped, like active capture and geoengineering. This shit gets expensive. So it's not 12 years until the world ends, it's 12 years before it gets really, really expensive to maintain it. We can shoot for 2°C or more of warming instead, and then we pay for the costs of the world changing due to that instead, which are even higher -- adverse health effects, seawall construction or evacuation inland, refugee crises in South Asia to make the caravan look like a lone hiker in the Alaskan bush, more droughts, more and stronger hurricanes and other extreme weather events, failed crops, destabilized governments, etc. But if you can live with that, and live with socializing the costs to deal with it... yeah, we can just do that.
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  2. TheLonelySquire

    TheLonelySquire Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +3,456
    Is there a "4 Year Obsession" for @Tererun ? He's gotta have stock in that!
  3. TheLonelySquire

    TheLonelySquire Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +3,456
    I can live with it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • GFY GFY x 1
  4. Tererun

    Tererun Magical Girl

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    19,599
    Location:
    What the Duck?
    Ratings:
    +13,422
    You need to explain that one better,
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  5. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    83,836
    Ratings:
    +51,773
    All right, let's look at a real junk science.
    Let's look at Flat Earth.

    Is Flat Earth as heavily tested as Global Warming?
    Nope.
    Because once you test it the teeniest bit, the fantasy ends.
    Just take a plane around the globe, or have an astronaut snap a picture, or look at Google Earth, boom, round Earth, done.
    Test the shit out of Global Warming, it's still there.
    Things that are real are stubborn and pesky like that.

    Is there as much consensus with Flat Earth as there is for Global Warming?
    Not by a country mile.
    If Global Warming is a fake conspiracy, you'd think the Flat Earthers could get their own conspiracy going.
    All they've got is a dumb gullible basketball player.
    No scientists.

    "The conspiracy pays climate scientists off!!".
    If it were about bribery, you know who's got plenty of money lying around?
    Oil companies.
    If all they wanted was sweet, sweet, greenbacks, they'd back the oil company narrative, or silently retire to the Bahamas.
    So, maybe, just maybe, most scientists are ethical.

    I get distrusting authority, I do.
    But "the climate conspiracy", just doesn't add up.
    If it did, I'd be on board with ya.
    I'd love to live in a world where pumping millions of tons of factory smoke into the sky did absolutely no harm, and the bill never came due.
    I'm not a Grizzly Adams type.
    I don't want us to go back to bicycles, and teepees.
    I'm pro-technology.
    That's why I want us to science our way out of it.
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Dumb Dumb x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  6. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    I wonder how sea rise is going to impact those poor seven stranded castaways on Gilligan's Island?
    • teh baba teh baba x 1
  7. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 light & lethal

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    71,737
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    Ratings:
    +27,059
    they will put everything up on stilts. That's a cakewalk for them - they can do anything & everything except build a fucking boat! :shakefist:
  8. Bailey

    Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    20,782
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ratings:
    +18,831
    This is pretty much it.

    Show that our emissions don't absorb heat in the atmosphere, or give an easy solution and climate change believers will be happy.

    We can dig up coal, burn fossil fuels, fill the atmosphere with whatever we want without consequences? That would be amazing.
    • Agree Agree x 5
  9. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    83,836
    Ratings:
    +51,773
    Coward.
    :bailey:
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    knowledge of technology is not typically even.

    There are probably lots of physicists working at the Hadron Super Collider who are quite smart and talented but who couldn't build a sea worthy boat.
  11. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer Corn of Coblin

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    26,188
    Location:
    The South
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    I posted a video which you obviously didn’t watch that points out several examples of times in the past where we were supposedly ten years away from a climate disaster. I’ve also posted examples of times when scientists have lied in the past (bone wars) and more recent examples from a few years ago where scientists lied about climate change. There are also examples where NASA deleted data that would prove that the climate is changing as drastically as the alarmists claim. I’ve also pointed out that they are basing all of this on computer models. I’ve also pointed out that there’s no need for a conspiracy, though there is one, but academics have to basically go along with the narrative in order to get published and get tenure. Anyone who doesn’t, gets shunned from the community, I’ve also pointed out that there most certainly are political motivations behind all of this, but you and others convieniently ignore all of this and continue to insist that skeptics are just mean doody heads.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  12. oldfella1962

    oldfella1962 light & lethal

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    71,737
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    Ratings:
    +27,059
    kind of missing my point here.
  13. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    Remember Carl Sagan? Shamelessly promoting the "nuclear winter" concept when he knew at that time full well (as he later acknowledged) that the evidence did not support it.
  14. Order2Chaos

    Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,217
    Location:
    here there be dragons
    Ratings:
    +11,468
    Science videos? Climate reporting is pretty terrible, but the science is solid.
    Two scientists. Not the entirety of the scientific establishment.
    Link? I'll evaluate your evidence.
    Not sure what you're on about here, but wouldn't that be evidence in favor of climate change being an impending disaster?
    Finally, a decent argument. Yes, yes they are. And they used to suck, a lot. The thing is, somewhere between 15 and 6-ish years ago, the computer models got a lot better. By nearly any measure, they have strongly predictive power. They don't predict any given year, but they predict the trend line pretty much perfectly.

    Nope.
    Great, you should be able to find at least a few examples of good, reproducible science that contradicts the narrative, which got someone fired, and in particular, you should be able to find it above the baseline of scientists who turn into cranks in any given field, and get fired for, for instance, writing flat-earth papers.
    Demonstrably untrue where their science isn't shit.
    Not from the scientists. Rather it's the other way around. If you're a scientist who realizes that we're hurtling towards catastrophe, are you going to vote for the party that says "step on the gas, the road is clear" and never ever listens to your warnings, or the one which wants to give the brakes a half-hearted pump? Remember when the Tories in the UK were actually listening to scientists? Shockingly, no one accused them of being politically biased then.
    Mean doody-heads? No. Morons of a flat-earther caliber? Not yet, but you're well on your way, and if climate science reporting was half as good as it should be, you would bear that label.
    • Winner x 3
    • Agree x 2
    • Disagree x 1
    • Thank You! x 1
    • popcorn x 1
  15. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,866
    Ratings:
    +27,374
    QFT.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer Corn of Coblin

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    26,188
    Location:
    The South
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    So, the bone wars didn’t exist, climatologists didn’t predict an ice age in the 70s and there weren’t doomsday scenarios predicted as far back as the 1880s?
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 2
  17. Bailey

    Bailey It's always Christmas Eve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    20,782
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ratings:
    +18,831
    They did, and scientific scrutiny uncovered the fraud once more than a handful of people got a look at the evidence.

    Some did. Certainly not the majority however.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer Corn of Coblin

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    26,188
    Location:
    The South
    Ratings:
    +19,210
    Have I made a flat earthed argument ?
  19. Order2Chaos

    Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,217
    Location:
    here there be dragons
    Ratings:
    +11,468
    Okay, I'm not going to make a habit of this, but the particular way it played out is seriously confusing, so I'm fixing the quotes. Sorry K., CC, Bailey.
  20. Order2Chaos

    Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,217
    Location:
    here there be dragons
    Ratings:
    +11,468
    They existed; they aren't relevant. The "Bone Wars" were a dick-measuring contest between two scientists. As soon as anyone else started trying to reproduce their results, their frauds were found out.

    An early ice age for Europe is still considered a possible outcome of climate change, if the North Atlantic Conveyor were disrupted by sufficient ice melt from Greenland. I can't blame you for getting this wrong; the media made it out to be a much larger thing that it was. But it was absolutely overhyped then (and overhyped now by some who should know better *cough*Bill Nye*cough*). But bad reporting and entertainers' hyperbole doesn't make the rest of climate science invalid!

    Doomsday scenarios may have been predicted as far back as the 1880s, but like Giordano Bruni before Copernicus, they had nothing to go on but imagination. (OK, a little more, as they could observe the cooling effects from smoky skies, which is in part how we know that sulfur dioxide-based geoengineering is possible in principle.) It wasn't till 1896 that the link between CO2 concentration and atmospheric warming was even discovered.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  21. Order2Chaos

    Order2Chaos Ultimate... Immortal Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    21,217
    Location:
    here there be dragons
    Ratings:
    +11,468
    Keep on moving the goal-posts. I said flat-earther caliber, not literally a flat-earther. If earth-roundness reporting was as bad as climate science reporting, I'm sure at least a third of the population would believe the earth was flat. It's okay to be ignorant, but please don't try to convince anyone who knows better that your ignorance is just as good as their knowledge. You shouldn't tell yourself that, either, BTW. Just know that you are ignorant and stop caring.
    • Agree Agree x 6
  22. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    35,100
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +26,082
    It's not remotely clear that "we can just do that". We are subject to multiple interlinked ecological crises only one of which is global warming with all sorts of feedback loops going on. We normally talk about warming by the year 2100 but history will not end at that point and whatever trajectory we're on will continue/worsen.
    To give just one possibility, there is a real risk of the food supply - and thereby civilisation - collapsing.
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  23. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    25,866
    Ratings:
    +27,374
    Yes, and they were about 2 people lying, and the scientific community exposing that lie. The climate change deniers follow in the liars' footsteps.

    No.

    In general? Sure. Jehovah's witnesses, for instance.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    What do you base this on?
  25. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey you can't spell hatred without "red hat"

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,149
    Ratings:
    +15,917
    bee colony collapse, among other things?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    35,100
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +26,082
    The fact that the natural world provides our food, and the fact that we're destroying it.

    Which includes bee colony collapse and other things.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    IIRC silk worms are extinct in the wild yet we still get silk.
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 2
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  28. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    The "natural world"?

    Most of our countries food supply comes from huge factory farms using vast amounts of chemicals and genetically engineered plants
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 1
  29. Spaceturkey

    Spaceturkey you can't spell hatred without "red hat"

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,149
    Ratings:
    +15,917
    read the article, among other things it touches on why "domesticated" bees aren't reliable and the costs of replacing what they already do for free with a less effective artificial method like nanobots or very tiny Mexicans...($170 Billion)
    Of course, there's all the other plants (and bees) that aren't agricultural produce but rather provide us with air...
    Which brings us to the issue of why are China and India so far ahead of North America with reforestation?
  30. Dayton Kitchens

    Dayton Kitchens Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    52,204
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +21,715
    What makes you think they are? IIRC, overall air quality in China is well below that of the United States.
    • Agree Agree x 1