OtherGround Forums Climate "Experts" 0-41 With Doomsday Predictions!

28 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 35591
To be fair, when they do finally get that first win. Well...
Edited: 28 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 12207
David@accu - 
Josh - 41 times someone was wrong since 1960 fuck me....how many times where they right?

Are your seriously asking how many doomsday predictions have been right since 1960? Do you want to take an extra couple minutes to think about what you're asking?


No I was asking how many times climatologists have been right in the last 60 years, not just how many times 40 people were wrong....see present day Jakarta as example. It'sike when doctors say someone is going to die in 5 months and they live we hear about it ait but we don't hear much about the other 45 million times or so they are correct
Edited: 27 days ago
7/4/11
Posts: 13175

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

Edited: 27 days ago
7/4/11
Posts: 13176

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.

Edited: 27 days ago
7/4/11
Posts: 13177

My Lord, I missed some of your particularly idiotic "gotchas". You're bragging about scientists being incorrect about famine?

You stupid fuck, that wasn't coincidental, that was once again, because of the concerted efforts of scientists like Norman Borlaug who dramatically enhanced GMOs and cultivation efforts. He won a Nobel Peace Prize about three years after your article's post date for managing to double the agricultural yield of India and Pakistan in a matter of years. He might not have managed it, just like we might not have ever managed to fix the ozone, if there were more retards like you drinking the ExxonMobil koolaid.

 

Edit: In fact, morons like you have already caused mass famines over GMO fears. Zimbabwe famously let millions starve to death because they refused to accept GMOs after kicking out all their white farmers. I guess anti-science sentiment wins again, so congratulations. 

27 days ago
7/4/11
Posts: 13178

If anyone wants, I'd gladly post articles or review articles explaining some of the basic science, but I'd assume it would go about as well when I post vaccine articles to those tools beards, bz, and empress. 

VACCINES HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED WITH PLACEBO

Oh, here's a set of placebo tested articles. 
VACCINES HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED LONG TERM

Oh, here's a set of long term vaccine articles. 
VACCINES HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED BY A THIRD PARTY.

Oh, here's a set of private and public studies done by a variety of organizations. 
MEMES MEMES MEMES

27 days ago
10/4/14
Posts: 5782

I used to think OP was just a no life troll, now I’m starting to think he has some very real mental health issues. That or he’s just a fucking retard. 

27 days ago
6/22/03
Posts: 6575
MattyECB - 

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.


As you indicated, the only real consensus is that humans are contributing to climate change. And you agree that there is legitimate debate over how severe the effects will be. It will (probably) be bad in areas like the Middle East, Africa, and the pacific islands. But lots of areas will be totally fine. Cold countries like Canada will probably benefit from it.

Hence, the widespread hysteria doesn't match the scientific consensus in any way. Which is kind of OP's point - fuck the doomsday predictions.
27 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 35190
Check out Tony Heller on youtube if you want to see the full insanity of this new climate change religion.

27 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 4593
Lazarus -
MattyECB - 

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.


As you indicated, the only real consensus is that humans are contributing to climate change. And you agree that there is legitimate debate over how severe the effects will be. It will (probably) be bad in areas like the Middle East, Africa, and the pacific islands. But lots of areas will be totally fine. Cold countries like Canada will probably benefit from it.

Hence, the widespread hysteria doesn't match the scientific consensus in any way. Which is kind of OP's point - fuck the doomsday predictions.

OP's point is that climate change, if it happens at all, is not caused by humans, because Big Industry sponsored articles tells him so and it makes him feel good to have the opposite opinion of liberals. 

You don't think there's need for widespread hysteria because only parts of the world will be fucked? You think you have a refugee problem now? You think there's stagnant economic development now? 

Besides, it's not just the areas you pointed out. Check what other parts of the world are on the same latitude as the Mid East. Then check coastal areas in general, Netherlands specifically, that are threatened as well. The Gulf Stream might not support Northern Europe's climate as much as it does today. When permafrost thaws in Siberia you run the risk of releasing additional greenhouse gases, creating a self generating reaction that humans can't affect.

Basically, we're up for some world altering changes and the Tragedy of the Commons indicates that we won't do enough about it. 

27 days ago
6/22/03
Posts: 6581
ziggystardust - 
Lazarus -
MattyECB - 

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.


As you indicated, the only real consensus is that humans are contributing to climate change. And you agree that there is legitimate debate over how severe the effects will be. It will (probably) be bad in areas like the Middle East, Africa, and the pacific islands. But lots of areas will be totally fine. Cold countries like Canada will probably benefit from it.

Hence, the widespread hysteria doesn't match the scientific consensus in any way. Which is kind of OP's point - fuck the doomsday predictions.

OP's point is that climate change, if it happens at all, is not caused by humans, because Big Industry sponsored articles tells him so and it makes him feel good to have the opposite opinion of liberals. 

You don't think there's need for widespread hysteria because only parts of the world will be fucked? You think you have a refugee problem now? You think there's stagnant economic development now? 

Besides, it's not just the areas you pointed out. Check what other parts of the world are on the same latitude as the Mid East. Then check coastal areas in general, Netherlands specifically, that are threatened as well. The Gulf Stream might not support Northern Europe's climate as much as it does today. When permafrost thaws in Siberia you run the risk of releasing additional greenhouse gases, creating a self generating reaction that humans can't affect.

Basically, we're up for some world altering changes and the Tragedy of the Commons indicates that we won't do enough about it. 


Ahh. The refugee boogie man, economic stagnation AND the runaway greenhouse effect all in one post. Impressive. You could get a job manufacturing hysteria.
27 days ago
9/16/02
Posts: 6416
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

27 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 4594
Lazarus -
ziggystardust - 
Lazarus -
MattyECB - 

One of your headlines: Only Anti-Science Suckers Believe Climate Change Hysteria. 

As much as I dislike an appeal to authority, it's factual that the scientific community is virtually in universal agreement over anthropogenic global warming so this is just factually incorrect and retarded... Like most of your posts. 

Ironically, there is disagreement of the exten of human contribution and the modeling and degree of severity. There are disagreements and nuance in the community and as an easy mental exercise, you could just cut out all extreme outliers of, "the world is ending," and, "everything is fine" and you'd be left with an incredibly strong body of evidence showing humans are clearly impacting our temperature, and that this needs to be addressed.


As you indicated, the only real consensus is that humans are contributing to climate change. And you agree that there is legitimate debate over how severe the effects will be. It will (probably) be bad in areas like the Middle East, Africa, and the pacific islands. But lots of areas will be totally fine. Cold countries like Canada will probably benefit from it.

Hence, the widespread hysteria doesn't match the scientific consensus in any way. Which is kind of OP's point - fuck the doomsday predictions.

OP's point is that climate change, if it happens at all, is not caused by humans, because Big Industry sponsored articles tells him so and it makes him feel good to have the opposite opinion of liberals. 

You don't think there's need for widespread hysteria because only parts of the world will be fucked? You think you have a refugee problem now? You think there's stagnant economic development now? 

Besides, it's not just the areas you pointed out. Check what other parts of the world are on the same latitude as the Mid East. Then check coastal areas in general, Netherlands specifically, that are threatened as well. The Gulf Stream might not support Northern Europe's climate as much as it does today. When permafrost thaws in Siberia you run the risk of releasing additional greenhouse gases, creating a self generating reaction that humans can't affect.

Basically, we're up for some world altering changes and the Tragedy of the Commons indicates that we won't do enough about it. 


Ahh. The refugee boogie man, economic stagnation AND the runaway greenhouse effect all in one post. Impressive. You could get a job manufacturing hysteria.

Yes, I could. I understand how people like OP works and how you trigger them emotionally. 

But in this instance I'm only posting the logical conclusion of your statement that it will probably be bad in areas like the Mid East, Africa and the Pacifics. (And then I added the runaway greenhouse effect). 

I don't understand how one can make the statement you did and then conclude there's no need to be highly concerned. 

 

27 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 4595
Sebastiaan -
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

MattyECB always brings knowledge based info to OG climate threads. 

27 days ago
11/11/14
Posts: 2562

Camicon doing the Lord's work. VU

27 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 25548
ttt
27 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 8637
JohnJamesUrgayle -

I am worried about the environment but these people are what fuck it up for everyone - they’ve cried wolf too many times and now everyone doubts the science. 
 

I remember freshmen year of college 1996 my biology professor had this whole presentation backed up with data and charts, etc about how we will exhaust our drinkable freshwater supply in like 15 years...dude seemed smart I respected him and went around parroting this info to people when I was young and impressionable and hadn’t developed healthy skepticism...obviously total 100% bullshit but the presentation he gave was specific and dead serious...really made me now think twice when I hear this shit and honestly you can’t believe any of it...there is a problem but there is so much data manipulation to paint the story the presenter wants that it’s totally unreliable...like the climate graphs with both axes (time and temp range) cut way down to show this scary looking trend...I could take the same data sets and present it to back two opposite conclusions depending on how I selectively use or present it. 

one thing I learned being a scientist is that if I want to tell some story I can always massage the data to make it back me up...hence the need for true peer reviewed scientific publications...any internet science or politician giving a presentation which was not peer reviewed take with a grain of salt 

Forbes found this true -  they gave access to 5000 emails where climate scientists actually discussed manipulating the data to prove global warming.

27 days ago
8/20/15
Posts: 6693

Well 0-40... The 2070 prediction still has time lol

27 days ago
11/20/13
Posts: 8856
jscorbett -
JohnJamesUrgayle -

I am worried about the environment but these people are what fuck it up for everyone - they’ve cried wolf too many times and now everyone doubts the science. 
 

I remember freshmen year of college 1996 my biology professor had this whole presentation backed up with data and charts, etc about how we will exhaust our drinkable freshwater supply in like 15 years...dude seemed smart I respected him and went around parroting this info to people when I was young and impressionable and hadn’t developed healthy skepticism...obviously total 100% bullshit but the presentation he gave was specific and dead serious...really made me now think twice when I hear this shit and honestly you can’t believe any of it...there is a problem but there is so much data manipulation to paint the story the presenter wants that it’s totally unreliable...like the climate graphs with both axes (time and temp range) cut way down to show this scary looking trend...I could take the same data sets and present it to back two opposite conclusions depending on how I selectively use or present it. 

one thing I learned being a scientist is that if I want to tell some story I can always massage the data to make it back me up...hence the need for true peer reviewed scientific publications...any internet science or politician giving a presentation which was not peer reviewed take with a grain of salt 

Forbes found this true -  they gave access to 5000 emails where climate scientists actually discussed manipulating the data to prove global warming.

Lol, you fell for that?

27 days ago
2/22/09
Posts: 12755
Dryfly - I still remember practicing hiding under my desk in grade school, had an alarm for it and everything.

Why?? Because it was claimed inevitable that the Russians were going to bomb us any day now.

At least we would have been protected from the radiation by the safety and security of our desks...WTF?

Hiding under your desk would not have protected you from radiation and it was not inevitable that Russia was going to bomb you any day now.

But the potential for nuclear war was a real issue.

27 days ago
4/24/07
Posts: 39880
Josh - 
David@accu - 
Josh - 41 times someone was wrong since 1960 fuck me....how many times where they right?

Are your seriously asking how many doomsday predictions have been right since 1960? Do you want to take an extra couple minutes to think about what you're asking?


No I was asking how many times climatologists have been right in the last 60 years, not just how many times 40 people were wrong....see present day Jakarta as example. It'sike when doctors say someone is going to die in 5 months and they live we hear about it ait but we don't hear much about the other 45 million times or so they are correct

That's moving goal posts pretty far. The thread is about climatologists making specific doomsday predictions not predictions in general. However, as scientists in a general sense they are almost always more wrong than they are right. Theories and Laws are miniscule compared to the failed hypothesis in every single catgeory.

Just look how many revisions have been made to the theory of gravity. They have most certainly been wrong about gravity than they have been right. Evolution, Relativity, Plate tectonics are all the same. So in reality you have your numbers backwards. We only here about when science has been right and not so much about the 45 million times they have been wrong. 

27 days ago
7/19/11
Posts: 426

I couldn't care less about long term climate change because I'll be dead by the time it matters. I do support recycling and reduction of use of non recyclable plastics, that just seems unnecessary and its turning the earth into a dump.

27 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 7997
Sebastiaan -
MattyECB -

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect cancer article... Does this mean cancer doesn't exist?

Hey guys, I can post an incorrect article on the mechanism behind tumor biopsies... Does this mean no one should ever get a cancer biopsy and testing done?

You look at a body of literature, not cherry-picked results. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of publications since your start point, and your handful of posts (most of which are not scientific articles but sensationalist bullshit) is supposed to prove something?

 

You can also avoid labs or people who make extreme predictions and focus on those with a long history of success and accurate predictions. And while we're on the subject of predictions, how about the fact that Exxon mobil and Shell both ran their own climate change studies (and remember they're about as biased as possible) and concluded that climate change was real.

Even more amazingly, their predicted CO2 and temperature shifts are right about on point today. Even better, they both buried the studies and only had it released 4 decades later through leaks (they came out a couple years ago). I don't really expect the OG to understand science or how articles and literature works though so no surprise here. 

Not to mention, you were retarded enough to post real events that occurred but were PREVENTED by human action, e.g. the ozone. How the fuck are you going to claim the ozone was a hoax? Holy shit this site is retarded, between the anti-vaxx, anti-evolution, and anti-GMO sentiment, I guess this isn't even the worst demonstration of ignorance and misunderstanding. I agree scientists can be sensationalist and dip into exaggeration to push funding. Weaker labs fall into that behavior (particularly if speaking extomporaneously and not from a publication), but the body of evidence that humans are a major driver of temperature shifts is just ridiculous at this point, although once again, I'd be blown away if even a fucking FIFTH of the OG has ever actually sat down and downloaded a major review article on modeling and statistical efforts in deducing climate change. 

this man gets it ...

Unfortunately that post went completely over the heads of its targeted audience.

My very simplistic view on climate change is, I don't know 100% for sure if it's real, a hoax or somewhere in between. But I'd rather err on the side of caution and take action, rather than do nothing and find out too late that we were wrong.

And when I look at many of those that deny climate change, I usually see a motive behind their views: I.e. Taking action on climate change hurts corporate profits, therefore they must push the narrative that it's a hoax.

 

27 days ago
3/14/04
Posts: 132260
Anyone who thinks humans can't affect the climate or the planet in general in other ways obviously doesn't know how the great dust bowl happened.
27 days ago
4/24/07
Posts: 39885
angryinch - Anyone who thinks humans can't affect the climate or the planet in general in other ways obviously doesn't know how the great dust bowl happened.

 Certainly man can affect it's surroundings including climate. What can't be proven is if these things wouldn't happen without "Climate Change". We know without a doubt all of the things people suggest are caused by "Climate Change" happened before man ever existed. In fact they happened on an even larger scale and to a degree that we probably can't even imagine.

The "Great Dust Bowl" has probably happened thousands of times prior to man as well. 6000 years ago the Sahara desert was a tropical climate. There is no bigger "Dust Bowl" event than that we have records of that I'm aware. How can we explain such a dramatic change in climate if man had nothing to do with it?

I also suggested we should approach the topic in a much simpler form in "Pollution". That's because nobody wants to live in a polluted place. We all agree on that. We can actually measure and see those effects. That should be our aim as it's almost free of politics. Deforrestation, polluting, burning of fossil fuels can all be curbed without ever having to argue about them. They are all goals we ALL want to see. I don't know of a single person who doesn't enjoy "Nature". 

We have to stop needling each other with these silly names and involving politics in them. We don't need "Green New Deals" and politicans trying to take every last dime from people when the cost of solutions cost very little. Investing more in renewable energy is a great plan. However, suggesting we get rid of all fossil fuels in the next 10 years is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. In 50 years thats a great goal to have. However the technology just isn't there yet. Not to mention if done now you would have nasty things like battery farms which have just as much of a negative impact on our surroundings. Polluting the ground is not better than polluting the air. 

Another good idea is moving to natural gas. It's a pletiful and doesn't cause as much harm. These are things we should all be behind. What I won't get behind is these scare tactics our politicians use to get more of our money. I have seen nothing to suggest that even if our Governments had the money they claim they would need to fix the problem, they would actually fix it.  We would have to pretend every politican is honest and every company they involve in the process has the same goals in mind.