I think he's talking about the way scientists and the media have used the term "tipping point" in past discussions of this issue.
Global warming...
- Thread starter HawktimusPrime
- Start date
Not really. Buncha bullcrap. Maybe you people should call out the Chicken Little media, but that wouldn't advance your cause.
Here's a lengthy story about erroneous predictions -- it's lengthy because there have been so many of them. And not just from Algore and the media, but from the alleged experts like the IPCC, James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, etc.
That's the point I've tried to make here without a lot of success among the zealots. It's an entirely different discussion than the discussion of the science. The little boy has cried "wolf!" so often that if you aren't a skeptic, you aren't paying attention.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
Good thing he's not a professional in the area then. Still, considering the data we are collecting on the amount of arctic ice, he wasn't wrong.
Right, an article from the John Birch society. There's no agenda there.
Still, you seem to think that just because these things haven't completely happened yet the fact that the data shows a course that will lead to many happening in the future means nothing.
We've been thru this many many times with you, and you get your ass handed to you each time.
No; it most certainly did not. "Society" implies written records, not just cave paintings.
We've never "looked like wooly mammoths"
A: No he didn't
B: He's not a mainstream scientist by any stretch
C: Mainstream science predicts about 2050 when Arctic ice will disappear in the summertime; more recent analysis indicates this may be within the next 15 years, though, well ahead of any projections or models. The models have ALWAYS projected a 2050-2060 timeframe, no matter what BS you want to Straw Man up.
Last edited:
All I need to see is the subheader on "Global Cooling" which has been debunked here ad nauseum. It was never anything remotely close to a 'consensus', and when asked to cite scholarly articles about it, we get a TIME Magazine cover from the 1970's, or Popular Mechanics.
What is mainstream Science? Since most of them are liberal, how can we believe anything they say? Liberals can never be trusted.
Let's pick ONE of your nonsense article's BS claims.
Here are projections from scientific models for sea ice loss, and when the Arctic becomes 'ice free', per the <15% sea ice criteria that all agree upon (US Navy's definition, I believe).
Can you point on this graph where ANY model projection "predicted" ice free conditions by 2013?
As I've already stated, the EARLIEST projections were for about 2050 (exactly what the graph shows), and many do not see an Ice Free Arctic out to 2100.
However, observations are well ahead of schedule, by about 2 decades, and newer estimates are that we could see an ice free arctic by 2030 or 2040.
Does your article just mention the "offhanded" comment by Al Gore? Or do they have ANY citations to back up that Straw Man claim?
FYI:
Here is what the GLOBAL sea ice extent looks like: northern AND southern hemisphere together.
Let's cue the "One of these things is not like the others" song....
Here is what the GLOBAL sea ice extent looks like: northern AND southern hemisphere together.
Let's cue the "One of these things is not like the others" song....
Your source discredits itself with it's first entry. There was never any consensus on cooling in the 70's. There was never a time when the idea was even close to a majority opinion. The media seized on the idea and plastered it around but that has nothing to do with the science - and you claim to be interested in a discussion of the science, right? You can't point to a single article or a small group of articles and say, "See? They got it wrong!" The fact is that even in the early seventies scholarly articles predicting a warming trend outnumbered those predicting cooling by 6-1. So the science got it right. If you expect perfection, I would suggest you remove that plank from your own eye, first.
Actually, no. What happens is that you refuse to discuss the point I make. Then you declare victory and disappear until the next time, when you do the same thing. Rinse and repeat.
And now, it seems, you are dismissing Hanson, Ehrlich, the Pentagon, the IPCC as know-nothings like Algore. Tell me: Are these reliable sources or not?
What's happened, Joe, time and again, is that the alarmists have made exaggerated claims that didn't come to pass. Whether they did so out of ignorance, or intentionally because they thought it was necessary to provoke action, I do not know. I suspect it was some of both, depending upon the circumstance.
I do not know to what extent human activity affects the climate, nor do I know how the climate is going to change or what the results of that change will be. I lack the knowledge and training to make a rational assessment of those things.
I am, however, qualified to pass judgment on the track record of the more visible spokesmen for the movement, and that track record is not one that inspires confidence.
Yeah....engineers and scientists use those all the time to explain data and develop theories. Thousands of them were probably used to build the computer you post on, the car you drive and the planes you're a passenger in.
If you don't understand them, and have no interest in understanding them, then leave the science to the scientists....
LMAO
No. We just bitchslapped you on your "link" here, in particular regarding "global cooling" and "arctic sea ice".
I'm not interested in more of your Gish Gallops. Admit those points are wrong and you've been duped by another 'denier Op Ed' and we can move forward and have an actual discussion.
We address the points very clearly; that you do not understand those explanations is an entirely different matter.
I'd call that much more of a "fairytale" than a "story", but certainly NOT non-fictional piece of work....
You should really be out collecting supplies in prep for that nuclear war that makes everything irrelevant.
Joe, all anybody needs to know about your cognitive abilities is that you thought I was serious about humans once looking like wooly mammoths.
Let's move to the actual discussion, although I realize that will be difficult for you. Do you consider Paul Ehrlich, James Hanson and the IPCC legitimate sources of information about climate change? I realize that you dismiss as irrelevant all the sources that have provided the general public with 99% of their information on the subject.
Let's finish with your "defense" of the article you'd posted.
Admit that the points brought up are BS on that. There was no consensus on global cooling. There was no model projection of an ice free arctic by 2013, and likely not out to at least 2040.
Admit your link is Op Ed BS and we can move forward, instead of just Gish Galloping from one whopper to another. Otherwise, you're simply trolling (again) here. And that not only gets old, it gets you banned.
Baloney. You posted an Op Ed you've declared as "scientific predictions/projections that were wrong". Stick with the points we've replied to on that before you Gish Gallop into something else and pretend you didn't get your ass handed to you again.
Your "alarmists" are people who take information out of context and blow it completely out of proportion to the actual science and claims.
No.
You have to suffer personal tangible harm in order to sue someone. Furthermore, you have to prove that Prime caused your harms.
None of that can be proven. Case dismissed. Get the hell out of the courthouse.
No I don't. We settled that in the ACA thread. Prime is inciting pollution. It's my duty as a citizen in a libertarian society to police Prime.
Be careful what you wish for. Big government may not be the worst thing after all. Millions of tiny governments may be far more troubling.
Pretty easy to tell what choice you made.Try a Mirror if you're looking for something, cubbie
likes
And yet again, you refuse to answer simple questions. I understand why, as does anybody reading the thread.
Incidentally, earlier you said Algore didn't predict the arctic ice could be gone; in fact, he said that several times, including in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Yes, yes, I know Algore "doesn't count." But you need to decide whether you are going to ignore him, defend him, or admit that much of what he said wasn't true. Same thing with Hanson and the IPCC.
Buy them books and buy them books and all they do is color the pages.
Similar threads
