Yeah this. Her comments were related to a UN report suggestion a rubicon 12 years out if nothing is done about carbon emissions.

yes.

who cares?

Apparently you do.

It wouldn't surprise me if we're already past the point of return and we're into the damage limitation stage. The thing with these type of predictions is that they take a long time to reach fruition. Chances are most people that are alive today will be dead by the time it hits the fan. This gives the Sean Hannitys of this world an easy out as they can say '12 years ago scientists said we had 12 years to save the planet. CO2 ommissions have continued to rise and everything is still fine. Scientists are a bunch of idiots!'. They know full well that they're misrepresenting the reports but, they don't care. You're never going to be able to engage with this type of person so it then becomes a case of trying to reach people that haven't thought about the issue. Sticking to measurable things that are happening now, such as temperature increases and decreases in the amount of ice cover, is probably a more effective strategy.

The types of threats have changed, certainly...

The threats used to be things like:

-- in 20 years the snow will be gone from Kilimanjaro

-- in 15 years Miami will be inundated by sea level rise

These types of threats were all the rage back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The problem is that basically none have come true.

That strategy has been tried and seems to have not been successful.

So the anthropogenic climate change folks have learned now the threats, I mean strategy, are either further out in time, to the point that they are untestable...

-- by 2100, global climate change will cost the US $xxxxxxxxx billion annually

Or the threats are more qualitative than quantitative...

--- we are reaching (or at) the point of no return and now we can only hope to mitigate the damages

~~~

It's not specifically that Hannity will say in 12 years that the world is still here, but that AOC's use of the "like, the world will like, end in like, 12 years or something" rhetoric allows him to do so.

The Hannity's of the world are not looking for counter examples of anthropogenic climate change. They are looking at the threats issued and pointing out where they have failed.

AOC is not s climate scientist. I care as much about her opinion of climate science as I do DS.

You are using a complete straw person to discredit rock solid science.

This thread is an embarrassment.

Clovis, they are not totally wrong. The majority of both sides do nothing but hyperbole and strawmanning the other side, that is why noone agrees on anything and nothing gets done. Both sides care more for winning and crying about the other side not agreeing with them than they do about progress.

To answer the quandary about the 'irreparable damage that would be done if we didn't do something about pollution in the next 12 years,' we are already there. Humans are taking a giant dukie in every ecosystem on the planet and it will never actually be the same. There's a more than texas sized island of trash in the pacific and the largest rainforest is dead to prove it. We continue to sort our recyclables then just make two landfills, one regular landfill and another one for the stuff we will recycle later. The planet is a total mess.

It’s science. Not politics.

THERE ARE NOT TWO SIDES. PERIOD.

Every word uttered about the “other” side is an affront to logic, reason and decency. Everyone on the “other” side is nothing more than an moron not deserving of one second consideration.

Yeah, it's all a big hoax from the people raking in the big bucks of climatology.

It's not like the arctic is already disappearing, Greenland is going actual green, salinity levels are decreasing and world average temperatures are well above what can be explained by natural change models.

As for the Hannitys of the world, they are looking to make bank by having a lot of listeners and saying what these want to hear.

And THIS explains how we reconcile Toothsayer's strange statement with the fact that he would never lie or write something factually incorrect. People are erroneously assuming that when someone claims that it is not worth spending a lot of money to fix something it is because it is not broken that badly. They forget that there is the opposite reason which is that it is broken so badly that the money will do little good. Scientists from Cambridge just recently stated that they fear this is the case with climate change so they are frantically trying to come up with alternative solutions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663

Who would like to compose an appropriate apology to him?

You are as wrong as you are angry.

The reaction to climate change, anthropogenic or not, is political.

Period.

Never actually be the same is a long stretch...

I suggest you look at the environmental damage done during the WWII, Battle of the Atlantic.

Orders of magnitudes more crude oil and toxic chemicals were spilled than the Deep Water Horizon accident. It didn't destroy the environment.

Large scale pollution can and routinely is cleaned up by both man and natural processes. Western capitalist democracies have shown that they can clean themselves up. Technology improves constantly and is cleaner at every evolution.

I’m not wrong. Science doesn’t give a **** about your right wing feelings.

Now we are conflating pollution and climate change. This thread is actually worse than I thought it might be.

Let's assume that scientifically this is undebatablely true. After that when it is time to choose actions, things enter the sphere of politics and you do yourself no favors not understanding the lay persons perspective when they disagree with you. You would be better served to support your arguments and explain why others are incorrect.

Is not the actual reaction to ACC to reduce and cleanup "pollution"?

Or are you now arguing that human pollution is not the cause of climate change?

I already said what to do about climate change is political and open to debate. It’s existence and cause IS NOT. I also said, there is zero value debating either With people who question the former.

The fact that there are other possibilities does not make the assumption erroneous. Far more people hold the the first position than the second.

That's your fault. It was clearly going to be fully awful. In fact, I think it hasn't even lived up to it's full potential yet.

You don’t have a clue.

Nir Shaviv is a physicist who believes that warming is mostly caused by fluctuations in solar radiation

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Are Physicists generally lumped in with "climate scientists"? The 50% number seems fully made up tbh, but there are certainly a few who can put up an argument

So what do you think of the proposals in the website I mentioned?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663

Holy JESUS H CHRIST science is not a ****ing vote with a veto. Holy ****.

I think you don’t “believe” in anthropogenic climate change. I think you think it’s something someone holds a belief in. This means I think you are simply not intelligent enough to make it worth me responding to you in any real way. It’s really a total embarrassment that you spent your life trying to convince people how intelligent you are and you have fallen so far down the deplorable rabbit hole you now simply buy anything the idiot right says, whole cloth, without a shred of intellectual curiosity.

Science isn't a democracy was his quote I believe