Global warming: Are we doomed? A poll.

[Jehanne]

By most models, we are or will soon pass the point at which we can't contain global warming and it will become a largely runaway process.

If that happens, it could make the majority of the earth hostile to humans in a relatively short timespan.

Do you think this will happen within 100 years?  Yes or no.

My problem with the global warming scam is we have no idea where we are in the warming cycle, or if we are in a warming cycle.   All the doom and gloom predictions are just that.  Predictions.   There is NO way of knowing how things will turn.    And yet we are told we MUST spend hundreds of billions of dollars,  and eliminate fossil fuels which is the engine of capitalism.  The GW 'scientists' have been laughably wrong the past 15 years, yet we are supposed to trust these same people's predictions for the next 50, 100 years?  How stupid are we?

The true goal of this sham is to end capitalism, weaken America, and make us ripe for Marxist takeover.  (Notice China is never held to account for THEIR massive pollution output.  Nor are they browbeaten to pay.  That's the clue right there.)

Can you provide any citations from the corpus of scientific papers to support any of your claims?

[Mashmont]

My problem with the global warming scam is we have no idea where we are in the warming cycle, or if we are in a warming cycle.   All the doom and gloom predictions are just that.  Predictions.   There is NO way of knowing how things will turn.    And yet we are told we MUST spend hundreds of billions of dollars,  and eliminate fossil fuels which is the engine of capitalism.  The GW 'scientists' have been laughably wrong the past 15 years, yet we are supposed to trust these same people's predictions for the next 50, 100 years?  How stupid are we?

The true goal of this sham is to end capitalism, weaken America, and make us ripe for Marxist takeover.  (Notice China is never held to account for THEIR massive pollution output.  Nor are they browbeaten to pay.  That's the clue right there.)

Can you provide any citations from the corpus of scientific papers to support any of your claims?

Which claim do you need supported?   That we don't know where we are in the cycle?  Simple deduction tells you that.

---

Can you provide any citations from the corpus of scientific papers to support any of your claims?

Oh, my policy is to not chase my tail hunting for every little citation.  I figure if someone has doubts,  they can look it up.  

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.


Yes we do, actually.  It's called "Weather".

 Words have/are attached to specific meanings hence distinctions such as 'Boat' and 'Ship'.

 'Weather' is what happens each day over areas of the globe.

 'Climate Change' is the aggregate of all the 'Weather' from across the planet over time.

 Hope that helps.

 Cheers.

Over time hey... Such as the false predictions made some 15 years ago...
Did water levels rise to take out Florida??? Nope
Did snow cease to fall on Kilamanjaro??? Nope
And dozens of other predictions that were false

In hard science that falsifies the theory... False predictions always do... Its called deductive logic

Hope that helps

Cheerio

Uhm... the 'Predictions' go back further than 15 years.

The science was being discussed back into the late 1890's.

Are beaches and houses getting washed away in Florida? Yes, look it up.

Are tropicla storms forming earlier (On percentages) each year? Yes, look it up.

Is there less snow falling on Kilimanjaro and other glaciers around the world? Yes, again look it up.

*Waiting for "Show your sources" in 3... 2... 1...*

[The Architect Of Fate]

Over time hey... Such as the false predictions made some 15 years ago...
Did water levels rise to take out Florida??? Nope
Did snow cease to fall on Kilamanjaro??? Nope
And dozens of other predictions that were false

In hard science that falsifies the theory... False predictions always do... Its called deductive logic

Hope that helps

Cheerio

All of these predictions came true. WTF are you talking about, And no even if they didn't it wouldn't refute the overwhelming evidence of climate change. You need a lesson in logic buddy. But remember you're the idiot who doesn't know the difference between climate and weather so you can be safely ignored

[Mashmont]

Over time hey... Such as the false predictions made some 15 years ago...
Did water levels rise to take out Florida??? Nope
Did snow cease to fall on Kilamanjaro??? Nope
And dozens of other predictions that were false

In hard science that falsifies the theory... False predictions always do... Its called deductive logic

Hope that helps

Cheerio

Uhm... the 'Predictions' go back further than 15 years.

The science was being discussed back into the late 1890's.

Are beaches and houses getting washed away in Florida? Yes, look it up.

Are tropicla storms forming earlier (On percentages) each year? Yes, look it up.

Is there less snow falling on Kilimanjaro and other glaciers around the world? Yes, again look it up.

*Waiting for "Show your sources" in 3... 2... 1...*



In the past ten years, Antarctica set three consecutive yearly records for large ice mass.  
How on earth did that happen?

[Ranjr]

I remember when the deniers went around saying climate change isn't science because it isn't falsifiable.  All of that was based on a misinterpretation of Popper.  Now it appears they've gone back to lying.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Which claim do you need supported?   That we don't know where we are in the cycle?  Simple deduction tells you that.

Citation needed because no evidence that backs the claim this is simply a regular climate cycle. Because it isn't.

[vulcanlogician]

@Mashmont

You need to make sure that your responses aren't in the quote box when you type them. In the interface there is a button all the way to the right/bottom (but above where you type) called "View source." Click that.

[The Architect Of Fate]

In the past ten years, Antarctica set three consecutive yearly records for large ice mass.  

How on earth did that happen?

Are you serious 

I always love how you guys go for stuff like this without bothering to look any deeper 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052...l-warming/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/p...estion-12/

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier...c-sea-ice/

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gree...ng-overall

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/ant...rd-maximum

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

[Mashmont]

@Mashmont

You need to make sure that your responses aren't in the quote box when you type them. In the interface there is a button all the way to the right/bottom (but above where you type) called "View source." Click that.

 OK.  Thanks.