FOLLOW BOREME
 
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Top 10 climate change myths

Top 10 climate change myths

(10:27) The climate has always changed, even before humans were around. Potholer54 debunks the most popular arguments made against the theory of man-made climate change.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Babaghan Babaghan (223 days ago)

Even if one is a climate change/warming/whatever skeptic, can't everyone agree there's no upside to polluting our atmosphere and destroying rare creatures' habitats? At the very least, we should all try to conserve what we have left on this planet for the future.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Even if one is a climate change/warming/whatever skeptic, can't everyone agree there's no upside to polluting our atmosphere and destroying rare creatures' habitats? At the very least, we should all try to conserve what we have left on this planet for the future.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (223 days ago)

Na, I'm gonna be dead before it's a real issue. Until then I will do what everyone does, do what I can to earn money.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Na, I'm gonna be dead before it's a real issue. Until then I will do what everyone does, do what I can to earn money.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guesting (222 days ago)

How poor must a human be to spend time on the internet, just to tell everyone how misarable he is.

Trolls may seem fascinating from a psychological view point. But in reality they are just lonely, longing for attention, any attention.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

How poor must a human be to spend time on the internet, just to tell everyone how misarable he is.

Trolls may seem fascinating from a psychological view point. But in reality they are just lonely, longing for attention, any attention.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: BigHot (208 days ago)

"Trolls may seem fascinating from a psychological view point. But in reality they are just lonely, longing for attention, any attention."

No, it's just that my pen1s is sore from looking at too much porn, so I thought I'd annoy snowflakes instead.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

"Trolls may seem fascinating from a psychological view point. But in reality they are just lonely, longing for attention, any attention."

No, it's just that my pen1s is sore from looking at too much porn, so I thought I'd annoy snowflakes instead.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (222 days ago)

Speaking from the heart there. Anything you'd like to share with us?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

Speaking from the heart there. Anything you'd like to share with us?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
demoninatutu demoninatutu (221 days ago)

Weak riposte. 6/10.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

Weak riposte. 6/10.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (221 days ago)

Weaker still. 3/10.

Anyway, you were telling us about how 'misarable' you are.... please continue.

So why do you look for attention by calling people names and criticising their replies?

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Weaker still. 3/10.

Anyway, you were telling us about how 'misarable' you are.... please continue.

So why do you look for attention by calling people names and criticising their replies?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (223 days ago)

You must be very old or very unhealthy. Worse case scenario is human extinction within 10 years! LINK

What's the point of earning loads of money if you are going to pop off this Earth really soon. You won't even have time to enjoy it. And if you have family that you care enough about to leave them your wealth, then why be a part of making their future lives a living hell?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

You must be very old or very unhealthy. Worse case scenario is human extinction within 10 years! LINK

What's the point of earning loads of money if you are going to pop off this Earth really soon. You won't even have time to enjoy it. And if you have family that you care enough about to leave them your wealth, then why be a part of making their future lives a living hell?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (223 days ago)

Your back early walter.

Hahahahahaha 10 years. Hahahahahahaha. Someone must have a book to sell me thinks. Thats worse case, best case is that AGW is a hoax.

If 10 yrs is true then there's nothing we can do. Make your will. In fact if thats the case I should care even less.

As for the next generation, as bob put it that's their problem. We inherit the curses of our ancestors and do whatever we can to counteract them. Just like every generation in history

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

Your back early walter.

Hahahahahaha 10 years. Hahahahahahaha. Someone must have a book to sell me thinks. Thats worse case, best case is that AGW is a hoax.

If 10 yrs is true then there's nothing we can do. Make your will. In fact if thats the case I should care even less.

As for the next generation, as bob put it that's their problem. We inherit the curses of our ancestors and do whatever we can to counteract them. Just like every generation in history

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (221 days ago)

The difference between worse-case and best-case scenarios, is what humans do.

Business as usual will lead to a worse-case scenario. Business as usual means we continue as we are - adding a few % extra CO2 each year into the atmosphere, and doing very little to change our ways.

Sure, 10 years until human extinction sounds ridiculous, but if you rephrase it to: 10 years until global life-support systems collapse - that sounds more plausible. Scientists have been warning us for decades about runaway global warming - that's when positive feedbacks kick in and amplify the warming exponentially. There are many positive feedbacks, eg. ice reflects heat back into space, but when the ice melts, not only do we lose the cooling effect from heat reflection, but the darker water that is revealed absorbs even more heat, melting even more ice, that reveals even more water ... etc. The most worrying feedback is the melting permafrost, which has already begun. Locked in the permafrost is carbon, that if released as methane will dwarf our emissions many times over. If the permafrost is not 'permanent', ie. not frozen all year round, then the organic material within it will decompose releasing huge amounts of methane. Methane is about 85 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. It will accelerate the warming which in turn will melt even more permafrost, accelerating warming even more.

As the warming accelerates, phytoplankton may not be able to adapt fast enough to survive the warmer and more acidic waters. And phytoplankton are at the bottom of the food chain in the oceans. If they don't survive, then nor do the animals above them. On land, plants are at the bottom of the food chain. With increasing heat waves and droughts, extreme flooding and superstorms, plants may find it difficult to survive. Open field farming will simply be impossible.

But the worse-case scenario is missing: how, and how fast humans react. Humans will react, and are reacting now, but we need to up our game many times over to make a difference.

The best-case scenario is not that climate change is a hoax, because it isn't. Climate change today is caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I think the best-case scenario is that - as in war, a nation puts aside its differences to come together to fight for its own survival - then the world population puts aside its differences to come together to "fight" climate change and transform the world into a sustainable planet that can support a diversity of life including about 10 billion humans. 10 billion is what the UN estimate the population will peak at before slowly decreasing. We can't rely on individuals like Elon Musk; there are simply not enough of them. The collective power of 7 billion people is huge. If we use that power, we may be able to slow down climate change enough to give other species a better chance of adapting, while we figure out how to safely geoengineer the climate and remove billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere. Then over time, the climate will stabilise and we can all live happily ever after.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

The difference between worse-case and best-case scenarios, is what humans do.

Business as usual will lead to a worse-case scenario. Business as usual means we continue as we are - adding a few % extra CO2 each year into the atmosphere, and doing very little to change our ways.

Sure, 10 years until human extinction sounds ridiculous, but if you rephrase it to: 10 years until global life-support systems collapse - that sounds more plausible. Scientists have been warning us for decades about runaway global warming - that's when positive feedbacks kick in and amplify the warming exponentially. There are many positive feedbacks, eg. ice reflects heat back into space, but when the ice melts, not only do we lose the cooling effect from heat reflection, but the darker water that is revealed absorbs even more heat, melting even more ice, that reveals even more water ... etc. The most worrying feedback is the melting permafrost, which has already begun. Locked in the permafrost is carbon, that if released as methane will dwarf our emissions many times over. If the permafrost is not 'permanent', ie. not frozen all year round, then the organic material within it will decompose releasing huge amounts of methane. Methane is about 85 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. It will accelerate the warming which in turn will melt even more permafrost, accelerating warming even more.

As the warming accelerates, phytoplankton may not be able to adapt fast enough to survive the warmer and more acidic waters. And phytoplankton are at the bottom of the food chain in the oceans. If they don't survive, then nor do the animals above them. On land, plants are at the bottom of the food chain. With increasing heat waves and droughts, extreme flooding and superstorms, plants may find it difficult to survive. Open field farming will simply be impossible.

But the worse-case scenario is missing: how, and how fast humans react. Humans will react, and are reacting now, but we need to up our game many times over to make a difference.

The best-case scenario is not that climate change is a hoax, because it isn't. Climate change today is caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I think the best-case scenario is that - as in war, a nation puts aside its differences to come together to fight for its own survival - then the world population puts aside its differences to come together to "fight" climate change and transform the world into a sustainable planet that can support a diversity of life including about 10 billion humans. 10 billion is what the UN estimate the population will peak at before slowly decreasing. We can't rely on individuals like Elon Musk; there are simply not enough of them. The collective power of 7 billion people is huge. If we use that power, we may be able to slow down climate change enough to give other species a better chance of adapting, while we figure out how to safely geoengineer the climate and remove billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere. Then over time, the climate will stabilise and we can all live happily ever after.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (221 days ago)


Just flagging it up "10 years until global life-support systems collapse" does not equal "human extinction within 10 years" even though you've done your best to make it as vague as poss. People like you are responsible for the AGW apathy. 'Less than a decade before human extinction' is a fringe theory being pushed by an author wanting to sell a book. When people hear that kind of doom mongering, we switch off. It doesn't make us think 'Oh shit it's serious now', it makes us think 'A load of bull', or 'Oh crap it's too late'. It's as plausible as saying it's entirely a hoax, as opposed to merely an incomplete theory based on misunderstandings. And yes hoax is best case scenario even though neither of us believe it is.. Unless you personally have uncovered your own conclusive evidence then a hoax is possible.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment


Just flagging it up "10 years until global life-support systems collapse" does not equal "human extinction within 10 years" even though you've done your best to make it as vague as poss. People like you are responsible for the AGW apathy. 'Less than a decade before human extinction' is a fringe theory being pushed by an author wanting to sell a book. When people hear that kind of doom mongering, we switch off. It doesn't make us think 'Oh shit it's serious now', it makes us think 'A load of bull', or 'Oh crap it's too late'. It's as plausible as saying it's entirely a hoax, as opposed to merely an incomplete theory based on misunderstandings. And yes hoax is best case scenario even though neither of us believe it is.. Unless you personally have uncovered your own conclusive evidence then a hoax is possible.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (220 days ago)

Worse or best-case scenarios have to be plausible, otherwise what's the point. The idea that today's climate change is a hoax is simply wrong. It is not plausible because it is fantasy. It would be like saying best-case scenario is that god decides to get real and removes billions of tons of CO2 with a flick of his finger. It ain't gonna happen.

So how far-fetched is Guy McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years? I'm no expert but I think that sort of timescale, maybe 10/20 years, is plausible on the basis that scientists today have been shocked at recent warming in the Arctic. LINK

In 2016 scientists were so surprised at the rate of melting ice in Greenland they went back to recheck the data. LINK

In 2015 scientists were shocked at how thin Arctic ice was mid winter. LINK

It seems that the world is warming faster than our climate models are predicting. Also, climate scientists are now regularly talking about "abrupt" climate change.

The really important thing to remember is that the scenario we will experience, is somewhere between worse and best, but where in that range depends on what we do now. The climate doesn't care about politics, or whatever anyone thinks or feels. It is just what happens when greenhouse gases increase. More heat is trapped, and this is what happens when more heat is trapped. It's not difficult to grasp.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Worse or best-case scenarios have to be plausible, otherwise what's the point. The idea that today's climate change is a hoax is simply wrong. It is not plausible because it is fantasy. It would be like saying best-case scenario is that god decides to get real and removes billions of tons of CO2 with a flick of his finger. It ain't gonna happen.

So how far-fetched is Guy McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years? I'm no expert but I think that sort of timescale, maybe 10/20 years, is plausible on the basis that scientists today have been shocked at recent warming in the Arctic. LINK

In 2016 scientists were so surprised at the rate of melting ice in Greenland they went back to recheck the data. LINK

In 2015 scientists were shocked at how thin Arctic ice was mid winter. LINK

It seems that the world is warming faster than our climate models are predicting. Also, climate scientists are now regularly talking about "abrupt" climate change.

The really important thing to remember is that the scenario we will experience, is somewhere between worse and best, but where in that range depends on what we do now. The climate doesn't care about politics, or whatever anyone thinks or feels. It is just what happens when greenhouse gases increase. More heat is trapped, and this is what happens when more heat is trapped. It's not difficult to grasp.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

M&B fallacy

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

M&B fallacy

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (220 days ago)

You don't know that it definitely isn't a hoax. Neither of us believe that it is but its your view that its just fantasy. It is best case scenario. The really important thing to remember (what isnt difficult to grasp) is that different people find different things plausible. You think a decade before every human is dead due to AGW is plausible. I don't and I guess most people don't either. Actually after a quick search I only find Guy Mcpherson who believes that, you need to use sources better. I am not debating whether things are getting worse, I am debating that we will all be dead by 2028 due to AGW. There are more people who think it might be a hoax than who think we're doomed in a decade. Send me as many links as you like about scientists being shocked but that doesnt equal scientists thinking we are all going to be dead in 10 years. You have zero theory of mind.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

You don't know that it definitely isn't a hoax. Neither of us believe that it is but its your view that its just fantasy. It is best case scenario. The really important thing to remember (what isnt difficult to grasp) is that different people find different things plausible. You think a decade before every human is dead due to AGW is plausible. I don't and I guess most people don't either. Actually after a quick search I only find Guy Mcpherson who believes that, you need to use sources better. I am not debating whether things are getting worse, I am debating that we will all be dead by 2028 due to AGW. There are more people who think it might be a hoax than who think we're doomed in a decade. Send me as many links as you like about scientists being shocked but that doesnt equal scientists thinking we are all going to be dead in 10 years. You have zero theory of mind.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (219 days ago)

We know that climate change is definitely not a hoax, as definite as we know that the Earth is not flat. We have direct temperature measurements going back 150 years. They show the climate is warming. We have data showing ice in the Arctic is melting at an increasing rate. That means the climate is warming. We see animals changing their migration patterns due to a warming climate. We experience climate change in our everyday lives, or are you living under a rock. There is no doubt the climate is changing, and we know the cause - it's the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Climate change is definitely not a hoax, it is very real. The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is also very real, we have measured it.

The debate is about how dangerous climate change is for human civilisation, which brings us back to worse and best-case scenarios. Unfortunately, the difference between worse and best is small. Ask "mainstream" climate scientists how serious they think climate change is, and answers will range from serious to extremely serious. Very few, if any, would say it is not a serious problem.

I don't have the expertise to judge whether Guy McPherson is right - but what I can see is that mainstream climate scientists are not that far behind McPherson, and that reality is running somewhere in between.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

We know that climate change is definitely not a hoax, as definite as we know that the Earth is not flat. We have direct temperature measurements going back 150 years. They show the climate is warming. We have data showing ice in the Arctic is melting at an increasing rate. That means the climate is warming. We see animals changing their migration patterns due to a warming climate. We experience climate change in our everyday lives, or are you living under a rock. There is no doubt the climate is changing, and we know the cause - it's the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 150 years. Climate change is definitely not a hoax, it is very real. The increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is also very real, we have measured it.

The debate is about how dangerous climate change is for human civilisation, which brings us back to worse and best-case scenarios. Unfortunately, the difference between worse and best is small. Ask "mainstream" climate scientists how serious they think climate change is, and answers will range from serious to extremely serious. Very few, if any, would say it is not a serious problem.

I don't have the expertise to judge whether Guy McPherson is right - but what I can see is that mainstream climate scientists are not that far behind McPherson, and that reality is running somewhere in between.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (219 days ago)

We're talking about AGW not just climate change dont weaken your point. As far as you personally can tell it could be a hoax even if you don't find that plausible. When you say "we have measured it" you have had nothing to do with those measurements and you only "know" in the same way we all used to "know" Pluto was a genuine planet, you are told by sources you choose to believe. So its far fetched but not impossible that AGW is a hoax. That is why it would be best case scenario. You don't know if McP is correct but your confident with his claims to say that his worst case scenario is plausible.. so despite there being way too many AGW deniers in the world you don't think their argument is plausible, yet one guy who says we might all be dead in a decade and your there touting it online to try and scare people into taking action. That back fires.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

We're talking about AGW not just climate change dont weaken your point. As far as you personally can tell it could be a hoax even if you don't find that plausible. When you say "we have measured it" you have had nothing to do with those measurements and you only "know" in the same way we all used to "know" Pluto was a genuine planet, you are told by sources you choose to believe. So its far fetched but not impossible that AGW is a hoax. That is why it would be best case scenario. You don't know if McP is correct but your confident with his claims to say that his worst case scenario is plausible.. so despite there being way too many AGW deniers in the world you don't think their argument is plausible, yet one guy who says we might all be dead in a decade and your there touting it online to try and scare people into taking action. That back fires.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (217 days ago)

We're not talking about AGW, we're talking about whether McPherson's claims of human extinction within 10 years, is plausible, and whether "climate change is a hoax" is a plausible best-case scenario.

For climate change to be a hoax, almost every active climate scientist in the world would have to be in on it, either participating in wrongly interpreting data, manipulating data, or remaining silent when their colleagues manipulate data. NASA, ESA, Chinese and Russian space agencies, would all have to have agreed on the same story to fool the public and governments around the world. It's simply not plausible.

For climate change to be a hoax, the media would have to be in on it, making documentaries about animal migrations which are not happening, due to climate change that is not happening. Or maybe the animals are also in on the hoax and are migrating unnecessarily on behalf of wind farmers?

For climate change to be a hoax, there would have to be a plausible explanation as to how the increase of greenhouse gases is not warming the planet. There isn't.

If climate change is a hoax, scientists would already have persuaded almost every government in the world that climate change is a big enough problem to spend serious money when it is not necessary, because actually, the climate is not changing. Scientists are clever people, but they are not that clever.

If you think climate change is a plausible hoax, you're wrong - unless we are living in a simulation, or this is a dream and you'll soon wake up.

That's why climate change being a hoax is not our best-case scenario, it is fantasy with a political agenda routed in the fossil fuel industry. Ask a "mainstream" climate scientist what they think the best-case is, I doubt you'll find many who will be much more optimistic than "catastrophic".

So is McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years plausible? I gave you valid reasons why I think it is, from the point of view of a non-expert. Let me summarise. The range between best and worse-case scenarios is depressingly small, something like "catastrophic in the forseeable future" to "human extinction within 10 years". Had we asked the same question 10 years ago, best-case scenario would have been much better, and worse-case scenario would be not quite so bad. But we are where we are. When scientists are "shocked" by how fast the Arctic is warming 3 years in a row, that matters. It means that our computer models are significantly underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to atmospheric changes. Factor in the nature of exponential curves, and I'd say only a fool would claim that McPherson's claims are not plausible.

I understand why you feel McPherson's claims are ridiculous. "Human extinction within 10 years" - how could that even be. I feel the same, but I recognise that's an emotional response based on the inability to imagine such a future. Rationally, considering what we do know, I don't think it's that far fetched for the reasons I have already given. How our future pans out, depends to a large extent on how many people there are who think like you do. If there are too many, we could just sleepwalk into extinction. That would be a real shame.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

We're not talking about AGW, we're talking about whether McPherson's claims of human extinction within 10 years, is plausible, and whether "climate change is a hoax" is a plausible best-case scenario.

For climate change to be a hoax, almost every active climate scientist in the world would have to be in on it, either participating in wrongly interpreting data, manipulating data, or remaining silent when their colleagues manipulate data. NASA, ESA, Chinese and Russian space agencies, would all have to have agreed on the same story to fool the public and governments around the world. It's simply not plausible.

For climate change to be a hoax, the media would have to be in on it, making documentaries about animal migrations which are not happening, due to climate change that is not happening. Or maybe the animals are also in on the hoax and are migrating unnecessarily on behalf of wind farmers?

For climate change to be a hoax, there would have to be a plausible explanation as to how the increase of greenhouse gases is not warming the planet. There isn't.

If climate change is a hoax, scientists would already have persuaded almost every government in the world that climate change is a big enough problem to spend serious money when it is not necessary, because actually, the climate is not changing. Scientists are clever people, but they are not that clever.

If you think climate change is a plausible hoax, you're wrong - unless we are living in a simulation, or this is a dream and you'll soon wake up.

That's why climate change being a hoax is not our best-case scenario, it is fantasy with a political agenda routed in the fossil fuel industry. Ask a "mainstream" climate scientist what they think the best-case is, I doubt you'll find many who will be much more optimistic than "catastrophic".

So is McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years plausible? I gave you valid reasons why I think it is, from the point of view of a non-expert. Let me summarise. The range between best and worse-case scenarios is depressingly small, something like "catastrophic in the forseeable future" to "human extinction within 10 years". Had we asked the same question 10 years ago, best-case scenario would have been much better, and worse-case scenario would be not quite so bad. But we are where we are. When scientists are "shocked" by how fast the Arctic is warming 3 years in a row, that matters. It means that our computer models are significantly underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to atmospheric changes. Factor in the nature of exponential curves, and I'd say only a fool would claim that McPherson's claims are not plausible.

I understand why you feel McPherson's claims are ridiculous. "Human extinction within 10 years" - how could that even be. I feel the same, but I recognise that's an emotional response based on the inability to imagine such a future. Rationally, considering what we do know, I don't think it's that far fetched for the reasons I have already given. How our future pans out, depends to a large extent on how many people there are who think like you do. If there are too many, we could just sleepwalk into extinction. That would be a real shame.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (217 days ago)

Your running away again. McP's claim is about the effects of AGW so this whole page IS about AGW not climate change in general, dont back away to the easiest point. Every one knows the climate changes naturaly. Less obvious for some people is whether thats manmade. So yes the whole thread is about AGW not about climate change in general. So back to the point yes AGW being a hoax is best case scenario. I personally don't believe it but its so plausible that thousandsof people world over believe AGW is a hoax. However McPs claim is so rare you found me nothing else to back it up apart from scientists being suprised. Not the same thing. Therefore I find that even less plausible than AGW being a hoax. Those are valid reasons. The diference between best and worst is fkking HUGE. You just have no theory of mind what so ever, you dont get to choose whichever theories you find plausible and declare them best and worst case. In my view sure we have a problem on our hands but lunatic activists like you telling people we are all going to be dead in a decade is seriously counter productive.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Your running away again. McP's claim is about the effects of AGW so this whole page IS about AGW not climate change in general, dont back away to the easiest point. Every one knows the climate changes naturaly. Less obvious for some people is whether thats manmade. So yes the whole thread is about AGW not about climate change in general. So back to the point yes AGW being a hoax is best case scenario. I personally don't believe it but its so plausible that thousandsof people world over believe AGW is a hoax. However McPs claim is so rare you found me nothing else to back it up apart from scientists being suprised. Not the same thing. Therefore I find that even less plausible than AGW being a hoax. Those are valid reasons. The diference between best and worst is fkking HUGE. You just have no theory of mind what so ever, you dont get to choose whichever theories you find plausible and declare them best and worst case. In my view sure we have a problem on our hands but lunatic activists like you telling people we are all going to be dead in a decade is seriously counter productive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (215 days ago)

McPherson's claims are about the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not where they came from - that's a different conversation.

So you think it's plausible that climate change/AGW is a hoax. Please help me out - in this hoax, who is hoodwinking who? Is it the Chinese hoodwinking the rest of the world and only Trump is not fooled? Or maybe 97% of climate research has been manipulated so that scientists can get grants to holiday in exotic locations like Antarctica? Are all the countries that signed up to the Paris Agreement (every country in the world bar two) in on the hoax? Or have they all been hoodwinked by grant-grasping climate scientists desperate for a topic to research? I'm really confused. Which hoax do you think is plausible?

" The diference between best and worst is fkking HUGE " No, it WAS fkking huge. You may have had a point 50 years ago, but not today. In 1992, 1,700 scientists signed a 'warning to humanity' of the consequences of doing nothing about climate change. First paragraph said this: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course ... Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." Notice the word "urgent". That was 26 years ago.

In 2017, 15,000 scientists from 184 countries signed another warning to humanity letter, this time it was more serious: "Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse. Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory." LINK "Soon it will be too late..." That refers to what scientists are calling "the point of no return", or runaway global warming. It's when global warming accelerates exponentially due to positive feedbacks kicking in.

McPherson believes we are already past the point of no return, and many climate scientists would concur. His prediction is that the food chain will collapse over the next few years, mass human starvation and conflict will follow, and in the battle for survival in an exponentially increasing hostile climate, nuclear power stations are abandoned and left unmaintained, which will quickly lead to meltdowns killing off the majority of humans who hadn't already starved to death - all within 10 years. Sure it sounds like an unlikely movie plot, but if you factor in the nature of exponential growth, then I think that makes it a plausible scenario. There was a great video on BoreMe posted a while ago about exponential growth. It's well worth watching. LINK

The problem I have with McPherson's predictions, is not really the super short time scales, although they sound way too short to me, but it's that he doesn't factor in the biggest feedback of all, that's the human response. Do we heed the 15,000 scientists and pull out all the stops to stabilise the climate, or do we act like you, acknowledge there's a problem and choose to do nothing, or maybe we just give up. Pretending that it all might be a hoax is distracting from reality and provides an excuse for doing nothing.

About those scientists surprised by the rate of warming they were observing, they weren't merely surprised, they were SHOCKED. Did you know that the stratosphere, that's the higher part of the atmosphere, was 50C above normal this winter. Just think how much 50C is. It's the difference between a dusting of snow and peak summer in the middle of the Australian desert. The Arctic was 22C above normal. That's the difference between snow and a beautiful warm day in London. The Arctic hit 0C this winter when then sun doesn't even shine during the day. Last year the Arctic reached 16C above normal with Greenland ice melting 2 months earlier than expected. These observations, and many others, are very significant because they show that global warming is accelerating, as predicted - but at one helluva rate, faster than predicted. Watch that exponential growth video again. Maybe the penny will drop. LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

McPherson's claims are about the effects of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not where they came from - that's a different conversation.

So you think it's plausible that climate change/AGW is a hoax. Please help me out - in this hoax, who is hoodwinking who? Is it the Chinese hoodwinking the rest of the world and only Trump is not fooled? Or maybe 97% of climate research has been manipulated so that scientists can get grants to holiday in exotic locations like Antarctica? Are all the countries that signed up to the Paris Agreement (every country in the world bar two) in on the hoax? Or have they all been hoodwinked by grant-grasping climate scientists desperate for a topic to research? I'm really confused. Which hoax do you think is plausible?

" The diference between best and worst is fkking HUGE " No, it WAS fkking huge. You may have had a point 50 years ago, but not today. In 1992, 1,700 scientists signed a 'warning to humanity' of the consequences of doing nothing about climate change. First paragraph said this: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course ... Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about." Notice the word "urgent". That was 26 years ago.

In 2017, 15,000 scientists from 184 countries signed another warning to humanity letter, this time it was more serious: "Humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse. Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory." LINK "Soon it will be too late..." That refers to what scientists are calling "the point of no return", or runaway global warming. It's when global warming accelerates exponentially due to positive feedbacks kicking in.

McPherson believes we are already past the point of no return, and many climate scientists would concur. His prediction is that the food chain will collapse over the next few years, mass human starvation and conflict will follow, and in the battle for survival in an exponentially increasing hostile climate, nuclear power stations are abandoned and left unmaintained, which will quickly lead to meltdowns killing off the majority of humans who hadn't already starved to death - all within 10 years. Sure it sounds like an unlikely movie plot, but if you factor in the nature of exponential growth, then I think that makes it a plausible scenario. There was a great video on BoreMe posted a while ago about exponential growth. It's well worth watching. LINK

The problem I have with McPherson's predictions, is not really the super short time scales, although they sound way too short to me, but it's that he doesn't factor in the biggest feedback of all, that's the human response. Do we heed the 15,000 scientists and pull out all the stops to stabilise the climate, or do we act like you, acknowledge there's a problem and choose to do nothing, or maybe we just give up. Pretending that it all might be a hoax is distracting from reality and provides an excuse for doing nothing.

About those scientists surprised by the rate of warming they were observing, they weren't merely surprised, they were SHOCKED. Did you know that the stratosphere, that's the higher part of the atmosphere, was 50C above normal this winter. Just think how much 50C is. It's the difference between a dusting of snow and peak summer in the middle of the Australian desert. The Arctic was 22C above normal. That's the difference between snow and a beautiful warm day in London. The Arctic hit 0C this winter when then sun doesn't even shine during the day. Last year the Arctic reached 16C above normal with Greenland ice melting 2 months earlier than expected. These observations, and many others, are very significant because they show that global warming is accelerating, as predicted - but at one helluva rate, faster than predicted. Watch that exponential growth video again. Maybe the penny will drop. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (214 days ago)

I looked it up and your wrong., on McPs own website he says "industrial civilization has produced more than twice as much atmospheric carbon dioxide" so he IS talking about AGW. even in your link the 2nd sentence says " sharply rising methane emissions are going to create a catastrophe", the biggest emitters of methane is human sources. yes its AGW again. Funny wheneever you challenge an alarmist on AGW they always run back and explain climate change instead. Most of your comment is about climate change.

I think AGW being a hoax is MORE plausible than McPs story but I dont believe either is the case. Who could a hoax be by? Climate scientists who want to get funding for research. Or by the Chinese in order to make competitors less productive. Or to create carbon tax or to shift money from the poor to the wealthy by taxes and energy bills. Blah blah blah. It really isnt hard to see the possibilities even if we dont believe them. I'm surprised in you. Theory. Of. Mind.

Great link from a website that gets its funding from "ELECTRIC CARS, ELECTRIC CAR BENEFITS, EV SALES, SOLAR ENERGY" ... I might as well send you a tweet from Trump as a proof for my argument. Amazing what you think is a good source. Is that really the best you can do to make McPs unique claim more plausible? You gotta do better. Check it out.. Here some people who think an AGW hoax is plausible: James Inhofe (senator), Timothy Ball (climatologist), Pat Michaels (climatologist), Fred Singer (scientist), Roy Spencer (climatologist). Thats 5. Now give me 5 that think its plausible that AGW will cause human extinction within 10 years. Perhaps that little compare will help it sink in.

Your babyish assumptions about me are part of the problem. I do believe in AGW and I do my bit, so dont build straw men and say i do nothing without knowing 1 thing about me. But I think it is plausible but not true that it is a hoax and I think its NOT plausible that AGW will kill us all within 10 yrs. We should prepare for the worst but the worst isnt that and realy MY issue with scare mongering alarmists like you is it encourages people to throw the towel in. We're going to all be dead in 10 yrs then why the F am I separating my recycling and using my bike to get to work? Screaming doom at people doesnt work and it back fires. You are part of the problem and a pretty big part but you will never see it because you see in black and white, I'm right, they're wrong.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

I looked it up and your wrong., on McPs own website he says "industrial civilization has produced more than twice as much atmospheric carbon dioxide" so he IS talking about AGW. even in your link the 2nd sentence says " sharply rising methane emissions are going to create a catastrophe", the biggest emitters of methane is human sources. yes its AGW again. Funny wheneever you challenge an alarmist on AGW they always run back and explain climate change instead. Most of your comment is about climate change.

I think AGW being a hoax is MORE plausible than McPs story but I dont believe either is the case. Who could a hoax be by? Climate scientists who want to get funding for research. Or by the Chinese in order to make competitors less productive. Or to create carbon tax or to shift money from the poor to the wealthy by taxes and energy bills. Blah blah blah. It really isnt hard to see the possibilities even if we dont believe them. I'm surprised in you. Theory. Of. Mind.

Great link from a website that gets its funding from "ELECTRIC CARS, ELECTRIC CAR BENEFITS, EV SALES, SOLAR ENERGY" ... I might as well send you a tweet from Trump as a proof for my argument. Amazing what you think is a good source. Is that really the best you can do to make McPs unique claim more plausible? You gotta do better. Check it out.. Here some people who think an AGW hoax is plausible: James Inhofe (senator), Timothy Ball (climatologist), Pat Michaels (climatologist), Fred Singer (scientist), Roy Spencer (climatologist). Thats 5. Now give me 5 that think its plausible that AGW will cause human extinction within 10 years. Perhaps that little compare will help it sink in.

Your babyish assumptions about me are part of the problem. I do believe in AGW and I do my bit, so dont build straw men and say i do nothing without knowing 1 thing about me. But I think it is plausible but not true that it is a hoax and I think its NOT plausible that AGW will kill us all within 10 yrs. We should prepare for the worst but the worst isnt that and realy MY issue with scare mongering alarmists like you is it encourages people to throw the towel in. We're going to all be dead in 10 yrs then why the F am I separating my recycling and using my bike to get to work? Screaming doom at people doesnt work and it back fires. You are part of the problem and a pretty big part but you will never see it because you see in black and white, I'm right, they're wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (210 days ago)

You wrote this about AGW hoaxes: "... It really isnt hard to see the possibilities even if we dont believe them." It sounds like you haven't understood my point. The consensus among climate scientists is around 99%. So for AGW to be a hoax, it would require these scientists to be either hoodwinked, or in on the hoax. Neither scenario is plausible. I challenge you to conjure up a plausible hoax that does NOT require the vast majority of climate scientists to be either hoodwinked or hoaxers. Because if it does, it is not plausible.

My "babyish assumptions" about you came from what you wrote about yourself: "Na, I'm gonna be dead before it's a real issue. Until then I will do what everyone does, do what I can to earn money." Sorry, next time I'll just make up some shit.

Because I think McPherson's prediction is plausible, and I have given you reasons why, it doesn't mean I think it's likely. Would you feel better if McPherson said human extinction within 20 years? Then you could earn money for a few more years before panicking. Or maybe you think climate change could never result in human extinction? 15,000 scientists signed a letter warning humanity that we are on the brink of crossing the point of no return. How many scientists do you need before climate change is, in your words, "a real issue". 30,000? 50,000?

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

You wrote this about AGW hoaxes: "... It really isnt hard to see the possibilities even if we dont believe them." It sounds like you haven't understood my point. The consensus among climate scientists is around 99%. So for AGW to be a hoax, it would require these scientists to be either hoodwinked, or in on the hoax. Neither scenario is plausible. I challenge you to conjure up a plausible hoax that does NOT require the vast majority of climate scientists to be either hoodwinked or hoaxers. Because if it does, it is not plausible.

My "babyish assumptions" about you came from what you wrote about yourself: "Na, I'm gonna be dead before it's a real issue. Until then I will do what everyone does, do what I can to earn money." Sorry, next time I'll just make up some shit.

Because I think McPherson's prediction is plausible, and I have given you reasons why, it doesn't mean I think it's likely. Would you feel better if McPherson said human extinction within 20 years? Then you could earn money for a few more years before panicking. Or maybe you think climate change could never result in human extinction? 15,000 scientists signed a letter warning humanity that we are on the brink of crossing the point of no return. How many scientists do you need before climate change is, in your words, "a real issue". 30,000? 50,000?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (209 days ago)

You should of read bobs comment to understand my original post. The joke was beyond you. Still didnt get my last point either. OK 1 plausible hoax that i dont believe, Not so many climate scientists in the world but they all need funding and the ones that say the right thing are promoted, maybe sponsored by China or green energy plenty of suspects. Still not massive majority so just do a couple of dodgy analysis that cherry pick from the right papers and bam we have 97% stat thrown around by people who havent checked anything but take it as red. like automobile manufacturers saying cars are fairly low polluters. A consensus sure, expertise sure, but alterior motives?? Plausible but not likely. It doesnt have to be a co ordinated centralized hoax. It worries me that people lose the ability to question things when they are faced with a statistic. Groupthink one and all

"Because if it does, it is not plausible." You dont get to choose whichever theories you find plausible and declare them best and worst case scenario any more than i do. And ANOTHER shift... from saying 10 years to human extinction to now just arguing against a claim that climate change isnt a real issue. Stop running away And no "crossing the point of no return" isnt the same as a decade til doom. Stick to your point or accept it was implausible .

30.000, 50.0000?? I already said just show me ONE other person who says that claim about the decade is the case then i will change my mind on how plausible it is. (Plausible =possibly true or believable). See we have 2 theories A (McPs claim) and B(deniers claim). So far you can only find one person in the whole world who believes A but you think its believable. I can find tens of thousands if not more who believe B. So which is more plausible, which is believable?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

You should of read bobs comment to understand my original post. The joke was beyond you. Still didnt get my last point either. OK 1 plausible hoax that i dont believe, Not so many climate scientists in the world but they all need funding and the ones that say the right thing are promoted, maybe sponsored by China or green energy plenty of suspects. Still not massive majority so just do a couple of dodgy analysis that cherry pick from the right papers and bam we have 97% stat thrown around by people who havent checked anything but take it as red. like automobile manufacturers saying cars are fairly low polluters. A consensus sure, expertise sure, but alterior motives?? Plausible but not likely. It doesnt have to be a co ordinated centralized hoax. It worries me that people lose the ability to question things when they are faced with a statistic. Groupthink one and all

"Because if it does, it is not plausible." You dont get to choose whichever theories you find plausible and declare them best and worst case scenario any more than i do. And ANOTHER shift... from saying 10 years to human extinction to now just arguing against a claim that climate change isnt a real issue. Stop running away And no "crossing the point of no return" isnt the same as a decade til doom. Stick to your point or accept it was implausible .

30.000, 50.0000?? I already said just show me ONE other person who says that claim about the decade is the case then i will change my mind on how plausible it is. (Plausible =possibly true or believable). See we have 2 theories A (McPs claim) and B(deniers claim). So far you can only find one person in the whole world who believes A but you think its believable. I can find tens of thousands if not more who believe B. So which is more plausible, which is believable?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (200 days ago)

It's obvious you still don't understand my point about AGW hoaxes. Your plausible hoax is not plausible.

I'll try a different approach. If AGW is a truly a hoax, then in reality human activity is NOT affecting the climate - something else is. But 97% of peer-reviewed climate research says AGW is true. So what is the truth behind that research? Is it fraudulent - are 97% of climate scientists in on the hoax manipulating their studies to falsely claim that AGW is true? That is obviously not a plausible scenario.

So are 97% of climate scientists hoodwinked by a few scientists sponsored by the Chinese? If that's the case, then the data they all used to reach the conclusion that AGW is true, must have been manipulated in such a way that all research came to the same conclusion - that AGW is true. And no one noticed something odd was going on. That scenario is not plausible either.

Or maybe 97% of climate scientists are so incompetent that they have wrongly interpreted the data, coincidentally all coming to the same conclusion - that AGW is true. Again, not a plausible scenario.

Whatever the hoax, there has to be a plausible explanation as to how come 97% of peer reviewed climate research says AGW is true when it isn't. And there isn't one, not unless this is a simulation or a dream.

"Plausible = possibly true or believable". Plausible does not = believable. Anything is believable, not everything is plausible. I can believe the world is run by lizards, but that is not plausible - because a lizard's brain isn't smart enough to run the world.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

It's obvious you still don't understand my point about AGW hoaxes. Your plausible hoax is not plausible.

I'll try a different approach. If AGW is a truly a hoax, then in reality human activity is NOT affecting the climate - something else is. But 97% of peer-reviewed climate research says AGW is true. So what is the truth behind that research? Is it fraudulent - are 97% of climate scientists in on the hoax manipulating their studies to falsely claim that AGW is true? That is obviously not a plausible scenario.

So are 97% of climate scientists hoodwinked by a few scientists sponsored by the Chinese? If that's the case, then the data they all used to reach the conclusion that AGW is true, must have been manipulated in such a way that all research came to the same conclusion - that AGW is true. And no one noticed something odd was going on. That scenario is not plausible either.

Or maybe 97% of climate scientists are so incompetent that they have wrongly interpreted the data, coincidentally all coming to the same conclusion - that AGW is true. Again, not a plausible scenario.

Whatever the hoax, there has to be a plausible explanation as to how come 97% of peer reviewed climate research says AGW is true when it isn't. And there isn't one, not unless this is a simulation or a dream.

"Plausible = possibly true or believable". Plausible does not = believable. Anything is believable, not everything is plausible. I can believe the world is run by lizards, but that is not plausible - because a lizard's brain isn't smart enough to run the world.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (200 days ago)
Latest comment:

Obvious you dont understand my point about theory of mind, I thought I made it simple for you. Just because you dont find it plausible doesnt mean it isnt, It just isnt for you.. but there are other people too you know, quite a few.. The 97% thing you need to be careful of. Is that 97% of ALL climate scientists in the world.. 97% of ALL climate research.. or 97% of the research included in one actual study carried out by people you trust? Do you even know or did you just like the stat? 97% of the research studied might be from 20% of climate scientists worldwide so yes they could easily manipulate results. Your kinda naive pal. //

PLausible is a scale right. Plausible does mean believable but if only 1 person believes something its actually not very believable and not very plausible. You dont get that because if that one person is you then you trump everyone else. If a million people believe it then its more believable and more plausible. Or you can write to Oxford Dictionary and complain they got the word wrong. Now you know.. so how many people believe mankind is going to be wiped out by climate change in a decade. Hm as far as you can show thats one person in the world, 1 in 6.5 billion so definitely not plausible. How many world wide believe the world is run by lizards. Hm not very many so still not very plausible. How many believe that AGW is a hoax. Quite a lot but still a small percetange so MORE plausible that lizards or AGW armageddon in a decade. How many believe that AGW is real. Most people. So thats the most plausible.. But not the only plausible option. Get it? So try again.. which is MORE plausible .. not plausible to YOU just plausible to the world.. AGW is going to kill 6 billion people in a decade or AGW is a hoax.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Obvious you dont understand my point about theory of mind, I thought I made it simple for you. Just because you dont find it plausible doesnt mean it isnt, It just isnt for you.. but there are other people too you know, quite a few.. The 97% thing you need to be careful of. Is that 97% of ALL climate scientists in the world.. 97% of ALL climate research.. or 97% of the research included in one actual study carried out by people you trust? Do you even know or did you just like the stat? 97% of the research studied might be from 20% of climate scientists worldwide so yes they could easily manipulate results. Your kinda naive pal. //

PLausible is a scale right. Plausible does mean believable but if only 1 person believes something its actually not very believable and not very plausible. You dont get that because if that one person is you then you trump everyone else. If a million people believe it then its more believable and more plausible. Or you can write to Oxford Dictionary and complain they got the word wrong. Now you know.. so how many people believe mankind is going to be wiped out by climate change in a decade. Hm as far as you can show thats one person in the world, 1 in 6.5 billion so definitely not plausible. How many world wide believe the world is run by lizards. Hm not very many so still not very plausible. How many believe that AGW is a hoax. Quite a lot but still a small percetange so MORE plausible that lizards or AGW armageddon in a decade. How many believe that AGW is real. Most people. So thats the most plausible.. But not the only plausible option. Get it? So try again.. which is MORE plausible .. not plausible to YOU just plausible to the world.. AGW is going to kill 6 billion people in a decade or AGW is a hoax.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (209 days ago)

?????

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

?????

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (208 days ago)

????

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

????

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (208 days ago)

????

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

????

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: BigHot (208 days ago)

Jeez, think how much electricity is wasted with your huge comments. Keep it short. Keep it green. Like my penis.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

Jeez, think how much electricity is wasted with your huge comments. Keep it short. Keep it green. Like my penis.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (223 days ago)

Well, that's the sensible position.

Unfortunately there are people who think, "I'm going to be dead before it's a major problem for me. In the interim I can make loads of money by trashing the environment of future generations for whom I care nothing."

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Well, that's the sensible position.

Unfortunately there are people who think, "I'm going to be dead before it's a major problem for me. In the interim I can make loads of money by trashing the environment of future generations for whom I care nothing."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Antarctica ice loss has tripled in the past decade
Antarctica ice loss has tripled in the past decade
Abrupt climate change, how abrupt is abrupt?
Abrupt climate change, how abrupt is abrupt?
How Norway's government made electric cars irresistible
How Norway's government made electric cars irresistible
NASA - Two decades of Earth data at your fingertips
NASA - Two decades of Earth data at your fingertips
Did climate change kill the aliens
Did climate change kill the aliens