Ps: i’m pissed in Turkey.
Why did you delete your pissed post about your watches but not this one?
General Discussion: Greta Thunberg
Show original post
24 Sep 2019 11:46
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
24 Sep 2019 12:32
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/That article basically takes issue with the extremely accurate label rather than the fact Hansen's predictions were correct.
Using WUWT as a source is laughable as well, the blogger is a complete fraud. Was fully in support of the Berkley Earth project (including their methods) until the results backed the general consensus.
posted 24 Sep 2019 14:38, edited 24 Sep 2019 14:38
Not triggered at all mate. I just see what’s coming, and I think you do too.
24 Sep 2019 14:40
Sorry I don’t make threads so that people just agree and slap each other on the back.
The whole point is debate and alternative opinions.
I know the Left loves ‘safe spaces’ and refuse to allow for alternative thought but I, for one, don’t mind views that go against my thinking.
24 Sep 2019 14:55
This didn’t get the attention it deserved. Think it’s telling fudges only support is also the other forum fuck wit.
Can we get a classic FUK MS paint of MLI and Fudge cracking one out to climate change denial and the ‘life of wedge and luxury’?
Someone seems very jealous of this purported ‘life of wedge and luxury’?
Do you want me to Paypal you some money?
Make you feel better?
Just PM me.
posted 24 Sep 2019 15:00, edited 24 Sep 2019 15:00
Please refer to all previous articles I screenshot and posted and explain why none of them came true?
And I’m the one indulging in childish, conspiracy theories?
Wow, it’s almost like religious ideology. Can’t confront the parts that make no sense.
Keep proselytising at the altar of Greta.It's almost like media articles about predicting the future aren't 100% accurate. But you cherrypick points in a poor attempt at a coherent argument, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and is bad. Fuck that though Prince Charles got it wrong in 2009.
Love the way you use the term ‘It's almost like media articles about predicting the future aren't 100% accurate’
Why not just say they were plain wrong?
Talk about doublespeak.
Famine in 10 years.
96 months to save the planet.
50 days to save the planet.
Just say they were wrong?
If we actually find out we had 50 days left, I would just admit I was wrong. I’ve been wrong before and I’m sure I will be again on many things.
But these are from a good few years ago, so please just tell us all that they were wrong. Their predictions didn’t bear fruit. It’s ok, I won’t judge you. I promise.
24 Sep 2019 15:07
Please refer to all previous articles I screenshot and posted and explain why none of them came true?
And I’m the one indulging in childish, conspiracy theories?
Wow, it’s almost like religious ideology. Can’t confront the parts that make no sense.
Keep proselytising at the altar of Greta.It's almost like media articles about predicting the future aren't 100% accurate. But you cherrypick points in a poor attempt at a coherent argument, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and is bad. Fuck that though Prince Charles got it wrong in 2009.
Love the way you use the term ‘It's almost like media articles about predicting the future aren't 100% accurate’
Why not just say they were plain wrong?
Talk about doublespeak.
Famine in 10 years.
96 months to save the planet.
50 days to save the planet.
Just say they were wrong?
If we actually find out we had 50 days left, I would just admit I was wrong. I’ve been wrong before and I’m sure I will be again on many things.
But these are from a good few years ago, so please just tell us all that they were wrong. Their predictions didn’t bear fruit. It’s ok, I won’t judge you. I promise.
Of course they were wrong. Media outlets love publishing an attention-grabbing headline. 'Humanity will be wiped out in 100 years' doesn't have the same immediacy to it.
So even if one scientist has been quoted to say 'We're all going to die within 2 years' vs 99 scientists that say 'Things are getting worse, we need to do something'…which quotable do you think the media will publish?
posted 24 Sep 2019 15:12, edited 24 Sep 2019 15:12
24 Sep 2019 15:19
I'm sure I can cherry pick Guardian articles that have made predictions that aren't wrong, like the one MLI tried to refute with his tinfoil hat blog, but I can't be arsed and peer reviewed papers are preferable to media reports.
24 Sep 2019 15:24
So what articles or scientists got it right about 2018 or 2019? If you can't find any why should we listen to them now about our future supposed doom?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.
The apologist’s claims for extreme accuracy are based on the subjective impression that the temperatures over the last 30 years have tracked his prediction of temperatures from forcing of intermediate ‘greenhouse gas,’ other trace- gasses, and aerosol assumptions (Scenario B). He assumed two significant volcanic eruptions during that 30-year period. However, there was only one, Mt. Pinatubo (1991, VEI 6). Therefore, had he assumed that there would only be one eruption, his estimates would have been higher and would have tracked B even more poorly than they have. Were it not for two exceptionally strong El Niño events in the last 20 years, it is unlikely that current temperatures would be anywhere near as high as they are currently.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
So what articles or scientists got it right about 2018 or 2019? If you can't find any why should we listen to them now about our future supposed doom?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.
The apologist’s claims for extreme accuracy are based on the subjective impression that the temperatures over the last 30 years have tracked his prediction of temperatures from forcing of intermediate ‘greenhouse gas,’ other trace- gasses, and aerosol assumptions (Scenario B). He assumed two significant volcanic eruptions during that 30-year period. However, there was only one, Mt. Pinatubo (1991, VEI 6). Therefore, had he assumed that there would only be one eruption, his estimates would have been higher and would have tracked B even more poorly than they have. Were it not for two exceptionally strong El Niño events in the last 20 years, it is unlikely that current temperatures would be anywhere near as high as they are currently.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
Using WUWT as a source is laughable as well, the blogger is a complete fraud. Was fully in support of the Berkley Earth project (including their methods) until the results backed the general consensus.
So fucking pathetic and predictable that Fudge would get triggered by this girl. Starting a new thread! You have no right to tell anyone else to get a life.
Her righteous indignation is annoying though. She acted when others didn't and she's been made the poster child for a movement. Fair enough, I hope it makes a difference. However, it doesn't follow that she has some special insight and it pains me to see adults rally round her with baited breath. I had to unfollow an old friend who invited me 'like' Greta Thunberg, who I noticed also commented on some thread "White men 40+: sit down." How about… fuck off?
Her righteous indignation is annoying though. She acted when others didn't and she's been made the poster child for a movement. Fair enough, I hope it makes a difference. However, it doesn't follow that she has some special insight and it pains me to see adults rally round her with baited breath. I had to unfollow an old friend who invited me 'like' Greta Thunberg, who I noticed also commented on some thread "White men 40+: sit down." How about… fuck off?
Not triggered at all mate. I just see what’s coming, and I think you do too.
This thread didn't go to plan, did it.
Sorry I don’t make threads so that people just agree and slap each other on the back.
The whole point is debate and alternative opinions.
I know the Left loves ‘safe spaces’ and refuse to allow for alternative thought but I, for one, don’t mind views that go against my thinking.
No one cares you sad cunts
This didn’t get the attention it deserved. Think it’s telling fudges only support is also the other forum fuck wit.
Can we get a classic FUK MS paint of MLI and Fudge cracking one out to climate change denial and the ‘life of wedge and luxury’?
Someone seems very jealous of this purported ‘life of wedge and luxury’?
Do you want me to Paypal you some money?
Make you feel better?
Just PM me.
I've never understood why climate change denial is a right-wing thing.
Isn't science pretty a-political?
Its not a right wing thing, its a childish contrarian thing, fuelled by conspiracy theory thinking.Isn't science pretty a-political?
Please refer to all previous articles I screenshot and posted and explain why none of them came true?
And I’m the one indulging in childish, conspiracy theories?
Wow, it’s almost like religious ideology. Can’t confront the parts that make no sense.
Keep proselytising at the altar of Greta.
Love the way you use the term ‘It's almost like media articles about predicting the future aren't 100% accurate’
Why not just say they were plain wrong?
Talk about doublespeak.
Famine in 10 years.
96 months to save the planet.
50 days to save the planet.
Just say they were wrong?
If we actually find out we had 50 days left, I would just admit I was wrong. I’ve been wrong before and I’m sure I will be again on many things.
But these are from a good few years ago, so please just tell us all that they were wrong. Their predictions didn’t bear fruit. It’s ok, I won’t judge you. I promise.
I've never understood why climate change denial is a right-wing thing.
Isn't science pretty a-political?
Its not a right wing thing, its a childish contrarian thing, fuelled by conspiracy theory thinking.Isn't science pretty a-political?
Please refer to all previous articles I screenshot and posted and explain why none of them came true?
And I’m the one indulging in childish, conspiracy theories?
Wow, it’s almost like religious ideology. Can’t confront the parts that make no sense.
Keep proselytising at the altar of Greta.
Love the way you use the term ‘It's almost like media articles about predicting the future aren't 100% accurate’
Why not just say they were plain wrong?
Talk about doublespeak.
Famine in 10 years.
96 months to save the planet.
50 days to save the planet.
Just say they were wrong?
If we actually find out we had 50 days left, I would just admit I was wrong. I’ve been wrong before and I’m sure I will be again on many things.
But these are from a good few years ago, so please just tell us all that they were wrong. Their predictions didn’t bear fruit. It’s ok, I won’t judge you. I promise.
Of course they were wrong. Media outlets love publishing an attention-grabbing headline. 'Humanity will be wiped out in 100 years' doesn't have the same immediacy to it.
So even if one scientist has been quoted to say 'We're all going to die within 2 years' vs 99 scientists that say 'Things are getting worse, we need to do something'…which quotable do you think the media will publish?
Yes but these aren’t scientists.
And neither is Thunberg is she? Yet she gets an audience with everyone.
Why isn’t she saying ‘things are slowly getting worse’?
I’m just pointing out that end of the world prophecies have been around for a long time and they’ve literally brainwashed this autistic kid into thinking it’s real and happening right now. Which it isn’t.
Her mom also drank a lot while she was pregnant, you can tell on Thunberg’s face. She has odd features and things missing.
Edit: but yet again you’re dancing around the issue.
What should we be doing? The 2 countries that have done the MOST to reduce co2 emissions are the UK and USA. She isn’t lecturing India and China, where coal stations and the like are opening up all the time. So the hypocrisy is there for all to see.
And neither is Thunberg is she? Yet she gets an audience with everyone.
Why isn’t she saying ‘things are slowly getting worse’?
I’m just pointing out that end of the world prophecies have been around for a long time and they’ve literally brainwashed this autistic kid into thinking it’s real and happening right now. Which it isn’t.
Her mom also drank a lot while she was pregnant, you can tell on Thunberg’s face. She has odd features and things missing.
Edit: but yet again you’re dancing around the issue.
What should we be doing? The 2 countries that have done the MOST to reduce co2 emissions are the UK and USA. She isn’t lecturing India and China, where coal stations and the like are opening up all the time. So the hypocrisy is there for all to see.
Of course they were wrong. Media outlets love publishing an attention-grabbing headline. 'Humanity will be wiped out in 100 years' doesn't have the same immediacy to it.
So even if one scientist has been quoted to say 'We're all going to die within 2 years' vs 99 scientists that say 'Things are getting worse, we need to do something'…which quotable do you think the media will publish?
Exactly this. So even if one scientist has been quoted to say 'We're all going to die within 2 years' vs 99 scientists that say 'Things are getting worse, we need to do something'…which quotable do you think the media will publish?
I'm sure I can cherry pick Guardian articles that have made predictions that aren't wrong, like the one MLI tried to refute with his tinfoil hat blog, but I can't be arsed and peer reviewed papers are preferable to media reports.
Where did this climate change is a cult stuff come from, seen it loads recently.
Agree with superp. If she makes a difference that’s great, but her fanatics are a bit weird, it’s like they needed some young girl to rally behind because listening to the already established science wasn’t enough of a statement for their twitter page.
Agree with superp. If she makes a difference that’s great, but her fanatics are a bit weird, it’s like they needed some young girl to rally behind because listening to the already established science wasn’t enough of a statement for their twitter page.
Sign in to post in this thread.
