Greta Thunberg climate scare?

[jazz]

Greta is inspiring a new movement, congratulations woke left and MSM.

[tweety]

It's not the "End of the world", its a different world - like when the ice melted after the ice age. Best thing this planet can do is purge humans for a few hundred thousand years.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

How the hell did you become an engineer if you didn't believe in science and evidence based analysis?

There is plenty of research available on climate trends and sea level rise proving that human caused climate change is happening. Get off your butt and take a look!

There you go using the word believe in the same sentence as science and evidence. Once again, since you keep forgetting, religious cults require blind belief due to a complete lack of evidence, science necessitates evidence and proof. Not sure why I keep trying to debate you when you can't seem to comprehend such a basic concept, I thought we had this concept mastered and could move on to the next step, but you just keep going back to it, it's almost like belief and consensus are the only tools left, now that every other argument has failed.

Just like your second comment. There are two separate issues there. The first half is correct, There is plenty of research on climate trends and sea level rise. The second part is also true, human caused climate change is happening(Just not in the ways, or on the scale that you "believe" it is, we have covered the myriad of ways in which it is happening in previous threads, not to be rehashed over and over again). However the connector in the middle of that sentence is blatantly wrong.

Applying the scientific method to this issue, if one hypothesised that what you say is true, then one would need to design an experiment to test that hypothesis. Since we don't have a second earth to act as a control, the next best experiment we could design, would be to model what effect rising CO2 should have on this one, then wait 30 years and compare the results to those hypothesised.

The precautionary principle tells us that we can't wait 30 years to test our hypothesis, but, luckily for you, you don't have to, since 30 years ago, a bunch of far sighted scientists did just this very thing. And now, we can look at the results and decide whether to accept or reject the original hypothesis. Every single model predicted we would be much warmer by now, so the hypothesis has been rejected.

Now we need a new hypothesis, and a new experiment. Some likely candidates are that climate sensitivity to CO2 was too high, and is not linear(declines at higher levels), and therefore was vastly over estimated in the original hypothesis; or that there are factors other than CO2 levels which affect earths temperature. Fortunately, instead of needing to wait another 30 years for more data, we already have the data, and can back test other hypothesis's to check their validity.

[fjlip]

LIKE, perfect SIMPLE explanation, even the DUMBEST brainwashed Climate Change Doomsayers might understand!
And even in their own report...The IPCC has previously said its climate models can’t be used to accurately predict long-term changes in the climate.

“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” the IPCC’s 2018 report states.

[tweety]

The purpose of climate change discussion is to keep you from discussing the real problem - like how we all are living beyond our and the planets means and isn't sustainable except for the extremely rich. Humbling days are coming.

[fjlip]

in history the VERY RICH were humbled themselves....French Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The purpose of climate change discussion is to keep you from discussing the real problem - like how we all are living beyond our and the planets means and isn't sustainable except for the extremely rich. Humbling days are coming.

While what you say is absolutely true on some time scale, history is littered with similar pronouncements, all of which have come to pass while our standard of living continues to increase along with our population, while still doing less environmental harm in the first world countries. Personally, I'll bet on human progress and ingenuity, not doomsday soothsayers.

[chuckChuck]

Unlimited population growth is part of the problem. How long do you think billions of people can consume resources before we start to face shortages and the end of finite supplies along with environmental degradation?

Releasing mega amounts of stored carbon from millions of years into the atmosphere is not sustainable.

There is a good chance that as the northern and southern latitudes warm up and boreal forests burn and permafrost melts that we will see massive amounts methane and CO2 released which will be a tipping point from which there is no return.

Its pretty easy for the current population to sit back and do nothing and deny there is a problem because the worst effects of runaway climate change will happen after we are all long dead!

Listen to the scientists. Accept the science. There may be different projections as to when, how much and how fast the climate will change but we are on that track with very definite and observable changes already.

[jazz]

Its pretty easy for the current population to sit back and do nothing and deny there is a problem because the worst effects of runaway climate change will happen after we are all long dead!

There has never been a runaway effect of anything on planet earth, only inexorable change over millennia.

I don't accept this science because it can be debunked by a 5 year old who isn't named Greta.

[chuckChuck]

Who cares that you don't accept the science. Nobody is listening. Climate change is one of the top issues in this election. Scheer and every other leader agrees on the basic science.

Except for the Mad Max who is at 3% in the poles! He ain't going nowhere.