Climate Change is not real!

AureliusofPhoenix said:
Hot (aka Emo) Take: climate change was inevitable and is a poetic apocalypse for humanity due to our utter disregard for fellow organic life and the environment. We deserve global warming and the fact that it’s getting worse only shows that there is such a thing as karma.
Click to expand...
It's NOT inevitable though it never was. It just seems like it. When you look at some information from the 50s even they knew about global warming already.



Apparently our species is simply for now not capable of making the necessary changes to prevent it. But just for the record. This is not like some kind of asteroid on it's way to earth or some god given (if you're into that sort of thing) fate that we never had a chance of avoiding.
 
@Crni Vuk I know that; what I’m saying is that it seems an inevitable catastrophe (or so some would want you to believe), and that’s poetic justice for our treatment of our planet.

The people in the 50s who knew were just as callous as today; we deserve this, in my honest opinion. Because whether we fix it or not, it shows us an aspect of ourselves that we don’t like to look at: sheer, uninhibited laziness and disregard for anything outside our immediate tunnel vision.
 
It doesn't matter. The narrative is in place. There is no going back. The science has been defined as settled, and the division into believer and heretic is done. The policies, no matter how draconian yet ineffectual, will come, and whatever happens, the faithful will scream for more, as everything will be framed as evidence that it just wasn't enough.
 
Hassknecht said:
It doesn't matter. The narrative is in place. There is no going back. The science has been defined as settled, and the division into believer and heretic is done.
Click to expand...
*shrugs*

I see it like this.

Our planet is a laboratory. And we're running a gigantic experiment - humanity and industrialisation.

The effect will prove who's right in the end. In 30-40 years we will see it.
 
Crni Vuk said:
*shrugs*

I see it like this.

Our planet is a laboratory. And we're running a gigantic experiment - humanity and industrialisation.

The effect will prove who's right in the end. In 30-40 years we will see it.
Click to expand...
It's already been decided who's right. And the experiment is now starting.
 
I do not know what you mean by that. Do you say the science is not settled on this? Or that we should have a (new) scientific debate about it?
 
I'm saying that it's all too far gone now. There can't be another debate about it. Climate science is too big too fail now. Any "debate" about it won't matter anymore, because the results are already fixed. No matter what will happen in the next 30 years, the narrative is already fixed and written. It will all prove that the correct side was correct all along.
 
Yes I get that but that wasn't my intention. My question is if you think there should be one and if the climate science we have right now isn't conclusive. I am asking for your opinion on the matter.
 
I'm getting more and more suspicious of the climate models in use. Not that they're wrong, necessarily, but that they have no predictive capabilities. And we're basing everything on them.
The greenhouse effect is physical enough alright, but here's the thing: We attribute all sorts of things to an increase in CO2 because some models which can by their nature do nothing but show the influence of CO2 show the influence of CO2. And then they're comparing some meaningless global average temperature with another, estimated meaningless global average temperature from 1850-1900, when there was even less proper experimental control, add in some spectral imaging from satellites and that's again their proof for CO2 greenhouse forcing. It seems all very circular. The actual effect of anthropogenic CO2 forcing and the scale it is happening at don't seem trustworthy to me anymore.
I don't know what to trust, and there's no point in trying anymore. It can't be changed anymore. If climate science is a pseudo-science, they can't go back now.
I have resignated from thinking about this, because so has everyone else.
 
But see that's what I mean when I say this is a giant experiment.

We're pretty much the same age so if things go well we both of us we have some 50 more years ahead of us. That's plenty of time to see if those climate models and scenarios are accurate or not.

So in 50 years you can clearly see what "predictive capabilities" there might be or what ever. In other words your doubts and criticism can be directly seen. Some say there will be clear and visible effects. Like more forest fires, more droughts in regions which never had any, more serious storms and weather patterns, rising ocean levels, more famines and all other predictions they make.

I mean you personally will have the chance to either verify or to refute them. That is the beauty of it! Just hypothetically speaking let us assume 200 million people try to enter Europe as climate refugees in 2040 or 2050 and we both experience a famine and draught like none before. That would be something that can't be denied. Then I can come to you and tell you, Hass seems like I was right!. That's a clear effect we've never seen before in recent history.

However if 2050 will be, for the most part, a year like this one where we both enjoy standing in the gym as old geezers you can say, see! Nothing happend you leftist cuck and you had your head in your ass the whole time.
 
What a great experiment. An experiment nobody asked for, that is based on shaky hypothesis that are taboo to criticise, where the solutions are already known to be pointless, and where the result is already fixed by dogma.
But I don't care anymore. In four years I'll hopefully have my PhD finished up, and then I can go anywhere I want. I just need to get my passport as soon as possible, because I don't think people like me will get those for too long anymore.

/edit:
Just one little prediction: Arctic temperatures will drop rapidly in the following decade, while antarctic temperatures rise. Everyone will focus on the latter, and never talk about the former.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don't even understand what people want to be "done" exactly. If you eliminated the United States off the face of the planet with all our emissions etc it still wouldn't matter. Fast developing countries like China and India are still going to pick up the slack. You have the Amazons on fire and people just watch it happen. Not only that so many of these greener technologies are feel good measures which solve nothing but allow people to pat themselves on the back. The planet will warm and cool eventually as it always has. Pointing blame at people doesn't really change the fact things are gonna happen regardless.

Honestly if people embraced science and improvement instead of wallowing in ignorance maybe there would be more options. Like genetically engineered super trees.
 
This whole thread reminds me of that Bill Burr joke about Stephen Hawking. “In 20 years there will be no more apples” “Thanks Steve, fuckin depressed now! Wasn’t thinking about that, now I am!”
 
TheHouseAlwaysWins said:
So this is probably the most vague thing I've read recently. So what do the phrases "science" and "improvement" mean in your context.
Click to expand...

It means stop believing in a talking snake and "intelligent design," and start wondering why the gulf / Bahamas are getting slam dunked by super storms bi-weekly.
 
I REFUSE to believe in some stupid SPAGHETTI monster in the sky!...SIGH... If only people were logical like me and Neil Degrasse Tyson instead of believing in their "GODS" then maybe we could fix the planet and I could have my three tittied alien harem!
fvtJohr.jpg
 
They don't hand out the cosmic alien pussy to just anyone. That's why it's the illuminati.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top