We have five days to live according to scientists.

We only have 5 days left!
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1210615159233888256
Paul Joseph Watson
‏Verified account @PrisonPlanet

Remember guys, it's just 5 days until the UK is "plunged into a Siberian climate."

From the same trustworthy people who gave you mass starvation of humanity by the 80's, "ice free" Arctic summers by 2013 and Greta Thunberg.

You can trust them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
...

Sat 21 Feb 2004 20.33 ESTFirst published on Sat 21 Feb 2004 20.33 EST

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
...

 

Yup, it's all just religious belief. It is in no way/shape/form "science".

 

"But we believe as firmly as ever . . . that at the time appointed the end shall be, and that it cannot be far distant in the future." William Gore Miller, 1844, after the damn world just would not end every time he said it would end.

The world, being a mere thing, will end of course, but nobody has the foggiest idea even what millennium.

 

As a body of knowledge, science is comprised of ideas that can be but have not yet been disproved.
As a body of knowledge, religion is comprised of ideas that cannot be disproved.
As the ever moving goalposts of eco-doomsayers demonstrate, anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change
is a religion. It cannot be disproved.

Go ahead. Ask an eco-doomsayer what would disprove ACGCC.

 

Sun coming up in the morning. Let me get the hell back in this rat race and see what tomorrow has in store. And looking at it with hope.

 

And yet another day passes by... no "climate doomsday" yet...

 

PRISON PLANET!!!

You are quoting something from Prison planet and honestly expect to be taken seriously? The onion has more factual reporting

 

I agree. However, their links are real. The fact that fanatics who are always wrong are trying to tell others how to live is frightening.

And no matter how often they are proven wrong, they insist they are right.

 

There is only 1 link and that is the article from the Guardian. The opinions from that article are not from the IPCC and there are no links or evidence to suggest that these opinions were ever

those of the majority of climate scientists. Arctic free ice summers have been projected to occur after the year 2050 by all IPCC reports. The fanatics are often wrong but not mainstream

climate scientists.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult

"researchers have attempted to explain the commitment of members to their associated doomsday cult, even after the prophecies of their leader have turned out to be false. Festinger explained this phenomenon as part of a coping mechanism called dissonance reduction, a form of rationalization. Members often dedicate themselves with renewed vigor to the group's cause after a failed prophecy, and rationalize with explanations such as a belief that their actions forestalled the disaster, or a belief in the leader when the date for disaster is postponed."

 

There are a lot of people in the world going to sleep hungry tonight that won't wake up tomorrow.

 

No, it is clever advertising

There is a link to an article for the guardian about a Pentagon paper NOT written by scientists and then the rest on that twitter account are the usual suspects of right wing nut rubbish

It is not unusual for military briefing to include a “worst case scenario”

 

If there was evidence that the earth's surface temperature had not increased over the past 100 years that would be strong evidence against ACGCC. If there was evidence that the earth had a

mechanism to nullify the enhanced greenhouse effect caused by humans or if it was discovered that the enhanced greenhouse effect in terms of increased radiation forcing was much smaller

than currently estimated, that would also be strong evidence against ACGCC.

You are conflating, as many other people do, eco-doomsayers with mainstream climate scientists. Some degree of doom is likely but the amount of doom is unknown.

 

You are also conflating fanatics with mainstream climate scientists. Mainstream climate scientists have a long history of being right. It is the climate contrarians, currently

a small fringe group of around 3% of climate scientists, who have a history of being wrong.

 

No. Global temperatures have not risen in twenty years.
There is no evidence that anthropogenic climate change is global or catastrophic.
If human beings are going to continue to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it, we are going to need a warmer, wetter Earth with 3-4 times the atmospheric CO2 we now suffer with.

 

And here we get to part of the very thing I take greatest offense to with these climate scientists.

They all seem to take the temperature from the early 1800s and use that as the "Benchmark", because of course that is also the first time that accurate instruments were used to record such data at the time. And that has become the benchmark that they all use to say what the climate should be.

The problem is, that is also known to have been among the coldest periods in the history of the planet since the end of the Ice Age. It is not called the "Little Ice Age" for nothing after all. And that followed the Medieval Warm Period, which was the hottest period known since the end of the Ice Age. It was even warmer than things are now.

So what do we have, first off a skewed benchmark for what they think temperatures should be. And as often as I ask over and over about those other periods of history, and what caused them to start and end, people just skip over it. It is like they have an aversion to discuss these facts.

And even more important to me, I discuss over and over the massive destruction of rainforests, the main system of our planet to remove CO2. We are destroying them so fast that it is no wonder levels are rising. But until we stop that destruction and start to rebuild them, CO2 levels will never go down no matter what limits are placed on it.

Every 5 years we destroy enough rainforest to capture all of the emissions of CO2 planet wide. And it is accelerating, and starting to destroy those very areas we rely upon. But it is just ignored. How about less taxing of cow farts, and working on rebuilding our rainforests and wetlands?

But there is no money in that, and that is what I see it is really all about. Justifying their pay and "research", which seems to be less and less accurate every year. Heck, San Francisco just enacted a "Greenhouse Tax" on restaurants in that city. Yea, and it will be like every other similar tax in this state. The money collected and spent on hundreds of other things, and to hell with doing anything other than saying they care, and trying to shame anybody that does not agree with them.

 

The Medieval Warm Period was the warmest in human history. And it is also what allowed human population to explode, as longer and more productive growing seasons and a warmer climate was just what humans needed.

And that all came crashing to an end when the Little Ice Age started. More rain, crop rot, diseases as people stayed inside. There were even villages cut off and abandoned, and even destroyed because of advancing glaciers.

And this was not all that long ago. We all know that when Washington crossed the Delaware, they had to avoid huge chunks of ice and even break it up on the shore. Little Ice Age. You could not that long ago drive a car from Detroit into Canada across the lake, Little Ice Age. The Thames used to freeze over regularly, sparking an event known as the Winter Carnival. Once again, Little Ice Age.

The climate changes, it has always changed. It always will change. But these idiots still try to insist it was natural every time before, but not this time. To me, it is like Neanderthal worrying if the CO2 from their cook fires are releasing to much CO2, and bringing the Ice Age to an end.

 

You haven't even shown that it HAS increased... Your only attempts thus far have denied logic, science, and mathematics.

You haven't even shown that there is such a thing as a "greenhouse effect". Every attempt of yours to describe it has denied science.

No, they are one of the same.

Define "doom".

Sounds to me like you are attempting to form a Pascal's Wager Fallacy here...

 

What scientists were behind this report and did they represent the scientific consensus?

 

Years 2015 through 2019 are the 5 warmest years in the temperature record. The information below is from climate.feedback.org. Ocean heat content has been rising in recent decades an in 2019
it was at the highest level in the measurement record.


https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...er-in-medieval-times-town-hall-gregory-rummo/

A recent study1 working with a global database of paleoclimate records found that no previous warm or cool period in the last 2,000 years—including the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period (also called the Medieval Climate Anomaly)—occurred globally and synchronously. But 20th Century temperatures were the warmest of the last 2,000 years for nearly the entire surface of the Earth.





These maps show the timing of the warmest temperatures in named warm periods (or coldest temperatures in named cool periods) over the last 2,000 years. Only the 20th Century warming is global in extent (top right).
Source: Neukom et al (2019)1

 

There is no particular benchmark used by climate scientists to reference climate change. The late 19th century, the mid-twentieth century, and the late twentieth century have all been used as bench marks.

What is your source for, "every 5 years we destroy enough rainforest to capture all emissions of CO2 planet wide"? That isn't even close to being true.

 

https://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/climate_change/sequestration_facts.html

That equated to around 64 million acres (and this rate is increasing rapidly).

Now the Amazon itself is able to sequester around 140 billion tons of CO2, and we produce only 36 billion tons. However, not only is the rainforest being depleted, the "slash and burn" process released even more CO2. And many are getting worried that that forest is reaching the "point of no return", where it will start to transition to regular forest because it is shrinking to the point it may no longer be able to maintain it's own climate.

But that's OK, I expect this to be rejected because everybody always rejects things like facts if they do not like them. Just the fact that you have apparently never heard statistics like this tells me something I already know. ANd that nobody is ever talking about this, and I view this as far more dangerous long term than anything else.

CO2 is literally "plant food". In every other phase of life on this planet, whenever CO2 levels climbed, plant life flourished. The Carboniferous had CO2 levels 15% higher than now, and a climate almost as ours is. And plant life flourished, this is why we have thick bands of coal covering huge areas of the planet.

You all only look at a single piece, and not at the "big picture". Myself, since my background is in Geology, I tend to look at the "big picture". as in hundreds of millions of years. A blip of even a few centuries, that is nothing in the lifespan of the planet. But our planet has been in eras of even higher levels of CO2 for millions of years, and did just fine.

And the nonsense about things are going to get drier? Nonsense, it is the opposite. As things get hotter and more water is released from ice caps and glaciers, the atmosphere always gets more humid (long term). And plant life flourishes. It is during ice ages and extensive glaciation that things get dry because so much of the water supply is sequestered in those glaciers and ice caps.

Just like the "chicken little" screams I hear all the time about sea level rise and things getting drier. Are you even aware that around 30kya when humans first arrived in what is now the San Francisco Bay area there was not even a bay? What we know now then was a narrow valley with a river running through it. And I mean through, the ocean was still over 20 miles farther to the West. And the surrounding countryside was more wet savanna, not high desert.

Heck, only 2kya what we know as "Death Valley" was still a large inland lake.

I can go on, but I find the arrogance of people that think that all the changes are caused by people is stupid.

 

Even if it is 100% man-made, it is still "natural". Humans are not unnatural. Things that are only produced by humans are not unnatural. Nothing is unnatural. I believe in the natural and the supernatural, but I don't believe that anything is unnatural. 'Unnatural' is a misanthropic term; I reject it.

 

I call BS.
No Vikings farming in Iceland. Beachfront property is still at a premium. There's no sell-off on Martha's Vineyard.

WE SHOULD ALL HAVE AL GORE'S CARBON FOOTPRINT

 

You expect what to be rejected? You didn't make any sort of actual point there. In order for someone to reject your point, you have to make a point first.

Which is literally totally irrelevant. Anyone bringing up that point is clearly trying to deflect from more important points.

The earth is no longer greening, so your "CO2 will green the earth" line is debunked. The greening stopped in the 1990s. And I expect that point to be ignored by deniers, being that it's inconvenient to their CO2-worshipping religion.

That's fine. After all, it's only your nonsense. Things will get drier in some spots, wetter in others.

That's nice. What does any of that have to do with the destructive effects of sea level rise on human civilization right now? Looks like a deflection.

Having fun with all your strawmen?