A story from the AP 30 years ago

[1%er]

Its interesting to hear from people that "history repeats itself" and "we must learn from history". What can we learn from this story written 30 years ago and published by the Associated Press on the 29th June 1989.

The story is linked here for those who want to learn from history.

 

[rekil]

Needless to say, this is a far-right/loon/contrarianarse meme.

 

[mauvais]

Did UN Official Say Nations Would Vanish If Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000?

Importantly, however, none of these scientific papers asserted that this would happen by the year 2000 — as some have taken the Associated Press lede to suggest — nor do they say anything about a 10-year window of time before that fate is sealed

But IMO what's more interesting is the motive for the OP.

 

[butchersapron]

Another in a long line of great 1% threads.

 

[StoneRoad]

Or that there have already been plenty of warnings about global warming / climate change actually happening.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 - Twitter Search

 

[Yossarian]

It looks like an awful lot of stuff predicted in 1989 has come to pass, so I don't know why that article seems to be getting shared by the kind of people who scoff that people predicted global freezing in the 1970s and they're not going to get fooled again.

Climate change creates a new migration crisis for Bangladesh

 

[Yossarian]

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

Just imagine the kind of hellscape we'd be living in now if people had listened to that hysterical scientist and his radical ideas.

 

[tim]

Its interesting to hear from people that "history repeats itself" and "we must learn from history". What can we learn from this story written 30 years ago and published by the Associated Press on the 29th June 1989.

The story is linked here for those who want to learn from history.

You're Bahamas!

 

[Gimigimi]

I have to do some guesswork here because you're only implying your arguments rather than actually stating them, but I assume the "lesson from history" you are taking from this article about a single UN official giving interviews in 1989 is that his prediction about nations being destroyed did not come true, so we shouldn't take concerns about climate change seriously.

If you read carefully, as nobody posting that article on Twitter would ever do, the first sentence does not actually predict that the nations will be wiped out by the year 2000. It's a prediction that they will be wiped out (at some undefined point in the future) if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. This may very well be the case. I seem to recall the head of state of the Maldives desperately telling the UN recently how his country was already being inundated. Had global warming proceeded according to the worst case scenario predicted in the article, the predicted effects would have come to pass within that timeframe. Luckily, the mean global temperature "only" increased 1 degree in thirty years, instead of 7. There's no way to tell when any of several positive feedback loops may accelerate this further, so you may yet live to see the Maldives underwater. If you don't, younger people will.

Oh, the Soviet Union isn't reaping bumper crops so I guess he got that wrong.

On a less serious note, with regards to what this is probably really about, I have my reservations about Greta Thunberg but I sure am enjoying watching her troll climate deniers. Triggered much? Need a climate change safe space? So do lots of people.

 

[NoXion]

Heatwaves keep breaking records and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency. No nations have been brought down by climate change, but the trend should be fucking obvious by now.

Apocalypse is not necessary for significant action to be a damn good idea. But that's the modus operandi of fossil fuels bootlickers; deny the necessity of action, until it's too late. I wonder what they will say if they get their way and the world ends up properly fucked?

 

[Marty1]

Its interesting to hear from people that "history repeats itself" and "we must learn from history". What can we learn from this story written 30 years ago and published by the Associated Press on the 29th June 1989.

The story is linked here for those who want to learn from history.

The 10/11/12 years until we’re doomed headline is a repetitive shock tactic message recycled for each new generation to adhere to.

 

[Pickman's model]

Heatwaves keep breaking records and extreme weather events are increasing in frequency. No nations have been brought down by climate change , but the trend should be fucking obvious by now.

Apocalypse is not necessary for significant action to be a damn good idea. But that's the modus operandi of fossil fuels bootlickers; deny the necessity of action, until it's too late. I wonder what they will say if they get their way and the world ends up properly fucked?

Syria don't look in the best place right now.

 

[NoXion]

Syria don't look in the best place right now.

South Asia is a place to watch in this regard, I think. A refugee crisis originating from Bangladesh would dwarf the one from Syria. If Pakistan dries up then that might precipitate a regional war, quite possibly a nuclear one.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[Yossarian]

The 10/11/12 years until we’re doomed headline is a repetitive shock tactic message recycled for each new generation to adhere to.

The warnings clearly weren't shocking or effective enough, since irreversible climate change is already here - they're still talking in 10 to 12-year timelines to avoid making things worse, I think that has been settled on as a number people might see as a reasonable amount of time to make big changes in, even if it hasn't worked too well up until now.

You may have heard that we have 12 years to fix everything. This is well-meaning nonsense, but it’s still nonsense. We have both no time and more time. Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down. And, true, we’ve chosen to throw ourselves headlong down the hill at breakneck speed. But we can always choose to begin the long, slow, brutal climb back up. If we must argue about what the view will be like when we get there, let’s at least agree to turn around first.

Thinking about Climate on a Dark, Dismal Morning

 

[Marty1]

The warnings clearly weren't shocking or effective enough, since irreversible climate change is already here - they're still talking in 10 to 12-year timelines to avoid making things worse, I think that has been settled on as a number people might see as a reasonable amount of time to make big changes in, even if it hasn't worked too well up until now.

500 prominent scientists and professionals disagree.

There is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 experts

As the latest test U.N. climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”.

The group has sent a European Climate Declarationwith a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Professor Guus Berkhout of The Netherlands, who organized the Declaration, said: “So popular is the Declaration with scientists and researchers worldwide that signatories are flooding in not only from within Europe but also from other countries such as the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf

 

[belboid]

Guus Berkhout, professor of....acoustics.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

The Heartland Institute? Well, I'll be...

 

[ferrelhadley]

500 prominent scientists and professionals disagree.

There is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 experts

Monckton of Brenchley UK
He has an MA in classics and a diploma on journalism.
And he is batshit mental.

Lindzen is the only one I recognize as an atmospheric physicist. His big claim was the temperature would only rise about 1C in 100 years. Its already risen 1C

 

[Yossarian]

Some of the Italians are just listed as "teacher" or "engineer" - did this start out as an online petition?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

it's just the usual bollocks

 

[Marty1]

Some of the Italians are just listed as "teacher" or "engineer" - did this start out as an online petition?

Not sure but one name listed (Richard Lindzen) is apparently an MIT atmospheric physicist which suggests credibility.

And here he is in a 2016 climate change video.

 

[NoXion]

Not sure but one name listed (Richard Lindzen) is apparently an MIT atmospheric physicist which suggests credibility.

And here he is in a 2016 climate change video.

PragerU Not a university. It's a blog run by corporate-sponsored boomer science deniers with massive fucking pretensions.





Please tell me you take those fuckwits seriously, I need a laugh today.

 

[Marty1]

PragerU Not a university. It's a blog run by corporate-sponsored boomer science deniers with massive fucking pretensions.





Please tell me you take those fuckwits seriously, I need a laugh today.

Ah, ok then, nothing to see here, clearly this MIT atmospheric physicist is a crack pot with nothing useful to offer.

 

[NoXion]

Ah, ok then, nothing to see here, clearly this MIT atmospheric physicist is a crack pot with nothing useful to offer.

More likely he's being paid by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Yossarian]

More likely he's being paid by the fossil fuel industry.

He has received some money from the coal industry - he's also a professional contrarian who also likes to talk about how there's little proof smoking is linked to lung cancer.

If somebody has read a lot of studies on the subject and concluded that Lindzen's cloud theory actually outweighs work by many, many other scientists, including a lot of his MIT colleagues, then fair enough, but it seems like people are only paying attention to his work because they're looking for somebody who agrees with him and working backward.

Among the experts most offended by Dr. Lindzen’s stance are many of his colleagues in the M.I.T. atmospheric sciences department, some of whom were once as skeptical as he about climate change.

“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”

Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters

 

[Yossarian]

I was a little surprised when I found out that the climate 'debate' is not only similar in many ways to the 'controversy' over cigarettes causing lung cancer, it involves many of the same people, like Mike Pence and the Heartland Institute - why is anybody still listening to them?

 

[ferrelhadley]

Ah, ok then, nothing to see here, clearly this MIT atmospheric physicist is a crack pot with nothing useful to offer.

Lindzen is the only one I recognize as an atmospheric physicist. His big claim was the temperature would only rise about 1C in 100 years. Its already risen 1C

Lindzen specialized in Rossby Wave propagation, which is a really important part in our improvement in weather forecasts we have achieved over the past 50 years. He did a lot of great work back in the day. But most of his research was around planetary waves and he was all but retired by the mid 80s. He has very little work on climate change that has been published and that which has has mostly been refuted. He is an example of a scientist stuck in an outmoded paradigm for whom mainstream science has passed him by.

He is not the first and will not be the last respected scientist to make an utter arse of themselves outside their main field of specialization
Nobel disease - RationalWiki
Some of the greatest scientists in history have had rather quack ideas outside their specialization.

Here is a screenshot from your video thingy ma jig



There is no source and I have no idea what this is supposed to show.

Here is a temperature graph from the Berkley Earth project

So frankly the graphic in the video seems to be very questionable in its sourcing.

Also on the video there is a claim that CO2 has only been able to impact the climate since the 1960s, again no source is given.

This is a graphic from NASA's GISS on their estimates for various forcings. We can see that since the 1960s the well mixed greenhouse gasses do accelerate but we had that whole industrial revolution and arrival of the car etc before then. You can see that other than a reduction in cooling after the Krakatoa Eruption, the biggest impact on climate via radiative forcing from 1880 to 1960 would have been human sourced gasses.

I am not going to waste too much time on a point by point rebuttal, but its very thin gruel you are serving us here.

We understand what is causing climate change better than we understand gravity. Our understanding of the past 520 million years of climate only makes sense with CO2 as a key driver of climate change.
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/14/3/pdf/i1052-5173-14-3-4.pdf

You will believe what makes you feel good about yourself. But what you cannot do is step up to the plate and get gnarly with the maths and physics. I can. So long as you are posting this shite here, you will be coming off second best.

 

[Marty1]

Your post started off an interesting read but it’s here where you started to go downhill.

Here is a screenshot from your video thingy ma jig

You then went on to present your own set of graphs starting with one sources from the Berkley Earth Project, would this be the same entity that received funding from the Koch Brothers?


I was going to continue to reply to the rest of your post but unfortunately it would seem you have fallen prey to your own concluding remark.

You will believe what makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[ferrelhadley]

Your post started off an interesting read but it’s here where you started to go downhill.

You mean where I showed the video was based on unsourced drivel.

You then went on to present your own set of graphs starting with one sources from the Berkley Earth Project,

You can check there methodology here.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Results-Paper-Berkeley-Earth.pdf
If you have no substantial comment to make we will have to assume that either you accept their data or are dismissing it due to petty truculence.
It is broadly consistent with the other Earth surface datasets including:
Goddard Institute of Space Studies
Met Office
NOAA
Japanese Meteorological Agency.

All of these and many others show the same over all trend. All those cited are based on widely published peer reviewed papers where the methodology can be investigated and should any error be observed, discussed in the literature.
Your video showed a "graph" with no source, made very bold claims with it, but cannot be examined to establish credibility.

I was going to continue to reply to the rest of your post but unfortunately

"Unfortunately" you are talking out your arse and have been shown up.

What was your point again, 499 journalists and other non entities plus 1 long past it atmospheric physicist do not agree with the mainstream science of just about every scientific academy on the planet.
You have no actual argument against a physics you do not understand, the only two sources you have posted seem to deny the widely observed rise in global temperatures but you can provide no justification for this.
Believe what ever you want, just accept that you will be taken as nothing more than a joke without a substantive and well sourced argument.[/quote][/quote]