Man Made Climate Change Explained As If It Was To Kids

[Ridgeman08]

How can we believe what climatologists are predicting the weather will be in the next 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

They can't even successfully predict what the weather a week from now.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

How can we believe what climatologists are predicting the weather will be in the next 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

They can't even successfully predict what the weather a week from now

Nope, thats right.

Add to that all their predictions of warmer weather have been wrong so far

 

[Yoga Face]

there is a bigger fear than global warming, rising oceans, more hurricanes, expanded desserts, more flooding etc and that is mans response which will be war over the remaining resources

 

[rgkv]

there is a bigger fear than global warming, rising oceans, more hurricanes, expanded desserts, more flooding etc and that is mans response which will be war over the remaining resources

Next big thing will be over drinking water and food

 

[Moviefan-2]

We don't have that much time to turn things around.

Actually, we do.

The confirmation of a "pause" in global warming has shown that the computer models that predicted imminent catastrophe were flawed. In the short term and the medium term, the real-world evidence currently suggests there is little to worry about.

And the long term doesn't matter. Not because we're all dead (although that is certainly true) but because society will continue to evolve and new innovations will continue to be found.

The future is unknowable, but it is a safe prediction that society 100 years from now will be nothing like today. There is no way to predict what type of resources will be used in the future, nor can we predict the impact (if any) of those unknown resources.

 

[blackrock13]

Nope, thats right.

Add to that all their predictions of warmer weather have been wrong so far

How can we believe what climatologists are predicting the weather will be in the next 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

They can't even successfully predict what the weather a week from now.

and you two still don't know the difference between climatology and meteorology, even though it's been mentioned a few times.

 

[Ridgeman08]

and you two still don't know the difference between climatology and meteorology, even though it's been mentioned a few times.

Really?! Here, lemme fix it for ya then:

How can we believe what scientists are predicting the weather will be in the next 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

They can't even successfully predict what the weather a week from now.

 

[blackrock13]

Really?! Here, lemme fix it for ya then:

How can we believe what scientists are predicting the weather will be in the next 20 years? 100 years? 500 years?

They can't even successfully predict what the weather a week from now.

Nothing like changing the line after you've been shown your ignorance. I'm not sure how much a biologist or theoretical physicist would know about weather and climate so I wouldn't really ask for their opinion. This climate debate has been handle and put away more than once in past threads. David Phillips explained the difference this way, meteorology is what you wear and climatology is what you buy. Any weather forecast over 3 days is an educated guess, a 10 day forecast is like a horse race or crap shoot.

 

[yung_dood]

You can tell who has a degree and who doesn't in this thread

"Still, IPCC scientists believe the pause in temperature rise is temporary and a return to 'substantial warming' is expected in coming decades.
Sea levels have risen by 19cm since 1901 and are expected to rise a further 26-82cm by the end of the century. Which can have quite catastrophic results.

If you ignore half the facts, you're cherry picking. Don't. It makes you sound foolish."


The Climate Change model was based on CO2, and cannot account for the billions of tons of water that have circulated the nuclear melted cores at Fukushima's stricken plant. With the recent mass die-off's of Pacific Ocean species, methane in Greenland has been at record high levels. Methane is also given off from dead sea life. Bald Eagles that were 3 years ago in recovery are being observed having seizures followed by death. So go the birds, so go humans. 

 

[yung_dood]

Climate Change Worse Than We Thought, Likely To Be 'Catastrophic Rather Than Simply Dangerous'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4523828

 

[Moviefan-2]

You can tell who has a degree and who doesn't in this thread.

Be careful, yung dood -- you're starting to sound like Lovehobby, who liked to brag in the Politics forum about how he believed he was more highly educated than the people he debates with.

Then, for reasons I'll never understand, he posted the academic achievements from his resume. It turns out he's no better educated than some of the "Neanderthals" who critique his posts.

By the way, your claims to be an authority on this topic are undermined by links to the rather biased Huffington Post.

 

[Ridgeman08]

And lets not confuse "educated" with "intelligence".

Some of the most well educated individuals on the planet are dumb as stumps.

(e.g. politicians...)

 

[blackrock13]

Be careful, yung dood -- you're starting to sound like Lovehobby, who liked to brag in the Politics forum about how he believed he was more highly educated than the people he debates with.

Then, for reasons I'll never understand, he posted the academic achievements from his resume. It turns out he's no better educated than some of the "Neanderthals" who critique his posts.

By the way, your claims to be an authority on this topic are undermined by links to the rather biased Huffington Post.

How is it biased?

 

[Moviefan-2]

How is it biased?

It is a political site, and one that has a left-wing bias (a bias that I believe it is proud to hold).

Since global warming is a politically charged issue, the Huffington Post is unlikely to persuade anyone looking for an impartial source.

 

[Carling]

It is a political site, and one that has a left-wing bias (a bias that I believe it is proud to hold).

Since global warming is a politically charged issue, the Huffington Post is unlikely to persuade anyone looking for an impartial source.

lol yeah so its FoxNews,SunNews vs CNN CBS NBC ABC MSNBC BBC Reuters CBC Al-Jazeera HUffington Post? ... you lose

 

[Moviefan-2]

lol yeah so its FoxNews,SunNews vs CNN CBS NBC ABC MSNBC BBC Reuters CBC Al-Jazeera HUffington Post? ... you lose

You forgot the National Post, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and many others (even Andrew Revkin at the New York Times has reported on the pause in global temperatures).

Furthermore, not everyone at the BBC would agree with your characterization of the BBC's reporting on the issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202

The main purpose of the interview was to establish if the government thought the recent and continuing pause in global temperatures meant it should re-think its policies in response to global warming.

 

[blackrock13]

It is a political site, and one that has a left-wing bias (a bias that I believe it is proud to hold).

Since global warming is a politically charged issue, the Huffington Post is unlikely to persuade anyone looking for an impartial source.

It's digital newspaper. Reading across the green banner you'll see it reports on all sorts of topics, even sports. The Canadian edition is one of over a half dozen international editions around the world including Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Quebec, and Japan geared to local issues. As far as being a left propaganda sheet, based on their dislike of a lot of what they GOP, Teabaggers, and the RNP do, I can understand why.. They have a point.

I guess their disagreement with Obama's Georgia appointment is an illusion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-watson-malachi/president-obamas-disappoi_b_4532534.html

 

[Carling]

You forgot the National Post, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and many others (even Andrew Revkin at the New York Times has reported on the pause in global temperatures).

Furthermore, not everyone at the BBC would agree with your characterization of the BBC's reporting on the issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202

i was just writing the TV news...should i do a list of newspapers too? wait i dont do posts over a page long

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Climate Change Worse Than We Thought, Likely To Be 'Catastrophic Rather Than Simply Dangerous'

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4523828

Oh noes. We're all gonna die!!!!

 

[Moviefan-2]

As far as being a left propaganda sheet, based on their dislike of a lot of what they GOP, Teabaggers, and the RNP do, I can understand why.. They have a point.

I didn't say it was a "propaganda" sheet, I said it had a left-wing bias. It wasn't intended to be an insult or a put-down, but merely to point out that it is not an impartial source.

i was just writing the TV news...should i do a list of newspapers too? wait i dont do posts over a page long

How about you simply acknowledge that you were wrong about some of the BBC's current reporting?

Or perhaps you prefer older stories such as this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm