Topic: Spending hundreds of trillions of $$$ to remove all modern innovation and keep poor people poor
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #95,962
Massive crippling government spending for 50 years, a complete upheaval of the modernization of food production and transportation, and restrictions on the third world and the poor to never use the methods that boosted the first world to prosperity.That is what is proposed to reduce a possible 2 to 3 degree rise in global temperature over the next 50 years by half a degree at best. Will that actually work you may ask, and the settled scientists will claim that it will, but offer no actual evidence, method, or be able to point to a specific solution other than nuclear power.
Look at how government spending with all of its bureaucracy and corruption has worked fixing infrastructure, education, etc and then consider how effective it will be changing the weather before you pay more taxes. If you think it will be effective, you are able to pay more taxes right now! So stop being a hypocrite talking about change and actually do something.
Also, ask China and India to buy into this because there's billions of them unaffected by the hurt feelings of white privilege tantrum propaganda.
Thanks
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 59 seconds later[^] [v] #1,082,586
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,082,599
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,082,605
@OP
> Massive crippling government spending for 50 years, a complete upheaval of the modernization of food production and transportation, and restrictions on the third world and the poor to never use the methods that boosted the first world to prosperity.
>
> That is what is proposed to reduce a possible 2 to 3 degree rise in global temperature over the next 50 years by half a degree at best. Will that actually work you may ask, and the settled scientists will claim that it will, but offer no actual evidence, method, or be able to point to a specific solution other than nuclear power.
>
>
> Also, ask China and India to buy into this because there's billions of them unaffected by the hurt feelings of white privilege tantrum propaganda.
>
> Thanks
When you grow up and read beyond Dr. Seuss - Please take a course in Science and how Scientists use Models
> Massive crippling government spending for 50 years, a complete upheaval of the modernization of food production and transportation, and restrictions on the third world and the poor to never use the methods that boosted the first world to prosperity.
>
> That is what is proposed to reduce a possible 2 to 3 degree rise in global temperature over the next 50 years by half a degree at best. Will that actually work you may ask, and the settled scientists will claim that it will, but offer no actual evidence, method, or be able to point to a specific solution other than nuclear power.
>
>
> Also, ask China and India to buy into this because there's billions of them unaffected by the hurt feelings of white privilege tantrum propaganda.
>
> Thanks
When you grow up and read beyond Dr. Seuss - Please take a course in Science and how Scientists use Models
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,082,615
@previous (D)
What models are you referring to and what makes them more accurate than all previous ones? No model has made an accurate prediction yet. Scientists are 0 from 50 climate predictions so far.
What models are you referring to and what makes them more accurate than all previous ones? No model has made an accurate prediction yet. Scientists are 0 from 50 climate predictions so far.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,082,664
@previous (E)If you input into Alexa or Google and ask how accurate are climate models you get this for instance
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Examples of how models are tested to see IF they were available decades Centuries ago HOW Accurate? And you will see there are many that clearly passed that test.
You of course quote sloppy 2nds science - Jerkoffs quoted by Donald Trump the Science guy denier
One of many model proofs from link and this one is a Gif so click on it to activate for next view
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 23 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,082,675
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 40 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,082,690
@1,082,664 (F)
Debunked on the same website though.
Debunked on the same website though.
"A way to test the accuracy of models is through hindcasting - see whether they successfully predict what has been observed over the past century."
Not true for any model. All that shows is they can fit the model to the history. That is beside the point as the IPCC does not claim that the models can predict anything.
John Cook wrote:
"The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account."
Given enough "tunable parameters" that should come as no surprise. The modelers also assume that there is some positive feedback, there is no proof that this is the case. Here is one for you straight from the IPCC, Chapter 8, page 596:
"The number of degrees of freedom in the tuneable parameters is less than the number of degrees of freedom in the observational constraints used in model evaluation."
IOW, the models are nothing more then sophisticated curve fits.
Calling the models "predictions" does not instill confidence that you have done your homework.
Not true for any model. All that shows is they can fit the model to the history. That is beside the point as the IPCC does not claim that the models can predict anything.
John Cook wrote:
"The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account."
Given enough "tunable parameters" that should come as no surprise. The modelers also assume that there is some positive feedback, there is no proof that this is the case. Here is one for you straight from the IPCC, Chapter 8, page 596:
"The number of degrees of freedom in the tuneable parameters is less than the number of degrees of freedom in the observational constraints used in model evaluation."
IOW, the models are nothing more then sophisticated curve fits.
Calling the models "predictions" does not instill confidence that you have done your homework.