Quote (Black XistenZ @ 18 Mar 2019 07:15)
unfortunately, this overwhelming scientific consensus has a bad track record:
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0-----
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not CheckedJune 30,
1989"A senior U.N. environmental official says
entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos,
said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control."
"He said
even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees."
-----
so back in
1989, the director of the UN Environment Program said that the global warming trends would become irreversible by the year 2000, and that even the most conservative scientists agree that even radical action could not stop an increase in global temperatures of about 3 degrees.
no meaningful action was taken in 89 or 90, the global population has grown dramatically since then, consumption levels and emissions have risen dramatically. the year 2000 has passed, and apparently the irreversible tipping points were not only not triggered by then, they seemingly havent been triggered yet by now, the year 2019, either if we were to believe the current warnings about how "immediate and large-scale action is necessary to prevent crossing tipping points".
back in 89, the chief UN environmental scientists were warning that an increase in the global temperature by about 3 degrees would be inevitable according to even the most conservative scientists, yet 27 years later, in 2016, the UN-backed Paris climate accord operates under the assumption that the world can contain global warming to 2 or even 1.5 degrees if only enough money is thrown at the problem by the industrialized countries.
-----
now, I wouldnt entirely rule out the possibility that the scientists were alarmistic back in 1989 and blowing things out of proportion in an attempt to coerce the world to act immediately, while they are honest and telling the pure truth right now, 30 years later. but how likely is that?
I hope I'll not be put to the stake for blasphemy for questioning the "overwhelming scientific consensus" (when it comes to the urgency of the problem, not its mere existence) when similar overwhelming consensuses have been so farcically wrong in the past.
funny how you try so hard to appear 'reasonable and fact based', but your dishonesty is so blatantly obvious: your whole premise is based on one prediction by the then-director of the ny office of the un environment program (unep) - but in your post he magically turned into
multiple "chief un environmental scientists", comparable to the overwhelming scientific consensus of today - more than that even: he's representative of
several alleged "overwhelming consensuses" of the past... holy shit, if only he had known back then how big of a deal he apparently was...
sorry, but that little propaganda trick of yours has been tried and debunked countless times - literally. you find 'sceptics' making the exact same 'arguments' regarding that exact same prediction all over the internet - even though most at least try not to lie about the easily refutable stuff, but unsurprisingly you had to go full r...
take one prediction that you simplistically misrepresent as entirely wrong (ofc completely ignoring the changes and actions we DID make since 1989), baselessly claim its exact positions were the 'overwhelming consensus' back then to allow comparisons to the ACTUAL consensus that exists today, and without ANY nuance or fair analysis therefore dismiss today's science entirely (not without trying to be cute by putting in a token disclaimer:
'sure, still COULD be true - i'm totally open minded, but what are the chances?', implying they are negligible). climate change 'sceptics' propaganda 101, tested and approved by (paid and unpaid) koch stooges world wide...
here's a cute little reply i found to one of the above mentioned copy paste climate 'sceptics' talking points:
Code
First, because Person A was wrong in 1989, does not mean that the expert scientific consensus in 2018 is also wrong–even if “Person A” is described as a “senior environmental official.”
Second, the extent to which “Person A” was wrong is still unclear. To assess that, one must disentangle the concepts of “commitment” and “realization.” Illustratively, a smoker may be “committed” to lung cancer by mutation of lung cells years before the cancer grows enough for diagnosis, and the disease is “realized”.
So, in the case of “Person A”–Noel Brown–the period for commitment may indeed be too short, while the description of the consequences of realization may be entirely accurate. As indeed they appear to be, given that they are logically straightforward consequences of sea-level rise–which is, by the way, directly measured and therefore clearly occurring today.
to further debunk your painfully wrong and dishonest narrative, and to give you some interesting reading material concerning the ACTUAL science, in case you are genuinely open to information that doesn't fit into your appeaser narrative:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/26/heartlands-6-reasons-to-be-a-climate-change-skeptic-are-six-demonstrable-lies/#451d21336189https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htmhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-predictionhttps://www.campaigncc.org/scepticsfascinating insight, at least he got paid for his hackery:
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/22/trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-so-do-most-americanshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theoryThis post was edited by fender on Mar 18 2019 02:38am