Quote:
"I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns," Shellenberger continued. "No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization."
Shellenberger's remarks are an apparent shot at Thunberg's claim that "we are in the beginning of a mass extinction" and Ocasio-Cortez' claim that "we have 10 years left to plan and implement a Green New Deal before cataclysmic climate disaster."
"My colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the science, interviewed the individuals who make such claims, and written a series of articles debunking them," Shellenberger continued. "In response, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited me to review its next Assessment Report, and Harper Collins will publish our research findings this June."
I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
Absolutely. Mankind has historically suffered far more from cold than from heat, but the real point is we have no control over what the climate does either way. We do have control over how we adapt and of course the question that rarely even gets asked is if there are actually advantages to a warming climate? The answer is "yes" by the way as in potentially longer growing periods for crops which could potentially better feed the world, etc. There would or at least should be greater alarm if the climate is clearly "cooling" (as by the way radical climate alarmists were predicting back in the 70's, saying we were going to freeze to death in 10, 12 0r 15 years, etc.) as to how to adapt. Again, either way, we can only adapt - we can't stop it, reverse it, control it, or make it any better or worse.Forest Bueller_bf said:
Better to be warming than cooling however. A 5C shift downward in temps actually could be very bad.
And completely failed to understand it.fadskier said:I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
I love you man, but I honestly believe there are three.GrowlTowel said:
I will accept climate change when we reject more than two genders. Until then, go **** yourselves.
No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.xiledinok said:
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.
These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.Booray said:And completely failed to understand it.fadskier said:I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.
A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
FIFYBooray said:fadskier said:I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see lightning strikes from a storm. You have two choices: call the fire department and tell them you're worried that this could possibly result in a fire (even though there's not much they can do to stop lightning), or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
In the event of an apocalypse I will first call the Baylor ticket office and see if any better season ticket seats have opened up recently. Four tickets to Sing would be nice too.ScottS said:
Oh no....climate change!!! Create a space suit. Modify your home.
Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.Johnny Bear said:No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.xiledinok said:
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.
These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
xiledinok said:Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.Johnny Bear said:No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.xiledinok said:
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.
These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
Man, you are proof that "pay to play" (post) is alive and well. You have nine lives. I am very disappointed in the Mods for not giving you a timeout for posting what you did yesterday on the football board. cinque got banned for posting something much less inflammatory many months ago.xiledinok said:Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.Johnny Bear said:No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.xiledinok said:
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.
These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
Space Force anyone.ScottS said:
All you clowns that are worried about this please move to the moon or another planet.
I think many on this thread have expressed the opinion that man has no impact on the climate. That seems patently false from everything I've read (I'm no scientist), but as stated above many see it as a "hoax" to take away their freedom and declare a leftist world govt or something, where Beyonce and Macron rule the world.fadskier said:Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.Booray said:And completely failed to understand it.fadskier said:I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.
A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.
bularry said:I think many on this thread have expressed the opinion that man has no impact on the climate. That seems patently false from everything I've read (I'm no scientist), but as stated above many see it as a "hoax" to take away their freedom and declare a leftist world govt or something, where Beyonce and Macron rule the world.fadskier said:Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.Booray said:And completely failed to understand it.fadskier said:I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.
A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.
You dinosaur. You are a oil *****. It's real but $$$$ counts.GrowlTowel said:xiledinok said:Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.Johnny Bear said:No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.xiledinok said:
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.
These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
You are a ******. Please stop posting here.
C'mon man. How many rigs are left in Seguin?RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Man, you are proof that "pay to play" (post) is alive and well. You have nine lives. I am very disappointed in the Mods for not giving you a timeout for posting what you did yesterday on the football board. cinque got banned for posting something much less inflammatory many months ago.xiledinok said:Climate change does not exist in the oil industry but does everywhere else.Johnny Bear said:No, it's actually about common sense, reality, and the realization that the whole man made climate change hoax/fraud is nothing more than an attempted scare tactic designed to terrify the masses into surrendering liberty and turning power over to the totalitarian left.xiledinok said:
You guys are dumber than Jim Inhofe.
These anti climate guys come off as the "oil *****s" Hollywood describes when they embarrass Inhofe types.
Most Americans understand it's about money when it comes to disregarding climate change. It's getting to the point Americans will pay more for other energy.
I always enjoyed Inhofe throwing around a snowball in the senate chambers. It proved the climate change theories to be more accurate with more snow. Old Inhofe has never read anything so his ignorance is his own fault.
bularry said:I think many on this thread have expressed the opinion that man has no impact on the climate. That seems patently false from everything I've read (I'm no scientist), but as stated above many see it as a "hoax" to take away their freedom and declare a leftist world govt or something, where Beyonce and Macron rule the world.fadskier said:Nope. I got the water hose and put the small fire out myself.Booray said:And completely failed to understand it.fadskier said:I did not say he was anti-Climate change. He is against the climate disaster believers. Not only did I read the article, I listened to his testimony.Booray said:
Did you even read the article?
From the man's testimony:
Does that mean we shouldn't worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures."
He was there to testify for the need to greatly ramp up nuclear power options precisely because he recognizes climate change is a problem.
He agrees with the underlying point of the huge majority of client scientists to the point of advocating for substantial and expensive action. The fact that he thinks the problem is solvable and that the tactics of some in publicizing the problem is both correct and irrelevant to what we should do next.
A man comes in yelling that the entire city is on fire, the building you are in is about to be destroyed and all is lost. You walk outside and see a small fire next door. You have two choices: call the fire department or go back inside and mock the alarmist for overstating the problem. You are choosing the second option.
You are missing the point. The more that climate disaster promoters scream, the less that people believe them. No one denies that climate is changing or that we as humans, should do what we can. It's just that most of us don't believe that we have 10-12 years until the apocalypse.