The entire video follows that format, citing news articles or a tweet from Greta Thumburg and then saying that's funny because that prediction (i.e.headline) had to be wrong since it snowed since then, there are glaciers in Glacier National Park, and humans are still around before closing with a return to the socalled doomsday clock.
Not exactly.
The video shows Greta's tweet that she posted in 2018 which said - "Top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." She was sharing a headline that read "Top climate scientist: Humans will go extinct if we don't fix climate change by 2023." - And there was no suggestion of it being funny - The suggestion was that Greta deleted that tweet early this year (Which was 2023 at the time of deletion)
OK, then.
We should be skeptical of climate science because a teenager badly paraphrased some supposed conclusions about climate science, in her tweet.
I thought my analogy with regard to hurricanes and data-driven predictive models made a good points. I don’t see why climate change modeling is different from hurricanes - we know what’s happening, and we can make predictions using experience and analysis, but the process doesn’t lend itself to perfection. To dismiss or downplay climate change models is to sit on the side of Mt. Saint Helens and laugh at the volcanologists who suggest relocation is the preferred option. Like Manetho pointed out, cherry picking an inaccurate predictive model instead of taking the growing body of evidence, to include better models, deadly serious is to be done at our own peril.
That's a great question - If only I would have expressed what I knew about such a complex issue in - Perhaps I should have made mention in the OP - Or maybe I should have confessed how little I knew in a few other posts in this very thread. Oh well, too late now.
Wondering - You have read the OP, yes? How about the thread, have you read that too?
If a person doesn't actually know anything about a subject, does it make much sense to talk about healthy skepticism?
How much do you need to know about this subject to read an article and have the ability to recognize that the predictions were wrong?
How much would you need to know about Helioseismology to be a bit skeptical about an article written in 2015 that said the Sun would no longer exist by the year 2022?
The video shows Greta's tweet that she posted in 2018 which said - "Top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." She was sharing a headline that read "Top climate scientist: Humans will go extinct if we don't fix climate change by 2023." - And there was no suggestion of it being funny - The suggestion was that Greta deleted that tweet early this year (Which was 2023 at the time of deletion)
OK, then.
We should be skeptical of climate science because a teenager badly paraphrased some supposed conclusions about climate science, in her tweet.
Have I got that right?
No, like most things, you do not have that right either.
It was a response to a post about the Greta tweet - I made no suggestions, anywhere in the thread, about said tweet - or Greta - Or any teenager - or bad paraphrasing.
Ok, so the first thing the presenter discusses is the “doomsday clock.” He states that it’s not based on anything really and is essentially fear mongering. The people behind the “countdown clock” are:
The idea behind the clock is that we have x-amount of time to cap global warming at 1.5c. So, right away it’s a “Carbon Clock,” not a “Doomsday Clock.”
Ceeboo. Can we at least agree, before I keep going, that your presenter was wrong on his reporting and is probably engaging in fear mongering?
This reminds me of the time you presented a video from Dennis Prager articulating some distinction between the terms liberal and progressive as if it were an olive branch. It seemed then you were shocked that folks who self identify as both rejected Prager's definitions for both as not representing liberal or progressive political views. Instead of using it to learn what folks here actually believed and what being liberal meant to us you expressed frustration that the olive branch was rejected without the self awareness needed to see the rejection came about from not being willing to listen.
The video on the OP is not a reliable source of information and misrepresents the issues to such a degree it is clearly serving a political rather than informational purpose. Yet you seem unhappy that folks are rejecting your original expectations and not engaging in the discussion you thought it should engender. I.e. - how skeptical should a person be of climate change science and predictions based on it considering per the OP it is alarmist and has gotten so much wrong to date.
I sincerely believe the only valuable discussion the OP actually presents is one about media consumption. And that would require acknowledging the video could in fact be political and misrepresenting the facts to further a position.
So again, pick an article from the video and commit to actually engaging in discussion. If your prior belief is founded on solid ground the exercise will help demonstrate this.and we will learn something. If not, it's valuable for all parties to see how it is manipulating a narrative and to what ends it is doing so.
ETA: or perhaps the reaction is what you expected as you view the rejection of it as a political response to what you seem to believe is unbiased media presentation and facts. Challenge that then with a willingness to engage in actual discussion that isn't just "Thanks for posting let's move on".
Ok, so the first thing the presenter discusses is the “doomsday clock.” He states that it’s not based on anything really and is essentially fear mongering. The people behind the “countdown clock” are:
The idea behind the clock is that we have x-amount of time to cap global warming at 1.5c. So, right away it’s a “Carbon Clock,” not a “Doomsday Clock.”
Ceeboo. Can we at least agree, before I keep going, that your presenter was wrong on his reporting and is probably engaging in fear mongering?
- Doc
I was hoping Ceeboo would take the time to articulate what he feels he knows about the clock from watching the video. In part because it's a complicated matter. The clock is a tool for awareness more than a literal countdown. We have limited ability to know when we will have reached the point the global temperature average has risen to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and won't until after we've crossed it. We may have actually already crossed that threshold. Most models expect us to cross it imminently regardless of if we enacted every single promise immediately made to curb emissions. The expectation is we can potentially achieve avoiding the 2°C threshold and might even be able to sequester CO2 to mitigate the impacts and eventually get back to 1.5°. That requires serious commitments, technological advancements, and action not talk. But as of COP28 we were not going to get there and need to act with more urgency. The clock is a reminder we don't have time to waste.
Sometimes, I go back and reread a thread that I am participating in. Often, I find it a valuable thing to do as it presents an opportunity for me to reflect, reconsider, and/or understand a point that was made that I may have missed the first time. I have done that here and wanted to go back to the following post.
Ceeboo wrote:Do you think a little skepticism is healthy and/or valid?
First of all, it might be worth reminding you that most of the "libertard" sheep-minded people who shock you with their herd mentality on this board
While I have never used the term "libertard", your suggested idea about a "herd mentality on this board", as it relates to this thread specifically, is indeed a plausible explanation in my view. As a matter of personal opinion, it's likely the case.
We all come from conservative Mormon upbringings. Many of us graduated from that conservative college in Provo. It's not like we haven't seen how the other half lives.
To provide additional weight to what I have already expressed above, I am sincerely struck by the way you (seemingly freely) type for the board - as if you are speaking for the board. I wonder if you even recognize that you do that? Perhaps you should consider posting your individual thoughts/ideas/opinions/expressions. It might go a long way to combat this idea of "herd mentality."
Ceeboo. Can we at least agree, before I keep going, that your presenter was wrong on his reporting and is probably engaging in fear mongering?
- Doc
Sure.
To go further: I am willing to completely reject the presenter all together - and the clock.
Note to all: With the number of people addressing me, I am getting a bit overwhelmed. If I don't reply to you, please don't take that personally - consider the reality that, due to time, I am forced to pick and choose.
Also: I will be signing off soon - I have some in real life things in the works this evening.
Popular discussions tend to start from startingly huge predictions of mass migration, yet the evidence points to a more nuanced reality. Most climate change- and natural disaster-related movement is internal rather than cross-border, and temporary rather than permanent. The likelihood of migration also depends on communities’ vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, which can be mitigated by adaptation measures such as building sea walls or other defenses, as well as individuals’ access to resources to move (including transportation, social networks, and legal pathways). There were 33 million natural disaster-related displacements in 2022, but the biggest displacement situations—from floods in Pakistan to droughts in East Africa—saw people move within their countries, at least at first. And by the end of the year, most disaster-displaced people went back to their homes.
Over time, a bigger issue may be migration prompted by slow, gradual climate change impacts. Hotter temperatures can threaten agricultural livelihoods, sea-level rise can make floods more severe, and desertification can foster conflict over water access, all of which can lead to migration. While rapid-onset disasters typically lead to short-term displacement, people may decide to move permanently or go farther away if events recur repeatedly or cause massive damage. The most vulnerable may end up with the fewest options to move or adapt if persistent climatic threats degrade their ability to respond. Thus, the core challenge is increasingly unpredictable mobility as climate change amplifies existing inequalities and insecurities across the globe.
