How dare you question climate change propaganda!!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I've not changed my position at all.

It's not difficult understand.

Here's an example.

If an eminent professor goes on TV and says "by 2050 I predict the moon will be entirely made of cheese" the media will report "scientists predict moon will be made of cheese by 2050"

When you ask what research that's based on and the answer is... nothing...

Well then scientists didn't actually predict it.

This is what she, and DDM, are doing.

The video I posted addresses that very thing.

Originally posted by Silent Master
A scientist lying about their evidence doesn't change the fact they made a prediction. it just means the prediction was based on a lie.

When a scientist makes a prediction that isn't based on scientific research and peer reviewed publications it isn't a scientific prediction.

And that's part of the point.

Her entire video suggests she's addressing actual scientific predictions. In reality she's addressing media and political misrepresentation or predictions based on nothing at all.

Again, the video I posted addresses both these things and shows how it is SOP for climate deniers.

They make bold claims about the scientific predictions being wrong and yet when you dig into the actual predictions they have very little in common with the claims those deniers are addressing.

So she's right to say that AOC's prediction of the world ending because of climate change in 12 years is idiotic nonsense. She's wrong to try and conflate those predictions with actual scientific predictions.

Here's another, more specific, example of the difference between what media and alarmists claim compared to what scientists conducting the relevant research actually predict.

YouTube video

AOC's claim didn't come from nowhere. Didn't some dipshit committee give that brain dead cow the idea?

Originally posted by Surtur
AOC's claim didn't come from nowhere. Didn't some dipshit committee give that brain dead cow the idea?

It was supposedly based on the 2018 IPCC report that says by 2030 at current levels of CO2 increases the limiting to under a 1.5°c rise will no longer be possible. They make numerous predictions of what 1.5°c of warming will do. None of them are remotely close to global armageddon.

I just wonder if in 50 years we are all here and there is no catastrophe will these f*ckheads stop?

Probably not, since we've already had decades of failed predictions.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
When a scientist makes a prediction that isn't based on scientific research and peer reviewed publications it isn't a scientific prediction.

And that's part of the point.

Her entire video suggests she's addressing actual scientific predictions. In reality she's addressing media and political misrepresentation or predictions based on nothing at all.

Again, the video I posted addresses both these things and shows how it is SOP for climate deniers.

They make bold claims about the scientific predictions being wrong and yet when you dig into the actual predictions they have very little in common with the claims those deniers are addressing.

So she's right to say that AOC's prediction of the world ending because of climate change in 12 years is idiotic nonsense. She's wrong to try and conflate those predictions with actual scientific predictions.

Here's another, more specific, example of the difference between what media and alarmists claim compared to what scientists conducting the relevant research actually predict.

YouTube video

Which failed predictions are they?

Dude I posted a pic previously and a link. You can spout your shit about scientists and professors and all, but Manhattan ain't underwater.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm gonna take medication meant to help with sea sickness cuz there is gonna be spinning:

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
When a scientist makes a prediction that isn't based on scientific research and peer reviewed publications it isn't a scientific prediction.

And that's part of the point.

Her entire video suggests she's addressing actual scientific predictions. In reality she's addressing media and political misrepresentation or predictions based on nothing at all.

Again, the video I posted addresses both these things and shows how it is SOP for climate deniers.

They make bold claims about the scientific predictions being wrong and yet when you dig into the actual predictions they have very little in common with the claims those deniers are addressing.

So she's right to say that AOC's prediction of the world ending because of climate change in 12 years is idiotic nonsense. She's wrong to try and conflate those predictions with actual scientific predictions.

Here's another, more specific, example of the difference between what media and alarmists claim compared to what scientists conducting the relevant research actually predict.

YouTube video

It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction that was based on a lie.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction that was based on a lie.

So you're comparing climate alarmists to crazy folk who believe in prophecies?

...kinda accurate?

Hey ball park me, how many of these prophecies are we to take seriously?

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Like a prophecy...

You realize that the definition of prophecy is literally "a prediction". so calling it a prophecy in no way gets jaden off the hook for being wrong.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's still a prediction, it's just a prediction that was based on a lie.

Yes. "Scientists predicted" covers a multitude of scenarios.

Someone should do correlation analysis on those predictions. The ones based on scientific research and the ones based on nothing but opinion. Which ones turned out to be right and which ones turned out to be wrong. Then compare those to which ones the deniers hold up as evidence that scientist's predictions were wrong.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You realize that the definition of prophecy is literally "a prediction". so calling it a prophecy in no way gets jaden off the hook for being wrong.

You've still to explain why I'm wrong

Maybe scientists should stick to facts and not feelings.

And maybe if a scientist is relying on fee fee's the media outlet publishing it could note it?

When NYC was predicted to be underwater the opening paragraph should have stated it's not based on actual facts. Do you feel it did?

Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe scientists should stick to facts and not feelings.

And maybe if a scientist is relying on fee fee's the media outlet publishing it could note it?

When NYC was predicted to be underwater the opening paragraph should have stated it's not based on actual facts. Do you feel it did?

Cite the scientific paper that made that prediction.

I posted a link about the NYC thing but I did not say there is a scientific paper. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

Let me break this down: it's not good enough if there isn't some paper on it. The fact any "scientist" made the claims is bad enough. If it's one of those things with a scientist without proof this should be made known in the opening paragraph.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You've still to explain why I'm wrong

Yes, I have. pretending otherwise just makes you look worse.

Originally posted by Surtur
FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

Giggle.