NOW they tell us. Scientists say Worst-case climate change scenario is EVEN WORSE than we thought (due to hi-growth economy)

Global warming or what is now called climate change is exaggerated, so that the scientist can get more money from the government. Besides all there previous predictions have been way off. So, I take everything these climate scientist say with a grain of salt.

Blitzkrieg BLITZKRIEG wrote:

Global warming or what is now called climate change is exaggerated, so that the scientist can get more money from the government. Besides all there previous predictions have been way off. So, I take everything these climate scientist say with a grain of salt.

0/10

The founders and staff of LetsRun do not believe in global warming nonsense so this thread won’t last long

Here is the correct thought process for this thread and all similar threads....

All I'm getting from this is I need to invest as much as I can.

Blitzkrieg BLITZKRIEG wrote:

Global warming or what is now called climate change is exaggerated, so that the scientist can get more money from the government. Besides all there previous predictions have been way off. So, I take everything these climate scientist say with a grain of salt.

Yeah, scientists are so hell bent on discovering things that they want all the tax payer funding in order to go down in history as been discredited...yes people we are on to them.

Just the other day we heard that the Australian Antarctic Division scientists spent 70 days living in snow swept tents extracting a 300 metre ice core...look at the lengths these tax bludgers go to. Glamping disguised as research.

What would an ice core know about a 1,000 years of weather and volcanic events? Why would stable isotope ratios by million dollar mass spectrometers (funded by you Mr Taxpayer, you knbow its nothing but a black box) know more about weather history than your great great grandmother's bedtime story of how hot it was back in 1891.

Apparently that 'machine' can even detect your grain of salt in a 1,000 yr old slice of ice core. That's where it went they say.

We need a revolution and a Trump in Australia otherwise these sorcerers will hasten the Armageddon.

Appeal to popularity/authority is not a argument.

Global Warming Dupes are the biggest IDIOTS around.

I Am Sam wrote:

Apparently that 'machine' can even detect your grain of salt in a 1,000 yr old slice of ice core. That's where it went they say.

Damn it, my grain of salt got in the ice core again.

fartleks and bagels wrote:

An LRC CLASSIC!!!! wrote:

Here is the correct thought process for this thread and all similar threads....

Appeal to popularity/authority is not a argument.

No, but deferring to expertise is a reasonably reliable heuristic we use every day on any number of matters. Dismissing legitimate expertise out of hand is generally not one's best option.

I haven't looked at this particular paper, but one of the authors, William Nordhaus originated economic modeling of climate change cost/benefit about 25 years ago. Over that period his position has changed from that of relative skeptic (he was quite critical of the Stern Review) to increasingly and significantly concerned about climate change.

Any old timers around here remember back in the 1970's how there were all these experts saying we'd run out of oil by now.

Sometimes it's really hard to predict things.

Citizen Runner wrote:

fartleks and bagels wrote:

Appeal to popularity/authority is not a argument.

No, but deferring to expertise is a reasonably reliable heuristic we use every day on any number of matters. Dismissing legitimate expertise out of hand is generally not one's best option.

I haven't looked at this particular paper, but one of the authors, William Nordhaus originated economic modeling of climate change cost/benefit about 25 years ago. Over that period his position has changed from that of relative skeptic (he was quite critical of the Stern Review) to increasingly and significantly concerned about climate change.

4) The scientific community is made up of a lot of book-smart people that have spent a large portion of their lives invested in theories that pay more when sensationalized. Furthermore, this community has insulated themselves among liberal, elitist academia and have been conditioned to look down on the less educated. The combination of incentives, confirmation bias, disdain for the common man, and an elitist mindset is ripe for the condescending frenzy of the climate alarmist crowd.

If you think climate change is a problem, we need to 1. drastically reduce the human population and/or 2. keep the vast majority of the world in abject poverty.

Old Timey Guy wrote:

Any old timers around here remember back in the 1970's how there were all these experts saying we'd run out of oil by now.

Sometimes it's really hard to predict things.

Global Warming "scientists" have been wrong time and time and time again. They continually have to revise earlier predictions because what they predicted was WRONG. Now, they are having to revise again. Global Warming is the biggest scientific hoax of all time.

pippy shorstocking wrote:

Old Timey Guy wrote:

Any old timers around here remember back in the 1970's how there were all these experts saying we'd run out of oil by now.

Sometimes it's really hard to predict things.

Global Warming "scientists" have been wrong time and time and time again. They continually have to revise earlier predictions because what they predicted was WRONG. Now, they are having to revise again. Global Warming is the biggest scientific hoax of all time.

I was weaned in the 70s on the eco-gloom-and-doom of types like Lester Brown who predicted worldwide collapse of oil and the food supply by 2000. Of course, we were sure it would be preceded by a nuclear holocaust, so we partied anyway!

Old Timey Guy wrote:

Any old timers around here remember back in the 1970's how there were all these experts saying we'd run out of oil by now.

Sometimes it's really hard to predict things.

Peak oil has been predicted for years. We've staved it off by using technology to extract oil we knew exisited, but couldn't get. Or, it wasn't economically feasible when oil was cheap, but it is now (like tar sands, shale, etc). Then, there's slant drilling -- who could have predicted that?

If global warming (global climate change)is correct, we'll probably save ourselves with technology. How hard would it be to create giant machines to scrub co2 out of the atmosphere? Or, just pump a bunch of particulates into the upper atmosphere to dim things down a bit. Plenty of ideas out there!

Old Timey Guy wrote:

Any old timers around here remember back in the 1970's how there were all these experts saying we'd run out of oil by now.

Sometimes it's really hard to predict things.

Rockefeller intoned to Congress in the 20s that we (USA) only had 7 years of proven oil reserves left.

krispy kremlin._._._. wrote:

4) The scientific community is made up of a lot of book-smart people that have spent a large portion of their lives invested in theories that pay more when sensationalized. Furthermore, this community has insulated themselves among liberal, elitist academia and have been conditioned to look down on the less educated. The combination of incentives, confirmation bias, disdain for the common man, and an elitist mindset is ripe for the condescending frenzy of the climate alarmist crowd.

This...

The "worst case scenario" predictions are completely useless. I've seen "worst case scenario" models quoted which basically assume we will switch to 98% coal and burn more oil than is thought to exist.

Conservative people, especially right wing religious nuts, defer to scepticism to justify their existence.

They even believe in fairies just on the off chance they can have immortality, and create great chaos just to be able to continue that.

Then , everyday, they blindly go about using all sorts of modern technologies, that these conspiracy driven scientists have invented and developed for them...they can't do without it.

For them , scientists are only bad when they find out stuff that impede their greed.

Our primary results suggest a median 2010–2100 global growth rate in per-capita gross domestic product of 2.1% per year, with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.1 percentage points, indicating substantially higher uncertainty than is implied in existing forecasts. The larger range of growth rates implies a greater likelihood of extreme climate change outcomes than is currently assumed and has important implications for social insurance programs in the United States.

The Club Rome hater group must be devastated. Imagine, people making their lives better at higher GDP/year, rather than worryworting about "extreme climate change outcomes".