Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

lol.

The "climate change" people finally igured out that no one was buying the "global warming" shit any longer and just decided to make it even more vague by now saying "climate change." Can't argue with that!!

Of course the climate is changing. It has been ever since its coming into existence 4.5 billion years ago. we've had ice ages and mass extinctions numerous times before. even my pchem professor told me that climate change is not a science issue, it is a political issue and people will try to use "science" to back up what they say.

so the climate is changing. what's your point?

autistic poster wrote:

so the climate is changing. what's your point?

Most of it is due to human behavior that can and should be altered, otherwise we will face extremely serious worldwide consequences, is the point

It was well below zero degrees (F) at my house this morning. I'm not buying the bunk from The Hot Earth Society.

No, it's not real. He's ceding to social pressure because he's a moral coward who is unable to face the stress of opposing the dominant intellectual trend.

this fool was already massively wrong once. Why should we trust him to not be wrong again?

Also, I thought we were already at the "tipping point." If he actually is right this time, and his past conclusions were way off, then we are already way, way past the tipping point. Nothing we can do.

This global warming clowns beginning to annoy me.

There are two reasons why people join the climate change movement. One type is motivated by sheer hatred of man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. This group includes the ivory tower intellectuals who dedicate their lives to destroying the minds of colleges students. The second type is primarily concerned with social approval and is terrified of being seen as sympathetic to man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. He doesn't care about scientific truth; his goal is to appease others, and he will endorse whatever idea is the most socially advantageous. That's Nicholas Stern.

autistic poster wrote:

lol.

The "climate change" people finally igured out that no one was buying the "global warming" shit any longer and just decided to make it even more vague by now saying "climate change." Can't argue with that!!

Of course the climate is changing. It has been ever since its coming into existence 4.5 billion years ago. we've had ice ages and mass extinctions numerous times before. even my pchem professor told me that climate change is not a science issue, it is a political issue and people will try to use "science" to back up what they say.

so the climate is changing. what's your point?

It's been called climate change for years now, so saying "just decided" makes you look completely ignorant on the issue (on top of the general inanity of your post). Oh, but if your PChem professor said it, I guess the whole issue is moot. Shut 'er down, boys.

Mysterians.

The single best change that can happen would be to use cruise missiles to take out every single Indian and Chinese automobile factory. If we allow every single Indian and Chinese person who enters the middle class to drive around in a car, the world is absolutely doomed. They got around just fine with rickshaws and bicycles until very recently. I see no real reason that hundreds of millions of these people need to pollute the environment because they saw their favorite pop stars drive cars on American television programs.

If we can get Al Gore, Obamas, Bloomberg, Madonna, Elton John, Alec Baldwin, John Travolta, Lady Gaga et al. to use their private jets just a BIT less often, then maybe we can save the world.

Apple Developer wrote:

There are two reasons why people join the climate change movement. One type is motivated by sheer hatred of man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. This group includes the ivory tower intellectuals who dedicate their lives to destroying the minds of colleges students. The second type is primarily concerned with social approval and is terrified of being seen as sympathetic to man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. He doesn't care about scientific truth; his goal is to appease others, and he will endorse whatever idea is the most socially advantageous. That's Nicholas Stern.

You may be right about both of those, actually; but there aren't *just* two reasons why someone becomes convinced.

Someone--say a confirmed skeptic and default-doubter (as a longtime anarchist) of the government's "line"--might nevertheless be skeptical enough of settled opinions, *including his own*, to actually do some research...and come to the (rebuttable) conclusion that climate change has indeed been significantly accelerated and exacerbated as a result of human activity.

Someone like me, that is.

I certainly don't fit into your two categories--I'm about as far from being a Luddite as is possible--but that's the nature of reality, isn't it? Some things are other than how we might like, or expect, them to be.

I guess keeping that in mind is what I'd call the scientist's attitude.

Well maybe then they should ban global warming LOL!!!

Apple Developer wrote:

There are two reasons why people join the climate change movement. One type is motivated by sheer hatred of man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. This group includes the ivory tower intellectuals who dedicate their lives to destroying the minds of colleges students. The second type is primarily concerned with social approval and is terrified of being seen as sympathetic to man, business, technology, industrial progress, profits and rising living standards. He doesn't care about scientific truth; his goal is to appease others, and he will endorse whatever idea is the most socially advantageous. That's Nicholas Stern.

Yep. You nailed it.

Science is the biggest scam in the history of the world. They are an army of thousands funded by the libtards, brainwashing the sheeple, and dedicated to making sure that mankind remains in ignorance.

autistic poster wrote:

...even my pchem professor told me that climate change is not a science issue, it is a political issue and people will try to use "science" to back up what they say.

so the climate is changing. what's your point?

Where do you go to school, to have a pchem professor who does not understand the relationship between CO2 and EM in the range of 700 cycles/cm?

And what's your point? Perhaps you think that because other factors also affect climate, this somehow proves that carbon emissions DON'T affect climate? And you're in college? Wow.

sc42 wrote:

autistic poster wrote:

...even my pchem professor told me that climate change is not a science issue, it is a political issue and people will try to use "science" to back up what they say.

so the climate is changing. what's your point?

Where do you go to school, to have a pchem professor who does not understand the relationship between CO2 and EM in the range of 700 cycles/cm?

And what's your point? Perhaps you think that because other factors also affect climate, this somehow proves that carbon emissions DON'T affect climate? And you're in college? Wow.

Nice try libtard. You spent all those years in school becoming just another tool. Here's a hint - your professors succeeded with you.

This thread proves the IQ of runners fall well below that of other specialty groups, such as people that eat their own poop. Climate change is real, it is largely human caused, and no legitimate scientists doubt this. Luckily, the public is finally catching on, as now close to 70 of Americans believe the scientific consensus view (as opposed to ~50% 18 months ago). So basically most people are smart enough to have figured this out, except for a bunch of dimwit runners and GOP legislators from red states who have auctioned off their bunghole to big oil.

I had a rhetoric professor who said that the essence of a useful discussion was that all the parties thereto had to be able to say (sincerely), "But I could be wrong."

Discussions whose participants can't say that fall under the heading of "religious arguments"--which, obviously, need not be about religion.

Reading a thread like this makes it apparent that a lot of people have taken a "religious" stance ("My mind is made up, do not confuse me with facts.") on the question of AGW/climate change. Honestly, I don't understand why--I don't think this happens with most other science questions.

Could this subject be a proxy for something else?

Wrong.

autistic poster wrote:

lol.

The "climate change" people finally igured out that no one was buying the "global warming" shit any longer and just decided to make it even more vague by now saying "climate change." Can't argue with that!!

Of course the climate is changing. It has been ever since its coming into existence 4.5 billion years ago. we've had ice ages and mass extinctions numerous times before. even my pchem professor told me that climate change is not a science issue, it is a political issue and people will try to use "science" to back up what they say.

so the climate is changing. what's your point?

Wrong. I woke up this morning and didn't have the flu. Therefore the flu doesn't exist and people are just making it up, right?

34223 wrote:

It was well below zero degrees (F) at my house this morning. I'm not buying the bunk from The Hot Earth Society.