'Get rid of the babies!': Distraught woman at AOC town hall urges 'eating babies' to fight climate change

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Kerry Picket | Washington Examiner


https://i.imgur.com/20Qk6s9.jpg

QUEENS, New York — A seemingly troubled woman at a town hall hosted by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her district stood up to demand the congresswoman support drastic measures to combat climate change, such as "eating babies."

“We’re not going to be here for much longer, because of the climate crisis," the woman pleaded. "We only have a few months left. I love that you support the Green Deal, but it’s not gonna get rid of fossil fuel. It’s not going to solve the problem fast enough. A Swedish professor said we can eat dead people, but it’s not fast enough! So, I think your next campaign slogan needs to be this: We’ve got to start eating babies."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG8Dr3QVi9A

Many of Ocasio-Cortez’s constituents appeared confused by the woman’s declarations.

Removing her jacket to reveal a T-shirt with the phrase “Save the planet Eat the Children,” the woman continued, “We don’t have a enough time. There’s too much Co2."

"All of you!" she went on, turning to those around her, "You’re a pollutant! Too much Co2. We have to start now. Please — you are so great. I’m so happy that you are supporting a Green New Deal, but it’s not enough. Even if we were to bomb Russia, it’s not enough. There’s too many people, too much pollution. So, we have to get rid of the babies. That’s a big problem. Just stopping having babies just isn’t enough. We need to eat the babies. This is very serious. Please give a response.”

Staffers of the New York congresswoman approached the woman toward the end of her remarks, as attendees in the room became increasingly uncomfortable.

[Goofy]

:shakehead:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

What? :-s Eat the babies, less people on the planet, population crisis solved :hand:

[DemonGeminiX]

How about just planting a bunch of trees?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

How about just planting a bunch of trees?

To hang the babies from? :-k

[Pony]

How about just planting a bunch of trees?


To hang the babies from? :-k

That won't work, they will still decompose and release CO2. Unless you hang them low enough to feed the animals.

[RBP]

Well, she's not wrong. Drastic times call for drastic measures. If we feed the babies to the farting cows before burying them in mass graves, I say win win.

[Muddy]

:lol: AOC did handle the situation well.... But the reality is that it's her crazy rhetoric that drives the weak minded into this frenzied state..

[DemonGeminiX]

:lol: AOC did handle the situation well.... But the reality is that it's her crazy rhetoric that drives the weak minded into this frenzied state..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUmV0plDiws

[Pony]

:lol: AOC did handle the situation well.... But the reality is that it's her crazy rhetoric that drives the weak minded into this frenzied state..

I think she agreed with the lady but knew she couldn't say so.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://i.imgur.com/3dSgRmcl.jpg

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) responded to a woman who had an outburst over climate change at her town hall event on Thursday by telling people to “knock it off” and not talk about the situation and focus on other matters.

“We are not going to be here for much long because of the climate crisis,” the woman said as she appeared to have an accent. “We only have a few months left!”

Ocasio-Cortez is a climate extremist who has on a regular basis stirred people’s fears on the climate, suggesting: there are only 12 years left to act on the climate; people should not have children because of the climate; society needs to get rid of cows; Miami will be soon destroyed by climate change; and that the fight against climate change is equivalent to fighting in WWII.

The unidentified woman at Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall continued: “I love that you support the Green Deal, but it’s not getting rid of fossil fuel, it’s not going to solve the problem fast enough,” the woman continued. “A Swedish professor [said] we can eat dead people but that’s not fast enough. So I think your next campaign slogan has to be this: ‘We got to start eating babies! We don’t have enough time! Too much pollution, so we have to get rid of the babies! That’s a big problem. We need to eat the babies!”

Ocasio-Cortez responded to the meltdown in a tweet, writing: “Hey everyone! We had a fabulous town hall tonight & I’ll be highlighting some moments from it. At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis & want to ensure we treat the situation compassionately. Let’s not mock or make a spectacle. &let’s work on Medicare for All!”

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “Be a decent human being and knock it off.”
1179926199738490880
The woman’s meltdown comes a week after climate extremist Greta Thunberg had a meltdown at the United States, declaring, “This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.”

Thunberg continued, “How dare you pretend that this can be sold with just business as usual and some technical solutions with today’s emissions levels that remaining CO2 budgets will be entirely gone within less than 8 and a half years. There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today because these numbers are too uncomfortable and you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is. You are failing us but the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you and if you choose to fail us I say we will never forgive you. We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now, is where we draw the line the world is waking up and change is coming whether you like it or not.”

[Muddy]

I think this is a good response..



"Ocasio-Cortez responded to the meltdown in a tweet, writing: “Hey everyone! We had a fabulous town hall tonight & I’ll be highlighting some moments from it. At one point I was concerned there was a woman in crisis & want to ensure we treat the situation compassionately. Let’s not mock or make a spectacle. &let’s work on Medicare for All!”

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “Be a decent human being and knock it off.”

[RBP]

I'd prefer that AOC be a decent human being and knock it off also, but here we are.

[lost in melb.]

:lol: AOC did handle the situation well.... But the reality is that it's her crazy rhetoric that drives the weak minded into this frenzied state..

I can actually see a decent politician and human being in her, struggling to escape her self-imposed ideological prison. I think she just needs to do what I did - spend some quality time with Conservatives and understand they aren't all fat cats and environmental rapist. It's possible to work all this out.

[Pony]

“This person may have been suffering from a mental condition and it’s not okay that the right-wing is mocking her and potentially make her condition or crisis worse,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “Be a decent human being and knock it off.”

It's not just the right wing making fun of her.

And making her "condition" worse? What about all the left predicting we are all going to be dead in a few years? You don't think the rhetoric about global warming is causing peoples fear and paranoia? When all you ever hear are the loudest voices screaming the world is ending.... just maybe you start to believe that as fact. Greta sure believes it.

[RBP]

<div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="7204885" data-share-method="host" data-width="100%" data-aspect-ratio="1.3333333333333333"><a href="https://tenor.com/view/apocalypse-simpsons-gif-7204885">Apocalypse GIF</a> from <a href="https://tenor.com/search/thesimpsons-gifs">Thesimpsons GIFs</a></div><script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:woot:

[lost in melb.]

I don't understand why you guys are pretending that it is being said that the end is near. They saying that if we don't turn things around now we might pass a tipping point in the future, and then there will be significant problems for future generations.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Maybe because they've been saying it over and over ad nauseum, just changing the narrative, and every single doomsday prediction for almost the last 50 years have been about as accurate as the predictions about Planet X crashing into and destroying planet Earth?

:dunno:

[lost in melb.]

This seems a little different... It's not just a small organization or cult, it's all the main science and weather institutions around the world. And the initial signs are very visible, and measurable. But if you don't believe in science, then what is there to do?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Ah, there you go, I was waiting for that one. If I don't believe the sky is falling, then I must not believe in science :rolleyes:

:uhhuh:

[lost in melb.]

You can believe what you like in the end.

It's the combining of environmentalists, left-wing radicals and actual science into one entity that I object to. It's not an accurate characterisation. I would expect you to be able to separate them out and adopt a measured opinion :dunno:

[Pony]

https://i.imgur.com/OzPPZiD.jpg

[RBP]

You can believe what you like in the end.

It's the combining of environmentalists, left-wing radicals and actual science into one entity that I object to. It's not an accurate characterization. I would expect you to be able to separate them out and adopt a measured opinion :dunno:

Wait. You want us to decide who has a legitimate science opinion and who is a nutjob radical? Why is that my job? And what criteria should I use? If the consensus is so perfectly clear from ALL climate scientists, why isn't everyone working off the same page?

Why are dissenting opinions ignored as "deniers"? It's not like everyone agrees or there are hard facts. They are projections, expectations, estimates, models of a dynamic situation that could change course. So we aren't going to be extinct in 12 years then? So should be radically alter our economic system or not?

People want to tell me I can't question "projections" that to date have NEVER been accurate or I'm a lunatic? And you think my head saying "fuck you then, there's nothing to discuss" is an unreasonable reaction to that? That's not dialogue, that's ideologue.

Hell, on paper the Cubs should be in the World Series. There was one sports prognosticator sharply criticized for a preseason projection of 82 wins for a team trending at 95 per season for 4 years. Mocked as lunatic fringe. But here I sit watching the Cardinals after the Cubs won 84 games and missed the playoffs.

I object to the idea that there's nothing to discuss and that we should radically and unilaterally alter (and crush) our economic system because maybe they'll be right this time.

The whole system is corrupt. There are billions of dollars at stake and scientist who are funded not to provide objective data but to provide data that fits the narrative. And what happens if they produce counter data? They don't get funded any more. Viola! Consensus!

For the record, I'm a climate disaster agnostic. :nana:

I'm no Wikipedia fan, but this is the list of dissenting climate scientists. The list says all have published, peer reviewed work.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.[27][28][29]
Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.[34][35][36]
Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[37][38][39][40]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[41][42]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[43]
Michael J. Kelly, Prince Phillip Professor of Technology at the Department of Engineering, Cambridge University.[44][45]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[46][47]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[42][48][49][50]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57]
Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[58][59]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[60][61][62]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[63][64]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[65][66]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[67][68]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[69][70][71][72]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[73][74]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[75][76]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[77][78]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[79][80]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[81][82]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[83][84]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[86][87]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[88][89][90]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[91][92][93]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[94][95]
Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[96]
Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[97]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[98][99]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[100][101]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[42][102]
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[103]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[104][105]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[106][107]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[108][109]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[110][111]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[112][113]
Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[114][115]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[116][117]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[118][119]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[120][121]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[122][123]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[124][125]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[126][127][128]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[129][130]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[131][132]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[133][134][135][136]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[137][138]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[139][140]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[141][142]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[143][144]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[145][146]


Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[147][148]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[149][150]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[151][152]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[153][154]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[155][156][157]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[158][159]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[160][161]
Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.[162][163]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[164][165]
Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[166][167][168]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[169][170]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[171][172][173]
Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[174][175]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[176][177]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[178][179]

Deceased scientists
These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[180][181]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison.[182][183]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[184][185]
Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[186][187]
Vincent R. Gray (1922–2018), New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[188][189]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[190][191]
Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001–2007.[192][193][194]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[195][196][197]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[198][199]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[182][200][201]

[RBP]

The Lyndon LaRouche PAC, a group that supports President Trump, admitted Friday that it was behind a bizarre demonstration in which a woman told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., she should push for people to "eat" babies in order to save the planet from climate change.

"It was us," the group tweeted. "Malthusianism isn't new, Jonathan Swift knew that. Sometimes, only satire works," referring to English demographer Thomas Malthus and the Irish satirist Jonathan Swift.

The group linked to one of its press releases which claimed that the United Nations would cost millions of lives and create poverty by pursuing its plans for emissions reductions.

The incident sparked a social media firestorm with President Trump commenting that "AOC is a Wack Job." The unnamed town hall-attendee, who untruthfully identified herself as a supporter of the freshman New Yorker, told Ocasio-Cortez that the world only had "months" to act on climate change and should try to reduce the population through cannibalism.

"Turns out the woman yelling was a Trump supporter," she tweeted alongside a shrugging emoji. "Doesn’t rule out potential mental issue (Drs [doctors] do that) but good to know they were not in crisis. Earlier this year I was stalked & very nearly hurt by a disturbed person. I don’t take chances & immediately try to de-escalate."

:giggle:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Why don't you believe in science RBP? :shakehead:

[lost in melb.]

The whole system is corrupt. There are billions of dollars at stake and scientist who are funded not to provide objective data but to provide data that fits the narrative. And what happens if they produce counter data? They don't get funded any more. Viola! Consensus!

I think you're talking about models there, RBP. Models and data are two different things. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide how informed you are.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I think you're talking about models there, RBP. Models and data are two different things. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide how informed you are.You sure do like to act like you're better than anyone who dares to question the narrative. You're the one that's uninformed if you think that the Sky Is Falling Brigade doesn't have an agenda. Like RBP stated above, there's hundreds of billions of not trillions of dollars riding on this doomsday crap. And also like RBP stated, if this is conclusive scientific fact and not conjecture, then why isn't everyone on board and in the same page?

Because it's all about the money. And because at this point and time, according to previous predictions, errrrrr, "scientific facts", the polar ice should be completely gone, coastal cities should be gone and under water, and hundreds of millions of people should be dead from famine because most of the farmable land is useless and lifeless.

[DemonGeminiX]

Models and data are two different things.

Wha? :-s

Models are created from data (and biases) and those models create more data. They're inextricably tied together in the process of data modeling. The model is data in and of itself. You analyze data collected, you create a model, or models, based on your hypotheses and the data, and the models get analyzed for more data. The process of creating and running those models is data that needs to be analyzed as well.

Everything in science is data. Barring nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryY60SExFYA

[lost in melb.]

You sure do like to act like you're better than anyone who dares to question the narrative. You're the one that's uninformed if you think that the Sky Is Falling Brigade doesn't have an agenda. Like RBP stated above, there's hundreds of billions of not trillions of dollars riding on this doomsday crap. And also like RBP stated, if this is conclusive scientific fact and not conjecture, then why isn't everyone on board and in the same page?

Because it's all about the money. And because at this point and time,

You've answered your own question. That's fine and I agree.


according to previous predictions, errrrrr, "scientific facts", the polar ice should be completely gone, coastal cities should be gone and under water, and hundreds of millions of people should be dead from famine because most of the farmable land is useless and lifeless

Really? I've never heard predictions like that

[lost in melb.]

Wha? :-s

Models are created from data (and biases) and those models create more data. They're inextricably tied together in the process of data modeling. The model is data in and of itself. You analyze data collected, you create a model, or models, based on your hypotheses and the data, and the models get analyzed for more data. The process of creating and running those models is data that needs to be analyzed as well.

I'm not sure why we are disagreeing here :-s

Data is past and present. Models predict the future based on hypotheses and data. Completely correct.

With regards to Climate Change (or whatever you want to call it) there is now supportive data that fits the models that were made 15-20 years ago. I am talking about the middle of the ground models ( neither conservative or extreme).

Here's another example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/10/04/earth-just-experienced-its-hottest-september-heads-record-books/


Now, of course the whole thing could turn around, but then the question arise - why would it?



Everything in science is data. Barring nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryY60SExFYA

Maybe a bit exaggerated there. Einstein made a number of predictions that weren't verifiable for ages.

[RBP]

Really? I've never heard predictions like that

To my knowledge, absolutely nothing predicted in An Inconvenient Truth actually happened. And nothing catastrophic predicted since then has either. I don't remember the year that there was increased hurricane activity and intensity, but story after story came out about the new normal and the catastrophic storms we can expect every year to get worse. The following year was a record low.



Now, of course the whole thing could turn around, but then the question arise - why would it?

Because it always has? :-k The earth has gone through a lot of cycles.

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm not sure why we are disagreeing here :-s

Data is past and present. Models predict the future based on hypotheses and data. Completely correct.

With regards to Climate Change (or whatever you want to call it) there is now supportive data that fits the models that were made 15-20 years ago. I am talking about the middle of the ground models ( neither conservative or extreme).

Here's another example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/10/04/earth-just-experienced-its-hottest-september-heads-record-books/


Now, of course the whole thing could turn around, but then the question arise - why would it?

Maybe a bit exaggerated there. Einstein made a number of predictions that weren't verifiable for ages.

Because you said data and models are two different things. That's wrong, they're not. Now you're saying that data is past and present and models are future, but that's not right either. Everything in science is data. Past, present, and future. Everything. Models are not just future. You've got models everywhere trying to predict past occurrences based on past data, because we can't quite figure out what really happened way back when. See the Big Bang. That's not absolute certainty, it's a theoretic model based on a bunch of hypotheses and data identified, but the model could be wrong. In fact, there are a bunch of scientists that believe that it is wrong and they have other theories.

You seem to be confusing the basic components of data modeling with the differences between probability and statistical inference. It's not the same thing. Probability is past and present. Statistical inference is future supposition based on probabilistic models. We're going to infer future occurrences based on what we have observed and quantified in the past. It's not necessarily going to be right, but we have a pretty good idea that it might happen a certain percentage of the time because we have data that implies that it happened that way in the past on numerous occasions given certain conditions. If it happens the way we predicted, we update the data with the positive result, and if it doesn't then we update our data with the negative result. Then we reform the model given the new data. And we do it all over again. And again. And again. And... and that's just one type of data modeling. There are many that look nothing like that.

Just because somebody claims that there is supportive data today, does not imply that "it's correct, full stop, end of discussion". Science doesn't work that way. We've never experienced anything like this before, hell, we've never experienced it at all. We don't know exactly what the data implies. We've never noted a Climate Change result based on past occurrences. Because it hasn't happened since we've started tracking shit. Sure there was a mini Ice Age, but we don't know why it happened. We don't have the data. We weren't keeping that kind of data back then. We didn't have the tools back then that we have today. Any theory regarding Climate Change is a shot in the dark, at best. Long story short: Science is never sure of anything. Theories are constantly revised over time. We can't tell what's really going to happen, and if it does, if it's really our fault or not, and/or if there's actually anything we could do about it. The data just isn't there.

And Mother Nature is a funny thing. Kinda chaotic. That's why we really can't predict the weather. Local weather predictions all over the web was absolutely certain that it was gonna rain cats and dogs in my area today. It's bright and sunny out and has been all day. Looking at the current radar, it ain't gonna rain anytime soon. They were wrong. Happens all the time.

You wanna believe in Climate Change? Fine. That's your prerogative, Bobby Brown. You wanna be a crusader and save the world? Go start with China and India.

I like that Einstein quip. I predicted a long time ago that when I got older, that I would be rich and constantly surrounded by beautiful naked women. I'm not dead yet. I've still got time. The prediction will come true, dammit!

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Really? I've never heard predictions like that

Some of the most dire ones from almost 50 years ago:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Gore's no Arctic ice in 5–7 yrs. prediction a bust

It has been over a decade since former Vice President Al Gore predicted that in five to seven years, there would be no ice in the Arctic because of global warming, but ice still covers the polar region 10 years later.

Before a German audience on December 13, 2008, the self-proclaimed climate change expert unleashed his warning before Christmas that the North Pole would be completely devoid of ice – meaning Santa would have to change out his sleigh for a cart.

“The entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in five years,” Gore predicted a decade ago, according to the Gateway Pundit.

Five extra years … and still frozen

[Griffin]

My wife could tell how high my sperm count is by if she has to chew before swallowing.

[fricnjay]

The Lyndon LaRouche PAC, a group that supports President Trump, admitted Friday that it was behind a bizarre demonstration in which a woman told Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., she should push for people to "eat" babies in order to save the planet from climate change.

"It was us," the group tweeted. "Malthusianism isn't new, Jonathan Swift knew that. Sometimes, only satire works," referring to English demographer Thomas Malthus and the Irish satirist Jonathan Swift.

The group linked to one of its press releases which claimed that the United Nations would cost millions of lives and create poverty by pursuing its plans for emissions reductions.

The incident sparked a social media firestorm with President Trump commenting that "AOC is a Wack Job." The unnamed town hall-attendee, who untruthfully identified herself as a supporter of the freshman New Yorker, told Ocasio-Cortez that the world only had "months" to act on climate change and should try to reduce the population through cannibalism.

"Turns out the woman yelling was a Trump supporter," she tweeted alongside a shrugging emoji. "Doesn’t rule out potential mental issue (Drs [doctors] do that) but good to know they were not in crisis. Earlier this year I was stalked & very nearly hurt by a disturbed person. I don’t take chances & immediately try to de-escalate."

:giggle:

I read about this and its absolutely hilarious. Trying to show the world the ridiculousness of the Left on a national stage :rofl:

[Muddy]

My wife could tell how high my sperm count is by if she has to chew before swallowing.

I'm gonna fuckin' hurl... :lol:

[Griffin]

well it is the baby eating thread :bananadance:

[lost in melb.]

Because you said data and models are two different things. That's wrong, they're not. Now you're saying that data is past and present and models are future, but that's not right either. Everything in science is data. Past, present, and future. Everything. Models are not just future. You've got models everywhere trying to predict past occurrences based on past data, because we can't quite figure out what really happened way back when. See the Big Bang. That's not absolute certainty, it's a theoretic model based on a bunch of hypotheses and data identified, but the model could be wrong. In fact, there are a bunch of scientists that believe that it is wrong and they have other theories.

You seem to be confusing the basic components of data modeling with the differences between probability and statistical inference. It's not the same thing. Probability is past and present. Statistical inference is future supposition based on probabilistic models. We're going to infer future occurrences based on what we have observed and quantified in the past. It's not necessarily going to be right, but we have a pretty good idea that it might happen a certain percentage of the time because we have data that implies that it happened that way in the past on numerous occasions given certain conditions. If it happens the way we predicted, we update the data with the positive result, and if it doesn't then we update our data with the negative result. Then we reform the model given the new data. And we do it all over again. And again. And again. And... and that's just one type of data modeling. There are many that look nothing like that.

Just because somebody claims that there is supportive data today, does not imply that "it's correct, full stop, end of discussion". Science doesn't work that way. We've never experienced anything like this before, hell, we've never experienced it at all. We don't know exactly what the data implies. We've never noted a Climate Change result based on past occurrences. Because it hasn't happened since we've started tracking shit. Sure there was a mini Ice Age, but we don't know why it happened. We don't have the data. We weren't keeping that kind of data back then. We didn't have the tools back then that we have today. Any theory regarding Climate Change is a shot in the dark, at best. Long story short: Science is never sure of anything. Theories are constantly revised over time. We can't tell what's really going to happen, and if it does, if it's really our fault or not, and/or if there's actually anything we could do about it. The data just isn't there.

And Mother Nature is a funny thing. Kinda chaotic. That's why we really can't predict the weather. Local weather predictions all over the web was absolutely certain that it was gonna rain cats and dogs in my area today. It's bright and sunny out and has been all day. Looking at the current radar, it ain't gonna rain anytime soon. They were wrong. Happens all the time.

You wanna believe in Climate Change? Fine. That's your prerogative, Bobby Brown. You wanna be a crusader and save the world? Go start with China and India.

I like that Einstein quip. I predicted a long time ago that when I got older, that I would be rich and constantly surrounded by beautiful naked women. I'm not dead yet. I've still got time. The prediction will come true, dammit!

Well, we'll have to see. My prediction is that we will still be arguing about climate change not matter what happens :rolleyes:

[lost in melb.]

Gore's no Arctic ice in 5–7 yrs. prediction a bust

It has been over a decade since former Vice President Al Gore predicted that in five to seven years, there would be no ice in the Arctic because of global warming, but ice still covers the polar region 10 years later.

Before a German audience on December 13, 2008, the self-proclaimed climate change expert unleashed his warning before Christmas that the North Pole would be completely devoid of ice – meaning Santa would have to change out his sleigh for a cart.

“The entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in five years,” Gore predicted a decade ago, according to the Gateway Pundit.

Five extra years … and still frozen

I think he meant all the ice will be gone in summer. (There will always be winter ice)

But who gives a shit what Al Gore predicts. I don't :dunno:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Well, we'll have to see. My prediction is that we will still be arguing about climate change not matter what happens :rolleyes:

And still be living to do it :lol:

[Muddy]

To think that our infestation on this planet has no effect whatsoever is laughable. IMO

There is nothing wrong with being good stewards.