Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[Endus]

I'll reply to the rest later, since you don't really make any point there, meanwhile try to address my thesis in my reply to Elegiac right above. Talking about me does nothing, people can read my posts just as well, and see for themselves that your personal accusations are false.

If you're lying, you're lying. That's a point about your argument, not just you, so you can stop acting affronted.

1. IPCC in their work lists many climate-related events and processes, past and projected (with risks justifiably receiving more attention than positive events), in neutral language, avoiding words like "emergency", "crisis" and "catastrophe" almost completely. People who use such terms in connection to ACC are not scientists and are not affiliated with IPCC.

The first is trivial tone policing. And the second sentence is just a lie.
Just some examples of how dishonest it is;

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2003.2464
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=37&id=&page=
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapte...ge-james-evans
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...08125617707974

In short; the word is used by scientists, in reference to climate change. You seem to be trying to imply that it means the death of the planet, or something, but "catastrophe" can apply to any significant natural disaster, global or not. Hurricane Sandy's impact on New York City and the rest of the East Coast was a "catastrophe". And, yes, exacerbated by climate change.

Also, the IPCC may be monolithic, but they are a single organization, and their wording is chosen to be deliberately neutral. That's not because it's "science"; it is because their positions have to pass a great deal of political scrutiny, as UN organization whose work is reviewed by world governments before publication. You're pointing at political caution and claiming that's scientific caution, and that's simply not true. It's just tone policing. Nothing more.

2. The above is a verifiable factual statement of truth, and the only opinion word there is "justifiably", the rest are strict facts.

Errr, what? Your second sentence in #1 was a complete ass-pull and nothing but your personal, factually incorrect, opinion.

Now, my opinion is that media and doomsday cultists are harming the efforts to counteract ACC with their exaggerated claims that are inevitably shown false once in a while, reducing trust in real scientists. Sabotage or stupidity? You decide.

What you are doing here is sabotage. Also, for someone who complained about "personal attacks", using terms like "doomsday cultists" just makes it clear you're tone policing, again, and it isn't a standard you actually believe in.

Again; real scientists label AGCC a "catastrophe", or a "disaster", at least in an impending or ongoing sense. That's simple a fact, and you haven't made a single argument to demonstrate otherwise. Again, pointing to a single organization and their few reports is not, remotely, an argument about the scientific field about which they are reporting.

3. Because of the above I, as someone who understands and agrees with IPCC, suggest that people using exaggerated doomsayer language in climate discussion should be called out as science deniers (they do misrepresent what IPCC is saying after all), and either intentional fraudsters or blind cult followers. This will help in the long run.

Wait, what was it you just said at the start of this post?

So, now ad hominem attacks are considered valid arguments?

See? You won't even hold yourself to the standards you're demanding of others.

As #3 was predicated on falsehoods rooted in #1, it doesn't have any basis in fact or reason. It's nothing but personal attacks, used to discredit real scientists and activists, to try and downplay the threats of AGCC. And downplaying the seriousness of the issue is Stage 3 climate change denial; https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

[Dezerte]

This is new. So, now ad hominem attacks are considered valid arguments?

Calling someone a liar is not an ad hominem attack when accompanied with an explanation, nor would it necessarily be one even if there was no explanation. Tone policing on the other hand is a form of ad hominem. Falsely accusing someone of committing a fallacy is also fallacious.

[Draco-Onis]

Thought this was worth posting here

[blapdris]

This is new. So, now ad hominem attacks are considered valid arguments?

That's not an ad hominem attack. Saying Cynep is a cunt is an ad hominem attack.

Cynep is a cunt. Just making that clear in case any one thought I was just giving an example.

[PC2]

Thought this was worth posting here

Okay but let's step back for a moment and think critically about this. If this video were true and not hyperbolic then why won't most of the scientists in real advisory roles to government leaders say that ACC will cause macro-economic metrics to decrease overall in the coming decades? How do you explain that? If this video is true than why won't the most respected scientists put their reputation on the line by making a firm prediction of economic decline? Why do you think they are so hesitant?

[unfilteredJW]

Okay but let's step back for a moment and think critically about this. If this video were true and not hyperbolic then why won't most of the scientist in real advisory roles to government leaders say that ACC will cause macro-economics metrics to decrease overall in the coming decades? How do you explain that? If this video is true than why won't the most respected scientists put their reputation on the line by making a firm prediction of economic decline? Why do you think that is?

slash tosses the sea lion a fish

[Draco-Onis]

Okay but let's step back for a moment and think critically about this. If this video were true and not hyperbolic then why won't most of the scientist in real advisory roles to government leaders say that ACC will cause macro-economics metrics to decrease overall in the coming decades? How do you explain that? If this video is true than why won't the most respected scientists put their reputation on the line by making a firm prediction of economic decline? Why do you think that is?

Instead of vague open statements why don't link citations then we can discuss.

[PC2]

slash tosses the sea lion a fish

What does that mean? I'm not always familiar with new age lingo...

[Endus]

Okay but let's step back for a moment and think critically about this. If this video were true and not hyperbolic then why won't most of the scientist in real advisory roles to government leaders say that ACC will cause macro-economics metrics to decrease overall in the coming decades? How do you explain that? If this video is true than why won't the most respected scientist put their reputation on the line by making a firm prediction? Why do you think that is?

Because, generally speaking, climate scientists are not economists.

However, you're also just wrong, again. And demonstrating you are, still, actively refusing to inform yourself.

I've already linked the AR5 WG2 report. If you'd ever bothered to even check the table of contents, you'd have known that Chapter 10 deals with impacts to key economic sectors and services. Which would have prevented you jamming your foot in your mouth again as you did right here.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

[PC2]

Instead of vague open statements why don't link citations then we can discuss.

What do you want a citation for? It's impossible to prove that doom is NOT coming in the same way it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist and won't be the one delivering presents.

Because, generally speaking, climate scientists are not economists.

However, you're also just wrong, again. And demonstrating you are, still, actively refusing to inform yourself.

I've already linked the AR5 WG2 report. If you'd ever bothered to even check the table of contents, you'd have known that Chapter 10 deals with impacts to key economic sectors and services. Which would have prevented you jamming your foot in your mouth again as you did right here.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Yet you're only proving my point since you can't point to anything in that report where the scientists actually put their reputation on the line by making a firm economic prediction of the future. It's almost like they care about their future reputation.

[Draco-Onis]

What do you want a citation for? It's impossible to prove that doom is NOT coming in the same way it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus won't be the one delivering presents on Christmas day.

economists put papers and articles out that's kind of what they do and you can't make fun of predictions and use them as a defense at the same time make up your mind.

[Endus]

What do you want a citation for? It's impossible to prove that doom is NOT coming in the same way it's impossible to prove that Santa Claus won't be the one delivering presents on Christmas day.

Say, literally any citation that argues against the hundreds-if-not-thousands of references cited by the IPCC documents I've been citing at you.

For a start, let's say.

That's what you're contesting. And you have no basis for that position. This isn't just two baseless opinions where you can't tell which has merit and backing. There's science, and then there's your willful and baseless denial of science.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you're only proving my point since you can't point to anything in that report where the scientists actually put their reputation on the line by making a firm economic prediction of the future. It's almost like they care about their future reputation.

Why would I entertain delusional goalpost-moving?

You're engaging in bad faith, and asking dishonest and misleading "questions". Science doesn't make "firm predictions of the future". Where did you get the ridiculous idea that science was prophetic? This is a point you've consistently and repeatedly demonstrated confusion over; that you can't tell the difference between scientific forecasts and models, and psychics claiming visions of the future. And that's a "you" problem.

[PC2]

economists put papers and articles out that's kind of what they do and you can't make fun of predictions and use them as a defense at the same time make up your mind.

Okay but what I'm trying to tell you is that if you want to convince me that ACC will be bad enough to cause the economy to decline overall then you have to show me that most scientists will put their name and reputation next to a specific prediction that does not happen to be the same time they'll die of old age. If you can't do that then why should I take the prediction in that video seriously?

[Endus]

Okay but what I'm trying to tell you is that if you want to convince me that ACC will be bad enough to cause the economy to decline overall then you have to show me that most scientists will put their name and reputation next to a specific prediction that does not happen to be the same time they'll die of old age. If you can't do that then why should I take the prediction in that video seriously?

Again, Chapter 10 of the IPCC AR5 WG2 report. Linked above. Linked to you more than a couple times before, by myself, over the years.

You've clearly never made even a basic effort to look at the evidence, because you don't even know enough to know that you're just obviously wrong about this.

[Draco-Onis]

Okay but what I'm trying to tell you is that if you want to convince me that ACC will be bad enough to cause the economy to decline overall then you have to show me that most scientists will put their name and reputation next to a specific prediction that does not happen to be the same time they'll die of old age. If you can't do that then why should I take the prediction in that video seriously?

Endus has linked you the IPCC report and several other links have been provided to you but that was not the point. You made a counter argument and I asked you for citation which you continue to refuse to provide. If there are economists and scientists that prove your point link them.

There's also a report from the US government that backs up the IPCC report and those of several government. I eagerly await a link to backup your claims.

[Endus]

Endus has linked you the IPCC report and several other links have been provided to you but that was not the point. You made a counter argument and I asked you for citation which you continue to refuse to provide. If there are economists and scientists that prove your point link them.

There's also a report from the US government that backs up the IPCC report and those of several government. I eagerly await a link to backup your claims.

To be clear; I keep pulling the IPCC report because A> I'm familiar with it (moreso the AR5), and B> the AR6 WG2 isn't out till Feb 2022, and C> it's the most thorough collation of the body of evidence available; specific reports may have better-focused information on particular topics, but the ARs are the best available source for overall information on the subject of AGCC science and adaptation.

They are not, by any means, the only sources people should be using. They're just super convenient as an entry point.

[Draco-Onis]

To be clear; I keep pulling the IPCC report because A> I'm familiar with it (moreso the AR5), and B> the AR6 WG2 isn't out till Feb 2022, and C> it's the most thorough collation of the body of evidence available; specific reports may have better-focused information on particular topics, but the ARs are the best available source for overall information on the subject of AGCC science and adaptation.

They are not, by any means, the only sources people should be using. They're just super convenient as an entry point.

I am pretty sure this conversation will end up with his philosophy that science will solve everything in the future and is also bullshit at the same time.

[intenz]

Feel sorry for any midwit who still falls for this nonsense. These climate "models" have been grossly wrong for the past 20 years since they were telling the same lies when I was at uni. Back then the older generation told us it was all bullshit like acid rain, the great freeze etc, we didn't believe it. Seems like it's the job of every older generation to tell dumb kids that they're dumb and being manipulated.

[unfilteredJW]

Feel sorry for any midwit who still falls for this nonsense. These climate "models" have been grossly wrong for the past 20 years since they were telling the same lies when I was at uni. Back then the older generation told us it was all bullshit like acid rain, the great freeze etc, we didn't believe it. Seems like it's the job of every older generation to tell dumb kids that they're dumb and being manipulated.

Lots of projection here.

[Endus]

Feel sorry for any midwit who still falls for this nonsense. These climate "models" have been grossly wrong for the past 20 years since they were telling the same lies when I was at uni. Back then the older generation told us it was all bullshit like acid rain, the great freeze etc, we didn't believe it. Seems like it's the job of every older generation to tell dumb kids that they're dumb and being manipulated.

Imagine being this desperate to push obvious horseshit propaganda.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...-a-nobel-prize
https://www.nationalacademies.org/ba...ure-conditions
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lobal-warming/

And it's not just the most recent models that have been shown to be accurate;
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w
https://www.science.org/content/arti...global-warming