Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong

"First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years. What's the scientific basis for these claims? BBC's Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month."

Yup. Almost all of the Democrats running for President are parroting this line about how we "only have eight to nine years left" and then the world as we know it will end and it will be replaced by a chaotic hell on par with a nuclear apocalypse.

Yet no one can say where this talking point came from.

I'm pretty sure it's based on the 2018 IPCC report states that if emissions aren't reduced enough by 2030, then it will be functionally impossible to stop a minimum rise of 2 degrees by 2100 - and it may be even higher depending on how long it takes to wean modern civilization off fossil fuels.

That 2 degree rise is important because the effects of climate change (sea level rise, coral reef die-off, fisheries collapse, water shortages, extreme weather events, etc.) are predicted to be as much as 50% more severe than if we keep the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.

The corollary that nobody mentions is that if those things happen, they will cause famines, which will cause wars, which will cause a lot of death and destruction. That is why the Pentagon considers climate change a national security issue and incorporates it into its planning for the future.

The problem with environmentalists is that their statements often sound like on January 2, 2030, life will suddenly become a post-apocalyptic hellscape, when in fact, that dystopian future probably won't hit fully until 2075 or later. That means the majority of Boomers will be long gone and it will be the Millenials and Gen Z who have to deal with all those problems.

I know you don't have kids, but I do and I'd like to know that mine will grow up in a world not beset by extreme weather, famine, war, and death.

Oh, I get it!
It does not matter why the glow-bull-anti-climax-war-mongering claims are wrong. As long as the sheeple are convinced that CO2 emissions must be reduced, then all is good!



gate-keeping bull-shiller

I know you don't have kids, but I do and I'd like to know that mine will grow up in a world not beset by extreme weather, famine, war, and death.

don't be so pessimistic, there has never been a better time to be alive as a human. All the matrix are moving in the right direction, despite what the alarmists want you to believe there is no extreme weather, Tornado's are dropping



Hurricane frequency is not increasing



and their wind speed isn't increasing




Forest cover is increasing



and the sea level is rising at the same rate is has been in recorded history



There is no man made climate anything it is all linked the sun which ALL climate models negate (along with water vapour)



crops yields are at their highest, world poverty as a whole is at it's lowest EVER



Fires are trending downward...




and one of the longest periods in human history of 'relative' peace.

Good times!

If you want people to care about the environment you need to lift them out of poverty..Pollution and climate are NOT the same things

Really ?

Only a few countries got those benefits in the past 75 years.


The rest of the world got lots of famine, war and death.
And normal weather, which killed a few million over the years.





Did we even have any serious hurricanes this year ?

Yea, like that one that flattened the Bahamas, went right up the coast, had it's way with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, made a right and pummeled the UK?

No, never happened.

Oh right, one, that hit one set of islands.

And then how many people died after that ?

Geez, I thought glowbushit warming (TM) was supposed to give 50 hurricanes a year
killing tens of thousands by now. Not a good year for the panic driven Chicken Little tax thieves.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Data is king. Despite some cherry picking above, the prediction was hurricanes will become more intense, and more damaging. And they are.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ey ... n-of-2019/









https://www.climate.gov/news-features/b ... rs-context

They are becoming more intense, with greater rainfall.

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/w ... ons-111819

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/ ... angladesh/

And in a new development, they are forming farther north than ever before.

https://www.livescience.com/45601-hurri ... poles.html

But you choose to believe:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09 ... naccurate/

just because the cost of some event(s) increase does not mean their severity is increasing. There are more people living in more developments than ever before so any weather related damage is going to cost more.

That does not mean they are more intense nor the numbers increasing. The actual number of server weather events in flat or decreasing..

No, it's not. Unfortunately, the NOAA is doing maintenance, or I'd show you the exact opposite of your claims.



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-infor ... eme-events

lucky for you let me help



direct quote from the 2016 IPCC report "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and /or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy"

from your own source "In the past 30 years, the total number of storms has remained about the same in the tropics, said lead study author Jim Kossin, a climate scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center"

you really are starting to make yourself look foolish..



Goes on to say more about other events like flooding and droughts

"there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes"

from the IPCC reports SR15