The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, herbie said:

Then what's the damn problem? If the EFFECT is going to screw us up, you do something about it rather than sit with your thumb up your ass.

If 'the asteroid' is coming, you must also think DART was a stupid waste of money too.

 

WTF??

What are babbling about??

Are you accusing me of something? What would that be?

You have no idea of what I am doing.

Get off your pedestal jerk, this is a discussion!!

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

No offense, but are you qualified in some way that makes your hesitation seem reasonable? .....

So what's your hesitation? .....

 

 

 

 

 

No offence ?  I ask questions and am allowed to.  Qualified to what? To ask questions? To have doubt of some things being espoused? You need qualifications to question?? Since when?

Because my questions or doubt about cause do not fit your narrative does not make me wrong or a doubter.

Hesitation of what? To swallow every drop of koolaid that comes along?

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I mean the Al Gore and others doing the same industry.

Inability to do as promised and signed up to do is failing.

Al Gore and the envangilistic climate change preacher industry.

We, Canada , are the ones failing. We signed up and fail to meet our set targets.

[ironstone]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't matter what doomsayers say, it matters what scientists say.  There was no accepted prediction of a coming ice age in the 70s... that's a falsehood and it cancels your arguments.

There have been lots of predictions in the past.

Climate predictions gone badly astray - Climate Discussion Nexus

Speaking of predictions - Climate Discussion Nexus

And again - Climate Discussion Nexus

As to your assertion that nobody was talking about a coming ice age in the 1970s:

The '70s Cooling Scare Was Real - Climate Discussion Nexus

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

No offence ?  I ask questions and am allowed to.  Qualified to what? To ask questions? To have doubt of some things being espoused? You need qualifications to question?? Since when?

Because my questions or doubt about cause do not fit your narrative does not make me wrong or a doubter.

Hesitation of what? To swallow every drop of koolaid that comes along?

 

Asking questions is great and healthy. Not listening to the answers that are provided is less so. If you don't have any ability to conduct climate science yourself (applies to any specialty), then you turn to the experts for answers, right? And when every climate scientist is telling you that yes, mankind is driving climate change, that's your answer. 

It's not "drinking koolaid" to listen to experts who are doing the work that you can't or don't do yourself. It's just basic, rational behavior. 

If you don't have any qualification or capability as a cardiologist, but 100 of 100 cardiologists tell you fried foods are killing you, and you say "Hm, I'm not convinced," what is that?

Or flip it around. I'm assuming you are an expert in something. If a layperson came and asked you and 99 of your peers about some basic fact of your expertise, and you all gave the same answer, but. instead of taking in the information and adjusting their worldview the layperson said "Nah, I don't think you guys know what you're talking about." You'd think that person was an idiot, no? 

Healthy skepticism is great, but at a certain point, in the face of overwhelming evidence and expert consensus, it's not skepticism, but contrarianism or something similarly counterproductive. It's not driven by reason or rationality. I mean that literally. It is not clearly is entangled with love or money or political identity or some other baser alignment that is suppressing reason. I don't know what your particular entanglement is, but it's simply no longer rational to dismiss what is virtually unanimous acknowledgement in the climate science community.

[Rebound]

42 minutes ago, ironstone said:

There have been lots of predictions in the past.

Climate predictions gone badly astray - Climate Discussion Nexus

Speaking of predictions - Climate Discussion Nexus

And again - Climate Discussion Nexus

As to your assertion that nobody was talking about a coming ice age in the 1970s:

The '70s Cooling Scare Was Real - Climate Discussion Nexus

 

I love how Republicans seek out bullshit nonsense PAC-funded website full of lies instead of seeking actual facts.  That website you’re citing is run by a man with a PhD in History. WTF does he know about climate science? Absolutely nothing.  There is nothing scientific about that website; its purpose is to publish anti climate change lies. 
 

Why are you allergic to plain facts and the truth?  If you give a damn about anything, then go to noaa.gov. They publish the actual data on climate and on hurricanes and the reach of the polar ice caps and all that.  Actual data, not some oil industry, Koch brothers funded nonsense. 
 

Examples:

“Over the past 15 years (2005-2019), there have been 156 separate billion-dollar weather or climate disasters in the U.S that have cost a combined $1.16 trillion in damages.”

 

https://www.noaa.gov/news/us-sweltered-through-third-hottest-summer-on-record
 

https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/understanding-climate-normals

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/51c41fd3f78c4939a28b016e0ddb5109
 

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

47 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I love how Republicans seek out bullshit nonsense PAC-funded website full of lies instead of seeking actual facts. 

Then they say scientists are corrupt because their careers are helped when they make significant discoveries in the realm of climate change.

Think about the career of the scientist who would discover that CO2 is NOT to blame... we're talking superstar status... if they ever did it

[DogOnPorch]

I'm not sure how this is all supposed to work-out while we continue to add billions of people to the population. I'm sure folks have all sorts of cool ideas.

?

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I love how Republicans seek out bullshit nonsense PAC-funded website full of lies instead of seeking actual facts.  That website you’re citing is run by a man with a PhD in History. WTF does he know about climate science? Absolutely nothing.  There is nothing scientific about that website; its purpose is to publish anti climate change lies. 
 

Why are you allergic to plain facts and the truth?  If you give a damn about anything, then go to noaa.gov. They publish the actual data on climate and on hurricanes and the reach of the polar ice caps and all that.  Actual data, not some oil industry, Koch brothers funded nonsense. 
 

Examples:

“Over the past 15 years (2005-2019), there have been 156 separate billion-dollar weather or climate disasters in the U.S that have cost a combined $1.16 trillion in damages.”

 

https://www.noaa.gov/news/us-sweltered-through-third-hottest-summer-on-record
 

https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/understanding-climate-normals

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/51c41fd3f78c4939a28b016e0ddb5109
 

 

I'm a Canadian citizen and not a member of the Republican party.

You point out that John Robson has a degree in history and that's correct. But there are tons of prominent people out there that are not climate scientists that are lecturing and fearmongering. Many celebrities and politicians and Youtube influencers alike. Most of these people have lifestyles that run 100% counter to what they are telling us, and you buy into it. They cannot be concerned about climate change otherwise they would actually be changing their lifestyles.

The “science" makes a lot of different claims based on a lot of different lines of evidence. You can't "believe" all of it because it's full of inconsistencies. Do you believe the scientific data that shows less warming than predicted by climate models? Or the science that shows hurricanes aren't more frequent or more severe? I certainly don't believe alarmist interpretations of the science that cherry-pick computer simulations and try to frighten us with implausible worst-case scenarios. A better question is whether you mainly believe the models or the data, because in a lot of key areas they disagree with each other.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

quote

The False Prophets of Climate Change

JANE CLARK SCHARL

The unjustified moral panic over the Amazon fires is not unique. The last five decades are full of climate doomsday predictions that have been proven false. Some—like the 1970 proclamation that, by 2000, the world would be gripped in a new Ice Age—are exactly the opposite of current climate panics.

Of course, this information should not be used to say that we have no responsibility for the environment. Modern industry has introduced new environmental challenges that, as stewards of Creation, we have a responsibility to address, such as the horrifying levels of pollution in the Ganges River in India and the mountains of garbage in cities like Manila. But the last fifty years have shown with certainty that simply because climate change activists say that the end of the world is coming does not mean they are right. The facts show that the environment is much more resilient than we give it credit for being, and that worldwide climate systems tend to fluctuate around an average sustainable temperature.

For climate change activists, these facts simply don’t matter. What matters is that they see an impending climate disaster—a disaster which they believe justifies distorting the truth. This is exactly the same kind of prevarication Catholics must watch out for. Because many leaders in the Church—including the Holy Father—have come to believe that there is an impending climate disaster, we shouldn’t be surprised if we see doctrinal distortions as a result.

ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW

Consider, for example, the looming moral disaster of the Amazon synod. In the wake of Laudato Si and other doomsday declarations by Pope Francis, the synod appears poised to adopt such a laudatory tone towards the environment that it threatens to veer into neo-paganism, denigrate the special role of humanity in creation, and subvert the Church’s primary function of bringing souls to salvation.

The working document of the Amazon Synod implies that moral superiority is equivalent with living in harmony with the environment. For example, the document elevates the indigenous people of Guaviare as moral arbiters because of their closeness to the environment. Unfortunately, these peoples include tribes that participate in shamanism, which is often a form of demon worship. The document says nothing about entering into an evangelical conversation with these tribes. It may have (for instance) simultaneously encouraged them to worship Jesus Christ while inviting the rest of us to learn from their love of nature. Instead, it merely scolds Western Christian cultures while unequivocally lauding neo-pagan cultures.

A Catholic exorcist once related to me a conversation he had with a demon during an exorcism, in which the demon told him that the Satanic forces will use anything—even inherently good things like work, human love, and family—to distract a soul from God. “Anything but God,” the demon said. That has sobering implications for the contemporary conversation about the environment within the Catholic Church.

Today, that conversation is so dominated by fear that it is indeed distracting us from God. By insisting on an impending environmental collapse without acknowledging that the climate regularly fluctuates, Catholic environmentalists have cut themselves off from reasonable conversations about what proper stewardship of the environment looks like.  unquote

For rest of article:

The False Prophets of Climate Change (crisismagazine.com)

quote

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.

None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.

What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.

More than merely spotlighting the failed predictions, this collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science.

While such predictions have been and continue to be enthusiastically reported by a media eager for sensational headlines, the failures are typically not revisited.

1967: ‘Dire famine by 1975.’   unquote

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

 

That you post ^this screed, which contains so many fallacies with a straight face, just destroys YOUR credibility.

Maybe you should try listening to actual climate scientists who UNDERSTAND the fundamentals of GHG induced climate change and MAYBE you will not look so foolish.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't matter what doomsayers say, it matters what scientists say.  There was no accepted prediction of a coming ice age in the 70s... that's a falsehood and it cancels your arguments.

I hate to burst your bubble, but these were not considered "doomsayers". These were scientists who made these false predictions.  If it "matters what scientists say" as you say, why don't you consider what many sicentists have said in the past that turned out to be false?

quote

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

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

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.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

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.”

9. 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.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

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.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” 18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around the Time of First Earth Day in 1970, Expect More This Year | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

quote

    

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has published a new paper, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions.” Keep in mind that many of the grossly wrong environmentalist predictions were made by respected scientists and government officials. My question for you is: If you were around at the time, how many government restrictions and taxes would you have urged to avoid the predicted calamity?

As reported in The New York Times [August 1969] Stanford University biologist Dr. Paul Erhlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.” 

In 2000, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” 

In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.

In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness: “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, and Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, 30 years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus, cites 18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970. This time it’s not about weather. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver would be gone before 1990. Kenneth Watt said, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil.” 

There were grossly wild predictions well before the first Earth Day, too. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior predicted that American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous energy claims, in 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2017, there were about 2,459 trillion cubic feet of dry natural gas in the United States. That’s enough to last us for nearly a century. The United States is the largest producer of natural gas worldwide. 

Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free.   unquote

Walter E. Williams: False environmental predictions | Opinion | westnewsmagazine.com

 

 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

There have been lots of predictions in the past.

Climate predictions gone badly astray - Climate Discussion Nexus

Speaking of predictions - Climate Discussion Nexus

And again - Climate Discussion Nexus

As to your assertion that nobody was talking about a coming ice age in the 1970s:

The '70s Cooling Scare Was Real - Climate Discussion Nexus

 

Here is a legitimate quote from your last cite:

Quote

“In the next 50 years, the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees…which, if sustained for 5 to 10 years, could “be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

Do you UNDERSTAND WHY that DIDN'T happen?

㊙️ MAN dealt with that problem and CUT the particulate pollution DRAMATICALLY.

NOW we have to FIX the CO2 pollution.

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That you post ^this screed, which contains so many fallacies with a straight face, just destroys YOUR credibility.

Maybe you should try listening to actual climate scientists who UNDERSTAND the fundamentals of GHG induced climate change and MAYBE you will not look so foolish.

Ok Chicken Little, the sky is falling too!

 

[blackbird]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That you post ^this screed, which contains so many fallacies with a straight face, just destroys YOUR credibility.

Maybe you should try listening to actual climate scientists who UNDERSTAND the fundamentals of GHG induced climate change and MAYBE you will not look so foolish.

The U.S. Pentagon and the U.S. Department of Energy report were among those who made wild predictions that turned out to be false.  Do you not think they get their information from scientists?

Edited September 29, 2022 by blackbird

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Ok Chicken Little, the sky is falling too!

 

Your hyperbolic mocking ONLY further destroys your credibility.

"The world" will never "end" from climate change and no scientist says it will.

It COULD easily become uninhabitable for the MAJORITY of the population as water dries up and crops fail on a massive scale.

Do you understand what will happen if the ocean current conveyor belt shuts down?

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

NOW we have to FIX the CO2 pollution.

Yes...we need more, my carrots and onions will be much larger and I should be able to retire my greeny house.

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your hyperbolic mocking ONLY further destroys your credibility.

"The world" will never "end" from climate change and no scientist says it will.

It COULD easily become uninhabitable for the MAJORITY of the population as water dries up and crops fail on a massive scale.

Do you understand what will happen if the ocean current conveyor belt shuts down?

We are wasting time on this topic.  There is no credibility in the climate change alarmism or fake blaming of man.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The U.S. Pentagon 

Trump's defense chief cites climate change as national security challenge

 

Quote

 

Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real, and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon's assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves.

In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the U.S. military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if.

"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today," Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. "It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning."

Mattis has long espoused the position that the armed forces, for a host of reasons, need to cut dependence on fossil fuels and explore renewable energy where it makes sense. He had also, as commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2010, signed off on the Joint Operating Environment, which lists climate change as one of the security threats the military expected to confront over the next 25 years.

But Mattis' written statements to the Senate committee are the first direct signal of his determination to recognize climate change as a member of the Trump administration charged with leading the country's armed forces.

 

 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Legato said:

Yes...we need more, my carrots and onions will be much larger and I should be able to retire my greeny house.

Sure. It doesn't matter if millions starve as long as you're fat dumb and happy, right?

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We are wasting time on this topic.  There is no credibility in the climate change alarmism or fake blaming of man.

Until you understand the fundamentals of the climate science, your comments have only the credibility of IGNORANCE.

[Rebound]

11 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Al Gore Commemorates Earth Day By Using Private Jet To Write 'Save The Planet' In The Sky

Babylon Bee. Always funny because it sounds so true.

Except that it’s a lie. 
Cause that’s the conservative way:  Corrupt, money-grubbing people who can defend their outrageous evil positions by concocting and spreading lies. 
The facts are never on the side of conservatives.  But fear-mongers, conspiracy theorists, dictators, and mega-religious leaders all flock to conservatism, cause it’s a philosophy of lying. 

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

We are wasting time on this topic.  There is no credibility in the climate change alarmism or fake blaming of man.

That’s only true because you can’t read. 
 

If you could read, you’d know that the topic is that climate change is irrelevant to the need of the US to invest in alternate energy technologies in order to remain globally competitive. 

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I'm not sure how this is all supposed to work-out while we continue to add billions of people to the population. I'm sure folks have all sorts of cool ideas.

?

Well, you are against immigration I'm guessing.  That would help... zero growth and that...

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The U.S. Pentagon and the U.S. Department of Energy report were among those who made wild predictions that turned out to be false.  Do you not think they get their information from scientists?

Maybe you can cite these and we can look.

There are also wild predictions on the other side of things that don't get mentioned - like the Arctic should still have ice in 100 years.

[ironstone]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Your hyperbolic mocking ONLY further destroys your credibility.

"The world" will never "end" from climate change and no scientist says it will.

It COULD easily become uninhabitable for the MAJORITY of the population as water dries up and crops fail on a massive scale.

Do you understand what will happen if the ocean current conveyor belt shuts down?

So, was this person wrong? This is AOC! She is a full-time social media influencer which makes her a celebrity. She is also a member of congress but that's really just part time gig for her. She could be considered the face of the modern Democratic party and could very well be a future presidential candidate. She is not a climate scientist to the best of my knowledge but of course she has a right to express her opinion.

Is she stating fact? Fearmongering? She was very specific in her claim.