The climate scientists do not believe that the models are flawed.
I trust the experts over your assessment.
You keep asserting that yet you have no idea it even means.
Climate scientists understand that the models have no predictive ability.
Show me ONE model that has accurately predicted 15 years of warming.
The models are created to reproduce the PAST. The models can accurately spit out the data it already knew the value of but they CANNOT accurately predict the future.
You don't even know who the "experts" are. Everyone you've ever heard is either a salesman or a politician.
You literally think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years because you heard another stupid person say it. You have no idea why said it... you just believe it.. LOL!
I've read quite a bit from the climate experts.
I don't think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years, but I do believe it is a distinct possibility if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere. We should not take the risk.
You keep asserting that yet you have no idea it even means.
Climate scientists understand that the models have no predictive ability.
Show me ONE model that has accurately predicted 15 years of warming.
The models are created to reproduce the PAST. The models can accurately spit out the data it already knew the value of but they CANNOT accurately predict the future.
You don't even know who the "experts" are. Everyone you've ever heard is either a salesman or a politician.
You literally think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years because you heard another stupid person say it. You have no idea why said it... you just believe it.. LOL!
I've read quite a bit from the climate experts.
I don't think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years, but I do believe it is a distinct possibility if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere. We should not take the risk.
There is ZERO possibility...
Even the most absurd prediction doesn't predict this.
You look like a fool when you make extremist claims with zero scientific basis.
And keep in mind ALL of these models assume without evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of warming.
It was good of you to cite a reputable source for a change.
Would you believe me if I told you that I already knew pretty much everything in that article? Would you believe that I agree with the article? Probably you wouldn't, but both are true.
My "100 years" worst case scenario not only depends on faster warming from the permafrost effect, it also depends on something missing from that article entirely. That is the human reaction to the food scarcity caused by warming of 3 to 5 degrees. The more desperate people become the more likely that we would have a war to end it all.
But like your article says, 3 degrees of warming is still a catastrophic outcome. So while the end of humanity in 100 years is unlikely, 3 degrees of warming is not.
You keep asserting that yet you have no idea it even means.
Climate scientists understand that the models have no predictive ability.
Show me ONE model that has accurately predicted 15 years of warming.
The models are created to reproduce the PAST. The models can accurately spit out the data it already knew the value of but they CANNOT accurately predict the future.
You don't even know who the "experts" are. Everyone you've ever heard is either a salesman or a politician.
You literally think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years because you heard another stupid person say it. You have no idea why said it... you just believe it.. LOL!
I've read quite a bit from the climate experts.
I don't think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years, but I do believe it is a distinct possibility if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere. We should not take the risk.
If you claim to be a Bible believer, then you do realize that Global warming is NOT how the world ends. Study the Book of Revelation please.
And keep in mind ALL of these models assume without evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of warming.
It was good of you to cite a reputable source for a change.
Would you believe me if I told you that I already knew pretty much everything in that article? Would you believe that I agree with the article? Probably you wouldn't, but both are true.
My "100 years" worst case scenario not only depends on faster warming from the permafrost effect, it also depends on something missing from that article entirely. That is the human reaction to the food scarcity caused by warming of 3 to 5 degrees. The more desperate people become the more likely that we would have a war to end it all.
But like your article says, 3 degrees of warming is still a catastrophic outcome. So while the end of humanity in 100 years is unlikely, 3 degrees of warming is not.
Either way, we should not take the risk.
You are laughably unqualified to determine what is or isn't a reputable source.
And keep in mind ALL of these models assume without evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of warming.
It was good of you to cite a reputable source for a change.
Would you believe me if I told you that I already knew pretty much everything in that article? Would you believe that I agree with the article? Probably you wouldn't, but both are true.
My "100 years" worst case scenario not only depends on faster warming from the permafrost effect, it also depends on something missing from that article entirely. That is the human reaction to the food scarcity caused by warming of 3 to 5 degrees. The more desperate people become the more likely that we would have a war to end it all.
But like your article says, 3 degrees of warming is still a catastrophic outcome. So while the end of humanity in 100 years is unlikely, 3 degrees of warming is not.
Either way, we should not take the risk.
Fat Hurts - I have to commend you for answering all the questions posed to you. I rarely agree with you but hats off for giving a yeoman's effort in answering all.
I don't think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years, but I do believe it is a distinct possibility if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere. We should not take the risk.
If you claim to be a Bible believer, then you do realize that Global warming is NOT how the world ends. Study the Book of Revelation please.
This thread has gone a bit off topic with the global warming arguments. Time to steer it back.
Who was responsible to cancel the XL pipeline, decreasing oil leases, allowing illegal aliens to come pouring in, appealing the moratorium on Title 42, establishing a Ministry of Truth, leaving Americans behind in Afghanistan, soaring inflation, tanking the economy and who gave us empty shelves? It's all Build Back Broken.
It was the fraudulent mail order, dementia brained, Depends wearing Brandon.
It was good of you to cite a reputable source for a change.
Would you believe me if I told you that I already knew pretty much everything in that article? Would you believe that I agree with the article? Probably you wouldn't, but both are true.
My "100 years" worst case scenario not only depends on faster warming from the permafrost effect, it also depends on something missing from that article entirely. That is the human reaction to the food scarcity caused by warming of 3 to 5 degrees. The more desperate people become the more likely that we would have a war to end it all.
But like your article says, 3 degrees of warming is still a catastrophic outcome. So while the end of humanity in 100 years is unlikely, 3 degrees of warming is not.
Either way, we should not take the risk.
You are laughably unqualified to determine what is or isn't a reputable source.
Don't laugh at me just because I didn't get a degree from Prager U like you did.
Were you awarded a degree from Trump University? Were you that lucky?
I couldn't get in to Trump University. They rejected me because my SATs were too high.
Maybe the scores you gave them were on the 2400 scale and they were grading on the 1600 scale. I heard from an insider that your score (on the 2400 scale) just barely made it on the 1600 scale.
here's the OCE report on Rep. Ronny Jackson: " there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Jackson converted campaign funds from Texans for Ronny Jackson to personal use..."
Today's Democratic Party accomplishment without crime or insurrection or lying or tax fraud blotter:
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone FEDERAL RESERVE'S HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SHOWS 78% OF U.S. ADULTS WERE EITHER DOING OKAY OR LIVING COMFORTABLY IN Q4 2021, HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE SURVEY BEGAN IN 2013
Any teacher who does this with kindergarden kids are sickos & groomers. Parents who allow this are also sickos. The democrat pervert/groomer party approves.
Today's Democratic Party accomplishment without crime or insurrection or lying or tax fraud blotter:
*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone FEDERAL RESERVE'S HOUSEHOLD SURVEY SHOWS 78% OF U.S. ADULTS WERE EITHER DOING OKAY OR LIVING COMFORTABLY IN Q4 2021, HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE SURVEY BEGAN IN 2013
There you go again with your incessant Baghdading.
"...consumers continue to report difficult home buying conditions amid the budget-tightening constraints of inflation, higher mortgage rates, and high home price appreciation,”