pull down to refresh

It seems silly to me to reject the scientific consensus on basis of a cherry-picked sensationally phrased prediction in a newspaper article from 36 years ago not having come to pass. If you read the rest of the article, you see the desertification and droughts right there mentioned next to it.
If you read the rest of the article, you see the desertification and droughts right there mentioned next to it.
Yes, I read the part of the article where the UN's claimed there would be "dust bowl like conditions", which was falsified as well. My point remains untouched: Why didn't you mention the benefits of a warmer planet? If you can't defend the UN's falsified hypothesis, then you should at least steelman how humanity gains from a warmer climate.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 23h
Because you made that claim, so it is on you to establish evidence for that argument.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @kruw 15h
You said the UN's science is "directionally correct", how would you know if you didn't even look in the other direction? Clearly, the UN's predictions about global warming was proven false, so it's worth looking into the ACTUAL results that came from performing the scientific method.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 5h
Temperatures have been rising as predicted. Desertification has been progressing as predicted. Ocean levels have been rising as predicted. More people have been dying due to extreme heat events. Storms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, extreme weather swings, and wildfires have been increasing as predicted.
You claim that the increase in temperature is beneficial. You have not provided an argument or piece of evidence in what way that might be the case. You're making the extraordinary claim, it's on you to substantiate it.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 4h
To make this more constructive: what's your precise claim? That there are also some benefits of that the benefits outweigh the detrimental effects? If the latter, that the benefits globally outweigh the downsides or that this is the case for a specific region?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kruw 2h
I'm not making any claims, you are. The troubling part is that the claims you are making have already been proven false in real life:
Say someone came to you and said "If we raised the maximum block size of Bitcoin with a hard fork, that will give the network more utility and cause the price to increase."
This is at least a credible hypothesis. However, you don't have to rely on any future predictions when arguing against this person because this hypothetical hard fork event ALREADY HAPPENED. The outcome was already measured in real life and determined to be false.
More people have been dying due to extreme heat events. Storms, hurricanes, droughts, floods, extreme weather swings, and wildfires have been increasing as predicted.
This prediction did not match the real world outcome of humanity's expansion of carbon dioxide production:
^ Global warming cultists, like BCH/BSV cultists, will look at their chart going straight to zero and say "Yes! It's exactly like I predicted!"
Meanwhile, the real world lives on in prosperity because they chose to bet against these fanatics.