First the robots take all the jobs from the minimum wage earners, who then have to suffer out in the scorching heat and bitter cold from too much heat trapping carbon pollution, then the robots rise up and wipe us all out.
Pandemics, killer robots and climate change ‘urgent’ security fears
Killer robots, cyber attacks, Islamic fundamentalism, pandemics and climate change are among the major threats facing modern life.
Those are some of the conclusions in an 80-page report published ahead of the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering of top military thinkers, academics and politicians.
“The conflicts and crises that most preoccupy the world transcend and put into question borders and boundaries to a stunning extent,†write the report’s authors.
Prolonged droughts or fierce storms linked to a warming world are likely to exacerbate instability across Africa, the Middle East and in small island states, they argue.
And then the robots kill everyone. Unless the “extreme weather” makes them all rust. Or they get stuck in the rising seas. Or maybe the totally acidified oceans melt the robots.
I do love how they say things are going to be worse in areas of the world that are typically shitholes because of Hotcoldwetdry. This is the MO of Warmists: everything is either caused by or linked to anthropogenic climate change. I’d recommend reading this article on Sir Karl Popper and the line between science and pseudoscience. I’ll leave you with this one snippet
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory.
OK, one more, regarding whether something is scientific or not
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
I wonder what he would think of ‘climate change’?
I personally am willing to predict that if THE PAUSE continues then the GOP will win the White House
35 years ago the hated (by the tighty righties) James Hansen published a paper based on a fairly crude computer model predicting the increase in mean global surface temperature resulting from different levels of continued CO2 emissions (Science, vol. 213, pp. 957-966, 1981). His predictions are still spot on through 35 years.
You make the flawed assumption that the Theory of AGW is not falsifiable. What you mean is the theory has not been falsified.
I suspect you didn’t read the actual report
https://www.securityconference.de/en/activities/munich-security-report/
but “killer robots” was a tiny proportion of the report (p 46). The author of the overview was looking to capture “linkers” with his headline, and succeeded.
Anyway, the Earth is warming because of the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. The 80 page report describes some of what this is causing.
Anyway, the earth is not warming because of the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. And James Hansen also predicted that a major highway near New York City would be under water by now. But of course it’s not. Surprise. John- “I am personally willing to predict…” Well, at least your predictions will probably be better than the climate astrologers, though that’s not saying much
No need to lie. Or to change the subject.
The interview with an author (Bob Reiss – The Coming Storm, 2001) was in 1988 and regarded 40 years from then (2028) and a doubling of CO2 to 560ppm. So, not “by now”, but by 2028.
What is true is that in 1981 Hansen correctly predicted the increasing temperature resulting from increasing CO2, which is the central Theory of AGW. He didn’t do it in a blog or an interview, he did it in a peer reviewed scientific journal article published in a prestigious journal, Science. Although it’s obvious now, it wasn’t as obvious in 1981 the Earth was warming from added CO2.
As his crude models predicted, the Earth has warmed about 0.4C in the 35 years since his prediction. And is still warming!
This doesn’t “prove” the Theory of AGW, but supports it.
Karl Popper describes scientific theories thus. We do not know if the Sun will “rise” tomorrow morning, yet the fact that the Sun has “risen” every morning so far suggests one consider the theory “true” until it is falsified by the Sun not rising.
We can’t prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but that’s the way to bet.
In Denierville, there’s no “proof” that the stopping of the Earth’s rotation would be harmful, only speculation of imaginary bad stuff that might happen in the future!
Similarly, we can never “prove” that the Earth will continue to warm with increasing CO2, but that’s certainly where most people and institutions are placing their bets.
William asks: I wonder what he (Popper) would think of ‘climate change’?
William asks:
Probably that the preponderance of the evidence supports the theory that CO2 added to atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm.
Why wouldn’t he? The evidence to date is clear.
Deniers: It is easy to falsify the Theory of AGW!
All you need to do is:
Conduct experiments to demonstrate that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation.
Or – Perform measurements showing that CO2 is not increasing or that the increase isn’t from the burning of coal, oil and gas. Or that the oceans’ pH isn’t decreasing.
Or – Demonstrate that the thermometer records are false; that the Arctic ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers aren’t melting; that sea levels aren’t increasing.
These are all “OR” propositions! One broken link and the chain is broken!
William:
Your commenter forgot to attribute this false quote, which would be considered plagiarism in the normal world, but not on conservablogs:
from the Tea Party Command Center LOL
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/why-human-caused-global-warming-isn-t-so
This particular commenter has repeatedly typed this falsehood as if it was his/her own.
Wrong again, little guy, but then again you’re wrong about a lot of things you don’t understand. I never claimed the quote was mine, YOU did.
And even your link to the original quote is wrong.
Keep lying, little guy, you’re good at it.
No direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.
If this statement is incorrect provide your proof.
Here’s the quote from my citation (obviously this article circulated on many far-right blogs):
Here’s what you claimed as your own:
These two pieces seem close enough in content that a reasonable person could assume they’re derived from the same source.
Are you claiming that the bolding added to your typings make it original??
Anyway, Mr. van Biezen, who doesn’t seem to understand the scientific process and better than you, would probably appreciate receiving credit for his own creations.
And that’s all I have to say about that. – Forrest Gump
Where’s the direct scientific proof or data that links the current observations to humankind?
You can’t provide it can you?
Keep deflecting, little guy…
Stupid is as stupid does and lying liars are gonna lie.