What’s terrifying is the hysteria, doom-saying, hyperbole, and how easily Progressives buy into this idiocy
The U.N.’s latest report on climate change is terrifying
Yep, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are through the roof, and that climate change is already happening in a big, bad way, and that it’s only getting worse. But did you see the news stories about the latest draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? They are positively horrifying! We are royally f#!@%$#cked, everybody. The key word that the report uses to describe our plight: irreversible.
From The New York Times:
The world may already be nearing a temperature at which the loss of the vast ice sheet covering Greenland would become inevitable, the report said. The actual melting would then take centuries, but it would be unstoppable and could result in a sea level rise of 23 feet, with additional increases from other sources like melting Antarctic ice, potentially flooding the world’s major cities.
The IPCC — a team of scientists and other experts appointed by the United Nations to periodically review the latest research on climate science — has been rolling out its fifth assessment report in four installments, and this draft is the latest.
While it restates many things included in earlier reports, this time it uses stronger words in hopes that you and I and everyone else will actually freak out the way we should given the circumstances. Grueling heat waves, droughts, floods, and all kinds of extreme weather are likely to continue and intensify. And the IPCC is trying to get the world to do something about it.
Using blunter, more forceful language than the reports that underpin it, the new draft highlights the urgency of the risks likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.
Strangely, the same people at the UN, and Warmists themselves, refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels. It’s almost like this is some sort of political movement, rather than anything scientific. Now they are going to attempt to use even more scary crystal ball prognostications, like a 23 foot sea rise (snicker), to gin up more funding and laws to implement Control by Government.
‘They drive cars, therefore they’re lying’, argument. Powerful stuff.
“They drive cars, therefore they’re lying argument..” No, they drive cars, therefore they’re hypocrites. “It could result in a rise of 23 feet..” “Could”? Or, it couldn’t. What idiots. And they continue to push the extreme weather bed-wetting scenario, without any evidence.
Whether they are hypocrites or not doesn’t change the fact of global warming, but it is a way to smear those with whom you disagree.
It’s what people losing a debate do.
It’s like saying all conservatives are hypocrites because they oppose government spending yet receive billions in taxpayer subsidies. Since all conservatives are hypocrites does that invalidate the arguments against spending?
Monday morning links
"Working" in Italy Then and Now Photos That Compare New York City’s East Village in 1984 to the Present Day First Roman wood toilet seat found at Vindolanda A Zoo Story – Bright animals need more than a concrete billet. "Organic…
Jeffery: Does that make me a hypocrite because I get Social Security? How about if I drive a car on roads that were built bu government? Not to mention a mortgage guaranteed by the government. et al ad inifinitum. You should re-read your post and determine which of us is the hypocrite.
The problem with the warmist cause is that they do not silence critics with science, but with bluster. The climate models that they claim predict future climate are not validated against data, but with each other– if a model agrees with the other models, it is considered valid, even though none of the models predicted the “warming pause”. When confronted by the fact that the models are obviously invalid, rather than admit their error, they blame the problem on factors that the models do not account for and for which there is no ‘reliable data’– warming in the deep ocean.
It is not that skeptics deny climate change, but that it probably has very little to do human activity