Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Aug 21 00:35:55 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Himalayas will now melt by 2100
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 04 16:27:47
But I thought they were going to melt by 2025? I'm so confused right now!

----

"At least a third of the huge ice fields in Asia’s towering mountain chain are doomed to melt due to climate change, according to a landmark report, with serious consequences for almost 2 billion people.

Even if carbon emissions are dramatically and rapidly cut and succeed in limiting global warming to 1.5C, 36% of the glaciers along in the Hindu Kush and Himalaya range will have gone by 2100. If emissions are not cut, the loss soars to two-thirds, the report found."

http://amp...p-doomed-finds-shocking-report
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Feb 04 16:34:21
Its especially retarded that sebs see a conversion of snow to rain and somehow think that will cause a drought. Even if their overhyped hype came true... do they not realize rain is still water?

Sam Adams
Member
Mon Feb 04 16:35:03
Humans cant store rain

-sebs counterargument?
Seb
Member
Mon Feb 04 17:17:06
Aw, bless.

Sam thinks snow and ice loss isn't being driven by precipitation changes.
Pillz
Member
Mon Feb 04 19:14:45
When do they revoke your ability to post anonymously in the UK???

Cause it can't come soon enough
Dukhat
Member
Mon Feb 04 19:17:56
All the cuckservatives gathered together to prove how stupid they can be in one thread.
Rugian
Member
Mon Feb 04 19:36:05
Dukhat,

Hush. Men are talking.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Feb 04 21:07:45
Can't miss a cuckservative gathering.

Don't you have a stud to recruit for your wife this weekend?
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Feb 05 10:43:56
"Sam thinks snow and ice loss isn't being driven by precipitation changes."

Lol seb this is your argument now? Perhaps you should have looked at the data and the math before saying something so monumentally stupid.

Of the worlds oldest and most reliable precipitation gauges, i have reviewed about 85. 84 show no detectable trend. One (chicago) shows a statistically significant trend of increasing precip. This is consistent with predictions... the radiative changes we have made are theoretically increasing precip to the tune of 1 or 2 %.

So we can conclude, with near certainty, that ice mass loss is not the result of precip decreases.

Sam Adams
Member
Tue Feb 05 10:53:16
Remember when you argued - for years - that Himalayan glaciers would disappear completely by 2025 seb? And just think... you've actually gotten dumber since then
Dukhat
Member
Tue Feb 05 11:07:10
Just shut the fuck up you retard. If you want to, why don't you write a paper and have it peer-reviewed and published. Oh wait, you're just some dumb neckbeard spewing nonsense to other neckbeards.

Embarassing incel.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Feb 05 11:35:29
Cuckhat talking in a science thread is like a rowboat trying to fight a battleship.

Also, people with real jobs dont write papers explaining basic trends.

Lol retard.
Hrothgar
Member
Tue Feb 05 17:47:01
http://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

1- You cannot argue with the fact that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere year after year. We have decades of detailed data proving this and measurements points further back for centuries also confirming this fact.

2- You cannot argue that CO2 is not a "green house" gas. It's provable through reproducible experiment.

3- The surface temperature of Earth has been in a warming trend since the industrial revolution. Again this is provable with great detail for decades and solid measurements points going back centuries.

4- Finally in regard to this thread, snow is obviously - OBVIOUSLY - a superior water store (slow release water) vs rain water (one and done matched with storms). While humans may be able to build dams and give ourselves water just fine when all the snow changes to rain, it has serious impact on every sort of wildlife both plant and animal that fall outside of direct human care.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Feb 05 17:52:01
"is obviously - OBVIOUSLY - a superior water store (slow release water) vs rain water"

False. a dam is just as good.
obaminated
Member
Tue Feb 05 21:52:30
Oh, so this is the thread that broke cuckhat, congrats fellas.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 06 01:54:38
Sam thinks precipitation I'm Chicago is indicative of precipitation in the Himalayas! Peak Sam has been achieved!
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 06 01:58:49
You argued that I said they'd disappear by 2525 because a line in the social report of the AR4 IPCC report referenced a greenpeace paper, and obviously, by extension, I must stand by everything in the IPCC report. Typical Sam bullshit.

I said the reference was irrelevant, as it wasn't from the physical impacts report.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Feb 06 02:30:01
1.There is nothing on the horizon with which we can replace fossil fuels with, nuclear to some extent.
2. Poor and developing countries will need fossil fuels to stop being poor.
3. Global warming is not an existential threat.
4. It will cost a lot of money and lives
5. We need to do something about it, that doesn’t entail keep large parts of the world in always lagging behind in poverty.

Or alternatively this is where the implementation of culling the world population begins. 200-300 million people could safely burn fossil fuels at western levels without issues. You start by keeping them poor and lagging behind.

jergul
large member
Wed Feb 06 05:55:28
Global warming may cascade into an existential threat. Human societies do crazy things when under pressure. And 21st century crazy is pretty crazy.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 06 09:30:45
Seb you argued for years... including delving into the imagined physical processes - wrong of course - by which all the glaciers would be gone 6 years from now. In your large and growing list of failures, this was one of your worst. When the IPCC finally issued a retraction, you admitted your mistake. For a moment you showed a small amount of intelligence and ability to learn, but alas, that was just once and it was a long time ago. Even simple precipitation guage history confuses you now. There is nothing you understand correctly anymore and your ability continues to degrade. Have you been checked for parkinsons disease?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Feb 06 10:08:56
Fair point jergul. The risk of global warfare and many local can’t be ignored. I am not sure it is existential, it would raise the body count.
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 06 11:54:02
Sam, your problem is you lie so pathologically you've lost track of the truth.

Your are confusing yourself with the Antarctic shelf and your assertion that it couldn't melt ever.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 06 12:09:19
Lol you "don't remember" that colossal failure?

That is why you remain stupid. Denying and hiding from your mistakes, instead of learning from them.
Paramount
Member
Wed Feb 06 12:12:14
If it melts people will just have to adapt to it. Just sayin’.
Paramount
Member
Wed Feb 06 12:17:00
Warmal Globing is here and now!


It’s Official: 2018 Was the Fourth-Warmest Year on Record

“We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future. It’s here. It’s now.”

http://www...imate/fourth-hottest-year.html
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 06 12:20:41
And the crops continued to grow, the rivers continued to flow...
Seb
Member
Wed Feb 06 12:42:14
Sam:

I remember the events you refer to, it's just remarkably different from your assertions.

I'm old enough to remember when you claimed global warming wasn't happening.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 06 12:48:22
Well, we can conclude your memory isnt any better than your processor speed.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Feb 06 16:04:21
No no, I also remember when you denied global warming. I also remember when I found out you had changed your mind and telling other skeptics and deniers, hey listen to sam, he is a weather girl, he would know :)
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 06 20:25:20
I have never denied the planet was warming. That is a simple trend that is indisputable. That its inconsiquential, sure i said that all the time. And, as usual, i was right. Here we are 20 years later and the planet is showing utterly 0 ill effects.

Point is though, seb(and the ipcc too lol) thought all Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 6 years(from now), a clearly retarded claim that displays an utter lack of geographic knowledge and transcends logic and basic physics. No thinking man could possibly have fallen for that absurd claim. Yet seb not only did but did so for years, trading the most basic science for a blind faith that his cause and the ipcc could never be wrong.

Only when the ipcc issued a retraction(lol how the fuck did that take so long) dud seb, thoughtless follower as always, change his mind.

And that might not even be in the top 10 of sebs idiotic claims.

Lol.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Feb 06 20:29:44
Actually looking back on it, it was 2035 not 25. And it took the ipcc and seb 3 years(ahaha!) to issue a retraction. Yikes.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 07 02:34:48
You were denying it had anything to do with human activity. Changing you mind on this is as you pointed out earlier, learning from mistakes. That is a good thing.

We have all been wrong about thing. Besides seb, he has always been right about everything, all the time.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 07 04:46:11
Nim:

I've issued plenty of retractions. The problem is the things I'm wrong on are not the things you are right on.

For example, to WtB - he was quite right that in Sweden the Fee Democrats would normalise racist discourse. It's not as bad as he anticipated, but the direction was correct.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 07 09:51:42
A retraction that you instantly down play. Impressive.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 07 10:24:55
Nim:

Nope. Direction is more important than precision.

And as you were party to the dispute, I was pretty sure you would marginalise the issue yourself.

You can ask jergul about retractions too.

You and Sam can do find common ground with your personally motivated bullshit (as you can with Hood etc.) - but you are ultimately lying to yourselves and building a filter bubble.

The simple truth is that on these issues you were, are and continue to be wrong and that's why you aren't getting a retraction.

And as for Sam, theres nothing to retract, his outright lies - "exaggeration" as he sometimes puts it - are well known.
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 07 10:26:34
"And the crops continued to grow, the rivers continued to flow..."

Sam thinks global warming is only an issue if precipitation ends and all plant life creases.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Feb 07 11:43:58
lol memory is failing you as always, I was warning him that he and people like him were pushing the debate further in that direction by calling everyone Nazis and looking for fascist in every corner! That sooner or later decent people will giving a fuck and the word nazis will lose all meaning. Here we are waiting for Adolf Trump 2020 and your country to torch itself up. What did you learn? That WtB was correct. LOL :)

Always behind the curve.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Feb 07 13:41:24
Seb, the precipitation patterns are not changing much. Plant growth is increasing due to increased co2. The sea levels are rising almost imperceptibly slowly. Growing seasons are generally extending due to decreasing freezes.

What are you possibly afraid of?
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 07 14:33:20
Nim:

Absolutely. We see NAZIs literally marching under swastikas in several countries, and widespread discussion of their business batshit racial supremacy shit. Hell you've even adopted the pseudo scientific clap trap that they cite as their bags for belief in racial supremacy.

Nobody went around calling Leave voters NAZIs, if anything the bigger problem was that everyone agreed to down play the racist element so we've gone in the last two years from "we need to control population numbers" to lots of examples of Europeans being abused in the streets, the widespread belief we must have the hardest possible brexit to end freedom of movement (when the leave campaign actively proposed a Norway style relationship begot the campaign).

He's absolutely correct.

Sam:
"Look, I've stepped off the hundred story building, it's been one tenth of a second and I've barely accelerated at all yet".
Seb
Member
Thu Feb 07 14:35:10
"Gosh, you called me a racist, so now I BB absolutely have to go and adopt racist policies just to spite you" - such people were always racist and were always going to vote for the policy.
Pillz
Member
Thu Feb 07 19:10:52
Oh no, attention is being drawn to the failures of mass, uncontrolled migration by young, uneducated, culturally and literally foreign men.

Of course seb thinks this is a sign of NAZIs
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 08 02:44:18
Pillz:

Except the mass migration of from Poland and the rest in the case of brexit, are educated, largely fill high skilled jobs, and assimilate well.

If the argument that brexit is an expression of anger against immigration from the kinds of cultures you are obsessed with, then I think all that shows is just how fucking stupid such people are.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Feb 08 09:35:13
No one objects to non-criminals coming in from poland, genius.

Why are you always so wrong seb?

Lol glaciers gone by 2035
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Feb 08 09:44:46
"Stop importing savages"

But what about these non savages? Change the subject!

Lol tard.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Feb 08 10:23:16
The fact you would even disagree with such a trivial and obvious ”prediction” i.e if a party with a strong anti immigration policy gains power, then racism will to some _degree_ be normalises. You know of the sun goes down, then it will become ”darker”.

I have no recollection of this thread, but it sounds like the seb I have come to know :)
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Feb 08 13:42:36
http://kom...-in-nashville-tennessee-murder

Sebs immigrants in action again. Such productive people.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 08 13:50:42
Sam:

Actually, loads of people object to polish people coming from Poland.

Taking our jobs. Putting up their shops selling their foreign muck etc etc

Brexit is fundamentally driven by that. Few people are stupid enough to believe that immigration from outside the EU is due to the EU.

We were talking about brexit, so if you aren't talking about European migration, then I think it's you that tried to change the subject, not me.

Nim:

Can you explain what you mean by "strong anti immigration policy"? Because that's not a term I just used but clearly you are equating "strong anti immigration policy" with avowedly racist policies towards people already present, which is a category distinction.

My assumption was that extreme parties would be forced to tone down their rhetoric because the voters wouldn't abide it. But you've just shown exactly how right WtB was, by helpfully redefining my explicit references to racism as merely being "a strong anti immigration policy". If you were simply denying racist policies existed you'd said so. As WtB predicted, you are reflexively (and possibility unconsciously) apologising for their extreme policies, whereas I thought they'd actually have to moderate their policies to match the superficial rhetoric. Instead, many have internalised the dog whistle.

Sam Adams
Member
Fri Feb 08 14:00:28

"Brexit is fundamentally driven by that."

Nah. Its africans and muslims that sane people dont like.
jergul
large member
Fri Feb 08 15:54:20
It can be driven by anything you like. Say the English weather.

The margins were so small that anything you can shake a stick at becomes the deciding factor.
Seb
Member
Fri Feb 08 17:48:34
Sam:

No that's who *you* hate. You are projecting.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Feb 16 14:05:54
seb
This isn't rocket surgery. Racist people are _strongly_ against immigration. SD is a party that is strongly against immigration (and also used to be have alot of semi/openly racist people in the top). Naturally racist people will not vote for social democrats or Liberals. So when that party gains support, naturally people with racist opinions will feel validated and be more open about their opinion, specially after years of total dominance by anti racists social liberal.

WtB was not "right" for pointing out something obvious which is why this was never a point of discussion or contention for me with him. And I say obvious in hindsight, because it never even occured to me to question such a trivial thing. Perhaps this is because I lived through the 90's in Sweden, when racism was OPENLY displayed. A couple of times a years rumors went around the school that skinheads were coming to our school to beat people up. When those things "vanished", I never assumed they went away. We already went through this with another party "Ny demokrati" during the 90's. It should never have been a point of discussion.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Feb 16 14:10:38
Or in WtBs own words, he believes SD is a party with Nazi and fascists roots, you think it is surprising then that such a party reaching 20% would normalize racism to "some degree"? This "prediction" is so silly it is almost a truism.
Seb
Member
Sun Feb 17 07:50:08
Nim:

I'm not hugely interested in rehashing an argument from several years back with a third party.

Suffice it to say there are actually good reasons to think it wouldn't (simply wishing to control immigration isnt an example of racism).

The nature of whether WtBs prediction is trivial or not doesn't alter the point here: in happy to retract when an error has been made. The problem is most of the things you think you are right about, you aren't. Your arguments are flimsy, your evidence supporting them admit other explanations etc.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Feb 17 08:06:11
The problem is you couldn’t actually name things I have said are ”true”, if you life depended on it. Most if our threads was you being morally outraged and posturing, nothing else. You were given the opportunity to summarize my views on topics, your rebuke of these attempts spoke clearly.
Seb
Member
Sun Feb 17 09:21:30
Nim:

Now, frankly, you are just displaying your poor reading comprehension.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share