Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri May 24 11:54:32 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Young seb on global warming
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Mar 05 22:28:47
http://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN
June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 01:55:43
Am reading this and wondering if Sam understands that this isn't claiming the negative effects mentioned will occur by 2000, but rather that failure to curb CO2 emissions by 2000 would lead to these outcomes?

My guess, given his crappy reading comprehension, is "obviously not, he is quite stupid and has never displayed a grasp of detail or nuance".
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 02:02:58
Young Sam

"Global warming is a hoax"

"The world is warming, but it's the sun"

Graduate Sam

"It's warming because of mankinds CO2 emissions, but natural feedbacks will stop it being an issue"

Current Sam

"It's warming, but it's not going to cause the hydrological cycle to actually stop, causing all rivers to cease flowing... wait? What do you mean a straw man"

Old Sam

"Oh sure, the planet is on track to warm by 4 degrees, but the ground isn't literally on fire, that's what the imaginary libs said in my head. I'm so smart."
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 10:00:45
I didnt think you would be retarded enough to defend this article. Lol!

Your stupidity is the gift that keeps on giving.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 10:03:35
So its been 20 extra years of full carbon emissions and not only are there no nations missing, but life continues with no notice of your crazed predictions at all. Tell me seb, when are we actually going to see nations wiped off the map?
Rugian
Member
Wed Mar 06 10:58:15
Well the Himalayas are going to melt in eleven years...
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 11:28:34
Lol. Can you believe these retards keep saying the same wrong shit for 30 years?
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 12:36:36
Sam:

What, specifically, about the article do you think is incorrect?

The article is clear that the lurid headlines about states (low lying islands in the pacific) being wiped out are end sate results, not thing to happen in ten years.

Ten years is the window he puts to limit change. And indeed we are pretty much gauranteed at least 2 degree rises even if all man made CO2 stopped tomorrow.

So what, exactly, is it you find inaccurate?

You probably thought he was saying the US would be a dustbowl by 2000, because you can't read.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 12:36:58
"o its been 20 extra years of full carbon emissions and not only are there no nations missing"

Lol. Confirmed. Sam can't read.
Pillz
Member
Wed Mar 06 12:58:40
Isthat 2 degree increase guaranteed like the melting of the Himalayas in 11 years, seb?
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 12:59:32
you are an utter retard that knows nothing.

We didnt check the warming trend in 2000, and no nations are being wiped out even after 20 more years of ignoring your nonsense. You are not only wrong, but wrong in the most embarassing and obvious fashion, yet you continue to try to defend it. If you were even halfway sane you would admit that some global warming claims are wild exxageration.

Cry wolf more, and then wonder why no one listens to your hysterical claims.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 13:02:17
Its utterly retarded that seb sees "stop global warming by 2000 or x will happen" as meaning some random nebulous time long after 2000.

Lol so dumb.
jergul
large member
Wed Mar 06 13:52:46
Sammy
Do you seriously question that nation-states will be wiped out due to global warming?

I suggest you look at a map and try to overcome adhd. Things that happen over time still happen, no matter the attention span of the observer.

Global warming as the result of human activity has been known for a century and dramatic climate change has been strongly suspected (though not modelled) since the 70s.
jergul
large member
Wed Mar 06 13:54:31
Global warming is very basic chemistry. I cannot believe we are still having discussions about it.
jergul
large member
Wed Mar 06 13:56:10
Too many threads like this are detracting from quality time where seb and I hate each other's guts.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 14:07:12

"Do you seriously question that nation-states will be wiped out due to global warming? "

Jergul, perhaps in the distant future. But the future is not year 2000.

Lol.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 15:14:41
Pillz:

You should ask the WWF. Despite Sam's BS, I did not agree. I pointed out a correctly cited erroneous source in an off hand sentence in the socioeconomic report didn't, as Sam claimed, render the Science Basis report which was an entirely different document.

Sam, who as we see here still has a hard time with reading comprehension, was unsure on this point.

Sam:
See, this is the point I'm making. The article says *action* is needed by 2000 to ensure CO2 peaks, so that climate change is limited to avoid these issues. The article doesn't say nations will be destroyed by 2000, or even 2020.

So what's your point? Can't you read simple English?

"We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process."


Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 15:16:18
Sam has confused the window of opportunity to begin measures to stabilise co2 levels with the time for the temperature to reach a new equilibrium.

He is an idiot.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 15:21:53
"The article doesn't say nations will be destroyed by 2000, or even 2020."

2000 means 2000 dummy. The ocean atmosphere system responds pretty rapidly. If you "check" it, its threat ends rapidly.
Perhaps if you were off by only a few years you could be allowed to slide. But here we are, 20 years later, 3 times the length originally stipulated, and not only are your devastating predictions not occurring, they are still in the distant future.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 06 18:22:03
Sam Adams:

Yes, 2000 means 2000.

But "opportunity to start the stablizing process" doesn't mean "full atmospheric response to temperature rises".

It means starting the process of adapting the economy to stabilize GHG levels.

A given GHG level results in a given radiative forcing. It takes *decades* for a radiative forcing to result in a steady state temperature, and while the climate responds relatively quickly to a temperature change, the temperature change is on the order of a century, not a decade.

Now someone with absolutely no knowledge of all of this might misread the above article, we know you know all this stuff.

The only possibly conclusion is you completely misread the article. Because you are an idiot with very poor language skills.

Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 19:30:48
"It means starting the process of adapting the economy to stabilize GHG levels."

Dumbass, the article specifically says, in its first paragraph, that the global warming trend must be reversed by 2000.

Get the fuck out of here with your whining fuzzy "starting the process" incorrect bullshit.

You cant even read.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 19:31:59
"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

but but but but starting the process
Lol at seb.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 19:52:36
"the temperature change is on the order of a century, not a decade."

Wrong dumbseb. Calculate the heat capacity of the ocean above the thermocline, the land above about 1m, and the entire atmosphere. From that you can get the efolding time or response time of the climate system. One watt of radiative forcing in this temperature range equals, conveniently, about 1 degree of temperature change.

Of course, this is likely beyond you so Ill give you the aprox numbers. The ocean takes about 15 years, the atosphere about a season and the land perhaps a month.
Y2A
Member
Wed Mar 06 22:10:39
Ouch, you got owned by Seb.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 06 23:11:35
Mexican science lol.
smart dude
Member
Wed Mar 06 23:44:26
"Am reading this and wondering if Sam understands that this isn't claiming the negative effects mentioned will occur by 2000, but rather that failure to curb CO2 emissions by 2000 would lead to these outcomes?"

I get this, but the complete lack of any timeline (WHEN will nations "be wiped off the face of the earth?") makes the article in the OP kinda...lame. A thousand years from now? A billion? Who cares? 4 billion years from now the surface of the Sun will approach Earth's orbit, evaporating the oceans and destroying virtually all life on the planet. Is that what the article is talking about?
smart dude
Member
Wed Mar 06 23:50:22
I can make the claim that mutant slugs will wipe out humanity. If I don't specify when, then nobody can ever say that I'm wrong.
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 07 11:46:02
Sam, it's enormously clear that this ambiguous summary, if interpreted to mean "temperatures must peak in 2000" isn't supported by the actual text of the article. Not least as the article discusses how eventual rises to 3 degrees are pretty much unavoidable.

To fail to understand that the headline means *actions* to halt the trend must be taken by 2000 given the content of the rest of the article is demonstrative of the poor reading comprehension you have.

And even if it did mean "temperatures must peak by 2000", it does not say that countries will be destroyed by 2000, or 2020, as you claim.

Seb
Member
Thu Mar 07 11:55:29
By the way, you should never read only the summary and headline. In most media outfits, the journalist writes the copy, but an editor writes headline and summary.

For technical subjects like this, they regularly make this kind of minor error.
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 07 13:11:09
Y2A and Smart Dude:

Well this is reportage on what a guy said, in the context of the publication of an IPCC report. Whether the official being reported included the timeline, you could go look up what that report said for the details which is the context at the time and the claims the official would have been speaking to at the time.

Seb
Member
Thu Mar 07 13:11:44
Sorry, in haste misread the user names, that's only to smart dude.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 07 16:21:21
Lol poor seb. Imagine being so hopelessly wrong that your only remaining argument is that "peak by 2000" doesn't actually mean "peak by 2000".

No means yes, right?
Seb
Member
Fri Mar 08 01:24:41
Sam:

You are only proving my point.

Four people have now read the article and we all agree on this point.

Probably time up move on?
Seb
Member
Fri Mar 08 01:26:44
Also, the fact you are citing the summary rather than the actual quotes of the official is really worrying lack of critical faculties.

I used to think you exaggerated for effect. Now I'm wondering if you are just really stupid.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Mar 08 10:26:11
I am making fun of the headline on the news, something you defended and supported, at least for a while.

And also you, who believe these headlines with depressing regularity.

Now if you want to admit global warming hype headlines are bullshit and the underlying science is less extreme, then we can, of course, agree.
Seb
Member
Fri Mar 08 12:28:42
"U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked"

Perfectly reasonable. All the IPCC reports bare this out.

The only vaguely questionable issue is the summary below the headline, where someone who had not read the article and who had no understanding of climate change could misunderstand. You did read the article, and you do understand climate change.

The articles fine. Your reading comprehension is not.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Mar 08 12:41:22
Sigh. Forgetting "by 2000" again seb.

By 2200 would be better, but id find 2100 acceptable.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Mar 08 12:53:26
Your intentionally skipping the major point of the article. Lulz
Seb
Member
Sat Mar 09 03:43:27
Sam:

Headline doesn't say by 2000, and that's the part you claimed to be mocking.

So we've established that you do actually contextualise one element of the article - in this case the headline - with information from the other parts.

And it's perfectly clear from what the official is quoted as saying, 2000 applies to the policy threshold for adopting meaningful curbs on CO2 production.

The article is fine. Your reading comprehension is not.
Sam Adams
Member
Sat Mar 09 06:00:54
You are an actual idiot that can literally not read. The things you say are contradicted by the first few sentences in the above link.
Seb
Member
Sat Mar 09 11:36:35
Well so far you are 4 for nil in people sharing your assessment.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun Mar 10 12:53:33
Cant read UP posts successfully either? I think you might actually be mentally ill. It is not normal for someone your age to be so bad at thinking and reading.
Seb
Member
Sun Mar 10 14:34:58
Y2A, Smart Dude, Jergul, me.


I'm quite comfortable with whoever following the link and drawing their own conclusions.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 11 12:32:59
Y2a agrees with you. I think that, by itself, proves my case.

Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 13:33:13
I'm comfortable letting anyone reading the thread drawing their own conclusions Sam.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 11 14:12:36
Appealing to the mob when you fail at reading and simple math.

Weak, even for you.

Appeal to authority is bad enough of a logical fallacy... but it becomes downright hilarious when your authority is y2a.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 14:35:01
Sam:

firstly, I haven't failed. You have, at basic reading comprehension.

Secondly, I'm not appealing to the mob, I'm saying I'm quite comfortable leaving it up any reader to make the determination. There is little point me trying to persuade you that you've got it wrong. Self-reflection cannot be forced on people Sam.

Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 14:35:28
Saying I'm content for other people to draw their own independent conclusions is the opposite of an appeal to authority.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 11 15:26:26
Please please please mr y2a, please back me on this science neither of us understand.

How embarrassing.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 16:10:40
The fact you think this is about the so science just demonstrates your fundamental inability to properly comprehend simple written English.


The point is dispute isn't the science Sam. It's about what the article is saying. Pretty much anyone from highschool level upwards is qualified to partake in that. Though an understanding of the science ought to make it easier, not harder, to correctly understand what the official was referring to without taking a subeditors summary in an overly literal fashion.

I think at this point there are AI NLP algos that would more accurately summarise this article than you. Which is terrible!

Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 11 16:33:34
If you understood the science, seb, wouldnt be so gullible and fall for impossible, disproven global warming hype stories again and again and again.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 16:51:14
Sam: and if you could read simple English you would understand the claims aren't impossible because they are not what you understand them to be.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Mar 11 17:24:28
Round and round goes the tiny mind of seb. You say the same wrong thing again and again, failing to learn or improve in any way.

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

Only an utter retard(like seb) could view this as a successful claim.

Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 18:03:20
And only Sam would read an article that directly quotes said official clearly stating that we need to *start taking measures* to reverse the trend by 2000 and that we are gauranteed around 3 degrees of temperature increase, and fail to understand this summary should not be read to mean the temperature should be reversed by 2000. And even if read absolutely literally cannot be read to mean nations will be wiped off prematurely as you seem to claim.

At best, you can complain about a sub editor not understanding the article he's summarising, but it's simply stupid to take an overly literal interpretation of the articles summary as a better representation of the claim over the specific quotes from the official on the article. I'm sorry Sam, this is you bordering on the autistic.


But I'm very happy for readers to draw their own conclusions.
Seb
Member
Mon Mar 11 18:05:38
Bottom line, it's clear from the direct quotes that the official did not say nations would be wiped out by 2020 or 2000, not did he say that the warning trend must be reversed by 2000.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Mar 12 13:12:29
"What the article says directly in its first paragraph is not what the article means"

-seb, trying to weasel out of a forecast proven wrong 20 years ago.

Sorry seb, the wiggle room you want to be granted does clearly does not apply to something so blatantly wrong.
Seb
Member
Tue Mar 12 13:46:47
Oh dear, Sam has failed again. The article has two apparently contradictory elements, but is not advancing an argument but reporting an event.

Therefore, the direct quote is primary. The summary is secondary and if conflicting with the direct quote should be either critically examined and interpreted in a way consistent with the quote, or it should be discarded as an error. Or the article dismissed as meaningless.

Pretty simple stuff we can all do.


Sam Adams
Member
Tue Mar 12 13:50:07
"Or the article dismissed as meaningless."

Indeed seb. Indeed.

Just like most global warming hype. Meaningless.
Seb
Member
Tue Mar 12 16:15:22
Sam:

The article, not global warming. As in "This article cannot tell us anything meaningful about global warming, or what this official said, because it has two conflicting statements both of which cannot be true at the same time".

N.B. this is what a fairly simply computer would say.


Humans with reading comprehension of about 13 would be able to resolve the apparent contradiction. Evidently you cannot.
Seb
Member
Tue Mar 12 16:17:20
You have to be particularly stupid to look at an article, see two contradictory accounts, and then decide this can tell you something meaningful about the science that the official is referring to in his speech as reported by an article which is "too complicated" for you to find meaningful.

More evidence of your poor reading comprehension.

Stick to the spreadsheets and binary logic Sam.
jergul
large member
Tue Mar 12 16:59:59
Sammy
You are now detracting from threads that could otherwise be mocking brexit.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Mar 12 17:09:23
"meaningful about the science"

We are talking about global warming hype, seb. Not science. There is very little science involved in scaring people about global warming doom.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Mar 12 17:10:59
And yes jergul... lol@uk!
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 13 06:52:27
Sam:

The official is referring to the then recently released AR from the IPCC.

But even if we are talking about hype, my point stands. The summary says one thing, but the actual words attributed to the official do not support that summary.

Anyone with a reading agree above 13 can form a correct opinion of what the Official said. But if you are unable to do so, then the only obvious position to take is that the article tells us nothing about what the Official said because the article is self contradictory. So we can't even say the official was hyping global warming, as you want to do.

This further demonstrates your poor reading comprehension.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 13 12:34:47
"we can't even say the official was hyping global warming."

The news report, however, was. Wrongly, as you admit.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 13 12:40:06
At least you finally realized the stupidity of defending the first part, the most overhyped part, of the article in question.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 13 13:08:10
Sam:

It's a report. It's not advancing a proposition, it's reporting on the statement of an official. You might have forgotten what that looks like if you get all your news from propoganda that mixes reporting wity editorial.

So no, it's not hyping. If it was, it would not chose to directly quote a line from an official. It's quite simply a slightly clumsily worded summary that for brevity has failed to draw good enough distinction between taking an action and achieving an outcome in the summary, though the distinction is clear enough in the text.

And further, under no interpretation can the article be said to be claiming that nations would be wiped out by 2000 or 2020 as you have implied.

There's nothing more to add. Your reading comprehension is poor. Below a 13 year olds.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 13 13:48:35
Mistakes in the direction of hype are not hype.

-the mind of seb

Lol

"under no interpretation can the article be said to be claiming that nations would be wiped out by 2000 "

The first paragraph says exactly that. Sorry, you dont get infinite wiggle room to become correct by waiting some unspecified period of time until the distant future might(or might not) bail you out.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which saying "sometime between now and the heat death of the universe, i might eventually be right" clearly doesnt cut it.

Fact is we laughed at you and blew through your warning level 20 years ago, and not only are there still no nations wiped out, there are not going to be any in the forseeable future.

You were as wrong as it is possible to be.
Seb
Member
Wed Mar 13 16:25:01
Sam:

"Mistakes in the direction of hype" - what contrived bullshit is this?

Accidental hype? Lol.
Sam Adams
Member
Wed Mar 13 19:17:34
Can you say something intelligent? Just once?
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 14 06:53:33
Sam:

"The first paragraph says exactly that."

Nope.

"UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

It says "if the global warming trend is not reversed by 2000". The date applies to reversal of the trend (actually action to reverse, if read in context of the whole article).

But even taken the way you insist, if true the statement could equally allow that action taken after 2000 would be insufficient to stop nations being destroyed at a subsequent date.

Now I know you have argued that if temperatures plateaued in 2000, there wouldn't be more than a decade or so before climate changes equilibriated. But the article doesn't discuss this at all, so you are bringing additional information into the article in order to contextualise the first paragraph to "obviously" mean that the destruction of nations must happen by 2000.

However, it is the height of absurdity and solipsism to use information not in the article to contextualise the meaning of the paragraph, while refusing to look even a few lines down were the position of the official is clarified with direct quotes

In any case, the first paragraph, in context, is clearly not suggesting that temperatures must level off by 2000. It's explicitly a reference to the official's statement which is explicitly quoted below.

This is shockingly poor comprehension skills.
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 14 06:53:52
Still chuckling at "accidental hype".
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 14 09:06:49
"if temperatures plateaued in 2000, there wouldn't be more than a decade or so before climate changes equilibriated"

If temperatures have plateaued, then climate change has already reached its new equilibrium. Temperatures generally are the result, not the cause.

The decade or so is the time from radiative changes to equilibrium state... a little shorter over land, a little longer over water but close enough. But if temperature trends are "reversed", we have passed through equilibrium state and no more climate damage from warming will occur.

So... you must see how wrong that opening paragraph is.

"But the article doesn't discuss this at all"

Duh. Retards miss obvious things all the time.
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 14 09:18:57
"If temperatures have plateaued, then climate change has already reached its new equilibrium. Temperatures generally are the result, not the cause."

Yes, but none of that is at all relevant.

There is no reason within the article to believe that it is asserting nations would be wiped out by 2000.

And the only reason you are even thinking that the paragraph doesn't mean "action must be taken by 2000" is your stuborn, near autistic inability to handle ambiguity. The detail is in the article.

You can hardly say "this paragraph should be looked at in isolation from the rest of the article, but must all be contextualised with broad knowledge of radiative forcing and transient climate response". Particularly if, by invoking such knowledge, the obvious conclusion would still be "yeah, he's probably talking about action to begin reducing CO2 production".

Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 14 10:57:55
Seb, the first paragraph is flat out wrong. Saying it is ambiguous, saying it means what you think it should have said, or trying to substitute in fuzzier phrases for what it does indeed say is pathetic, weak, and is a basic illustration of why you constantly fail.

Instead of trying to weasel out of mistakes, admit them, fix them, and move on.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Mar 14 11:14:29
"You can hardly say "this paragraph should be looked at in isolation from the rest of the article"

Of course you can. Words have fairly specific meaning. They are not variables. You cannot totally redefine them by what you say later. If you say something as absolutely wrong as what this article started off saying, no amount of context can make up for that later.
Seb
Member
Thu Mar 14 16:08:50
Sam:

Yes, the first paragraph, taken on its own and not in context is wrong - but it is wrong because it does not accurately sum up the rest of the article and contradicts it.

So it is pretty easy for anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension to realise that what the paragraph means is "action must be taken by 2000".

You see this kind of loose journalism literally everywhere.

Now the point you have been consistently making isn't that there's a small error in the first paragraph. Your entire beef has been that the article *as a whole* accurately reflects the position of officials and the IPPC, and that there are claims that the temperature rise must be halted by 2000 or nations will be destroyed by 2000.

Which simply isn't supported: not by the article as a whole, not even if you insist in pretending that the summary should be read as saying that the temperature must be stabilized by 2000.

Seb
Member
Thu Mar 14 16:12:58
Sam:

"Words have fairly specific meaning"

Indeed. And there are no words in the article that suggest the author believes or is advancing the proposition that nations will be destroyed by 2000. You are saying that must be the logical conclusion based on your understanding of radiative forcing.

But if you are willing to introduce this additional information to argue Tue article is necessarily claiming that nations will be destroyed by 2000, then why not simply look down the page and see the actual words directly attributed to the Official, and take those to be the meaning of the article rather than the summary?

I can only think that because so much of the news you consume is actual propogated that does deliberately misrepresent the facts to support an agenda, you've become used to thinking the summary is substantive and the body text to be ignored.

You are well on the way to becoming hot rod!
show deleted posts

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