Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?

I'll be back. :cool: — Agree-to-Disagree

Oh hahahahaha! A line from 40 years ago that’s been quoted about a billion times before! What wit. What humor.

Just also worth pointing out how Incredibly unfunny this guy is. (Besides when he’s pretending that he’s not thought of as a complete baffoon — that’s actually hilarious.)

desperate people will deny the facts and withdraw into a fantasy world. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes. Hence why we laugh at you.

You don't need a quantum computer. — Agree-to-Disagree

I think I do.

I think that your interpretation of what Herrington said is incorrect (what Herrington said is ambiguous). — Agree-to-Disagree

Research by Herrington, a rising star in efforts to place data analysis at the center of efforts to curb climate breakdown, affirmed the bleaker scenarios put forward in a landmark 1972 MIT study, The Limits to Growth, that presented various outcomes for what could happen when the growth of industrial civilization collided with finite resources.

(my bold)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/25/gaya-herrington-mit-study-the-limits-to-growth

Thus the article the the experts at lad bible are referencing.

And here, in case anyone wants to go right to the horse's mouth, is the veritable Herrington saying what Herrington is saying to whoever cares to read it. https://www.clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Herrington.pdf

Regarding deliberately distorting Hansen:

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction
This article is more than 6 years old
Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

Dana Nuccitelli

Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.


Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
View image in fullscreen
Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
In the WSJ, deniers again lie about Hansen
The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.


Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.


Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels was joined by Ryan Maue in an op-ed that again grossly distorted Hansen’s 1988 paper. Maue is a young scientist with a contrarian streak who’s published some serious research on hurricanes, but since joining the Cato Institute last year, seems to have sold off his remaining credibility to the fossil fuel industry.

In their WSJ opinion piece, Michaels and Maue claimed:

Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

They provided no evidence to support this claim (evidence and facts seem not to be allowed on the WSJ Opinion page), and it takes just 30 seconds to fact check. In reality, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.35°C since 2000 – precisely in line with Hansen’s 1988 model projections, as shown above. And it’s unscientific to simply “discount” the El Niño of 2015-16, because between the years 1999 and 2014, seven were cooled by La Niña events while just four experienced an El Niño warming. Yet despite the preponderance of La Niña events, global surface temperatures still warmed 0.15°C during that time. There’s simply not an ounce of truth to Michaels’ and Maue’s central WSJ claim.


It’s also worth noting that Hansen’s 1988 paper accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming, with the Arctic region warming fastest and more warming over land masses than the oceans. And climate deniers in the 1980s like Richard Lindzen were predicting “that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.” If anyone deserves criticism for inaccurate climate predictions, it’s deniers like Lindzen who thought there wouldn’t be any significant warming, when in reality we’ve seen the dramatic global warming that James Hansen predicted.

Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation didn’t stop there:

And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

Once again, this unsupported assertion is completely wrong. I evaluated the IPCC’s global warming projections in my book, and showed in detail that theirs have been among the most accurate predictions. The climate model temperature projections in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports were all remarkably accurate; the IPCC predicted global warming almost exactly right.


Why lie? To keep cashing Koch paychecks
We don’t even have to guess at the motivation behind Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation; they give it away toward the end of their opinion piece, asking:

Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

Michaels and Maue don’t want us to cut carbon pollution, and it’s easy to understand why. They work for the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is heavily controlled by the Koch brothers, who have donated more than $30 million to Cato. As Michaels admitted, they’re basically fossil fuel industry employees.

But the answers to their question are simple. As climate scientists have predicted for decades, global temperatures are rising dangerously rapidly. Moreover, research has shown that the economic benefits of cutting carbon pollution far outweigh the costs.

Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

The part about Lindzen is especially relevant, as several climate deniers on this very page often cite him. Yet the criticisms about predictions are only leveled at climate scientists…hmm

South Asia and West Africa seem at most risk at the moment

Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
^{— Tom Matthews, Colin Raymond, Josh Foster, et al · Nature · Feb 4, 2025}

@Mikie

Dana Nuccitelli

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

@Mikie

Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

Why haven't I received my Koch paycheck yet?... :rofl:

South Asia and West Africa seem at most risk at the moment — jorndoe

And only getting worse. We’re seeing these effects at 1.1. Imagine 2.4.

We’re seeing these effects at 1.1. Imagine 2.4. — Mikie

I heard this explanation somewhere, but cannot give the due credit. "When one is on an exponential curve and one looks to the past, the curve looks almost flat and gives little indication that what lies ahead looks more like a wall. "



So far, most of the excess heat has been absorbed in melting sea ice. The AMOC has taken extra heat from South to North. As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere.

The economic and political collapse is already under way, populism leads to divisive policies which lead to conflicts, trade wars, civil wars, and international wars, There is no major economy on a stable footing at the moment, and no government looks stable. This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.

As AMOC slows, the heat effects will be much stronger in the tropics and southern hemisphere. — unenlightened

The British isles will freeze over. It's speculated that the Younger Dryas, a massive swing in temperatures from warm to freezing and back again was the result of an AMOC shutdown triggered by the end of the last glacial phase. This would be catastrophic because of the speed of the changes

A slow warming isn't bad because we can adapt. Wild swings are a different story.

@jorndoe @unenlightened @Mikie

Mortality impacts of the most extreme heat events
Matthews, T., Raymond, C., Foster, J. et al. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-024-00635-w#Sec9

Have any of you actually read this article?

I haven't had time to carefully read the whole article, but while scanning it I found this interesting paragraph:

The unsurvivable threshold of older adults has also been breached. These exceedances include six-hourly means (Fig. 2a, compare red lines with darker blue line), with almost 2% of the land surface crossing these thresholds, largely in North Africa, around the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and in parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (Fig. 3f). This statistic contrasts starkly with the general lack of mass mortality reported in those regions (Table 1), especially as exceedances of all thresholds computed with ERA5 are probably conservative because reanalysis data underestimate the intensity of extreme heat at local scales and within living environments. The lack of reported mass mortality from unsurvivable heat episodes for older adults might, therefore, reflect limitations in health surveillance data, physiological thresholds that are too pessimistic for those living in the hottest regions, or the impact of personal and community adaptations that reduce vulnerability. Similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.

(my bold)

So they worked out the unsurvivable thresholds and explained what would happen if these uncompensable thresholds were crossed. They then looked at the real world and found that some of the unsurvivable thresholds had already been crossed. But they couldn't find the predicted mass mortality.

This applied to older adults, but they point out that similar discrepancies have been noted with uncompensable heat events for young adults.

Don't you just hate it when the real world doesn't do what (climate) scientists think it will do. :scream:

A slow warming isn't bad because we can adapt. Wild swings are a different story. — frank

Careful Frank. Mikie will call you a "denier" if you don't agree with him.

Please stop thinking for yourself. Mikie has exclusive access to the truth. :rofl:

This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse. — unenlightened

It was obvious that capitalism wasn’t sustainable 100 years ago. Now it’s a fact.

The British isles will freeze over. — frank

It's possible, but rather unlikely. In order for that to happen, the sea ice would have to extend a long way beyond where it has been in historical times. But if that were to happen, it would increase the salinity of the surface water and that would likely restart the overturning. In any case, it would take many years to form much of a glaciation of the land. Most likely it will be harsher winters and more unpredictable summers.

:up: Like Newfoundland.

This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse.
— unenlightened

It was obvious that capitalism wasn’t sustainable 100 years ago. Now it’s a fact. — Mikie

Adapt and survive, or don't adapt and die

When faced with changing environmental conditions an organism can either:
- adapt to the new environmental conditions and survive
- not adapt to the new environmental conditions and die
- if a whole species does not adapt to the new environmental conditions then it will eventually become extinct

Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream:

Lithium-ion battery degradation conditions
- high temperature
- low temperature
- high charging current
- high discharging current
- high state of charge / overcharge
- low state of charge / overdischarge

Lithium-ion batteries inevitably degrade with time and use. Almost every component of the battery is affected, including the anode, cathode, electrolyte, separator, and current collectors.

Lithium-ion batteries can degrade even if you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20%.

If you don't charge them beyond 80% and don't discharge them below 20% then the range of the EV is noticeably reduced, and range anxiety becomes worse.

Gasoline cars don't have these problems... :scream:

For anyone reading this thread and thinking it’s just a venue for climate denying idiots to spout nonsense: I and everyone I know loves their EVs. The only problem reported: sometimes they’re too quiet.

If public transportation isn’t available, and a bike won’t do, they’re the obvious choice…and only getting better.

Essentially, adaptation is the key to survival in a changing world, and failure to adapt leads to death and potential extinction. :scream: — Agree-to-Disagree

Just so! And there are but 2 ways for humans to adapt to climate change.

1. Stop using fossil fuels that are increasing climate change and take other urgent measures to stabilise the environment. The Humble Pie adaptation.

2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation.

There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt.

There is a 3rd possibility; the Ostrich adaptation of looking the other way and pretending there is nothing happening. But this is more of a refusal to adapt. — unenlightened

Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors.

Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors. — Arcane Sandwich

You are quite right, and I hereby rename the refusal to adapt "the Dodo adaptation" - an equivalently fowl metaphor, but somewhat more apt.

You are quite right, and I hereby rename the refusal to adapt "the Dodo adaptation" - an equivalently fowl metaphor, but somewhat more apt. — unenlightened

But the Dodo was driven to extinction by the Portuguese. It's not the Dodo's fault that people wanted to eat them. They did not refuse to adapt, they were simply preyed upon by foreign predators.

an equivalently fowl metaphor — unenlightened

You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays.

Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures, and I will defend them with my words, since they lack the capacity to speak for themselves. No bird has ever refused to adapt. Do not slander the Ostriches with your foul metaphors. — Arcane Sandwich

:up: :100:

Your Forum name read backwards would be Disagree-to-Agree.

Ever thought about that?

↪Agree-to-Disagree Your Forum name read backwards would be Disagree-to-Agree.

Ever thought about that? — Arcane Sandwich

You're very smart. I say that unironically. It is rare to find people of your intellect, nowadays. :grin:

I do refuse to follow other people like sheep (to the slaughter).

I am a naturally cynical and skeptical person. When somebody tells me something I immediately analyse it to try and find a valid reason why it is not true.

Scientists are meant to be skeptical. Finding a skeptical scientist today is difficult. We have a situation that I call "science by bureaucracy" (I am not the first person to use this term). The IPCC cherry-picks the science that suits its agenda, and scientists are rewarded for producing science that supports that agenda.

Ostriches, and Ñandues, are magnificent creatures — Arcane Sandwich

Emus are another cool member of the Ratite family. Cassowaries are also incredible.

Kiwis are the "black sheep" of the ratite family. Kiwis have some unusual features:
- they are small and nocturnal
- the kiwi is the only bird in the world with nostrils at the tip of its beak
- Kiwi feathers are soft, long, and loose, and feel more like fur than bird feathers. They are shaggy, warm, and fluffier than most bird feathers
- kiwis have whiskers, like a cat
- they have one of the largest eggs in proportion to body size of any order of bird in the world (up to 20% of the female's weight)
- most birds have hollow bones to aid in flight. The kiwi has marrow in its bones, just like a human. Their powerful legs make up a third of their body weight and allow them to run as fast as a human

I and everyone I know loves their EVs. — Mikie

How many people does a person who lives in their mother's basement know? . :rofl:

[EVs are] only getting better. — Mikie

That is not surprising since they are crap at the moment. . :scream:

1. Stop using fossil fuels that are increasing climate change and take other urgent measures to stabilise the environment. The Humble Pie adaptation. — unenlightened

How is that working out for you?

2. Reduce the population of humans by 95% or so, and let the remaining few continue to burn baby burn, moving from place to place as each in turn becomes uninhabitable. The Mad Max adaptation. — unenlightened

You have a very limited imagination if these 2 options are all that you can come up with.

The population of humans in many countries is falling naturally because the fertility rate is below the rate needed to maintain the population. More than 20 countries, including Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Spain and Thailand, will see their numbers diminish by at least half by the year 2100, according to projections from a major study.

Another 34 countries will probably decline by 25–50%, including China, with a forecasted 48% decline.

These forecasts suggest good news for the environment, with less stress on food production systems and lower carbon emissions. The analysis suggests that as women become more educated and have access to reproductive health services, they choose to have less than 1.5 children on average.