Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-11-2019, 01:03 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's the "scientific consensus" on how many people are likely to die from climate change, let's say between now and 2100?
It doesn't matter how many people die; Senator Lee has a plan.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #252  
Old 04-11-2019, 01:33 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The post of mine you quoted here was in response to this one:
And that one was following up the "billions" distraction. So, yeah. And duly noted that you are not acknowledging how retrograde is to point at Lomborg in a discussion like this one.
  #253  
Old 04-11-2019, 03:06 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think exaggerating is "better"?
Yeah. And so do climatologists. There's a reason Al Gore (who was quite wrong in a lot of ways) is seen as generally harmless, while Richard Lindzen (who is or at least was a serious scientist, despite being the wrongest the longest on climate change) is seen as a goddamn menace.

YES EXAGGERATION IS BETTER THAN DENIALISM! What kind of question is that? Exaggeration is close to reality; what you're pushing isn't in the same ballpark. You sitting here as a denialist and complaining that we can't precisely cite that we're looking at billions of deaths, as opposed to tens or hundreds of millions. It's like a guy demanding more and more elaborate explanations on how black holes work while proudly proclaiming to be a flat earther and gravity denialist. You're taking part in a discussion way above your pay grade, unless you're doing so in bad faith the way Mike Lee was. If you're engaging in good faith, you beed to stop asking people to spoonfeed you the basics and get up to at least a grade school understanding of the science.

You're like the guy who cites a disgraced pseudoscientist on a propaganda network, then complains about other people's sources.

... No, wait, you literally just are that guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
How will that impact sealions?
They'll thrive for a few decades before dying out long after it's too late to actually fix anything.
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-11-2019 at 03:08 AM.
  #254  
Old 04-11-2019, 03:17 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Like, just to be clear.

If you're not in agreement with the following statement: "Anthropogenic climate change is real and will hurt, displace, or kill more people than all but the largest wars in human history; the longer we take on significant international efforts to end CO2 emissions, the worse it gets and harder it gets to stop."

Well, I'm sorry, but your opinion isn't worth the bandwidth I read it on. You are way behind the curve and need remedial lessons before you should get a seat at the grownups' table, let alone before you should spend even an instant criticizing people who actually do agree with that and want to do something about it. That's why Mike Lee's statements are so utterly heinous and absurd, and why we're so angry that this horrific fucking jackoff has any actual legislative power. That's why we're angry at the ill-informed people who put him in power and continue to support him after what, in a rational world, would be a career-endingly stupid speech.
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
  #255  
Old 04-11-2019, 07:52 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Yeah. And so do climatologists. ...
You're not going to convince a lot of skeptics that way: "Hey, we say things that aren't true and don't have cites to back up our bullshit, but you should believe us anyways, because ... just because"

That's not how this works.
  #256  
Old 04-11-2019, 08:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You're not going to convince a lot of skeptics that way
So the thing about "skeptics" is that most anyone who wants to know about this already knows about this. The rest are either children, illiterates with no internet access, or have no interest in the actual facts. People who spend all day on internet forums filled with people like GIGObuster, Wolfpup, and Kimtsu and still deny climate change? Well, I can't speak for you, but by all means, be my guest - you've been here long enough, you really have no excuse to be this wrong. Why don't you know better?

"You failed to convince me of something I am not interested in looking up even the basics of" is not a good answer.

It's not my job to give every person who comes to me demanding proof that the earth isn't a hollow disc a crash course on astrophysics. There are resources for that, if you care to look at them; I linked them upthread. Here, once again, something on your level: https://climatekids.nasa.gov/

Did you give that a read-through last time I linked it? If not, I fail to see how that's somehow my problem.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-11-2019 at 08:06 AM.
  #257  
Old 04-11-2019, 08:06 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So the thing about "skeptics" is that most anyone who wants to know about this already knows about this. The rest are either children, illiterates with no internet access, or have no interest in the actual facts.
Amen. The end.

Last edited by Jasmine; 04-11-2019 at 08:07 AM.
  #258  
Old 04-11-2019, 08:13 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... People who spend all day on internet forums filled with people like GIGObuster, Wolfpup, and Kimtsu and still deny climate change? Well, I can't speak for you, but by all means, be my guest - you've been here long enough, you really have no excuse to be this wrong. Why don't you know better? ...
Well, yesterday I asked Kimstu for a source and she pointed me to a feminist blog that lied about an alarmist's article, so there's that, just within the last 24 hours. GIGObuster keeps trying to insist no one's defending "billions will likely die" because he, like me, knows it's bullshit that can't be reasonably defended, but other Dopers keep coming along and fucking up his plan by chiming in with how they believe it, or telling us how humanity is facing "an existential crisis". This morning you admitted that you guys exaggerate. If that doesn't explain to you why I take the alarmist things I read from your side with a significant amount of salt, I don't know what else to tell you.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-11-2019 at 08:16 AM.
  #259  
Old 04-11-2019, 09:15 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not that you've been dishonest, it's that you didn't follow through with what you said in the beginning. You started out with: "The approach I learned from my atmospheric science PhD pal is to stick to what one can be sure of." That lasted for like most of one paragraph. By the second one, you were quoting sea level figures that you were NOT sure of, and by your third paragraph you had abandoned that initial plan altogether and resorted to "I think" and "probably".
There are varying degrees of certainty in science, HD. There are some things we know effectively for absolute certain. The photochemistry of CO2. The current concentration of CO2. The historical record is accurate to within a small margin of error, and anyway follows a clear trend. These bedrock basics are truly not in dispute, but I never see acknowledgement of that much out of you, or Lee, or the Fox apologists of denialism. That is either dishonesty or ignorance right there.

When it comes to forward-looking statements, we acknowledge that we are making a prediction, and the exact outcome will depend on how unknown variables play out. I know that if I flip this coin, the odds of getting heads are 50%. If it comes up tails and you say I was wrong, the actual answer is that you don't understand probabilities.

The increase in global temperatures is well-documented, as is the rise in sea levels. Because we are talking about planet-wide data it may exist within a margin of error, and honest people acknowledge that. Still, by the measurements we do have, nearly every year is the hottest on record, something again, you, Lee, and Fox fail to acknowledge.

The increase in sea level rise was cited at .2 mm/year above. In an increasingly hot world that will surely increase. By how much? It depends. Will the Mike Lees of the world be making policy, or will informed, honest people? It depends on how we react, and also our models of the planet are not perfect, and also every ocean does not rise at the same rate. So there is a range of predictions, but all of them point to ever-faster rising seas, which will have at least some very obvious consequences.

You never responded to this post (it needed to be edited for word choice, if you want to pounce on that you will likely miss the point). See that handy map of Carboniferous period land mass? That is the end point of ocean rise. Yeah, "I think" transitioning our world into that would be a continuous disaster, but there is an element of value judgement there, no? David Duke might say, "Well, the US is a mess, but all those brown people countries are even worse off, so overall it's a win!" Going back to the preamble of the constitution, the government is tasked with attending to the general welfare, so such an attitude would be considered un-American, but not exactly true or false. You see?

Were sea levels 230 feet higher during the Carboniferous? Or 250? Sorry I can't nail it down exactly, but either way, going back to those conditions wrecks the world as we know it. And for what? Some political animus against solar power and electric cars? Why don't you say a few words justifying that tradeoff?

Also, how does having more babies address any of this?
  #260  
Old 04-11-2019, 09:18 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Well, yesterday I asked Kimstu for a source and she pointed me to a feminist blog that lied about an alarmist's article, so there's that, just within the last 24 hours. GIGObuster keeps trying to insist no one's defending "billions will likely die" because he, like me, knows it's bullshit that can't be reasonably defended, but other Dopers keep coming along and fucking up his plan by chiming in with how they believe it, or telling us how humanity is facing "an existential crisis". This morning you admitted that you guys exaggerate. If that doesn't explain to you why I take the alarmist things I read from your side with a significant amount of salt, I don't know what else to tell you.
I wonder if we can find enough people unwilling to spend a whole lot of time going over the primary sources with you to make you believe the earth is flat. That's how this works, right? Your ignorance of basic science is excused because a bunch of people on a message board are not very good at convincing you (and, in my case, really aren't trying)?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-11-2019 at 09:19 AM.
  #261  
Old 04-11-2019, 09:45 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Well, yesterday I asked Kimstu for a source and she pointed me to a feminist blog that lied about an alarmist's article, so there's that, just within the last 24 hours. GIGObuster keeps trying to insist no one's defending "billions will likely die" because he, like me, knows it's bullshit that can't be reasonably defended, but other Dopers keep coming along and fucking up his plan by chiming in with how they believe it, or telling us how humanity is facing "an existential crisis". This morning you admitted that you guys exaggerate. If that doesn't explain to you why I take the alarmist things I read from your side with a significant amount of salt, I don't know what else to tell you.
Well, what is clear is that you are not even aware of what conservative scientists that investigated the issue realized that dealing with mountains of bullshit from misleaders like Lomborg is needed rather than dealing with some hyperbole:

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010...-bash-al-gore/
Quote:
[Regarding the few exaggerations from Al Gore] Yes, there are a couple errors. Yes, in a few cases he focuses on “worst-case scenarios,” rather than communicating the full range of risk. But the fact is that he got the most important points right, and the problems aren’t that serious from the perspective of most scientists who have examined the movie. Tim Lambert collected reactions from a number of scientists about a list of nine alleged errors in the movie, for example. While they didn’t always agree about the status of individual “errors,” there was general agreement that the list was too long. In most cases, it was questionable whether they were really errors at all.

In the cases where Gore presented “worst-case scenarios” instead of depicting the full range of risk, try to look at it from the perspective of the scientists involved. The vast majority of scientists are saying, “Human-induced climate change is very likely to be a very big problem, and somewhat likely to be a very, very big problem.” Are they supposed to get all worked up when a popularizer like Gore goes around saying it will be a very, very big problem? The reaction of most scientists has been exactly what it should be. “Well, maybe he overstated his case somewhat, but he got the gist right.”

Now, contrast this with someone like Christopher Monckton, who goes about proclaiming that climate change is a “non-problem,” and to support his case he completely misrepresents the scientific literature he cites. Whom do you think scientists are going to want to spend their time criticizing?

And no, I didn’t vote for Gore.
- Barry Bickmore, professor in the department of geological sciences at Brigham Young University and who also thought at the beginning that liberals were wrong on this one... until he checked the evidence.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-11-2019 at 09:46 AM.
  #262  
Old 04-11-2019, 10:11 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I wonder if we can find enough people unwilling to spend a whole lot of time going over the primary sources with you to make you believe the earth is flat. That's how this works, right? Your ignorance of basic science is excused because a bunch of people on a message board are not very good at convincing you (and, in my case, really aren't trying)?
A bunch of people on a message board are not very good at supporting their own claims. I'm just the one here pointing that out.

foolsguinea disappeared from the thread as soon as I asked in which IPCC report I could read about the "clathrate gun".

I asked Kimstu for a source for her (I think it's "her", my apologies if I'm wrong on that) claim about a billion people dying and she pointed me to a feminist blogger that mis-stated the alarmist's article it used as source material. That was like two hours after she advised "If you (generic you) want to avoid implausible hyperbole and alarmism, it's easy to do by sticking to serious sources of climate science reporting."
  #263  
Old 04-11-2019, 10:21 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
A bunch of people on a message board are not very good at supporting their own claims. I'm just the one here pointing that out.

foolsguinea disappeared from the thread as soon as I asked in which IPCC report I could read about the "clathrate gun".

I asked Kimstu for a source for her (I think it's "her", my apologies if I'm wrong on that) claim about a billion people dying and she pointed me to a feminist blogger that mis-stated the alarmist's article it used as source material. That was like two hours after she advised "If you (generic you) want to avoid implausible hyperbole and alarmism, it's easy to do by sticking to serious sources of climate science reporting."
Incidentally I was the one that also noticed that the item about the clathrate gun was not in the report, but regarding the "billion" number, that was mentioned first by you in a nutpick way. And then you missed that Kimstu was not defending that, but showing how it can be plausible if nothing is done and we do head for the worse scenarios. I do think we will be able to avoid the worse scenarios by getting rid of the idiot Republicans in congress, so there is still a big danger if we do not do so.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-11-2019 at 10:25 AM.
  #264  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:06 AM
wguy123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,801
Why is this discussion still going on? Go out and have a bunch of American babies and check this whole problem off the to-do list! Utah seems to have taken this solution to heart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate
  #265  
Old 04-11-2019, 11:13 AM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 475
Huh I heard America was full...
  #266  
Old 04-11-2019, 05:25 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Well, yesterday I asked Kimstu for a source and she pointed me to a feminist blog [...]

I asked Kimstu for a source for her (I think it's "her", my apologies if I'm wrong on that) claim about a billion people dying and she pointed me to a feminist blogger [...]
Um, not to be mean or anything, but I was trying to stick to popularized summaries of research findings that would be accessible to someone with the level of understanding and background knowledge about climate-science issues that you've been demonstrating.

Subsequently, since you objected to one of those popularized summaries and demanded hard-science citations, I've been citing directly from the IPCC report and popular-science publications such as National Geographic that discuss it. And, not surprisingly, it doesn't seem to have helped your understanding one bit. In fact, you've simply ignored my direct citations in those later posts in favor of constantly reiterating how untrustworthy you think the blog site in my earlier post was.

But as I mentioned earlier, factual understanding is not what you're after here. What you're after is trying to reinforce your comfortable denialist assumptions by insulating yourself from facts: strenuously disparaging every detail that you can nitpick as potentially unreliable or uncertain, while stubbornly ignoring the very clear large-scale implications of a huge amount of solid science.

Last edited by Kimstu; 04-11-2019 at 05:27 PM.
  #267  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:28 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
A bunch of people on a message board are not very good at supporting their own claims.
I will keep linking this page to you until you read it.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/

It's not our job to spoonfeed you the basic science you somehow missed over the last two decades. We've given you every resource you need to understand just how completely fucking insane and dangerous your position is, and you seem uninterested. I mean, is that too high-level for you, or what?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 04-11-2019 at 06:28 PM.
  #268  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:40 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Um, not to be mean or anything, but I was trying to stick to popularized summaries of research findings that would be accessible to someone with the level of understanding and background knowledge about climate-science issues that you've been demonstrating. ...
That's great, but try to stick to ones that don't lie / make shit up out of whole cloth next time, OK?

Given the rest of your post, perhaps now's a good time to dive into the "popularized summary" you linked to. We'll start with your direct citations from the IPCC and work back to the feminist blogger, okay?

First up, your post #235:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, if you bothered to read some of the report's details instead of just fuming about the website that summarized them, you'd see that those estimates are, again, not at all unrealistic. Chapter 3 is the part that talks about impacts on natural and human systems of 1.5 degrees C of warming (which is probably significantly lowballing the amount of warming we'll actually get):

Quote:
Out of a contemporary population of approximately 1.3 billion exposed to water scarcity, about 3% (North America) to 9% (Europe) are expected to be prone to aggravated scarcity at 2°C of global warming (Gerten et al., 2013). [...]

Under the same scenario, the global mean monthly number of people expected to be exposed to extreme drought at 1.5°C in 2021–2040 is projected to be 114.3 million, compared to 190.4 million at 2°C in 2041–2060 (Smirnov et al., 2016). [...]

At 1.5°C in 2100, 31–69 million people (2010 population values) worldwide are projected to be exposed to flooding, assuming no adaptation or protection at all, compared with 32–79 million people (2010 population values) at 2°C in 2100 (Supplementary Material 3.SM, Table 3.SM.4; Rasmussen et al., 2018). [...]

Arnell et al. (2016) also found that the number of people exposed to flooding increased substantially at warming levels higher than 2°C, assuming no adaptation beyond current protection levels. [...]

At least 136 megacities (port cities with a population greater than 1 million in 2005) are at risk from flooding due to SLR (with magnitudes of rise possible under 1.5°C or 2°C in the 21st century, as indicated in Section 3.3.9) unless further adaptation is undertaken (Hanson et al., 2011; Hallegatte et al., 2013).

The IPCC AR5 concluded there is high to very high confidence that climate change will lead to greater risks of injuries, disease and death, owing to more intense heatwaves and fires, increased risks of undernutrition, and consequences of reduced labour productivity in vulnerable populations K.R. Smith et al., 2014). [...]

The projected risks to human health of warming of 1.5°C and 2°C, based on studies of temperature-related morbidity and mortality, air quality and vector borne diseases assessed in and since AR5, are summarized in Supplementary Material 3.SM, Tables 3.SM.8, 3.SM.9 and 3.SM.10 (based on Ebi et al., 2018). Other climate-sensitive health outcomes, such as diarrheal diseases, mental health issues and the full range of sources of poor air quality, were not considered because of the lack of projections of how risks could change at 1.5°C and 2°C. [...]

For populations vulnerable to poverty, the exposure to climate risks in multiple sectors could be an order of magnitude greater (8–32 fold) in the high poverty and inequality scenarios (SSP3; 765–1,220 million) compared to under sustainable socio-economic development (SSP1; 23–85 million). [...]
Here are some examples from the same chapter of realistic possible outcomes of mid-case and worst-case scenarios (and remember that the IPCC's scenarios have usually been relatively optimistic compared to how things turned out):

Quote:
Temperatures are regularly above 1.5°C of warming, although radiative forcing is consistent with a warming of 1.2°C or 1.3°C. Deadly heatwaves in major cities (Chicago, Kolkata, Beijing, Karachi, São Paulo), droughts in southern Europe, southern Africa and the Amazon region, and major flooding in Asia, all intensified by the global and regional warming (Chapter 3, Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4 and 3.4.8; Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4), lead to increasing levels of public unrest and political destabilization (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1). [...]

Global warming of 1.5°C is reached by 2030 but no major changes in policies occur. Starting with an intense El Niño–La Niña phase in the 2030s, several catastrophic years occur while global warming starts to approach 2°C. There are major heatwaves on all continents, with deadly consequences in tropical regions and Asian megacities, especially for those ill-equipped for protecting themselves and their communities from the effects of extreme temperatures (Chapter 3, Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.4.8). Droughts occur in regions bordering the Mediterranean Sea, central North America, the Amazon region and southern Australia, some of which are due to natural variability and others to enhanced greenhouse gas forcing (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.4; Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2; Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4). Intense flooding occurs in high- latitude and tropical regions, in particular in Asia, following increases in heavy precipitation events (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3). Major ecosystems (coral reefs, wetlands, forests) are destroyed over that period (Chapter 3, Section 3.4), with massive disruption to local livelihoods (Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2 and Box 5.3; Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5). An unprecedented drought leads to large impacts on the Amazon rainforest (Chapter 3, Sections 3.3.4 and 3.4), which is also affected by deforestation (Chapter 2). A hurricane with intense rainfall and associated with high storm surges (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.6) destroys a large part of Miami. A two-year drought in the Great Plains in the USA and a concomitant drought in eastern Europe and Russia decrease global crop production (Chapter 3, Section 3.3.4), resulting in major increases in food prices and eroding food security. Poverty levels increase to a very large scale, and the risk and incidence of starvation increase considerably as food stores dwindle in most countries; human health suffers (Chapter 3, Section 3.4.6.1; Chapter 4, Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.3; Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1).
There are high levels of public unrest and political destabilization due to the increasing climatic pressures, resulting in some countries becoming dysfunctional (Chapter 4, Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2). [...]

Again, think about what these massively increased risks mean quantitatively. Natural disasters already kill about 50K people per year, malaria kills one million annually, and other tropical diseases maybe half a million. Famines even during the comparatively food-rich 20th century killed about 70 million people. It is really not difficult, looking at the increased risk exposure in huge amounts of the global population even at optimistically restricted levels of warming which we're almost certain to exceed, to plausibly estimate hundreds of millions of additional deaths as part of the total impact of climate change.
I have no quibble with the IPCC's assertions about "exposure to climate risk" (at least for purposes of our discussion here), but that's not what I asked you for. I asked you to support your assertion about a billion dead people with an actual scientific cite. The IPCC does NOT claim a billion people are going to die from climate change. They decline to quantify it, because it's uncertain, because they don't know (and they're at least smart enough to not make shit up when they don't know it).

This is an important point: The IPCC doesn't say what you, via your source, claim it says. It does NOT claim that a billion people are going to die from climate change (or even hundreds of millions).

Let's keep following this chain back to the source you provided though. Next up: the middle man, our alarmist pal David Wallace-Wells, and his article in New York Magazine, "UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That." First off, does that sound to you like an article that's going to hew closely to what the scientific consensus is? Me neither. It sounds like someone trying to sell a dramatized book. I mean, right there in the headline they're blaring that the science is wrong. That's not exactly confidence-building. But let's continue. He actually does a fairly decent job of summarizing the relevant bits of the IPCC report that you quoted later. He writes:

Quote:
Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, the report declares, should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue.
Okay, maybe not that good of a job, but even he's not dumb enough to directly claim hundreds of millions dead. He moderates his alarmism just a bit. He says the hundreds of millions of lives are "at stake". There's no claim that all those hundreds of millions are going to die. They'll be "exposed to flooding" or "exposed to extreme drought" or "exposed to water scarcity", but of course most of them will survive that "exposure". Later on in his article he gives away the game:

Quote:
We are on track for four degrees of warming, more than twice as much as most scientists believe is possible to endure without inflicting climate suffering on hundreds of millions or threatening at least parts of the social and political infrastructure we call, grandly, “civilization.”
Sure he's got a flair for the dramatic, but notice what he's actually saying: "inflicting climate suffering on hundreds of millions". Those people, again, aren't dead. They're "suffering".

Okay, having banged on that drum long enough, let's move back up to your original cite, the one you now say was just offering a "popularized summary" of the IPCC report. Here's the opening paragraph from our favorite aspiring PhD student:

No, bullshit, false, flat-out wrong! The IPCC report did NOT say that! The IPCC report declined to give an estimate for how many deaths "would result". He made that up. Our wannabe PhD student is a liar, or at the very least bad enough at parsing Wallace-Wells' bullshit alarmism that he doesn't deserve a spot in a PhD program.

Notice the progression we went through. The IPCC says that hundreds of millions have "exposure to climate risk". Wallace-Wells turns that into "Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake" and then your absolute dipshit of an original source, in his "popularized summary", turns that into something that it never was: a claim that the IPCC said gobal warming "would result in hundreds of millions of deaths." And then you spread that bullshit here, and we get poor misled Dopers believing that humanity is at risk of extinction, or that "billions will likely die".

I can't stress this enough, apparently, but this isn't just a "detail" or some inane triviality. This is the core of your claim. It's the precise thing that I asked for a cite for back in post #229 and the cite you claimed / thought you provided in post #232. And it's bullshit. Your "cite" just made it up.
  #269  
Old 04-11-2019, 06:58 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The IPCC does NOT claim a billion people are going to die from climate change.
No, and I didn't say they did. For the nth time, I am not claiming and have never claimed that it is demonstrably true that a billion people are going to die from climate change. I have simply been pointing out the realistic science-based reasons why such a prediction is nowhere near as ridiculously far-fetched as you're trying to portray it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
This is an important point: The IPCC doesn't say what you, via your source, claim it says. It does NOT claim that a billion people are going to die from climate change (or even hundreds of millions).
No, and I didn't say they did. See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
Let's keep following this chain back to the source you provided though.
This is a classic illustration of how you keep trying to dodge the actual science in order to focus only on what you consider the rhetorical weak points in popular descriptions of the science.

Ever since you complained about not liking the original popularization cite I provided, and mentioned the IPCC report as a source you would consider preferable, I've been citing only the IPCC report itself and articles that refer to it directly. And based on specific quotes from the IPCC report, I have given you considered and scientifically supported reasons why it is scientifically plausible to infer that hundreds of millions or even billions of people might die from climate change.

Not reasons why it's absolutely guaranteed that they will, mind you, because as I've been noting all along, there is no such guarantee. Just reasons why you're wrong in considering such inferences to be ridiculously hyperbolic and unrealistic.

And you have consistently ignored what I've said, in favor of hammering away at what you consider the rhetorical clincher that none of the science predicts conclusively that that number of people will die from climate change. Not because that's germane to what I'm actually talking about, but because you've decided that that's the aspect of the argument that you stand a chance of winning.

And winning some rhetorical point about climate change, even if it's not the point I was actually making, allows you to feel reassured that your science-denial position is valid.

Last edited by Kimstu; 04-11-2019 at 06:59 PM.
  #270  
Old 04-11-2019, 08:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
No, and I didn't say they did. For the nth time, I am not claiming and have never claimed that it is demonstrably true that a billion people are going to die from climate change. I have simply been pointing out the realistic science-based reasons why such a prediction is nowhere near as ridiculously far-fetched as you're trying to portray it.


No, and I didn't say they did. See above.


This is a classic illustration of how you keep trying to dodge the actual science in order to focus only on what you consider the rhetorical weak points in popular descriptions of the science.

Ever since you complained about not liking the original popularization cite I provided, and mentioned the IPCC report as a source you would consider preferable, I've been citing only the IPCC report itself and articles that refer to it directly. And based on specific quotes from the IPCC report, I have given you considered and scientifically supported reasons why it is scientifically plausible to infer that hundreds of millions or even billions of people might die from climate change.

Not reasons why it's absolutely guaranteed that they will, mind you, because as I've been noting all along, there is no such guarantee. Just reasons why you're wrong in considering such inferences to be ridiculously hyperbolic and unrealistic.

And you have consistently ignored what I've said, in favor of hammering away at what you consider the rhetorical clincher that none of the science predicts conclusively that that number of people will die from climate change. Not because that's germane to what I'm actually talking about, but because you've decided that that's the aspect of the argument that you stand a chance of winning.

And winning some rhetorical point about climate change, even if it's not the point I was actually making, allows you to feel reassured that your science-denial position is valid.
it's not that I didn't "like" the "popularization" you cited, it's that your cite LIED, it said something that was demonstrably NOT TRUE. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge this point, so yes, I'm going to continue hammering on it.

Here are the highlights of some of the key posts in our interaction that got us to this point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... You've made a fairly specific claim here, about the potential deaths of 900 million people, and I'd like to know the source of it. Do you have a cite?
Right here would have been the perfect spot to stop and say something like "well look HD, I don't actually have a scientific source that estimates 900 million deaths. The IPCC doesn't say that because there's a lot of uncertainty, and they don't give an estimate of 900 million deaths, but here's my back-of-the-envelope figuring and best guess, and you can chalk that up to Kimstu's opinion." That could have led to some interesting examination of your personal opinions and best guesses on the matter. But that's not what you did. You didn't do anything even remotely like that. Instead, this was your reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yep.

Quote:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report last week [October 2018], warning that failing to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celcius would result in hundreds of millions of deaths.
The rest of that article describes a variety of unfortunately plausible scenarios in which warming would significantly exceed 1.5 degrees, worsening the catastrophic nature of the results. ...
You tried to convince me that the IPCC was estimating "hundreds of millions of deaths" (please contrast that with your most recent post that starts out "No, and I didn't say they did"). I don't know WHY you did it. Perhaps it was the first link you got back when you Googled something like "IPCC hundreds of millions dead". Perhaps you were unaware at the time that Jake Thomas was feeding you a line of bullshit. Or perhaps you're a regular reader of The Intellectualist and Jake has built up a reputation in your mind as a reliable source of information, but just this once he failed you. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that he LIED, and you fell for it. It's right there in black and white for everyone to see.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 04-11-2019 at 08:26 PM.
  #271  
Old 04-11-2019, 09:01 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
it's that your cite LIED, it said something that was demonstrably NOT TRUE. [...]
Quote:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report last week [October 2018], warning that failing to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celcius would result in hundreds of millions of deaths.
If you choose to read "warning that" as equivalent to "definitively predicting with very high certainty that", then sure, you are absolutely correct in saying that my previous cite lied.

But that's not the way I read the cite, and that's not the way other posters here read the cite. The reason that it's the way you insist on reading the cite, as I pointed out earlier, is because that's the only part of this argument that you have a chance of winning.

The actual gist of the argument---i.e., whether you were wrong in dismissing the possibility of hundreds of millions or billions of deaths from climate change as ridiculously "hyperbolic" and disconnected from scientific reality---is the part you've already lost.
  #272  
Old 04-11-2019, 09:14 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If you choose to read "warning that" as equivalent to "definitively predicting with very high certainty that", then sure, you are absolutely correct in saying that my previous cite lied. ...
This should be super-simple for you then. Show me the part of the IPCC report that's "warning that" global warming "would result in hundreds of millions of deaths". It's the "hundreds of millions of deaths" part that's the lie, not "warning that". I'm not demanding "very high certainty". I'd accept only high certain, or medium certainty, or even low certainty, so long as it's an estimate made by the IPCC that says "hundreds of millions of deaths".

The issue you have here is not any imaginary demand for certainty. The issue is that the IPCC report did NOT predict "hundreds of millions of deaths", with any degree of certainty you choose. If you believe I'm mistake about this, and I know you'd LOVE to show that I am, just quote the part of the report that was "warning that" global warming "would result in hundreds of millions of deaths." if "would", despite being the word that your own cite used, is too strong for you, let's go with: quote the part of the report that was warning that global warming MAY result in hundreds of millions of deaths.
  #273  
Old 04-11-2019, 09:33 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
TThe issue is that the IPCC report did NOT predict "hundreds of millions of deaths".
You are absolutely right that nowhere in the IPCC report does it state that there will be, or may be, "hundreds of millions of deaths". I have never asserted that such a prediction appears in the text of the report.

If you don't understand why the detailed predictions and scenarios in the IPCC report nonetheless provide a scientifically plausible warning that hundreds of millions of deaths as an outcome of climate change is well within the range of realistic possibility---as opposed to your sneering dismissal of that prospect as absurdly "alarmist" or "hyperbolic---then I can try to explain it to you again. If you just don't want to understand it, there's probably not much I can do to help you.
  #274  
Old 04-11-2019, 10:07 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,386
I think, HD, you have a point about the speculative nature of a death toll in the 100s of millions or north of a billion. OTOH, I think you overlooked that the IPCC is talking about the consequences of an increase in global temperatures of 1.5 or 2 degrees C, while the article you are criticizing refers to a scenario of 4 degrees warming. Look:
Quote:
The alarming new report you may have read about this week from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which examines just how much better 1.5 degrees of warming would be than 2 — echoes the charge. “Amplifies” may be the better term. Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, the report declares, should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue. Nearly all coral reefs would die out, wildfires and heat waves would sweep across the planet annually, and the interplay between drought and flooding and temperature would mean that the world’s food supply would become dramatically less secure. Avoiding that scale of suffering, the report says, requires such a thorough transformation of the world’s economy, agriculture, and culture that “there is no documented historical precedent.” The New York Times declared that the report showed a “strong risk” of climate crisis in the coming decades; in Grist, Eric Holthaus wrote that “civilization is at stake.”

If you are alarmed by those sentences, you should be — they are horrifying. But it is, actually, worse than that — considerably worse. That is because the new report’s worst-case scenario is, actually, a best case. In fact, it is a beyond-best-case scenario. What has been called a genocidal level of warming is already our inevitable future. The question is how much worse than that it will get.
Barring the arrival of dramatic new carbon-sucking technologies, which are so far from scalability at present that they are best described as fantasies of industrial absolution, it will not be possible to keep warming below two degrees Celsius — the level the new report describes as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are coursing along a trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by the end of the century.
Ok. Genocidal level of warming? The Nazi genocide murdered about 10 million people, counting the Gypsies and gays and so on, but not counting war casualties. I am pretty confident believing the climate change already underway will result in 10 million deaths by the end of the century. I think we may want to look at it 300 years out, because the napkin calculations in my head are roughly suggesting it could be that long, or longer, before we get things back to "normal". Anyway, 10 million deaths seems very plausible. Genocidal level of warming.

But more than 4 degrees? Average temperatures during the carboniferous period dropped from a peak of 20-25 C to 12 C as carbon was sequestered to a level of 200-300 ppm (from a peak of as much as 3000!)

More than 4 degrees means we go roughly 1/3 of the way to peak Carboniferous. What does that really mean? Um, I am not prepared to say exactly, but for sure we'll see a lot of thermal expansion of the oceans, and surely accelerated ice melt. All the effects mentioned in the IPCC report, only far worse. Now, if we actually see that much warming, it is going to be a fucking cataclysm. A billion deaths? I dunno, maybe. Farmland will dry up. Coasts will get swamped. Storms + tsunamis/surges will devastate cities. Heat itself will be deadly in places. End of the century, or 300+ years... pretty fucking bad if we are talking 4+ degrees.
  #275  
Old 04-12-2019, 12:21 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
More than 4 degrees means we go roughly 1/3 of the way to peak Carboniferous. What does that really mean? Um, I am not prepared to say exactly, but for sure we'll see a lot of thermal expansion of the oceans, and surely accelerated ice melt. All the effects mentioned in the IPCC report, only far worse. Now, if we actually see that much warming, it is going to be a fucking cataclysm. A billion deaths? I dunno, maybe. Farmland will dry up. Coasts will get swamped. Storms + tsunamis/surges will devastate cities. Heat itself will be deadly in places. End of the century, or 300+ years... pretty fucking bad if we are talking 4+ degrees.
What HD misses is that indeed, this does not go away magically after reaching the end of the century, it can get worse the longer we do not do something. And clearly a lot of the reason why not much is done in the USA is due to idiot like senator lee. The IPCC is conservative in the expected number of deaths because it is not their job to look at what societies will do in the future as a reaction to the expected displacements due to loss of land and water.

There is however plenty of sad evidence that shows that when thousands or millions are displaced one usual result is to see warfare pop up and then thousands or millions die. And as usual, people like HD will only listen to misleaders that never make the connection and lie to their viewers by only looking at a number that only deals with predictable weather disasters where we have the tools to minimize the danger, the lie from FOX news and the likes of Lomborg is in the omission of what is very likely to take place in a warming world where leaders continue to ignore evidence and solutions that shows that there is no need to aim for those worse scenarios.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-12-2019 at 12:26 AM.
  #276  
Old 04-12-2019, 02:34 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You're not going to convince a lot of skeptics that way: "Hey, we say things that aren't true and don't have cites to back up our bullshit, but you should believe us anyways, because ... just because"

That's not how this works.
Been working pretty well for the climate change denialists. They even got the president to pull out of the Paris Accords and appoint cabinet people to destroy previous efforts to preserve clean air and water and to inhibit successful efforts to actually mitigate the upcoming disaster.
  #277  
Old 04-12-2019, 03:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Been working pretty well for the climate change denialists. They even got the president to pull out of the Paris Accords and appoint cabinet people to destroy previous efforts to preserve clean air and water and to inhibit successful efforts to actually mitigate the upcoming disaster.
Yep, things like that does make many that thought that we should had been already doing harder efforts to control emissions, are realizing now that not talking too much about the worse scenarios was a big mistake.

In their effort to be so conservative so as to not get it wrong or sound alarmist, scientists that are making reports for the governments are falling in to a trap that I do think comes from powerful interests that constantly harangue the scientific establishment to not be "alarmist" even after they already demonstrated in the past to be conservative in their projections.

Problem is that then very plausible dangers and worries are minimized, ignoring the worst outcomes then came also because it was expected that we were more likely to listen to the scientists like it was done with the issues of acid rain and CFCs. That that is not happening here is then a sign that the worse scenarios are now plausible.

https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-sc...termediate.htm
Quote:
Asymmetric Challenges to Science

A recent study (Freudenburg 2010) investigated what it calls 'the Asymmetry of Scientific Challenge', the phenomenon in which reports on science fail to evaluate all outcomes, favoring certain probabilities while ignoring others. In the case of the IPCC, the researchers found that the media steadfastly challenge the predictions on the basis that they are exaggerated, worst-case scenarios. What they fail to speculate on is whether the opposite is true; that it may be equally correct to suggest that things might be far worse. This is how the researchers summarised their findings:

Quote:
"...new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that...if reporters wish to discuss ‘‘both sides’’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘‘other side’’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date".
While their study specifically addressed the relationship between the maintream media (MSM) and climate science, the overall conclusion they reached suggests that criticisms of the kind elaborated here may be highly inappropriate:

Quote:
"If the intention is to offer true balance in reporting, the scientifically credible ‘‘other side’’ is that, if the consensus estimates such as those from the IPCC are wrong, it is because the physical reality is significantly more ominous than has been widely recognized to date".
Brysse et al. (2012) suggests that the IPCC and climate scientists in general tend to be too conservative in their predictions because they are "erring on the side of least drama" (ESLD). However, they point out that an underprediction is just as wrong as an overprediction. Climate scientists may be introducing bias into their predictions for fear of being called "alarmist," but this conservative bias may leave us unprepared for the magnitude of future climate change.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-12-2019 at 03:49 PM.
  #278  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:31 PM
Mirtha is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 12
If Lee is correct then he should discourage children born in the USA because they consume stupid stuff by consumer-driven parents, and instead welcome poorer people with children from different countries plus th those immigrants have more than two children per family. IF.
  #279  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirtha View Post
If Lee is correct then he should discourage children born in the USA because they consume stupid stuff by consumer-driven parents, and instead welcome poorer people with children from different countries plus th those immigrants have more than two children per family. IF.
I don't know if you saw this, but he touched on this point in his speech:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Lee
American babies, in particular, are likely going to be wealthier, better educated, and more conservation-minded than children raised in still-industrializing regions.
  #280  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:42 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Yeah. Non-American babies are poorer, stupider, and more wasteful.
  #281  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:55 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know if you saw this, but he touched on this point in his speech:
I get that he's America-centric, but I'm not really seeing how being raised in America is a guarantee of being raised in wealth or (of all things) being more conservation-minded. After all we're not all rich here, and we're certainly not all conservation-minded, given that Lee himself is actively opposed to doing a single damn thing to help the environment.

We may indeed have a better education system than the average still-industrializing region, but if we scooped up more foreign babies and raised them here they'd have the advantage of our education system here too.
  #282  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:20 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I get that he's America-centric, but I'm not really seeing how being raised in America is a guarantee of being raised in wealth or (of all things) being more conservation-minded. After all we're not all rich here, and we're certainly not all conservation-minded, given that Lee himself is actively opposed to doing a single damn thing to help the environment.

We may indeed have a better education system than the average still-industrializing region, but if we scooped up more foreign babies and raised them here they'd have the advantage of our education system here too.
He didn't say "guarantee" or "all". He said "likely going to be".
  #283  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:09 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He didn't say "guarantee" or "all". He said "likely going to be".
Really what saves him here is that he explicitly compared America to "still-industrializing" regions, which is a fairly meaningless term which one could theoretically contract to just areas without electricity and running water. Putting the US against, say, Europe, I don't think we come off as more likely to produce magic science sorcerers who can wave wands and fix climate change like he's claiming they will.

And of course if we're willing to admit that being the US is no guarantee of wealth then we should definitely be desperately admitting immigrants from every country imaginable to get our baby count up - because his entire dumbass argument is "If we as a country get our baby count up them miracles will happen (fifty years from now after I'm safely dead and can't lose money over it)". More babies is more babies is more babies, and since more babies is apparently the key to magic happening then it shouldn't matter what color their skin is.

Which is not to say that Mirthra was right and American babies would be worse due to being consumers or whatever - Lee's argument (such as it is) is "1.Babies 2.??? 3.Profit!" and thus american babies are as good as any (non-still-industrializing) babies for his dumbass purposes. More babies is more babies is more babies, simple as that.
  #284  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:03 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
What I don't understand is - we have smart scientists now, offering solutions and ways ahead, but people don't want to listen to them. What makes him think that those in power will listen to people 50 years from now?
  #285  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:19 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What I don't understand is - we have smart scientists now, offering solutions and ways ahead, but people don't want to listen to them. What makes him think that those in power will listen to people 50 years from now?
He doesn't think that, of course - it's all bullshit. He just wants to do nothing, because the people who fund him are opposed to doing anything.

...though he'd probably tell you that he expects future scientists to come up with palatable solutions. Which is to say, solutions that require no cost or effort by anyone and most certainly won't involve any company having to do anything that would impact their bottom line (like selling less petroleum). Until something like that turns up just keep having more babies; surely one of them will come up with the solution someday!
  #286  
Old 05-14-2019, 07:26 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
He doesn't think that, of course - it's all bullshit. He just wants to do nothing, because the people who fund him are opposed to doing anything.

...though he'd probably tell you that he expects future scientists to come up with palatable solutions. Which is to say, solutions that require no cost or effort by anyone and most certainly won't involve any company having to do anything that would impact their bottom line (like selling less petroleum). Until something like that turns up just keep having more babies; surely one of them will come up with the solution someday!
Yeah, but some people today actually agree with him. Seems to me they are just morons who are clinging to "maybe someday, someone else will invent magic!"
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017