Beto Says We Only Have 10 Years Left GK
- Thread starter wvkeeper(HN)
- Start date
Yet is plan hopes to eliminate carbon emissions by 2050. Hmm something doesn’t add up
And some of you think this guy can actually win Texas. Please...
This isn’t just for you, back rubber. Any of the morons who liked your post can try to argue it.
His comment clearly wasn’t inferring that humans only have ten years left on this planet if we don’t act on climate change. His comment, which was quite clear for at least those average morons, was that if we don’t start making significant changes in ten years, we will do irreversible damage to the planet.
His ten years comment, like much of the rest of his plan, aligns with the ten years start in the Green New Deal. He clearly referenced science/scientists who provided this info. No scientist is saying humans will be wiped away in ten years.
How would any of your morons reach that conclusion? Do you really think he intended to mean humans won’t be able to survive in ten years on this planet unless we make huge changes and then turn around and reference 2050?
We’ve only been hearing we have 10 years to do something since the 1980s. I have no problem transitioning away from fossil fuels being more energy efficient and being better stewards of Mother Nature but the scare tactics used don’t help convince people
according to algor, i've been dead since 2003.
Wow, only 10 years. Govt can't do much in 10 years. War on Poverty, Drugs, Been in Afghanistan since 2001. No cure for the common cold.
We are screwed. So what really matters if we are hosed?
We are screwed. So what really matters if we are hosed?
In that case, your comment referencing his 2050 goal makes absolutely no sense. I’ll wait to see if the others who supported your illogical post have a better attempt.
This.
Not that there isn't a certain amount of hyperbole going on, the message is pretty clear...if we don't start making changes we will soon reach the point where we won't be able to reverse the trend even with drastic measures. This doesn't mean that the world is going to end in 10 years and it doesn't mean the problems associated with climate change will happen suddenly. As far as I've seen in the scientific community, few are saying different.
This isn't a gotcha moment with the ten year (or 12 year) thing. Here are some comments from real climate scientist that are more representative of the consensus...
*"12 years isn't a deadline, and climate change isn't a cliff we fall off — it's a slope we slide down," said Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA. "We don't have 12 years to prevent climate change — we have no time. It's already here. And even under a business-as-usual scenario, the world isn't going to end in exactly twelve years."
*In reference to Ocasio-Cortez's comments, Marvel said: "She's right that decisions we make in the next decade will determine how bad climate change gets — we can't prevent bad things, but we have the power to avoid the worst-case scenario."
Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, told Axios that the idea that there is only a finite amount of time to fix climate change is the wrong way to look at the problem. She summed up the IPCC's 1.5-degree report this way:
*"Every action matters. Every bit of warming matters. Every year matters. Every choice matters."
Andrea Dutton, a paleoclimate researcher at the University of Florida, said the 12-year deadline became attractive for media headlines in spite a lack of support from the IPCC report itself:
*"For some reason the media latched onto the 12 years (2030), presumably because they thought that it helped to get across the message of how quickly we are approaching this and hence how urgently we need action. Unfortunately, this has led to a complete mischaracterization of what the report said."
*"All the time-limited frames are bullshit," Gavin Schmidt, who leads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, told Axios in an email. "Nothing special happens when the 'carbon budget' runs out or we pass whatever temperature target you care about, instead the costs of emissions steadily rise," he said. The IPCC report, for example, found the impacts worsen considerably beyond 1.5°C of warming.
*"The thing to push back against is the implicit framing that there is some magic global mean temperature or total emissions that separate 'fine' from 'catastrophic'. There just isn't," Schmidt said.
We are fooked. I say we party likes it is 1999. I knew I would never see social security.
I cant believe i survived that ice age back in the 70s.
The oil companies have actively campaigned against nuclear.
And herdman...I’ve responded three times to your “ice age in the 70’s” comment over the years. There was an overwhelming consensus that the world would heat and carbon the culprit in the 70s. I even linked a meta study that showed all of the scientific reports on it over a period with an overwhelming amount showing warming. I’ll link it...again...later this evening.
And herdman...I’ve responded three times to your “ice age in the 70’s” comment over the years. There was an overwhelming consensus that the world would heat and carbon the culprit in the 70s. I even linked a meta study that showed all of the scientific reports on it over a period with an overwhelming amount showing warming. I’ll link it...again...later this evening.
How many times have we heard this? Good lord, you guys buying into this climate change thing are morons. I’m not even going to be nice about it any more. You constantly site “proof” and “scientists” yet fail to show any proof whatsoever, and that’s because it doesn’t exist.
We’ve been told this lie over and over and over again for decades, yet you idiot leftists continue to lap it up.
How can otherwise smart people be so brainwashed (sound familiar?)?
We’ve been told this lie over and over and over again for decades, yet you idiot leftists continue to lap it up.
How can otherwise smart people be so brainwashed (sound familiar?)?
It’s not about fear momgering and the. Saying we only have 10 years to do something aren’t compatible statements. Especially when it’s been made for 30+ years
Although the right-wing media is spinning this to make it sound like Beto thinks the world will end in 10 years, I don't think anyone that listened to the clip actually believes that is what he was saying. I agree that the clear implication is that we have to get a handle on the issue in the next 10 years.
What I find humorous/ridiculous about his claim is that we've been hearing the same damned sales pitch since the mid-70s. See meme above. My question is, what 10-year (or 5-, 12-, 15-year window, depending on who you ask) are we talking about here? It keeps getting bumped back.
Oh. And I liked 429's post because I thought it was funny in the context of the narrative. Not because I believe it's factually accurate.
So, we've been hearing these warnings for years now. We all know better. Especially those who condemn others. Other than you guys switching purely to solar, driving only electric cars, recycling everything possible, eliminating use of all paper & plastic products, not wasting electricity on frivolous digital activities, avoiding air travel at all costs because of the pollution it creates, lowering the temp in your homes to 60 in the winter & raising it to 80 in the summer, what else are you doing to help?
Last edited:
I don't think they teach common sense anymore. I also think they are looking for some big pie in the sky answer and some big pie in the sky solution. Then, partly arrogance and partly control by growing the government.
GK just mentioned the oil companies fighting the nuclear stuff. Well, so do the enviro wackos.
You don't think 429 or BC thought that? In that case, explain any logic behind 429's comment about 2050. If he didn't think the ten year deal was about the end of the planet, why would he think 2050 to completely stop carbon emissions doesn't add up? It makes no sense.
And if scientists agree with Beto's comment, why would BC mock people who think Beto could win Texas? Beto's comment wasn't bizarre, lacking scientific support, or out there. Remember, there was only about a 4.5% swing (if you want some entertainment, ask BC to explain how "swing" is determined) even with Hillary as the nominee, yet with a Texas resident? Yeah, that could easily be made up.
I hope, but don't know, that 429 was just pushing the party line.
As for BC's comments, he's not wrong. With Texas's ties to the fossil fuel industries, and its conservative-leaning base, I doubt Beto carries the state.
It doesn’t add up because they aren’t serious about the 10 time frame to do something. It’s not hard to see how it doesn’t add up
As I said earlier I’d have some time over the Thanksgiving break to address these items. Here’s the thing herdman...you have a laundry list of faulty assertions in your above response that a reply would be overwhelming. I’m going to pick off one at a time over the next week. But it doesn’t matter...six months down the road you will come back and make the same faulty assertions. Take the “folks were talking about ice ages back in the 70s and 80s” comment. No...they weren’t.
Here is my response to the same assertion in a thread you participated in back in January of this year on the topic of ice age...
You’re throwing a lot out there, but I’ll address a couple items that has actually been discussed before. First off it is a misnomer that scientist in the 1970s were predicting an ice age. Only a small percentage predicted cooling and it prompted sensational headlines such as this Time Magazine cover from 1973...
The only problem with this is that Time (and several other publications) cherry-picked the information they chose to present. Why not? Time's job was to sell magazines and not necessarily advance the truth. There was a comprehensive study done to determine where the science community actually stood on the issue in the 1970s.
In a study of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979, of forty-nine papers that took a position on the issue, 42 said that the earth was warming and listed co2 as the culprit. Only seven papers expressed the belief that it was cooling. So 86% of the papers predicted the same thing being said today.
Here is a copy and paste of some additional reading on the subject...
- The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, published by the American Meteorological Society.
- Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? by William Connelly documents all the scientific literature in the 70's on global cooling.
- Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations by Spencer Weart (part of the History of Global Warming series) documents the development of ice age science.
- Logical Science goes to the trouble of purchasing the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report to see what the NAS had to say about global cooling in the 70's.
- James Hansen responds to the claims that "Hansen predicted an ice age in the 70's", explaining the role of his computer program used in Rasool's paper.
- Check out this New York Times article from 1956 that discusses a forecasted increase in global temperatures as emissions from burning fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2. Thanks to George Morrison for the heads up.
- Robert Brulle at the Wonk Room looks at a range of New York Times articles on climate science in the late 60's and early 70's.
- The 1979 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment" finds "when it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes."
Above is my response to herdman’s “ice age comments. Notice that I said (bold type for your convenience) that herdman would come back six months later with the same faulty assertion. The above response was dated in November 2018. That’s about six month ago and like Nostradamus my prediction was dead on. But I really can’t take credit here. This is about the fourth time he made the same comment even with being presented definitive evidence that the overwhelming consensus from the 70s and 80s is that the earth would heat and carbon the culprit.
That’s why herdman is a Trump man. Facts are irrelevant. When met with definitive evidence, just wait six month and repeat the same assertion. It’s so predictable.
I’ll cut and paste the evidence for those too lazy to look....
The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, published by the American Meteorological Society.
The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, published by the American Meteorological Society.
- Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? by William Connelly documents all the scientific literature in the 70's on global cooling.
- Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations by Spencer Weart (part of the History of Global Warming series) documents the development of ice age science.
- Logical Science goes to the trouble of purchasing the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report to see what the NAS had to say about global cooling in the 70's.
- James Hansen responds to the claims that "Hansen predicted an ice age in the 70's", explaining the role of his computer program used in Rasool's paper.
- Check out this New York Times article from 1956 that discusses a forecasted increase in global temperatures as emissions from burning fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO2. Thanks to George Morrison for the heads up.
- Robert Brulle at the Wonk Room looks at a range of New York Times articles on climate science in the late 60's and early 70's.
- The 1979 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment" finds "when it is assumed that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is doubled and statistical thermal equilibrium is achieved, the more realistic of the modeling efforts predict a global surface warming of between 2°C and 3.5°C, with greater increases at high latitudes."
Common sense comes in to play GK. In addition, I know the money that these scientist and schools are getting to study this. I don't doubt the earth is warming. Where we disagree is what is man's role in that and how much. Plus, all the over dramatic the earth is going to end and we have X number of years stuff is laughable. Finally, this is also about a grow the government power grab. I can see right through it.
If I give you a sum of money to go study something and it is a continuous revenue stream, what are you going to come back with? The alarmist answer.
And, if you want to go vote for one of these wolves in sheep's clothing because they say what you want to hear about Global Warming then, go ahead. But, they have a bigger agenda.
My entire post was directly addressing your "ice age" comments. Your response doesn't even address what I posted and you quoted.
Sure it does. It starts out talking about common sense. The ambulance chasing global warming alarmists are not using any.
Dear lord, Tier Three. That's embarrassing.
Yeah, because Hillary sure had a lot of support from the fossil fuel industries, huh? Yet she was still just about a 4.5% swing from winning the state.
Acting like it's such a wild claim that Beto, a Texas native, COULD win the state is foolish considering the last election.
You simply are too stupid to understand what you're reading.
The ten time frame is to make major changes. It isn't to eliminate every single aspect of every single industry that harms the environment. It is a plan, some parts more aggressive than others, to reduce man's harm to the environment.
Having a reasonable plan (eliminating all carbon emissions within the next 30 years) doesn't mean that they can't also greatly reduce emissions within the next ten years which would help reduce man's harm to the environment.
maybe they should put a plan together instead of talking about it every 15 or 20 years . . . and something more realistic than AOC's pile of cartoonist cow shit.
At least 3 of the 5 generally accepted style guides say "Texas's" is correct. It's acceptable under the other two, but not preferred. But, whatever. You do you, chief.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pr...id/84201/Possessives-Proper-Nouns?hs_amp=true
