Normally journalists/ twitter would pivot to send themselves a hoax threat before correcting a mistake.
Journalism 101-
Never admit mistakes or learn from mistakes - its what makes you great. If a Trump supporter or teacher corrects you its because he is preparing to attack/rape you. Act accordingly
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.
Not really. The actual scientific predictions (with error bars and shit) have been correct because they've been within the error, and normally their estimates leaned conservative.
I don't think they have a 200 year climate model. They have several different models and methodologies going out to 100 years and the range in temperatures by 2100 from 2000 is somewhere between 3-5.
I am sure there is some climate change. I just doubt how much is caused by humans and I especially doubt climate scientists who decide the best thing for the world/economy is.
Holy based, they actually corrected it
Normally journalists/ twitter would pivot to send themselves a hoax threat before correcting a mistake.
Journalism 101- Never admit mistakes or learn from mistakes - its what makes you great. If a Trump supporter or teacher corrects you its because he is preparing to attack/rape you. Act accordingly
-The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome
Haven't they been wrong on these predictions every single time?
Not really. The actual scientific predictions (with error bars and shit) have been correct because they've been within the error, and normally their estimates leaned conservative.
Whats the standard error in degrees celsius for a 200 year climate model?
I don't think they have a 200 year climate model. They have several different models and methodologies going out to 100 years and the range in temperatures by 2100 from 2000 is somewhere between 3-5.
Notice that they use “19th century” because that still confuses many people 😉
I mean the answer is a simple, singular word, now isn't it..?
Deliberately.
There's your answer. Boom.
Is it somewhat odd that it would appear to be a coordinated effort? No, not really... But anyway, this didn't happen by "accident". Come on now...
Epstein didn't kill himself
Even as someone who believes in Climate Change (because it's real), 1.5 C increase in 20 years seemed fairly dramatic.
2000-2100 was supposed to be 3-5 degrees
I have no idea what you're talking about or who you are.
I am sure there is some climate change. I just doubt how much is caused by humans and I especially doubt climate scientists who decide the best thing for the world/economy is.
It's also unlikely to be driven by a harmless, life-enabling gas that constitutes a whooping 1/2500 of the atmosphere.
Plenty is caused by humans, one of the easy things we can definitely measure is the amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
I'm starting to get really worried about the Science Ethicists, they are getting very insane.