\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change ...

[a a]

Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
Image


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:10:40 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:

Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
Image


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small

Extinction is not like the rapture. The planet very well could have already passed the critical tipping point that will take a while to fully realize, and nothing can be done about it.

 

[a a]

>

Yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa post.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <manta103g@gmail.com>
wrote:

Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
Image


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small

Related rant:

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 3:10:40 AM UTC+11, a a wrote:

Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small

Greta Thurnberg was born on the 3rd January 2003. In 2018 she was fifteen. Human society is at risk of a population crash if we don\'t slow down the current trajectory of anthropogenic global warming, but it isn\'t going to happen all that soon, though it could become much more difficult to reverse the trend if we don\'t get on with it. The human species is unlikely to become extinct even if that happens.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 7:57:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com
wrote:
\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.

She was fifteen back in 2018.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small
Related rant:

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds

https://www.science20.com/profile/hank_campbell

The usual right wing lunatic who is worried about how \" pervasive scientific misinformation is in progressive arguments on organic and genetically modified foods, clean energy, nuclear waste and other matters.\"

He doesn\'t like their conclusions so he claims that their facts are wrong. John Larkin shares his approach when it comes to anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 16/03/23 15:16, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> Human society is at risk of a population crash if we don\'t slow down the current trajectory of anthropogenic global warming

Human society is at risk of extinction from AGW if we don\'t suffer a
population collapse, almost regardless of anything else we do about AGW.

I\'m banking on that coming in the form of much more severe pandemics,
but I wouldn\'t discount the possibility of global war. I just don\'t want
to think about that, it seems much harder to rebuild anything resembling
civilisation afterwards.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 18:16:54 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:


>> Human society is at risk of a population crash if we don\'t slow down the current trajectory of anthropogenic global warming

What will \"crash\" the population is education, which leads to lower
birth rates.

There will of course be natural selection of breeders, so things will
level off. 1 or 2 billion would be a nice number eventually.

Human society is at risk of extinction from AGW if we don\'t suffer a
population collapse, almost regardless of anything else we do about AGW.

Extinction? Every single human will die? Everywhere on the planet?
From the temperature going up a couple of deg c?

I think not. A few Canadians and Fins and a small settlement in
antartica might survive.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 17/03/23 20:25, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 18:16:54 +1100, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:


Human society is at risk of a population crash if we don\'t slow down the current trajectory of anthropogenic global warming

What will \"crash\" the population is education, which leads to lower
birth rates

How\'s USA education standards trending the last few decades?
I think \"crashing\" is quite a mild description of it.

There will of course be natural selection of breeders, so things will
level off. 1 or 2 billion would be a nice number eventually.

I\'d love to share your optimism, and I agree those would be good numbers.

Human society is at risk of extinction from AGW if we don\'t suffer a
population collapse, almost regardless of anything else we do about AGW.

Extinction? Every single human will die? Everywhere on the planet?
From the temperature going up a couple of deg c?

I think not. A few Canadians and Fins and a small settlement in
antartica might survive.

Yep, they\'d survive, if AGW was the only problem, and not also some
desperate tyrant setting off a nuclear war because they don\'t believe
they should have to suffer from something they don\'t even believe in.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 8:25:18 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 18:16:54 +1100, Clifford Heath
no....@please.net> wrote:


Human society is at risk of a population crash if we don\'t slow down the current trajectory of anthropogenic global warming.

What will \"crash\" the population is education, which leads to lower birth rates.

There\'s education and education - the US has a literate population and puts a lot of people through tertiary education, but it doesn\'t seem to have done much to lower the US rate of population growth.

> There will of course be natural selection of breeders, so things will level off.

Natural selection will select those most enthusiastic about breeding. That doesn\'t lead to a leveling off.
If your tertiary education had worked you would have been able to work that out for yourself.

> 1 or 2 billion would be a nice number eventually.

Why?

Human society is at risk of extinction from AGW if we don\'t suffer a
population collapse, almost regardless of anything else we do about AGW.

Extinction? Every single human will die?

That\'s not what is meant by human society going extinct. If we can\'t travel and trade we won\'t have the human society we\'ve been used to for the last few thousand years.

Some of us will survive as geographically isolated groups, with a lot less control of our environment.

> Everywhere on the planet? From the temperature going up a couple of deg c?

The defects in your education are opbvious.

> I think not. A few Canadians and Fins and a small settlement in Antartica might survive.

Antarctica is likely to stay cold enough to be inhospitable. Tasmania and Ireland will be fine, and anywhere else further from the equator, though the weather woulkd be more energetic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:57:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com
wrote:
Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
Image


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small
Related rant:

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds

Kurzweil is a computer scientist by training and therefore his predictions about the future aren\'t credible. And neither is the author of that opinion piece.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:19:43 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:57:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com
wrote:
Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
Image


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small
Related rant:

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds
Kurzweil is a computer scientist by training and therefore his predictions about the future aren\'t credible. And neither is the author of that opinion piece.

The timing of his predictions won\'t be all that reliable. The last seventy year of computer science and technology have seen some remarkably rapid advances, and the computer scientists have been more interested in what they can do with the new technology than they have been in the technology itself, or how it might progress.

The author of opinion piece is just an opinionated right-wing ignoramus, simple-minded enough to get John Larkin\'s attention.

--
Bill Sloman, sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:17:09 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:19:43 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:57:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com
wrote:
Frank Hoogerbeets
@hogrbe
·
1h


\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
Image


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FrRM7iLWcAcsaBe?format=png&name=small
Related rant:

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds
Kurzweil is a computer scientist by training and therefore his predictions about the future aren\'t credible. And neither is the author of that opinion piece.
The timing of his predictions won\'t be all that reliable. The last seventy year of computer science and technology have seen some remarkably rapid advances, and the computer scientists have been more interested in what they can do with the new technology than they have been in the technology itself, or how it might progress.

The author of opinion piece is just an opinionated right-wing ignoramus, simple-minded enough to get John Larkin\'s attention.

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, sydney

Hey Bozo Bill, there\'s an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out. There is a hell of a lot of garbage going into these so-called predictions. Note to predicters: you should state a clear-cut way of determining whether or not your prediction can be accurately measured, and state a consequence to yourself if you fail.

Bozo\'s Sewage Sweeper

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:25:04 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 7:57:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com
wrote:
\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.
She was fifteen back in 2018.

Which is a VERY GOOD reason why we shouldn\'t listen to 15-year-olds.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:02:12 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:17:09 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:19:43 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:57:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote:

\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds

Kurzweil is a computer scientist by training and therefore his predictions about the future aren\'t credible. And neither is the author of that opinion piece.
The timing of his predictions won\'t be all that reliable. The last seventy year of computer science and technology have seen some remarkably rapid advances, and the computer scientists have been more interested in what they can do with the new technology than they have been in the technology itself, or how it might progress.

The author of opinion piece is just an opinionated right-wing ignoramus, simple-minded enough to get John Larkin\'s attention.

Hey Bozo Bill, there\'s an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out. There is a hell of a lot of garbage going into these so-called predictions.

Actually, there isn\'t. There\'s a great deal of very carefully collected data going in. The system is complicated so the actual predicitons being made aren\'t all that precise, until the climate change denial crowd get their hands on them and promote some report\'s misunderstanding of what was said to them into some kind of bogus prediction.

> Note to predictors: you should state a clear-cut way of determining whether or not your prediction can be accurately measured, and state a consequence to yourself if you fail.

Don\'t be silly. The stuff that gets published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is accurately measured, and has consequences for the authors scientific reputation and citation numbers.

This isn\'t what you are talking about, since what you read is climate change denial propaganda which relies on second hand sources that have been distorted enough to serve their purposes.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:04:30 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:25:04 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 7:57:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com
wrote:
\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg
said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.

She was fifteen back in 2018.

Which is a VERY GOOD reason why we shouldn\'t listen to 15-year-olds.

She did delete her tweet, which means that she did learn that she\'d expressed herself inaccurately.

You don\'t seem to have that capacity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:12:35 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:02:12 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:17:09 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:19:43 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:57:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote:

\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds

Kurzweil is a computer scientist by training and therefore his predictions about the future aren\'t credible. And neither is the author of that opinion piece.
The timing of his predictions won\'t be all that reliable. The last seventy year of computer science and technology have seen some remarkably rapid advances, and the computer scientists have been more interested in what they can do with the new technology than they have been in the technology itself, or how it might progress.

The author of opinion piece is just an opinionated right-wing ignoramus, simple-minded enough to get John Larkin\'s attention.

Hey Bozo Bill, there\'s an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out. There is a hell of a lot of garbage going into these so-called predictions.
Actually, there isn\'t. There\'s a great deal of very carefully collected data going in. The system is complicated so the actual predicitons being made aren\'t all that precise, until the climate change denial crowd get their hands on them and promote some report\'s misunderstanding of what was said to them into some kind of bogus prediction.

Note to predictors: you should state a clear-cut way of determining whether or not your prediction can be accurately measured, and state a consequence to yourself if you fail.

Don\'t be silly. The stuff that gets published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is accurately measured, and has consequences for the authors scientific reputation and citation numbers.

This isn\'t what you are talking about, since what you read is climate change denial propaganda which relies on second hand sources that have been distorted enough to serve their purposes.

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

Hey Bozo, \"peer-reviewed\" these days just means that it passes muster with the thought police.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 11:22:38 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:12:35 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:02:12 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 7:17:09 AM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 11:19:43 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:57:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:10:35 -0700 (PDT), a a <mant...@gmail.com> wrote:

\"In 2018 @GretaThunberg said that according to a \"top climate scientist\" humanity would face extinction if we don\'t fix climate change in the next 5 years (2023). Meanwhile, she has deleted her tweet.

https://www.science20.com/content/the_older_ray_kurzweil_gets_the_crazier_he_sounds

Kurzweil is a computer scientist by training and therefore his predictions about the future aren\'t credible. And neither is the author of that opinion piece.
The timing of his predictions won\'t be all that reliable. The last seventy year of computer science and technology have seen some remarkably rapid advances, and the computer scientists have been more interested in what they can do with the new technology than they have been in the technology itself, or how it might progress.

The author of opinion piece is just an opinionated right-wing ignoramus, simple-minded enough to get John Larkin\'s attention.

Hey Bozo Bill, there\'s an old saying in computer science: garbage in, garbage out. There is a hell of a lot of garbage going into these so-called predictions.

Actually, there isn\'t. There\'s a great deal of very carefully collected data going in. The system is complicated so the actual predicitons being made aren\'t all that precise, until the climate change denial crowd get their hands on them and promote some report\'s misunderstanding of what was said to them into some kind of bogus prediction.

Note to predictors: you should state a clear-cut way of determining whether or not your prediction can be accurately measured, and state a consequence to yourself if you fail.

Don\'t be silly. The stuff that gets published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is accurately measured, and has consequences for the authors scientific reputation and citation numbers.

This isn\'t what you are talking about, since what you read is climate change denial propaganda which relies on second hand sources that have been distorted enough to serve their purposes.

Hey Bill, \"peer-reviewed\" these days just means that it passes muster with the thought police.

Don\'t be silly. \"Peer review\" is the process in which papers submitted to scholarly journals are sent out to scholars who know about the area the paper covers. Editors try to pick reviewers who know enough to have a useful opinion, and who aren\'t too busy to do the unpaid work involved - it\'s not easy to find enough people willing to do the job. I\'ve done a little refereeing - editors can have to reach out a long way.

There\'s no thought police force involved. Ground-breaking papers can present a problem and Max Planck didn\'t bother getting any of Einstein\'s four 1905 papers peer-reviewed. Climate change hasn\'t involved ground-breaking work for the past century. Svante August Arrhenius published on it in 1896 and got it more or less right back then.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney