End Times ?

[chenGOD]

Almost as if you are being disingenuous in not understanding the definition of disingenuous.

Better Angels... was largely about violence and was publicized as a book on that topic.

 

Ignoring those aspects are what got us trump.

So the point is that to blindly follow these methods as if they can’t possibly fail is not a very smart path.

 

Your link on climate returns a 404.

 

I’m just saying it’s not the be all and end all. I also wonder who the progressives are that eschew progress, beyond the sensationalist media.

[caze]

huh? I don't see how there's anything deliberately insincere about a graph showing that life expectancy has increased dramatically, when life expectancy has increased dramatically. I don't see how the fact that part of the reason for this is that there are far less dead children now makes him somehow dishonest?! "people are living longer" obviously doesn't mean everyone's life span is increasing, seeing as the upper bound of human lifespan has been basically static for thousands of years. he's talking about progress, it's progress that there are less dead children, as well as other reasons like less people dying early from preventable diseases, seems like a simple and obvious point to me.

 

as to who the people he's calling out are, I already answered that in my reply to goDel. it's not just the media (journalists, polemicists, and quasi-intellectuals), it's academics, politicians, and easily impressionable members of the public too.

proper link:

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-future-climate-revealed-current-variations.html

[chenGOD]

That’s exactly what he’s portraying though. “Look how much longer we’re living.” If he wanted to say “Look how well we’re doing with infant mortality”, then he should say so.

So are those all progressives he’s calling out? That’s a broad swathe of humanity. Do all progressives think the same? What is a “progressive”? Clarity matters.

 

And that link doesn’t say what you think it says.

“Climate sensitivity is high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous global climate change"

[manmower]

That’s exactly what he’s portraying though. “Look how much longer we’re living.” If he wanted to say “Look how well we’re doing with infant mortality”, then he should say so.

No, not at all. The average person is living longer so putting it that way is completely warranted. It's just you who thinks children not dying is somehow worse news than people adding a couple of years of dubious quality to the tail end of their life.

[sweepstakes]

It's just you who

*think not thinks

[usagi]

*you'mst

[ghOsty]

We're now 2 minutes from midnight on the doomsday clock... the end is nigh

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/25/580670125/doomsday-clock-moves-closer-to-midnight-were-2-minutes-from-world-annihilation

[hello spiral]

thank fuck

[zaphod]

scientists measure apocalypse on metaphorical clock

[caze]

That’s exactly what he’s portraying though. “Look how much longer we’re living.” If he wanted to say “Look how well we’re doing with infant mortality”, then he should say so.

So are those all progressives he’s calling out? That’s a broad swathe of humanity. Do all progressives think the same? What is a “progressive”? Clarity matters.

 

And that link doesn’t say what you think it says.

“Climate sensitivity is high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous global climate change"

 

I'm tired of arguing the first point with you any longer, but suffice it to say, you're still wrong....

 

The climate link did say what I thought it said too, which was that maybe "worst case climate change scenarios aren't plausible any more", which is exactly what that paper says:

 

Using this approach, the team derive a range of climate sensitivity to doubling carbon dioxide of 2.8+/-0.6oC, which reduces the standard uncertainty in climate sensitivity (of 1.5-4.5oC) by around 60%.

 

 

The worst case scenarios in the modeling were for up to 4.5°C rises (or even up to 6°C with some fringe models), which would be pretty devastating, and there wouldn't be much we could do about it at this point; if this new evidence is accurate the upper limit is lowered to 3.4°C (2.8°C likely), which as you quoted 'is high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous global climate change', i.e. not the worst case scenario.

[chenGOD]

How is it wrong? More people aren’t dying in childhood. Doesn’t sound as sexy as “people are living longer”. The major component of the graph he shows is the lowering of the infant mortality rate (which is a good thing, and I never said otherwise), which is why it’s disingenuous.

 

Read the last sentence again “high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous climate change”, i.e. if we don’t do something, it will be too late.

 

For some real irony, new work is being done on the effect of removing aerosol pollutants from the atmosphere. Can anyone say unintended consequences? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/#

[Silent Member]

Heyaaaaaa, the world will still be here when we're all gone, don't worry be happy, weeeeee

[YangYing]

Heyaaaaaa, the world will still be here when we're all gone, don't worry be happy, weeeeee