In 2008 ABC News Predicted The World Would Be Underwater And Climate Change Apocalypse Would Strike By 2015. Does Anyone Really Believe This Garbage?

Bet you didn't even know you are already dead!

Seriously, the fake liberal news is for morons.


0|1
014

Most Helpful Guys

  • lol According to my parents, people have been predicting this for decades.

    My parents were told that the entire Philippines would be utterly submerged years ago. The archipelago nation is still not fish food!

    How do these people still have credibility?

    0|1
    0|0
    • Yes, and not just decades. There have always been those who predict the end of the world as far back as historical records go. It's always some goofy theory that is designed to scare people. The "climate change" hoax (which used to be called "global warming" until they found out that the earth was actually getting cooler for many years, is a pure political propaganda scare tactic to make you feel more dependent on government to save your ass. It's an excuse to let the government shove its fat greedy hands in your pocket even deeper and make even more draconian regulations to control how you have to live your life. In other words it is designed to take away more of your freedom. That's why the left loves it. They hate liberty!

    • Show All
    • Those are interesting examples, but, for example, producing paper from wood also generates pollution; where's the research, and perhaps there's a need for more regulation?

    • @goaded Yes, both make pollution. And I confess, I haven't exactly read research papers directly, but reports of them. (And I should probably fix that.) On side effects of paper ♻️ing, the best source I could find on the matter is from a healthy lifestyle journal.
      www.livestrong.com/.../

      The rest are less specific, like this response to eCo₂ Greetings (a tree-planting business e-cards vendor) by Planet Green Recycle (a fundraising organization that sells ♻️ed ink-cartages & small electronics) on the issues of recycling.
      www.eco2greetings.com/.../...ing-isnt-cracked.html
      planetgreenrecycle.com/.../recycling-facts-does-recycling-cause-pollution

      But they do agree that, in the "Reduce, Reuse, ♻️" slogan, it's the "Reduce" and "Reuse" that should be emphasized. And this is even more so, now that 🇨🇳 has decided to exit the exported-paper & -plastic ♻️ing market.
      www.businessinsider.com.au/china-citi-single-use-plastic-bags-waste-australia-2018-9
      www.nytimes.com/.../...ndfills-plastic-papers.html

      Even in ♻️ing plastic in the 🇺🇸 seems less certain due to sorting issues. Manually sorting plastics is too expensive, but via machine is faulty. So, it's sometimes is more eco-friendly to just throw away plastic, than to throw it into the recycling bin.
      discovermagazine.com/.../06-when-recycling-is-bad-for-the-environment

      And I'll admit. ♻️ing does feel good. (For more than a decade, I've gotten use to ♻️ing. When I had to live ½ a year in an place that didn't ♻️, I felt guilty every time I threw things away. When I moved-out & ♻️ed again, that felt so great!) But it's still uncertain. Most of what I read is digital. Is that good? In terms of trees saved & chemical-pollution spared, 👍. But in terms of the ☢️ waste incurred every time I recharge my devices via our near-by ☢️ power plant, 👎. So, in all?

  • The doomsayers are always quite certain of themselves.

    When I was a child, the nutrition police said we should eat margarine, not butter, and our diet should consist largely of grains. Later, they decided that margarine is far worse than butter. I have eschewed grains and I eat a low carb diet that is not favored by many doctors.

    In the last 1970's, we we warned of the coming ice age!

    In the current world, the doomsayers neglect to inform us that the southern ice cap is actually expanding. They forget to mention that the number of serious tropical storms recently is not greater than the number in the 1930's.

    In essence, we get a stream of misinformation and distortion to convince us to take actions that will advance a political agenda.

    No sale!

    0|1
    0|0
    • Completely agree. The term "settled science" seems to me to be a non sequitur. The whole point of science is to discover how our current understanding of things is flawed and move thought in new directions.

      History is replete with formerly "settled science" that turned out not to be so settled at all.

      Message to science... Call me back when you can ACTUALLY create life, revive the dead, travel in time, or explain in any way that makes any sense how the universe is not infinite in size or age. Then you may have some credibility. Until then, it's just one more source of religious dogma added to the mix.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 0

Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 1 more Xper point!

What Guys Said 12

  • Various models predict different outcomes. This is not really anything new, it's the same as in econometrics and such.

    Does that mean if one model is wrong, the entire concept is false? Nope. It most definitely does not mean such a thing.

    Different models are made differently with other weights to certain variables or different interpretations and predictions by the researcher. Thus, other models may be correct. That remains to be seen

    0|1
    0|0
  • Here just take a look at how many times we were long overdue for the world to end
    en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

    0|1
    0|0
  • Science has nothing to do with left or right politics.
    Science is a fact.
    When you go to the hospital than you don't doubt the science.
    People misuse science to fit their narrative.
    Global warming is a fact, but profit is more important than the only planet we have.

    0|1
    0|0
    • You are way behind the times. Science has been infiltrated by leftist political propaganda and operatives as has virtually every other institution of our society from the schools to the government. It is as corrupt and politically biased as all the others.

    • Show All
    • Considering the track record of science on this issue, I don't have any confidence at all in their climate predictions. They can't even get the weather right 3 days in advance half the time.

      Any 4th grader knows that the earth has had 4 ice ages. So yes, it gets warmer and it gets colder. That has been the natural cycle of climate since the earth was formed. That doesn't mean we should turn over the keys to the planet to socialists.

  • My mom talks about commercials in the early 1970's claiming ecological disaster by 1985. Just a tool of the elitists to extract more money from us and exert more control over us.

    0|1
    0|0
    • That's exactly right. In the 70s there was an article by scientists claiming that golbal COOLING was going to destroy the planet within a decade. Then, when it got warmer instead of colder they changed the term to global WARMING, then when it got cooler AGAIN, they changed it to CLIMATE CHANGE. What a bunch of socialist fakes, phonies and frauds. Their only interest is political. They want to control your life and take away your liberty.

    • Show All
    • No, it says that, of 51 that made a comment about climate change, 44 (86%) said it was warming. (And even by your stretched claim, 61% did.)

    • 38% of them either thought there was going to be global cooling or they couldn't say either way (neutral). That's over 1/3 who didn't have a clue what was going on. Hardly a "consensus" on global warming, and proof that they don't know what they are talking about.

  • Wait, you think because a news outlet that operates for profit once used hyperbole to get people excited and gain ratings that anything on a related discussion is false, forever? Hooboy... Even the Trump administration has acknowledged climate change as our pending doom - they just believe there's nothing we can do about it and they won't sacrifice American way of living for a few more years of a planet.
    Sources:
    www.washingtonpost.com/.../...81cc58c5d_story.html

    www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-climate-will-warm-by-7-degrees-by-2100-2018-10

    www.livescience.com/...imate-report-7-degrees.html

    thehill.com/.../408928-trump-administration-predicted-seven-degree-increase-in-global

    0|0
    0|0
  • You're a fucking moron. No one ever predicted the world would be underwater and there would be a climate apocalypse.

    0|4
    0|0
  • Instead of being glad they were slightly off, you call it liberal propaganda. Sounds like an American to me.

    0|4
    0|0
  • Gore said we would be finished. I am not typing this underwater

    0|1
    0|0
  • You've blocked me, haven't you?

    0|2
    0|0
    • Aparently not. So far: "More floods, more droughts, more wildfires", yes, yes and yes.

    • Show All
    • Here's a graph OlderAndWiser posted some time ago, trying to show the point you're claiming:
      In 2008 ABC News Predicted The World Would Be Underwater And Climate Change Apocalypse Would Strike By 2015. Does Anyone Really Believe This Garbage?

      It seemed pretty obvious to me that there was more colour (activity) on the right than the left, so I had a closer look at the data, smoothing the counts over five year periods:

      The first time there were 15 major hurricanes over 5 years was in 1935, for five years in the early 50's there were 15 to 17. But, the first time it reached 20 major hurricanes over 5 years was in 1999, and it didn't go back below 15 again until 2013, and even the 13 major hurricanes in 2009-2013 was higher than any number recorded before 1933. The pattern is similar for normal hurricanes and tropical storms. It's getting worse; there are more storms now than there were.

      Raw data is here: www.nhc.noaa.gov/.../AtlanticStormTotalsTable.pdf

    • Nicely put goaded.

  • its a conspiracy theory

    0|1
    0|1
  • they also said we'd have flying cars

    you have to take everything with a grain of salt. just like the bible

    republicans should shut the fuck up

    0|1
    0|0
  • hard to say for 200 years or 500 years later though

    0|0
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...