AI

Teddy Eagle said:
Presumably because AI runs on mathematical and data patterns so is incapable of making any moral judgement.
Click to expand...

Not so sure given how woke it can be in certain hands
 
cryrst said:
Oh they did. Wasn’t it some ugly little greta girl and her supporters.
Back in the 70s bread was going to be a tenner in 2000. Sometimes the future is literally scatter your chips and one might be a winner.
Click to expand...

How Dare You




It was never a consensus by science
 
  • The 2004 Pentagon Report: A leaked military-advisory document warned that abrupt climate change would plunge Britain into a "Siberian" climate and submerge major European cities beneath rising seas by 2020, alongside global anarchy and nuclear conflict over food and water. [1]
  • The Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts (2007–2016): Various high-profile figures and researchers—including Al Gore in 2007—cited models suggesting the Arctic Ocean could completely lose its summer sea ice as early as 2013, 2014, or 2016. While Arctic ice has declined significantly, substantial summer ice remains. [1]
  • Political "Tipping Points" (2009–2014): In 2009, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared the world had just 50 days to "save the planet from catastrophe" ahead of the Copenhagen summit. Similarly, French activist and political figures, along with French foreign ministers, warned in 2014 that humanity had 500 days before "climate chaos". [1]

  • The RCP8.5 "Worst-Case" Scenario: For years, many climate models and media reports overemphasized RCP8.5, an extreme high-emissions pathway assuming massive, unconstrained coal use and runaway economic growth. This scenario projected catastrophic warming of over 4°C to 5°C by 2100, leading to widespread civilizational collapse. Recent assessments note that changes in global energy trends and the phasing out of the most extreme assumptions have made this specific trajectory widely considered implausible by contemporary scientists. [1, 2, 3]
The Scientific and Policy Context







    • Distortion vs. Reality: Mainstream scientific bodies, such as the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, cautioned as early as 2009 that sensationalized "apocalyptic predictions" risked misleading the public and undermining serious policy efforts just as much as outright climate skepticism. [1]
    • Revising Projections: While catastrophic "endgame" scenarios have been dialed back, consensus assessments from organizations like the United Nations point to a more realistic—though still disruptive—warming trajectory averaging roughly 2°C to 3°C above pre-industrial levels depending on ongoing mitigation choices. [1]

    FOLLOW THE MONEY
 
HKOwen said:
  • The 2004 Pentagon Report: A leaked military-advisory document warned that abrupt climate change would plunge Britain into a "Siberian" climate and submerge major European cities beneath rising seas by 2020, alongside global anarchy and nuclear conflict over food and water. [1]
  • The Ice-Free Arctic Forecasts (2007–2016): Various high-profile figures and researchers—including Al Gore in 2007—cited models suggesting the Arctic Ocean could completely lose its summer sea ice as early as 2013, 2014, or 2016. While Arctic ice has declined significantly, substantial summer ice remains. [1]
  • Political "Tipping Points" (2009–2014): In 2009, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared the world had just 50 days to "save the planet from catastrophe" ahead of the Copenhagen summit. Similarly, French activist and political figures, along with French foreign ministers, warned in 2014 that humanity had 500 days before "climate chaos". [1]

  • The RCP8.5 "Worst-Case" Scenario: For years, many climate models and media reports overemphasized RCP8.5, an extreme high-emissions pathway assuming massive, unconstrained coal use and runaway economic growth. This scenario projected catastrophic warming of over 4°C to 5°C by 2100, leading to widespread civilizational collapse. Recent assessments note that changes in global energy trends and the phasing out of the most extreme assumptions have made this specific trajectory widely considered implausible by contemporary scientists. [1, 2, 3]
The Scientific and Policy Context







    • Distortion vs. Reality: Mainstream scientific bodies, such as the UK Met Office Hadley Centre, cautioned as early as 2009 that sensationalized "apocalyptic predictions" risked misleading the public and undermining serious policy efforts just as much as outright climate skepticism. [1]
    • Revising Projections: While catastrophic "endgame" scenarios have been dialed back, consensus assessments from organizations like the United Nations point to a more realistic—though still disruptive—warming trajectory averaging roughly 2°C to 3°C above pre-industrial levels depending on ongoing mitigation choices. [1]

    FOLLOW THE MONEY
Click to expand...
So it’s all been guess work.
Who’d have known 🤔🤦😆
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top