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

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.

>

Yet one more #veryStupidByLowIQaa post.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.