RIP NASA Earth Sciences division
>Republicans and denialists work over decades through politics, lobbying to politicize climate change
>Trump decides that NASA is politicized (the ironing) and will cut funding because of this (even though doing so is a completely political move on his part).
This is going to be a long 4 years lads, especially for those of us invested in Earth Sciences.
theguardian.com
Other urls found in this thread:
assets.donaldjtrump.com
lmgtfy.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
ngm.nationalgeographic.com
twitter.com
>Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for NASA to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring"
You cannot make this shit up.
“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing NASA programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
How far up his own asshole is this guy's head? Do these people live in an alternate reality or something?
It's the beginning of the end for anti-science fags. You'll have to endure 4 years, but things will (hopefully) get better after that.
eh, NASA deserves its budget being cut. No one gives a fuck about landing a few robots on mars except a few autists. He's just targeting the wrong division.
>long 4 years lads
or you know, trump might decide that there is a lot of money to be made by setting up TRUMP vacation resorts on the moon and Mars and dedicate 50% of the military budget to it annually until by the end of 4 years we have said resorts and the space tourism infrastructure to support it.
Also he could decide to make America great again by making it a national priority to begin harvesting the asteroid belt for heavy metals and setting up orbital refineries and automated retrieval space drone probes to identify and bring back appropriate asteroids.
Or he could just shut down NASA to give the top 0.01% of income earners in America an income tax cut of 0.05%.
Hard to say.
>eh, NASA deserves its budget being cut. No one gives a fuck about landing a few robots on mars except a few autists. He's just targeting the wrong division.
its not like you would see any tangible benefit from the elimination of NASA from the federal budget. Tax cuts for the working and middle classes are not on the agenda of the lawmakers in Washington.
>assuming i'm peasant class
And why the hell did you quote my entire post?
I wasn't saying it in hopes i would have my taxes lowered. In fact, completely cutting NASA off would have very little effect on my taxes. I just don't think we should waste money.
>pretending to be wealthy on the internet
>I just don't think we should waste money.
Its my opinion feeding starving people in other countries is a waste of money. And that having a military that takes up more than 50% of the federal discretionary spending budget is a waste of money and that tax cuts for oil companies who are already some of the most profitable on earth are a waste of money.
Pushing the boundaries of science and technology and into space is investment in the future of my species, not a waste of money, in my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Your opinion must seem completely valid to you from your point of view.
The sheer amount of dumbest-common-denominator propaganda is so suspicious that it already triggers the instinctive bullshit detector of the common man.
who gives a shit about earth science.
All of these climate change asshats should be happy that earth sciences divisions are being cut and focused on deep space transportation so the can get off this so called doomed planet and get their ass to mars.
ALL HAIL the leader of the fact-free world
Except that with those other policies, you can see how people don't think they're a waste of money even if you don't agree with them. The huge military spending funds our globalist agenda. Feeding starving people well...feeds starving people. Tax cuts for the rich are more because of lobbying than a pragmatic thing, but even so they'll justify it as companies will increase spending and create more jobs.
Sending a robot to mars does jack shit to further humanity. We get a few pretty pictures of a fucking desert. You say investment into the future, but how is this so? There's nothing that suggests it has done any good so far and nothing to suggest we'll do anything useful with mars with huge advances in science first. We're so far from it that making any schedule is foolish because there's 100 other things that have to come first. You're entitled to your opinion, but being an opinion doesn't mean it can't be stupid.
the only reason to go to mars is to colonize the planet and make our species multi planet. that's it. nothing more.
>colonize the planet and make our species multi planet
which is so far into the future that it's foolish to plan for it. I could have sworn I mentioned that, but obviously not since you read my post and said it anyway.
Exploring mars for colonization now is like trying to write a java program when the concept of a turing machine was first created.
if there's anything to take away from the last 7 days or so it's that trump will tell whatever group he is in front whatever they want to hear and will probably only use the office of POTUS to turn him and his billionaire friends into trillionaires via executive influence
>so far into the future that it's foolish to plan for it
Plans to send manned missions to mars in 2023.
With ideology like that I guess we should stop cancer research because we do not know how long it will take to find a cure.
>manned missions to mars in 2023.
oh wow, you fell for the mars one scam? Even they had to changed that date
>we should stop cancer research
There's a clear difference between making progress towards a cure for cancer and making missions to a planet we MAY one day far off into the future colonize after we have developed several other huge technologies. It's more like researching ways to cure cancer using cold fusion byproducts of some poorly understood substance.
There's a reason he wants to reduce estate tax. He is a scam artist, pure and simple. Rich are going to get richer, jobs that are already gone won't be coming back. His entire presidency will be a joke. Clinton wouldn't have been much better honestly, and even Obama has been a joke in terms of actually taking action on climate change / investing in renewables and nuclear. Clinton would have been more of the same of that I think.
when they finally cure cancer with culf fusion byproducts then will you be happy?
>especially for those of us invested in Earth Sciences.
At least you're honest about your only real issue here being your deprivation of shekels.
What are you on about?
>doomed planet
Fucking retard. Earth will go on long after human civilization has disappeared. It has went through catastrophic extinction events and climate changes in the past, rampant volcanism worldwide, bolide impacts, global ice sheets (snowball Earth), and life survived. Even if all complex lifeforms on Earth were wiped out, bacteria and other simple organisms would survive deep within the Earth's oceans and crust, and over millions of years complex life would evolve yet again and adapt to a new Earth.
An Earth with a more uncomfortable climate will ALWAYS be more habitable and hospital to life because we have a strong magnetic field to block solar radiation, because we have a strong atmosphere and gravity that is tolerable to life. Mars will always be less hospitable than Earth, even if they managed to do the impossible and "terraform" Mars, Earth will always be a better place for life in our solar system.
Earth can come back from climate changes, it has in the past many times, so many extinction events, 5 of them being catastrophic and life survived, recovered and rejuvenated. Mars is a dead planet, with no tectonic activity, a non-existent magnetic field, and weak gravity that will mean humans will have a very hard time adapting to life there.
I'm not against colonizing Mars, but Mars will NEVER be our future, Earth is our home, and always will be unless we become a truly inter-stellar species and find similar planets to Earth that we can survive on.
"We The People aren't that stupid." (about why Spencer left NASA)
www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/
Earth sciences includes Geology (Petrology, mineralogy, volcanology, stratigraphy, geomorphology... etc.), climatology, geophysics, geochemistry, hydrology, oceanography, paleontology, geodesy, pedology, ecology... need I go on? Fuck off, Earth sciences is a legitimate science that has multiple disciplines and is incredibly important. Threatening to reduce funding is absurd.
>Threatening to reduce funding is absurd.
MUH SHEKELS
>Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”
>Roy Spencer
The guy is a creationist, sorry I can't take anything he says seriously.
Get the fuck back to your hugbox please.
>he fell for the 73% meme
>We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.
What is unreasonable about that?
Trump's reversed position on all of the shit he has run on in the past two weeks and said he doesn't necessarily legally have to distance himself from his businesses as POTUS.
>Earth sciences
>legitimate science
pick one
Absolute nonsense from the lugenpresse as usual.
assets.donaldjtrump.com
...
>lugenpresse
GO BACK TO INFOWARS YOU ILLITERATE BRAINWASHED IDIOT
Then climate change is real and politicians need to accept that and start legislating to curb it instead of catering to the uninformed masses and the interests of oil and coal companies.
Found the BBC "journalist".
What? What part of my post did that conclusion arise from?
>climate change is real
You don't say!
People seem to forget that the petroleum industry is using the same exact tactics that the Cigarette industry used to deny smoking related illnesses.
They trust these lobbyists and politicians whom have literal money trails linking them directly to the petroleum industry, as well as conservative "think tanks" that are funded by the industry. Many published climate change denialist scientists have these same links to climate change denial organizations that are funded by the petroleum industry as well.
But of course, anthropogenic climate change is all some massive conspiracy, with tens of thousands of published scientists and researchers worldwide collaborating with an evil plan to... make the Earth a better place I guess by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
>We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it
that part
I mean it's not like we don't have a massive, global economy that is almost fundamentally based on petroleum and petroleum products. It's not like these massive companies don't have massive wealth and influence in governments worldwide to assert their own interests. It's not like they have a vested interest in denying climate science for their own profit. No, the researchers and organizations researching climate change are the ones that are conspiring with each other, with their scientifically collected data, both in the field and from satellite / global climate stations.
People simply want to be contrarians, especially on places like Veeky Forums.
>They
Who?
>these lobbyists
Who?
>have literal money trails
Where?
>the petroleum industry
Who?
>conservative "think tanks"
Who?
>that are funded by the industry
Which?
>Many
Weaselly.
>climate change denialist scientists
Who?
>have these same links
Where?
>climate change denial organizations
Who?
>tens of thousands
Who?
>with their scientifically collected data
When there's scientifically collected data that is inconclusive and does not support a strongly anthropogenic origin of present climate change, you do a character assassination on those who gathered it.
>They
Shitards on places like /pol/ that get wrapped up in climate conspiracies.
>These lobbyists
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
API
International conference on climate change (nice name right, sure sounds legit!)
Heartland Institute
Cato Institute
>The petroleum industry
Koch Brothers
Exxon Mobile, BP, Shell, etc.
>Conservative think tanks
Take Heartland Institute for example:
>Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[107][123] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[78] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[123][124][125] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.
>that are funded by the industry
Exxon has funded conservative and libertarian think tanks for decades. See above for one such example, do more digging and you will find how they funded other organizations like the now defunct Global Climate Coalition.
>climate change denialist scientists
en.wikipedia.org
>have these same links
Do some fucking research yourself.
>climate change denial organizations
See above.
>tens of thousands
en.wikipedia.org
IPCC reports.
>creationist
Totally unrelated, but a funny mental autoimmune reaction.
>'Dark Money' Funds To Promote Global Warming Alarmism Dwarf Warming 'Denier' Research
Hmm really made me think.
The problem is that none of these articles have any specifics. For all the average pleb knows it's fake "news" to support the narrative you're relating to us right now.
are you retarded? my entire point is that I wouldn't be happy if they started researching it. We could figure out how those byproducts could be used to cure cancer tomorrow. It would mean nothing if we're 300 years away from cold fusion.
Hang on, why should I take the word of the UN as gospel?
not wanting to cure cancer by cold fusion byproducts. so shellfish
en.wikipedia.org
kek
I see some problems here. One is that the IPCC does not touch papers that do not actively support its predetermined conclusions, and that "thousands of scientists" are reliant on the IPCC to make a living.
Now anyway, let ongoing climate change be overwhelmingly anthropogenic -- what do we do?
Here is your (You).
>Implying there is NO difference between colonization and manned missions.
It's (((((Current Year)))))), so I seriously hope you don't do this.
...
This made my day, I'm so glad that something is FINALLY being done to deal with climate change hysteria...
Still waiting for an answer. What do we do?
Oh hey look at that, CO2 sources are coming from areas of high industrialization.
Who'd have thunk?
About climate change? Stop burning coal and oil.
If we start reducing coal and oil dependency now we can be completely off it in 30 years.
>Stop burning coal and oil.
How is this effected?
We've got to decolonise Mars, all of these Terran influences are so culturally regressive and patriarchal.
what happened to running out of oil?
that will still happen eventually
but if we burn it all there is no future for humanity
It will happen eventually I agree, but there is a fuck-ton of fossil fuels in the Earth. We are still finding new oil fields almost every decade, most recently a massive oil field was discovered in Texas.
There is a lot of fossil fuel on our planet, life has had over 500 million years to live, die and form massive coal and oil deposits. We will eventually run out, but we are also likely to keep finding deposits in the coming decades.
Invest in nuclear energy, invest in researching alternative nuclear fuels like Thorium.
Reduce worldwide population in developing countries, Africa, etc.
Invest in renewables like hydroelectric, wind in areas where it is effective, concentrated solar plants in deserts, and solar panels in cities and towns to supplement (won't be able to completely provide energy needs) the demand for energy.
Geothermal energy in areas where it is possible to exploit.
Focus on sustainable agriculture by giving subsidies to local, sustainable farms, not massive agriculture conglomerates.
Reduce consumption of beef and other animal products, especially cattle farming due to not only the damage it does to rain-forests, but due to the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by farm animals.
Stop letting the fossil fuel industry have such massive lobbying and political power.
Many more things can be done, but these are just a few off the top of my head.
It's a monumental task though, almost the entire global economy is dependent on fossil fuels for trade / commerce, energy and electricity generation, industry, etc.
>It will happen eventually I agree, but there is a fuck-ton of fossil fuels in the Earth. We are still finding new oil fields almost every decade, most recently a massive oil field was discovered in Texas.
But we had our top scientists on it. They said we're frighteningly close to running out of fossil fuels. How could they be wrong in their projection?
>Reduce worldwide population in developing countries, Africa, etc.
Racist.
>Reduce consumption of beef and other animal products
What do you want the government to do, penalize those who eat beef?
Taxes on it, just like we tax cigarettes, just like we tax recreational marijuana, just like we tax a variety of other products in our country more than others.
Tariffs on imported beef products. There are a variety of ways to accomplish this. It's simple; Americans and other developed countries in particular have an obsession with beef and other bovine products that has to be reduced. It is incredibly unsustainable.
>What do you want the government to do, penalize those who eat beef?
dump a few billion dollars into research grants for developing technology to grow steaks in a petri dish
>Guys, guys but guys the CO2 will turn our planet into a greenhouse!
>warmer temperatures lead to longer periods in temperate regions for plants to grow
>the increase in average plant life leads to a reduction of CO2 as plants respire and convert the CO2 to Oxygen
And it balances itself out pretty easily. What next, we're gonna have too much O2 in the atmosphere which cause the air to combust? Seems like something climate "scientists" would dream up.
longer warm periods*
>Taxes on [food]
So basically punishing the poor for ????.
Oy vey, you'd like a piece of that pie, wouldn't you.
in a few more degrees the permafrost will begin to defrost
which will release all the gas contained therein
which causes the temperature to go up
which causes more permafrost to defrost
and so on
and then we're fucked for good
>They said we're frighteningly close to running out of fossil fuels.
I don't believe anyone said that. We have probably passed the peak in "cheap" energy though. Conventional liquids apparently peaked in 2012 that coincides with peak discovery of large crude oil deposits way back in the 60's.
The AGW meme is a natural and healthy paranoid response by the powers that be to begin restricting and conserving or even hording but the only science behind it is social science backed by mountains of predictive climate paranoia programming generated by ridiculous computer simulations. Even if earth is warming this would be in line with geological history as we understand it with the last glacial maximum only a brief 20k years ago in geological time.
This hording and attempt to control energy from here on out must be supported by the people who are going to pay the brunt of the cost, maybe even die in the process because for sure we live in an oil age, or more precisely a cheap energy age. Once the people have committed themselves to 'saving earth' they can then be easily subjugated and have their energy supply rationed harshly without serious recourse. The 21st century is going to be brutal and it's not a climate problem, it's a monkey problem.
>Preliminary computer analyses suggest that permafrost could produce carbon equal to 15 percent or so of today’s emissions from human activities.[61]
whoa WOW
>and then we're fucked for good
Doubtful, sure there will be some changes but nothing we can't deal with. Worst case scenario, we get sent back to the Paleocene-Eocene and everyone gets to enjoy tropical weather.
You still don't eliminate that carbon from the carbon cycle. It doesn't just magically go away into plants. What we have done is taken a bunch of carbon that was not present in our present day natural carbon cycle, carbon that was locked away in the Earth's crust by subducting oceanic plates, by faulting, folding and continental tectonics, by sedimentation and sea level rise and fall. We have taken this carbon that hasn't been a part of the system for millions of years, burned it, and added it to the current cycle. Most of the carbon that has been emitted as greenhouse gasses has gone into the oceans, and we can measure a changing pH in oceans worldwide because of this (putting more CO2 in ocean waters creates carbonic acid, leading to an overall decreasing pH). This leads to damages to coastal coral reefs such as coral bleaching, look at the great barrier reef today and compare it to hundreds of years ago. Look at other reefs worldwide and the evidence is staggering that warming ocean temperatures combined with ocean acidification is doing a lot of damage.
As for terrestrial plants absorbing all this additional carbon, we are deforesting the rainforests worldwide, look at Indonesia where they use slash and burn agriculture to remove massive swaths of rainforest and turn it into palm oil plantations. Look at Brazil where they use the same tactics to create cattle farms deep in the Amazon. Also, the areas where they do this are fucked, because once you remove the rainforest, it's incredibly difficult for the land to be reclaimed because you deplete all the nutrients in the already poor rainforest soils.
Plants aren't just going to spring up and absorb all the CO2 we are emitting, the oceans are already doing most of that work and getting fucked up due to it. Especially not when population is still growing by hundreds of millions each year, meaning more people with less resources. Africa's rainforests will be next as Africa's population booms.
that would be a cool story, but solar is cheap enough now that it's not that much more expensive than fossil fuel generated electricity
at best, the powers who choreographed the global conspiracy in your story would be able to price gouge for another 20%-30% maximum, because they'd have to stay competitive with solar
sort of undercuts your whole hypothesis
>Worst case scenario, we get sent back to the Paleocene-Eocene and everyone gets to enjoy tropical weather.
Just because shitskins are ruining their forests/jungles now doesn't mean they'll be able to once the food shortages set in.
>Everyone gets to enjoy
Yeah, as the sea levels rise globally, forcing people to migrate inland, destroying the most important cities in our civilization that are mostly coastal, destroying ports and disrupting world trade, causing economic crisis worldwide as governments struggle to figure out how to deal with massive immigrations far worse than what's occurring now in Europe from the Middle East, Africa, etc. Keep in mind that the equatorial regions of the Earth are going to get hotter and desertification will increase worldwide, leading to water shortages, crop failures and other negative impacts.
Then you have oceanic circulation being disrupted by melting ice in the arctic, leading to Europe becoming colder and having its own climate issues as the gulf stream is interrupted.
Collapsing fisheries globally due to over-fishing as well as coral reefs, the most central and important fishery structures, decaying and dying causing food shortages. Warmer ocean waters leading to higher evaporation and increasing intensity of tropical storm systems too.
These impacts may be decades off, hopefully most of us will be long gone before our children, and their children and grandchildren have to deal with a societal collapse. Either that or humanity gets its shit together and figures out a way to capture and remove carbon from our oceans and atmosphere.
You say it like this is a bad thing. The population needs to be culled but medicine ruined disease and no one wants to war constantly anymore.
Do you think we'll ever get to a point where lobby money can no longer convince 50% of the population that global warming isn't a thing?
Ugh you've like, totally got the world figured out.
>destroying ports
Are you saying a 30 metre tsunami is on its way?
>Collapsing fisheries globally due to over-fishing
I thought we were talking about climate change.
Anything else I should know about, Mystic Meg?
Where I live probably won't exist by 2100, I already live below sea level and dikes won't be able to stop coastal erosion that is already occurring here in large part to the petroleum industry.
It's easy to say things like this until you realize that this means a lot of us need to be culled as well. What's going to happen in the future when millions of migrants try to move from Africa / South America / ME / India / etc. to more developed nations? Shit is going to hit the fan, I mean Europe can barely handle the amount of migrants coming there now, in the future things like likely be far worse than that.
The real problem is people don't care about the issue because they a) won't care until it personally effects them and b) people just can't understand the long-term impacts that take place over decades to centuries.
Over-exhausting fisheries is part of the problem, and is related to climate change and global population. Fisheries are effected by warmer waters, fish species can be temperature sensitive, especially as eggs / juveniles.
As for destroying ports, if ice sheets globally continue to melt, yes, in the coming decades / centuries, the coastline globally will be vastly different than it is today. Of course ports won't disappear overnight, and sea walls / dikes / levees will be build in critical areas to counter sea level rise, it's inevitable that our cities will migrate inland over time, regardless of anthropogenic climate change, because we are still coming out of an ice age regardless and sea levels are rising at a measurable rate.
Of course this is an extreme example, but it's an interesting read regardless of if all glaciers worldwide melted.
ngm.nationalgeographic.com
>The real problem is people don't care about the issue because ... {human nature}
it sounds to me like you think there's just about no way to convince people that this is a big issue
which means it's a lost cause
>What's going to happen in the future when millions of migrants try to move from Africa / South America / ME / India / etc. to more developed nations?
Europeans will snap out of their liberalism induced stupor and murder all foreigners. Sure there will be lots of death and famine and whatnot but guess what? There are almost 8 billion people in the world. 200 years ago there was less than 2 billion. There are literally too many people alive. So, of course it's easy for me to say. Having all these people alive is not only bad for the planet but bad for the gene pool. People who would have died without modern medicine or the kindness of western nations get to live and propagate. This is especially bad when it comes to people who would have died without western nations' kindness. Those migrants you mention are not going to be welcomed with open arms and they're not going to ask nicely, there will be conflict and only the fittest will make it out of the crucible.
you're shitposting on a weeknight bro you'd be first in the showers
It's Thanksgiving, what do you want me to do? Everything is closed.
>dikes won't be able to stop coastal erosion
Course they fucking can, to the extent that they are in good repair.
>linking National Geographic
why
>Trump politicized climate change
>Not the scammers who force carbon taxation, unfair regulations, international politics and contracted oil companies.
Is Trump responsible for your worthless virgin life too?
how are the regulations unfair
they're still letting you kill the future of humanity, aren't they? how much more fair could it be
Good, who cares about dirt niggers.
I didn't know China and India followed those regulations
...
Yeah I don't get this logic, and also, we are supposed to kill ourselves so equatorial people can live? In that case humanity should go extinct as we are obviously devolving.
What's the point of new climate change-studying satellites at this point?
We already know what the problem is, and what needs to be done to fix it.
This is literally just cutting of wasteful spending.
>prove me wrong
195 nations have signed the Paris agreement
yes, including china and india
Trump is the only person retarded enough to threaten pulling out of it
and yes, since we contribute a large portion of the worlds pollution, we own a large portion of the responsibility
>people having to move a few miles away from the coast over the course of 100-200 years = killing the future of humanity
>kill the future of humanity
Do you have more sensational catchphrases that are completely bullshit in context? I'm running out of edgy twitter posts.
the Paris agreement is a nonsensical nonbinding agreement that is nothing more than "I'll promise that my country will reduce CO2 emissions by x% by 2030
It contains no standards on how to do so, no punitive measures of reinforcement, no incentives to do so.
The US signs this "agreement" and absolutely nothing happens (or more accurately, the Democratic party waits and hopes that private industry types like Musk will cause enough change on their own to make the reductions happen, so they can then swoop in and take the credit)
Global Warming will result in the extinction of humans.
What do you have to gain from denying the impact of climate change?
I don't understand how people can be so selfish that Koch Brothers money is all it takes to get them to turn on their own species
just read this shit
>Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[18] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.[16][19] There will be only a "name and shame" system[20] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News (US), a "name and encourage" plan.[21] As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement.[22]
Worldwide agreements are useless cancer; always have been.
I know you're trolling, but how could stone-age humans survive an ice age but modern humans can't survive wet feet?
well climate research has been pointless for a while now, it's a whole bunch of speculative models that cannot be verified until something happens. climate research at this stage is practically as scientific as string theory. just look at this huge range of projections, there is no way to know which model is correct till something happens. it's funny how climate scientists forgot the part of the method which requires observation. you can extrapolate only so much from ice cores and the tracking since the 60s is insufficient in verifying the predictability of any of these models anyway.
>worldwide famine
>nuclear weapons
>possibility of reduction in the oxygenation of the ocean, resulting in the death of all ocean life and the growth of anaerobic bacteria which expel poisonous gas as waste product -> atmosphere becomes toxic and all land life dies