Trump and Trump supporters keep using the Y2K Fallacy, and it is driving me crazy

Americans are the only religious people in the world.Idiot.

We have everything we need from some recent ravings for some new episodes.

Bullshit. Facebook has links to opinions more than facts.

Those of us who are over twelve years old.

So, what do you think, is it useful in dealing with such people to cry wolf? To make alarmist predictions that won't stand the test of time?If yes, why?If no, what's your alternative?

That may well be. But a casual glance at this evcforum.net website also will show an inordinate, nay heaping pile of opinions (with or without links).Even more, a lot of the posts could be characterized as "blather" rather than being dignified with the title of "opinion."Look at your own post, you know, the cleverly argued one beginning "Bullshit. . . . "

This and your other questions were answered in the message you are responding to. Consider my Message 149 copied and pasted here.

I forgot what we were discussing.Care to elucidate?

And a casual glance at the phone book will tell you there are a lot of people named Johnson.You need more than a casual glance.The point being that Facebook has a much, much, much smaller proportion of well-reasoned and fact-based information. And to be fair, Facebook does not exist to provide well-reasoned and fact-based information.So your comparison between EvC Forum and Facebook is ludicrous.

Follow the links. In Message 150, you asked, "Who on earth ever heard of Nixon?" In Message 154 I answered.

1.) Do you think scientists should report the results of their research?2.) Do you think they should form conclusions and make predictions based on the results of their research?3.) Do you think they should defend their original predictions even when further research refines their results or shows their original predictions are no longer valid?4.) Do you think scientists should stop doing research into controversial subjects or that they should withhold their results and conclusions?5.) Do you think that scientists should sound the alarm when they can see an obvious global disaster looming where some of the worst effects of that disaster might be modified by some changes in behavior by the human population on this planet?Do you have any answers or alternatives?

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planetlooks like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth is spot on.

Why don't people accept the accurate predictions? It was predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels would cause an increase in global temps, and that has indeed happened. Why do people dispute it?For example, Svante Arrhenius did the first crude calculations for how much global temperatures would rise with a given amount of CO2. He predicted a 5-6C increase in temperatures if the amount of CO2 doubled. This was clear back in 1898.Right now, we are about 1.1C above 1880 levels with a ~50% increase in CO2 levels, and we really haven't hit temperature equilibrium yet. Even given Arrhenius' crude calculations back in 1898, we are about where we would expect to be.We have known about the risks of CO2 for over 100 years. It isn't a mystery. The real question is why people want to deny the basic science?

How accurate do you want your predictions of future world disaster to be? If they're off by 20% or 30%, is that good enough? And does the direction of error matter? If the error is that it happens sooner will you accept the prediction despite the error, while if the error is that it happens later will you feel free to ignore it?And what if they're off by 50% or 75%? "Gee, our portion of the country won't be uninhabitable while we're still alive, so we can ignore it." "There won't be global famine while we're still alive, so we can ignore it." "People being forced out of their homelands and causing global war won't happen while we're still alive, so we can ignore it."If you want to know if climate change is real, ask real estate brokers in Miami. A significant factor in the value of property there now is ground level elevation, the higher the better. I can just hear the sales pitch for the higher elevations: "Eventually it will be your own private island!"--Percy

Perhaps FaceBook has less "information" in relation to chatter compared to evcforum (though the fact that the name of the forum implies that evolution is something to be disputed indicates that . . . perhaps not), but even so, what is your problem? Did someone cite a post from FaceBook that got your goat?