It is totally unreasonable and vacuous. — unenlightened

You obviously think that most people are "totally unreasonable and vacuous".

Thank goodness we have you to guide us.  :grin:

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change?

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

Rather than claiming "not P", I read un as claiming the form of your argument is:

P
P
Therefore, P


Which is to say you're asserting your opinion three times in a row and citing each rendition as support for the conclusion which is just what you stated at first.

The claim is with respect to the validity of your argument and not with respect to the facts.

I think you understood this, but now that it's been explained there ought not be any doubt.

What you're doing in the first post I quoted is asking a leading question which is not addressing the claim. This will be considered a way of disrupting the thread from here out.

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

No, not at all. Not even the slightest amount. On the contrary I might even sometimes exaggerate myself, and more rarely indulge in hyperbole. But some exaggeration and some underplaying averages out at a serious problem, not at 'do nothing'. And my earlier links to actuarial evidence rather demonstrates that there is already a serious problem.

You obviously think that most people are "totally unreasonable and vacuous". — Agree-to-Disagree

Most people are worried but ignorant. You are not most people. And don't tell me what I obviously think according to your warped notions. I am fairly clear about what I think and not backward about coming forward with my thoughts, particularly on this topic, you arrogant prat; you, and none other, I accuse of being totally unreasonable and vacuous.

Global temperature for 2025 should decline little, if at all, from the record 2024 level.
Absence of a large temperature decline after the huge El Nino-spurred temperature increase in
2023-24 will provide further confirmation that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and
aerosol climate forcing were both underestimates. Specifically, 2025 global temperature should
remain near or above +1.5C relative to 1880-1920, and, if the tropics remain ENSO-neutral,
there is good chance that 2025 may even exceed the 2024 record high global temperature.

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/2025GlobalTemperature.15April2025.pdf

This is rather complex, so I will do my best to give some explanation of the situation and possible significance.

James Hansen has for a while been suggesting that the IPCCs models are wrong in their estimate of climate sensitivity. This is a crude but vital figure that gives the global expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 equivalent. This is fundamental to climate modelling, and Hansen is suggesting that the IPCC figure is low at 3°C by about 1.5°C This is huge.

What seems to have happened is that the IPCC has used its own estimate of the climate sensitivity to calculate from recent actual data, the aerosol climate forcing. This is the temperature reducing effect of pollution (primarily from shipping) by seeding cloud formation such as to reflect solar radiation back into space. This pollution has in effect been masking somewhat the effect of CO2 (equivalent) induced temperature rise, but recent reductions of sulphur emissions are now reducing the cloud cover and thus increasing temperature rise from insolation.

So if the IPCC figures are correct, then we should expect a fall in global temperature this year due to La Nina, (google it if you don't know) but if Hansen's figures are more realistic, he thinks there will be little or no cooling this year. And this would mean that we are already well past 1.5° and pretty much unable to avoid 2° and more in the next decade or so. And all the other figures - for sea-level rise, atmospheric energy and so on - will also be under-estimated in speed and severity.

So there is uncertainty in the science, but errors in the 'official' understanding are more likely to be overly complacent than alarmist.

Fossil fuel companies have caused roughly 28 trillion dollars in damages from 1991 to 2020.

In terms of consequences— the next 20 years will cause much more. Since the “free market” cult doesn’t account for externalities, and since the government never does anything right (according to same cult), there’s nothing we can do.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08751-3.epdf?sharing_token=H5u0C4WGGIkJGCgWbd9eJdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PNVn5qNJQAINIGB8Dl-ZFRseL9v-xVGqFBTn1TeHE_3ueXbo3snVixx3hvsfWgmcaPCnna09SMvt9h8HRBx8EHJnhK9__dORtj8jDr9f7gV6pbSI3Rpd2nqWosrIBEQf_279y5d4WhGC7w6CE0eEdyt5N-ru0E9WwHqgsnL01OkGKaAt1Bk58IOl-dosZblNM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cbsnews.com

Of course, if you actually believe cult claims like that, I have a used wig to sell you.

:100: :up: :up:

Food would be the main issue. If farmers do not know when to harvest and plant due to the breaking of regular patterns in the seasons then it could cause problems.

Lack of food is an obvious worry. If agriculture can adapt to the current insecurities I do not see much reason to fret about climate change just yet.

Sorry there is nothing for you to moderate here ;)

Food is the priority.

Fossil fuel companies have caused roughly 28 trillion dollars in damages from 1991 to 2020. — Mikie

I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels.

True. But it’s similar to cigarette smoking and tobacco companies. Sure, one perspective puts most of the responsibility on the consumer — no one is forcing you to smoke. But that ignores a lot as well.

The fact is that these “externalities” are never considered. If consumers knew the real risks and were charged the real cost, it would be a different story. There’s also monumental lies, propaganda, and covering up of research by this industry, as is now coming to light more and more.

I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels. — Relativist

I agree that those who USE fossil fuels should be held to account. They are the ones who create the demand for fossil fuels. The Oil companies supply fossil fuels to meet the demand.

But it’s similar to cigarette smoking and tobacco companies. Sure, one perspective puts most of the responsibility on the consumer — no one is forcing you to smoke. But that ignores a lot as well. — Mikie

Blaming Oil companies for supplying fossil fuels is like overweight people blaming supermarkets for supplying food. The overweight people are trying to avoid their personal responsibility.

Blaming others is the tactic of the irresponsible. We are responsible, and we are irresponsible. We are greedy and we are lazy. Might as well blame it on the boogie.

Might as well blame it on the boog — unenlightened

If I create a product that’s addictive, and I know is addictive, and that causes cancer (which I also know), then spend decades suppressing that knowledge (and my own research), billions of dollars on propaganda to convince people the blame lies on them, lobbying government for tax exemptions, subsidies, and deregulation— yeah, I think I’m mostly to blame.

To say nothing of the externalities, to medical costs and environmental damage. Hardly the free market of choice. Especially when readily available alternatives are systematically discouraged for years.

If ... yeah, I think I’m mostly to blame. — Mikie

If you were that person, you would think otherwise, or else you would act otherwise. But how does this help? I can feel righteous and innocent because I have been speaking and acting environmental for 50 years. Hurray for me, I'll go to heaven. But I'd rather be mending this world.

Surely it is up to "us" to boycott the bullshit, to counter the propaganda, to vote out the liars and thieves. "They" are not going to do it — by definition.

It's up to us...

Surely it is up to "us" to boycott the bullshit, to counter the propaganda, to vote out the liars and thieves. "They" are not going to do it — by definition. — unenlightened

Of course.

I was merely pointing out yet another reason this industry ought to be boycotted, sued, and destroyed as quickly as possible.

The good hardworking folks across the way are having their garden modernised. Out go half a dozen mangy conifers and their roots; out goes a load of gravel atop some black weed suppressing cloth, along with an old barbie, and all the topsoil. In comes several tons of hardcore, some carefully levelled treated wooden edging, and all topped off with fine slate dust.

This has involved three men working for about ten days with a digger, a dumper, and a compactor and delivery and removal lorries, not the electric kind. We helped out one of the guys who needed phone charged as he was homeless and trying to deal with the authorities.

Today, we are awaiting the final crowning glory - the artificial grass. The effort and expense that has gone into creating this small sterile desert is considerable, but the little boy's football ground will be guaranteed level and weed free.

Behold, the enemy!

This is technically off topic, but a survivalists handbook wouldn't make a topic and there is a whole philosophy of environment casually assumed in this handy guide to planning.