OK, then I'm not sure what you think could have been achieved in decades that took a couple of centuries.

How many times have climate alarmists been right? One day, I guess. — NOS4A2

If you mean climate scientists, the more pertinent question would be as to when they have been wrong. Other than that I don't know who you would be referring to as "climate alarmists" (which of course most of the scientists are not).

OK, then I'm not sure what you think could have been achieved in decades that took a couple of centuries. — Janus

Positive change. Climate change has been a hot topic since 1900's (Svante Arrhenius) and it's now the 2000's - it's taking a hell of a long time for the danger to sink in.

It hasn't been a hot topic since then, even though there have been some references made to it. From your posts it seems you are skeptical about it yourself. It's not surprising that nothing much has been done since it has arguably been something of a hot topic (maybe 20-30 years or so) because of the inertia I spoke of.

There is also the inertia (or momentum if you prefer) of the gigantic fossil-fueled infrastructures that have made us so prosperous. All of that, despite unrealistic calls by some of the green enthusiasts for immediate abandonment of fossil fuels, cannot be replaced overnight, even if only for technical reasons (and of course there are economic and political reasons as well).

I don't know who you would be referring to as "climate alarmists" — Janus

They’re also known as ‘warmists’. You know, people who run around scaring the populace with nonsense about climate change.

Minor differences, overall agreement. That's how I would describe our exchange.

Can you go a bit deeper into this inertia concept? Does it have anything to do with our nature? What could explain it? People seem to take lots and lots of convincing before they decide to not accept but just to merely consider a point of view. I've experienced this myself - it takes a huge amount of effort just to get heard, forget about changing people's minds.

They’re also known as ‘warmists’. You know, people who run around scaring the populace with nonsense about climate change. — Wayfarer

:lol: You did a volte face faster than you can say Jack Robinson. What made you change your mind?

A joke explained is a joke lost.

joke explained is a joke lost. — Wayfarer

:lol:

You shouldn't have to explain a joke.

Climate change science is so simple it can be stated in a few sentences. The burning of fossil fuels, chiefly coal, oil and gas, emits CO², which absorbs and retains heat more effectively than other atmospheric gases. Since the Industrial Revolution, billions of tons of CO² have been injected into the atmosphere, changing its composition and therefore raising global temperatures. This has flow-on effects such as melting of the polar ice-caps and glaciers, and more severe droughts, floods and storms, and severe wildfires. All of these effects have been observed in the last decades, without any significant possibility of error. Combined with the requirements of feeding an ever-growing and historically-unprecedented population and the other environmental consequences of large-scale human industrial activities (such as the proliferation of plastic waste and species extinction), this poses a critical threat to the habitability of Earth and the survival of the species.

All of which was spelled out in Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. Since then most OECD economies have frittered away years bickering about it and asking stupid questions about ‘how much it will cost’, when the cost of not addressing it is certain doom.

:up:

Can you go a bit deeper into this inertia concept? Does it have anything to do with our nature? What could explain it? People seem to take lots and lots of convincing before they decide to not accept but just to merely consider a point of view. I've experienced this myself - it takes a huge amount of effort just to get heard, forget about changing people's minds. — TheMadFool

What I was referring to was not rational assent. Many people accept the reality of anthropogenically induced, or at least enhanced, climate change. What to do about it, including accepting a fairly drastic reduction in one's prosperity, comfort and convenience is the real stumbling block. The fact is that really significant change needs to be mandated by governments, but again the problem is getting any government that proposed such radical changes voted in, and then voted in again and again for a sufficient series of terms to effect the needed changes.

That's the way people seem to be; does it matter whether it has "anything to do with our nature"? The important question would be whether we can find a way to work around this inertia before it's too late. Your question reminds me of the Buddhist story about the person who has been shot with a poison arrow wanting to know what kind of poison it was, what kind of wood was the bow and arrow made from, who made the bow and arrow and so on, before consenting to treatment.

What I was referring to was not rational assent. Many people accept the reality of anthropogenically induced, or at least enhanced, climate change. What to do about it, including accepting a fairly drastic reduction in one's prosperity, comfort and convenience is the real stumbling block. The fact is that really significant change needs to be mandated by governments, but again the problem is getting any government that proposed such radical changes voted in, and then voted in again and again for a sufficient series of terms to effect the needed changes. — Janus

So, the choices are either a benevolent dictator OR ecological collapse? Mother Nature has us cornered, has us by the balls. :grin: Magnifique!

That's the way people seem to be; does it matter whether it has "anything to do with our nature"? The important question would be whether we can find a way to work around this inertia before it's too late. Your question reminds me of the Buddhist story about the person who has been shot with a poison arrow wanting to know what kind of poison it was, what kind of wood was the bow and arrow made from, who made the bow and arrow and so on, before consenting to treatment. — Janus

Of course it matters. Didn't you hear? Mother Nature knows best! We better keep on pumping more CO2, even CFCs, billions and billions of methane, into the atmosphere. That's what she wants us to do for God's sake!

It reminds me of a year or so old thread :point: In the book of Joshua, why does God have the Israelites march around the walls of Jericho for 6 days?

My contribution for what it's worth to the thread was:

If an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being was on your side in a battle, wouldn't it be silly to question faer commands? Of course, assuming such a being exists. — TheMadFool

Connect the dots - Dear ol' Mother Nature is comparatively orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. I think this isn't the time to be asking questions about whether what we're doing is right or wrong. We should, as Nike puts it, JUST DO IT! Maybe there's light at the end of this rather dark, very dark, tunnel.

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:



That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Xtrix

Do the majority of scientists agree that climate change is the "the issue of our time"? I would be interested in seeing a study. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

I hear about climate change now and again. I'm surprised I don't hear about it all the time in the news. Who is to blame that this issue is not given more attention?

If the super rich and smart people like Bill Gates thought climate change was absolutely the issue, couldn't they do something about it? At least make world leaders learn, or educate the public. Quick google search says "Bill Gates pledges $1.5 billion for climate change projects if Congress passes infrastructure bill" 1.5 billion. That's not much. Why has Bill Gates been more concerned about viruses?

I'd also like to hear an argument why this is "the issue of our time."
Why is it a bigger issue than:
Poverty. (and extreme inequality of wealth distribution)
Religious conflict & war
Political polarization
Government unaccountability
Food and water. (Currently, 1 in 9 people lack access to clean water across the world, a quick search revealed)

I don't know if you look at me as some kind of Troll or something. But perhaps you would like to respond for those who are following your thread.

I don't think its necessarily easy, especially for us laymen to determine what is the most important issue of our time.
And even among experts... people are usually experts in specific fields. I'm not sure there is anyone qualified to speak on a global scale about what is the most important issue for everyone.

Food for thought.

I think Bill Gates is chump change compared to the largest, richest most powerful industry the world has ever known: Petroleum Hydrocarbons (oil). He's like a gnat on bulls ass. But I have often wanted to sit down and ask him and his wife (X?) how philanthropy doesn't work at cross-purposes: Doesn't education and helping people result in an increase of their foot print on the planet? One American costs more than a thousand starving people in X country. If will pull them up and cause a reduction in their reproduction/population, isn't that offset by their increasing foot print? Anyway, I digress.

As to other "pressing issues", one might argue that worrying about those other issues is spending a dollar chasing a dime. When your house is burning down, you might want to work on that first. Of what avail is equal wealth distribution, peace, solidarity, accountability, food and water, if you don't have a place to enjoy all that in? They aren't much good in a post-apocalyptical hell-scape.

I feel out of my element. Your post is well written, but I will offer a chain of thought. My predilection is toward systems thinking.

If Climate Change is the big issue, and the bull of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons industry is the final boss monster causing it. Then that means the Petoleum Hydrcarbons Industry's lack of accountability is a fundamental issue.
Why isn't it held accountable? Maybe because governments aren't being held accountable? So government lack of accountability is a fundamental issue of our time.
Why isn't government being held accountable? Could it be because "we the people" don't stand up to them? Why don't we stand up to them? Could be because most of the world is preoccupied with basic survival? Then that is also a fundamental issue.
And the less poor are divided, distracted, and unclear about the issue at foot, no? So lack of solidarity if a fundamental issue.
Solidarity leads to power. Power leads to ability to hold people accountable. Accountability leads to Petroleum Hydrocarbons Industry ceasing to cause Climate Change.
This is probably super ultra overly simple.... but that is partly my point. We can talk about simple things, but how to actually do anything. It seems very complex, for us microbes on a gnats ass, impossible?

post retracted

The PHI is accountable to no one. We might think that government could/should hold the PHI accountable, but government is a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the PHI. You are correct that we don't stand up to government because we are preoccupied with basic survival, divided, distracted and lack solidarity. However, the PHI funds that preoccupation, division, distraction and lack of solidarity.

There are other PHI subordinates (other unrelated industries and interests) that contribute to and benefit from the PHI efforts. So it's not all on the PHI, but they are the el jefe. It's probably more accurate to just sum it up as the plutocracy.

One wag opined that in the future (if not now) we will be resigned to aligning ourselves with the Plutocracy or Cartels, both of which rely upon each other to foment the preoccupation, division, distraction and lack of solidarity by using each other as a foil, while maintaining government as a punching bag for the people.

I don't believe most people want to take responsibility. — Yohan

Part of the problem is that taking responsibility can work at cross-purposes to your goal. If I save a gallon of gas, I increase the supply, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, and allows others to roll coal while I walk. It's like the guy who wants to take out Saddam Husain taking his deer rifle, boarding a plane to Bagdad and trying to hunt him down on his own. Is he a hypocrite for not doing so? No. It's just smart to have solidarity on some issues. It takes all of us to build an interstate highway system, prosecute a war, save the climate, etc.

So it's no wonder people want to be lead. We just have leaders that are owned by the Plutocracy. How to break that log jam? I don't know. With all the bread and circuses it's hard to do.

Part of the problem is that taking responsibility can work at cross-purposes to your goal. If I save a gallon of gas, I increase the supply, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, and allows other to roll coal while I walk. It's like the guy who wants to take our Saddam Husain taking his deer rifle, boarding a plane to Bagdad and trying to hunt him down on his own. Is he a hypocrite for not doing so? No. It's just smart to have solidarity on some issues. It takes all of us to build an interstate highway system.

So it's no wonder people want to be lead. We just have leaders that are owned by the Plutocracy. — James Riley

The plutocracy is very small compared to the majority, yet they rule. Their power isn't based on money, but deception of the masses. They convinced the majority to sell their soul's to paper. To work in servitude in quiet desperation to corporations. The same corporations that rule the government which they convince us is there to "protect our freedom"(rights).
Imagine it.... convincing people that they can be Ruled and Free at the same time, and that in fact their Freedom depends on there being Rulers to enforce the freedom. Forced freedom! But we get to choose who will Rule us! We are too stupid and irresponsible o rule ourselves, but we are smart and responsible enough to know who could be a good ruler for us!

Anyway, its becoming kind of a rant at this point.

I don't know what will help, but I know flippancy won't.

I don't know what will help, but I know flippancy won't. — Janus

:cheer: Flippancy is just one step shy of the nest step, which is "looking at the bright side." It's part of the default playbook. I saw it in logging, mining, grazing, water . . . whatever would let the process continue and allow people to sleep at night. It's like collateral damage. Just another price to be paid. Nothing to see here, move along folks.

Flippancy is just one step shy of the nest step, which is "looking at the bright side." — James Riley

:100: Yep, I've witnessed the very same human phenomenon in building and landscaping.

One wag opined that in the future (if not now) we will be resigned to aligning ourselves with the Plutocracy or Cartels, both of which rely upon each other to foment the preoccupation, division, distraction and lack of solidarity by using each other as a foil, while maintaining government as a punching bag for the people. — James Riley

"Divide and conquer". Solidarity of the people seems to be a distant fast-vanishing dream.

Solidarity of the people seems to be a distant fast-vanishing dream. — Janus

Yes. If they detect a little stirring that could manifest into a credible threat, they just crack open the spigot a little bit, give us a drink, toss us a bone and foment a division and we are as divided as ever.

Do the majority of scientists agree that climate change is the "the issue of our time"? — Yohan

I would suspect it’s up there, yes. Perhaps nuclear weapons as well. I think among climate scientists it’s especially likely, given what they know.

I hear about climate change now and again. I'm surprised I don't hear about it all the time in the news. Who is to blame that this issue is not given more attention? — Yohan

I think media is improving in its coverage because it’s getting worse, but there’s much room for improvement. They’re not nearly covering it enough.

I think there’s several reasons. Mostly about money, as usual. It’s depressing, so it doesn’t sell.

Why has Bill Gates been more concerned about viruses? — Yohan

Some billionaires are deniers, or want to delay anything being done because their wealth depends on it. In Gates’ case— he considers this the most important issue, in fact. He wrote an entire book about it a few months ago.

I don't think its necessarily easy, especially for us laymen to determine what is the most important issue of our time. — Yohan

Climate change is an existential threat. Like nuclear weapons. That should make it pretty high on our priority list.

Climate change is an existential threat. Like nuclear weapons. That should make it pretty high on our priority list. — Xtrix

Depletion of aquifers, depletion of fisheries and plastic pollution of oceans and destruction of soils by "Big Agra" are also existential threats. Destruction of forest habitat is also, on its own apart from its tie-in to global warming, an existential threat. Basically the only solution to the problem would seem to be a drastic reduction of human population, but that is an unacceptable aim, and probably very few people would want it to happen naturally (caused by a pandemic, catastrophic collapse of aquifers or fisheries) or by inadvertent human action (nuclear war).

Humanity is between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes.

But I have often wanted to sit down and ask him and his wife (X?) how philanthropy doesn't work at cross-purposes: Doesn't education and helping people result in an increase of their foot print on the planet? One American costs more than a thousand starving people in X country. If will pull them up and cause a reduction in their reproduction/population, isn't that offset by their increasing foot print? Anyway, I digress.

As to other "pressing issues", one might argue that worrying about those other issues is spending a dollar chasing a dime. When your house is burning down, you might want to work on that first. Of what avail is equal wealth distribution, peace, solidarity, accountability, food and water, if you don't have a place to enjoy all that in? They aren't much good in a post-apocalyptical hell-scape. — James Riley

You have outlined the conundrum very well. This is exactly how I see the situation. If we stopped Big Agra and food aid to the countries that need it everything would collapse and countless millions would starve. That might solve the problem, but our economies would collapse and we would be in a post-apocalyptic world. And here we are trying to save everyone from Covid, which might only exacerbate the overall problem, but it is the right thing to do nonetheless, or so it seems to me.

plastic pollution of oceans a — Janus

There's a bacteria that eats plastic. Problem solved!

You're joking. a little. yes, there are bacteria which can be induced to eat plastic, but
a. are they salt-water bacteria?
b. can they start on solid plastic items (bottles, plastic parts, etc)?
c. how long does it take the bacteria to eat 1 kilogram of plastic?
d. any plastic? There are dozen of varieties.
e. what are the breakdown products?