And apparently it's not even close to an existential risk, even in worst case scenario — ChatteringMonkey

Then you simply aren't paying attention.

It's nothing like an astroid hitting the earth where we either prevent the impact or die immediately — ChatteringMonkey

It's very much like an asteroid hurling towards earth. Not the same, of course. But regardless, you completely missed the point. The point was that no one, including myself, is saying we're doomed.

And sure he leaves out a whole lot, but science does seem to support the things that he does say. — ChatteringMonkey

It's not an existential threat, not even close. — ChatteringMonkey

It is an existential threat, not simply "close."

You can go on comforting yourself with the idea that tipping points and feedback loops are improbable, or whatever else you'd like. But it's pure irrationality, honestly. If the chances of an existential threat were 0.1%, it'd still be absurd to not take that seriously.

Again, it's worth reading about this. Tell these authors that it's "not even close."

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

Scientists Warn Humanity in Denial of Looming 'Collapse of Civilization as We Know It'

Top scientists warn of 'ghastly future of mass extinction' and climate disruption

The 17 experts, including Prof Paul Ehrlich from Stanford University, author of The Population Bomb, and scientists from Mexico, Australia and the US, say the planet is in a much worse state than most people – even scientists – understood.

“The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms – including humanity – is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts,” they write in a report in Frontiers in Conservation Science which references more than 150 studies detailing the world’s major environmental challenges. —

Pretty thorough interview with Will Steffen: here.

If you're really going solely by whether it wipes out every last human on the face of the planet, then I suppose nuclear weapons aren't an existential threat either. Perhaps the aforementioned asteroid (depending on the size) isn't an existential threat.

So it'll only be a radically changed, hell-like earth. But we'll survive in some capacity -- so we can't call it "existential." If you're somehow comforted by that, you're welcome.

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey

Based on what we understand now, this is true. — frank

You don't know what you're talking about. It's "true" in the sense that you simply refuse to read anything about it. I've provided plenty of sources. The rest is your business.



Very true.

My question: So, those who claim that global warming/climate change is a fact are claiming if it suddenly starts snowing all over the world, temperatures drop below freezing, rivers and lakes in the tropics freeze over, it's all caused by global "warming"? :chin: — TheMadFool

When the climate changes this rapidly (and the issue is the rate of change), it disrupts all kinds of cycles we've been used to for thousands of years. This means disruptions in the weather, as well -- more extreme swings in rainfall, for example. So we can have flooding and drought happen at the same time within the same country. Likewise, it can impact how cold it gets in winter. We saw Texas freeze over this year, for example. Some of that is related to the changing climate, yes. That doesn't mean we're heading for an ice age. We're heading in the opposite direction.

Remember climate change is about extremes - that cuts both ways (h9t or cold). Ergo, global warming can lead to global cooling. Paradox or climate change is a hoax, a well-orchestrated one. — TheMadFool

While extreme cold events may take place as part of an overall disruption, the direction we're going is warming, not cooling. That's why the global temperature average keeps increasing, not decreasing.

Is the "climate change is a hoax" a joke?

Let me save all the "it's not an existential threat" crowd on here some time. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQAGr1s1XFc

If you're convinced by this, that's your own issue.

But I'm honestly confused as to what you mean by get things moving. Do you mean get things moving to avoid 4 degrees by 2050? If so, I doubt that's really possible. — Albero

If we hit 4 degrees Celsius by 2050, we can wave goodbye to human life as we know it. If you think that's somehow not "really possible," then you're resigned to our probable demise. That's fine. But in that case, one would think you'd be on the front lines of this issue rather than pacifying yourself with articles about how these scientists are "probably" wrong about the effects and are being a bit too pessimistic.

If the Hothouse Earth Hypothesis is correct, then stabilising at or above 2°C would lead to a gradual but inevitable drift up to 4°C by say the yea — Albero

What?

It's not inevitable, and it's not about 2 degrees C. It's about whether we trigger various tipping points which speeds up the effects. That's very possible even at 2C, but not inevitable. I also don't know where exactly you get the year 3000 -- but it seems to me there's a lot of talk about how "far away" the effects of climate change are, which makes me rather suspicious.

"The year 3000? Eh, we'll have it figured out by then." So now we can all continue on with our lives. Meanwhile, every year is breaking temperature records and there's major wildfires, heat waves and draughts as we speak.

I actually read most of the articles and papers linked too here, and if anything a lot of scientists seem agree that climate change is very unlikely to be an existential risk. — ChatteringMonkey

That's just nonsense. Climate change is an existential risk -- there's little doubt about that. What you -- and others -- want to do here is split hairs: "Well, it's not really existential because some humans may survive" or "We'll probably get enough things done, so it's not very likely," etc. You have no idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid.

I'll repeat a thousand times: if we keep business as usual -- which means the pace we're going, pumping more and more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- we're dead. Yes, the IPCC doesn't put it quite like that, but they have to be balanced. This latest leak shows how alarmed they're getting.

Between the IPCC and climate denial there's another large group: those who believe we're under-estimating the effects of climate change. If you pay attention to the news lately, again and again you read of how scientists have underestimated how quickly these negative effects would happen, whether it be the ice caps melting or whatever else. That doesn't seem to get much attention from the major media.

So yes, we should be much more alarmed than we are right now. Much more. In the same way we would be if an asteroid were approaching Earth. In that scenario, I'm sure there'd be people who claim it's "asteroid alarmism." but that's not really worth much attention.

And while I do think climate change is a serious problem that needs to be resolved, I don't think this kind of rhetoric serves that cause really. I think it damages their credibility, handing out free ammunition to climate deniers... and maybe more importantly accurate assessment of risks is important to determine what kinds of drastic solutions we need to consider to solve the problem. — ChatteringMonkey

What kind of rhetoric? The truth?

If by "rhetoric" you mean claiming that "we're doomed," then yes -- that's stupid, does no good, and isn't true. That's not what I'm saying, nor what climate scientists are saying.

If that's difficult, I'll put it this way: an asteroid is heading to earth. (1) If we do nothing -- what happens? We're dead. (2) If we act, we'll survive. Suppose someone starts saying, "We're doomed." What does this imply exactly? It seems to exclude (2), and thus no matter what we do we're dead.

So no, we're not doomed. But we need to start being far less nonchalant about this, and start taking it much more seriously. I see it in this very forum. Not outright denial, but not nearly alarmed enough. I chalk it up to not paying attention.

And there is some evidence to support the notion of "tipping points." Or do you think this is all nonsense? — tim wood

You have to be aware that these positions even exist, and Frank has done his best to avoid them because it doesn't feel good.

And, while others will speak for themselves, I for one don't find overall positions such as that of Xtrix's in any way discordant to the issue I've just addressed. — javra

That climate change, like nuclear war, is an existential threat? Good. When I say this, I'm repeating what I've read from scientists, not the media.

People don't like hearing this, of course. That's the real issue. So maybe it's better to pretend these scenarios don't exist -- I don't know, I'm not a politician or pundit. But even if they aren't true, and humans will go on living -- I don't think anyone would want to live in that world, or have their grandkids live in it.

Those who dismiss it all as "alarmism" simply represent another variant of climate denialism.

Read The Long Thaw by David Archer. He says there is no reason to believe humans won't survive the changes. — frank

You haven't read David Archer -- who's a serious person and a climate scientist.

As I've said before, there is very good reason to believe it could wipe us out completely. That's one scenario. I view it as the most likely IF we don't take significant actions.

True, there's a chance it may not wipe us out if we continue business as usual. There's a chance nuclear war won't wipe us out either. That seems to be comforting enough for you.

Human extinction due to AGW? Who said that? — frank

Climate scientists. What you don't seem to understand, but which I'll repeat again, is that this assumes "business as usual," which is what I (and Tim) mentioned. There are feedback loops and tipping points that can be reached -- it's called the "hothouse earth" scenario, and many climatologists take it quite seriously. Not surprising that you've completely missed all the literature on this.

Here's a good starter:

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_90dc2a2637f348edae45943a88da04d4.pdf

“...attention has been given to a ‘hothouse Earth’ scenario, in which system feedbacks and their mutual interaction could drive the Earth System climate to a point of no return, whereby further warming would become self-sustaining. This ‘hothouse Earth’ planetary threshold could exist at a temperature rise as low as 2°C, possibly even lower."

[...]

From an interview about the above:

“Our argument is in essence that on the present path, including the commitments in Paris, warming will be three or three and a bit degrees. If you include climate cycle feedbacks, which are not included in the IPCC analysis, it’ll be effectively higher.” For both those claims, there’s significant published science backing him. Then he gets to the controversial bit: “Three degrees may end our civilization.”

For that claim, he cites climate scientist John Schellnhuber, who said in an interview early this year, “if we get it wrong, do the wrong things ... then I think there is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation,” and UN Secretary General António Guterres, who has said “The problem is that the status quo is a suicide.”

--Here

Again -- these arguments could be wrong. The arguments about whether a nuclear holocaust would truly wipe out every human being could be wrong too. But I see no reason not to take them seriously, and absolutely no reason to dismiss or ignore them outright (a line that you've apparently taken, for whatever reason).

"A doomsday future is not inevitable! But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor. We must act collectively. We need strong, determined leadership in government, in business and in our communities to ensure a sustainable future for humankind."

You've got a truckload of self-righteous anger, but few facts. — frank

:lol:
:up:

I don't know of any legit scientists who say we're doomed either way. — frank

No one is saying we’re doomed.

If we continue business as usual? Yes, then we’re dead. There’s a chance, of course, that we survive— just as there’s a chance that we survive nuclear war. We can focus on that chance if we like. Doesn’t change what scientists are saying.

But you realize that this is a long-term problem? — frank

Yes, one that we need to act on very quickly — in the short term. If we listen to scientists, of course. I choose to listen to them. I recommend others do too.

Well, then we should not say that the goal is to save the World, but just to say to help us and the few next generations of humans after us. — ssu

I don’t think I said anything about saving the world— but if I did, yes I meant human beings. This should be fairly obvious.

https://apple.news/APFr19IAmTXOlAZrxQ-840w

Renewables the cheapest form of energy last year.

Hmmm…

Good resource for anyone with questions:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html?name=styln-climate&region=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false#link-2bcb067a

Doomed implies it’s inevitable. Which justifies doing nothing, since we’re doomed anyway.

Here’s a cartoon version. An asteroid is approaching Earth. Scientist A: “We’re doomed.” Scientist B: “If we don’t act, we’re all gonna die.” Most will see the difference here.

I don’t expect you to understand the difference, so just go back to sleep.

Not once did I say we’re doomed. Yes, if we do nothing — we’re dead. “If.” That’s not hard to understand, and that’s not saying “we’re doomed.” The choice is ours — it’s not foregone.

So those are the choices: we make it happen or we don’t. If we don’t, we’re dead. That’s obvious, and that’s why scientists are saying we need to ACT. The fact that you equate this with “we’re doomed” says a decent amount about your reading comprehension.

But nice try.

The thing is though is that most climate scientists aren't really saying we only have "12 years" to save the world. The people who are giving this "12 years" slogan are journalists who in my opinion don't actually have the proper credentials or time to sift through dense papers and technical models on the climate. — Albero

First of all, you're making things up. No one is saying we have "12 years to save the world." Absolutely no one. No one serious anyway. That you reflexively mischaracterize it this way already exposes your warped perspective.

Secondly, it is absolutely coming from climate scientists, not from journalists. The journalists have reported on it. If some have stated we have "12 years to save the world," they're probably from Fox News. From other media, it's usually straightforward. It comes from an IPCC report, which you can read here.

What it states, as I stated, is that we have 12 years (less now), or until about 2030 to really get a move on things. The year 2050 is the more important (and more realistic) target -- but it becomes increasingly unlikely if we don't start working towards more immediate goals as a foundation.

Here is a paper published and peer reviewed by several sociologists who specialize in human geography, climate change and public policy who disagree with the 12 year deadline idea. — Albero

No, they disagree with how the 12-year IPCC recommendation is being interpreted, and how that can be dangerous. That's a reasonable issue, but completely separate from what actually is recommended by the IPCC, which is exactly as I mentioned: we have until 2030 to get things moving. That doesn't mean the world will end. The danger with giving any kind of "deadline" like that, as the paper mentions, is that it becomes a political weapon.

And here is Michael Mann talking about doomism and its dangers:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/ — Albero

Michael Mann, from the interview:

"You say that fossil fuel interests are not just fighting against renewable energy. They are also pushing the idea that it is too late—that climate change cannot be stopped, and it is pointless to try to do so at this stage.

MM: Conservative media are promoting people such as Guy McPherson, who says that we have 10 years left before exponential climate change literally extinguishes life on Earth and that we should somehow find a way to cope with our imminent demise. I call it “climate doom porn.” It’s very popular, it really sells magazines, but it’s incredibly disabling. If you believe that we have no agency, then why take any action? I’m not saying that fossil fuel companies are funding people like McPherson; I have no evidence of that. But when you look at who is actually pushing this message, it’s the conservative media networks that air his interviews."

I agree wholeheartedly. But again, no scientists are saying "we're doomed," and neither am I. Neither is the IPCC. What they're saying is that we need to do something quickly, and they lay out a plan. The only ones who want to twist it as "forget it, we're already doomed, so don't bother" or mischaracterize it as "we only have 10 years left or the world will explode!" are conservative media and fossil fuel propaganda. That's not what the scientists are saying.

To invoke Michael Mann in relation to the original article you quoted is strange -- because it's exactly that attitude that he's fighting against, even in the very article you cite (if you read it in its entirety).

You have a right to feel urgency about it, but all I'm saying is that the science shows the most extreme and out there scenarios aren't even on the table anymore thanks to the pledges. A 4 degree rise was once a possibility, but the current rise is projected to be 2.5 degrees by 2050 and is expected to lower even more as pledges ramp up in the coming years — Albero

Again, I have to ask for references here. I think there's still very much a good possibility we get to 4 degrees or more. I'd love to believe the opposite, so I'm happy to take a look.

Nowhere does this blog say "everything is fine, go back to consuming" it just said "not as bad as the media makes it out to be". — Albero

It says it's not as bad as the media make it out to be because it's nit-picking. Playing semantic games at a moment like this, when scientists around the world are alarmed and telling us how catastrophic this can be if we don't do something very quickly, is just irresponsible and feeds right into climate denialism, or at best climate apathy. It's "not as bad" because some people make the (potentially) erroneous claim that not all humans will survive, or it won't occur for another 100 or so years -- and by then we'll know how to solve the problem. This is the logic. If you don't see why this is misguided, you haven't been listening to the vast majority of climatologists.

But you don't have to be disagreeable and go "oh you're just delusional, you don't know anything. We're fucked and you're an idiot." — Albero

I don't think you're an idiot, and I don't think we're fucked if we act on this issue right now. As I said many times, there are sensible solutions. It's right there. It just takes pressuring of these so-called leaders of ours.

What I disagree with is when people -- like you -- choose to give far more attention and weight to a small minority of people (usually not climatologists) who claim that either nothing is happening or, in your case, that it's happening but it won't be as bad as the most extreme claims and so we don't need to worry as much about it. That's not delusional, it's dangerous.

That's fine and all, but scientists aren't infallible. I could easily flip what you're saying around and just say this particular scientist is being alarmist and going against established literature. — Albero

It's worth paying attention when 97% + scientists, around the world, are telling us we have about 12 years to get a move on things. It's also worth opening your eyes to what's happening right now. If you want more literature or references, I'll be happy to give them.

Hell, even Michael Mann who tends to exaggerate the severity of the issue admits that the "we're doomed" mindset is a new form of denialism. — Albero

Where?

I agree with you that the other poster here is being silly-free market capitalism isn't the proper solution to climate change, but it's also false that current governments aren't doing anything about climate change. Many are doing the bare minimum, but a lot of other countries (most notably China) consistently manage to overachieve their IPCC pledges. — Albero

When did I say that governments aren't doing anything? Like you say, they are -- but not nearly enough. Especially the US and China.

Our congress:

According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress, there are still 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress, including 109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. All 139 of these climate-denying elected officials have made recent statements casting doubt on the clear, established scientific consensus that the world is warming—and that human activity is to blame. These same 139 climate-denying members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.

While the number of climate deniers has shrunk by 11 members (from 150 to 139) since the CAP Action Fund’s analysis of the 116th Congress—largely in the face of growing and overwhelming public support for action on climate—their numbers still include the majority of the congressional Republican caucus.* These climate deniers comprise 52 percent of House Republicans; 60 percent of Senate Republicans; and more than one-quarter of the total number of elected officials in Congress. Furthermore, despite the decline in total overall deniers in Congress, a new concerning trend has emerged: Of the 69 freshmen representatives and senators elected to their respective offices in 2020, one-third deny the science of climate change, including 20 new House Republicans and three-of-four new Republican senators. Of note, no currently serving Democratic or independent elected officials have engaged in explicit climate denial by this analysis’ definition. —

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/30/497685/climate-deniers-117th-congress/

I think that it is about people waking up individually and the scale of this can have a real impact. It also involves people challenging older structures. But, I believe that the process does need to happen quickly, in relation to conflicts between nations and political factors, as well as ecological factors, and these are all interconnected. — Jack Cummins

True. It’s really a question of when, and whether it’s too little too late. All the changes around us right now would have been great 25 or 30 years ago — and a lot of damage is locked in.

When people make a profit, it's because they've provided value to the economy, — Kasperanza

I missed this one. :lol:

Ayn Rand makes me happy; I think she's a beautiful thinker. So I'll stick to it. — Kasperanza

Good for you! It’s clearly doing wonders.

:lol:

Just as I thought. Stick with your dogma and be happy. The world is transitioning away from fossil fuels, which are 100% contributing to the climate crisis (despite your delusions), whether you like it or not. Sorry!

Whether it happens quickly enough, I don’t know.

I don't give a squawk what the climate does — Kasperanza

That’s because you’re scientifically illiterate. But I don’t care if you don’t care— by all means troll somewhere else and be happy with your Ayn Rand/capitalism worship. This happens to be titled “climate change.” If you don’t care about it, next time don’t comment.


https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.ipcc.ch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept. — Kasperanza

So laws are "restrictions," in Ayn Rand's eyes (sorry, I mean "your" eyes), and thus restrict freedom. How quaint.

By this I gather you exempt the laws ("restrictions") that keep the wealthy in their positions of powers, like the corporation as a person (a gift from the state), patent laws, copyright laws, private property laws, etc. To say nothing of roads, bridges, police, military, subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts when they fail. All from the government. That's all fine, I assume.

Traffic laws should probably go, though. So should laws against malpractice. That's not cancer you're dying from -- it's "real freedom."

Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.

Actually, I think people like him have it really good in life. So often, ignorance in fact is bliss. — baker

Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell (the latest "libertarian" darling) videos on YouTube. I can see that. They speak with authority, are well educated, and aren't completely insane. Some things of theirs I even agree with. But when I see how their followers apply their thinking to issues like climate change or corporate malfeasance, it's fairly obvious that something's gone wrong.

If we have any hope of dealing with climate change, it's allowing capitalism to come up with solutions with competition and innovation, not the government controlling people like animals. And depriving them of fossil fuels, which is our only means of survival from the climate. — Kasperanza

I've asked you to take ten minutes to read about climate change, and you've refused. Eventually I'll just ignore you. But since 10 minutes may be a long time to some, here's literally 60 seconds worth:



You keep repeating this, and you're confused. So I'll repeat: there is no "capitalism." I don't know what you're referring to when you say that. So either explain what you mean or stop embarrassing yourself by mindlessly repeating slogans.

Second, fossil fuels (and the greed of the industry, driven by profits at the cost of society -- what some would call "capitalism") are the cause of this crisis. Using more of them is literally the opposite of what needs to happen. Do you see that or not? Clearly you don't. Which, again, is why I would recommend learning about this topic.

Lastly, you likewise keep repeating that fossil fuels are the "only means of survival from the climate." Based on what you've previously said, you mean air conditioning and electricity and things like that, which is mind-boggling. The more we use fossil fuels, the worse the situation will get. Period. So yes, we need electricity for heat and air conditioning, and we need transportation. This can all be done with renewable energy -- nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. That's what needs to happen. That's what we're transitioning to.

Your position is literally: "Wow, it's getting really hot out -- who cares? As long as we can stay cool inside, with our air conditioners, what difference does it make what happens 'out there'?"

You're the embodiment of science illiteracy.

Here are some resources to ignore:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.ipcc.ch

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

And once more, for good measure:

It makes zero sense to me.
— Kasperanza

Because you're apparently completely unwilling to consider future consequences. — Echarmion

And because he apparently doesn’t read anything outside climate denial— and maybe not even that, given that the only reference given thus far has been to a YouTube video.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing.

had is your weird, baffled rage. — NOS4A2

Not enraged, and certainly not baffled. Not by you anyway.

it seeks control, and I will dissent from it every time. — NOS4A2

Yeah, you’re a hero. How brave.

Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. Having a hot climate like a the dinosaurs did sounds great! Maybe our climate can change to a more dino-like biosphere. — Kasperanza

It’s comments like this that make it obvious you don’t have a clue. Excess amount of greenhouse gases produces a greater greenhouse effect. That’s not good for human beings or nature as we know it. If we have a climate like the dinosaurs, we’re toast as a a species. Which you’d know if you deign to read anything about this topic outside denialist propaganda.

And how do you know this is all due to CO2? What if the planet is going through a generational shift, or getting solar flares from the sun? And do you really think the climate would stop changing if we stopped releasing CO2 in the air? Would it slow it down enough to stop climate change? Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable? — Kasperanza

It’s not all due to CO2, but that’s the main driver. Methane and other gases also contribute.

It’s not solar flares or generational shifts— believe it or not, this has been considered by climate scientists. What we see is outside of natural variation. But feel free to believe that because you’ve watched a YouTube video by a well known climate denier, you’ve cracked the case. Maybe a lecture from you on why quantum mechanics is “stupid”?

Yes, stopping burning fossil fuels will have an effect on the earth’s global temperature average, which is the goal.

Under capitalism, people wouldn't be waiting around for the government to fix the issue, — Kasperanza

“Under capitalism”?

The capitalism you’re talking about — Rand’s version— doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy. Try looking at the real world instead.

There’s no reason to believe our government can’t solve this issue, and rather easily. What’s in the way is what you’d call “capitalism”: greedy, profit-driven industries who buy off politicians and lobby for what they want. Pretty obvious.

I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. You talk like humans won't be handle this. When problems arise, people adapt. Also, fossil fuels are the greatest defense against these issues. — Kasperanza

No, they’re the cause of the problem. They and the privileging of profit over people. You’re simply deluded.

You don’t see impending doom? Oh good. Your expert opinion gives me solace.

Haha wow, fishing will be affected. Okay so fishing affected? So what all the fish die. People can find food elsewhere.

When some lands become dry and barren, new lands will open up. Maybe Canada and Russia will become much warmer and inhabitable.

If the sea levels rise, just move. It's great there will be mass movements of people. Immigration is good. — Kasperanza

Is this a joke? Or are you a joke?

I’ll go with the latter. Oh well.

I mean I grew up the American education system. I was fed your perspective my entire life and I believed it for most of my life. — Kasperanza

Believed what? Going solely on what you've said thus far, it seems very obvious to me that you really haven't taken the time to understand the (now) other point of view -- which happens to be the overwhelming consensus amongst people who have dedicated their lives to the field -- climatologists, oceanographers, geophysicists, astrophysicists, etc.

The climate is changing rapidly. We're already seeing some of the results, as was predicted years ago. This was known way back in the 50s, in fact. Exxon scientists noted it in the 70s and 80s. It's long been known that burning fossil fuels, along with agricultural practices and deforestation, will lead to a build-up in greenhouse gases -- CO2, methane, etc.

The higher these concentrations, the warmer the planet. This is what we're seeing. It seems like a small change, but it is having (and will continue to have) a very large effect on the planet. It's true that it's been much warmer in the past, and that CO2 has (in conjunction) been much higher as well -- during the time of the dinosaurs, for example. But humans weren't around then. That was a much different world with a different biosphere.

Since the industrial revolution, we've pumped tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and, as isn't a surprise, the global temperature average has increased. There are graphs available that show this correlation very clearly if you're more visual (like me).

So the greenhouse gases are climbing rapidly and the climate is changing rapidly. More so than in the last 100,000 years -- and we have CO2 measurements/temperature measurements from that far too (ice core samples, etc). That's really dangerous for life on Earth, because it will effect many things -- leaving even tipping points aside.

It'll effect where we live, as sea level rise will impact coastal communities. It'll effect agriculture -- so the global food supply, due to droughts and desertification. That will be devastating. It will effect fishing. It will effect water supply (as the mountain ice caps disappear, as they're already doing, and rivers dry up due to increase heat, as is already happening). There will be massive movements of people from one area to another -- much larger than anything in human history (think Bangladesh alone, which is increasingly becoming more and more inundated with water). That's millions of refugees -- not thousands. I could go on and on. Much of this is already happening, as you know.

I write all this out in case you're really curious. I would much prefer you read some of the links I've provided, but so be it.

I just wonder what your solution is to climate change. — Kasperanza

There are many solutions. The IPCC provides some, but I like Robert Pollin's ideas myself (he's an economist, not a climatologist -- but he starts with the premise that climate change is real and something needs to be done econimically). He outlines a plan that would require about 3% of GDP annually to enact. A smooth transition.

The solutions are already known. A magic bullet isn't necessary. No miracles, no totalitarianism, no radical/shocking upheaval of human life: investments in clean energy and research, a shift in subsidies, carbon taxes (proposed by many Republicans), a shift in investments to cleaner industries (which the major asset managers are already doing), divestment from fossil fuels, retrofitting buildings, infrastructure -- including high-speed rail and the public transportation systems, higher efficiency standards, better regulations, and so on.

Plenty of solutions, plenty of plans. Nothing extremist. It can easily happen, provided there's political will. But there hasn't been any, and for obvious reasons. The people of this country (and around the world) are in favor of it, and those numbers will continue to rise as things get worse. The IPCC and others have given us maybe 10 or 20 years to really get moving on this, and we have to start right away. There are some bright spots, but still a lot more needs to be done.

It's a big moment -- right now in congress there's a chance for the use of a reconciliation bill to fund much of this stuff, which would be a good start. Republicans are trying to block it all, and some moderate democrats are also standing in the way. It seems like an absurd scenario, but that's what "capitalism" does. When congress is bought by special interests who don't want anything done, usually nothing gets done. Not until it's too late or enormous damage has been done -- which is already true.

There are no such thing as "free markets." I know Ayn Rand talks about this a lot -- but it's a fantasy. She ignores a lot of history. If you want someone a little more tricky, try Milton Friedman. He's had a much bigger impact than Rand, and has a better understanding of history. His thesis is equally flawed, though. There are no "free markets" in the world. There's only state-capitalism, which is what we have here in the US. Major intervention in markets by the state. So if an industry is largely the cause of a problem -- whether lung cancer or climate change -- and have benefited from state subsidies for decades, then the state can intervene in the opposite direction as well.

I'm not expecting you to agree, but it would be nice if you could understand some of the points that Alex Epstein makes. I don't think he's some lunatic. — Kasperanza

I'm very familiar with Alex Epstein. I'm also familiar with other very famous climate "skeptics" -- Marc Morano. James Inhofe. Myron Ebell. Bjorn Lomborg. Fred Singer. Roy Spencer. (These latter two are especially prominent in online circulation.) None of them are "lunatics" (well, perhaps Inhofe). Some are scientists (in other fields), some are politicians, some are complete industry-funded charlatans who don't believe a word of what they're saying, and some are (I imagine) pretty nice guys who are sincere in their beliefs.

Sure, you can stick exclusively with those guys if you'd like. I've been discussing this issue with their followers for years. They, much like you, don't seem to have the slightest interest in consulting any climatologist, academy, or institution that represents the vast consensus. Won't spend 10 minutes on anything by NASA, by the Royal Academy, by Nature or Science magazine or any other research journal, by the IPCC, by NOAA, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), etc. etc. etc.

I suppose that's -- what -- "open minded"?

But I guess the perspective still is on our own asses, because life on Earth will surely adapt to situations where the polar caps have melted etc. We humans on the other hand might have huge problems. — ssu

Well yes, of course. That's all I'm talking about, although a lot of people here are taking a much broader view. But I don't care as much about whether other life exists, necessarily. I care about human existence. I assumed we all do. Some like to posture about this, of course, but appearing to be above it all often leaves me with two reactions: the person is silly or sick.

I'm talking about human life, not general biological life. So in case that wasn't clear, there you go. Yes, bacteria will probably go on without us. That's little consolation to me, my grandkids, or my great-great grandkids.

And a bit more perspective to those changes: — ssu

That doesn't provide perspective at all, really. Not if we're talking about human life. Because, if you notice, we haven't been around that long. Behaviorally modern humans, maybe 200 or so thousand years. Better to look at that record. Also best to take a look at what scientists say about this and why it's important.

Well, carbon capture is also an option for the right (and oil companies) to run on too since it doesn't require a big change in the current status quo. That is probably where I imagine the lines will be drawn politically in the future. Not ideal, but frankly that would be much better than where we are now with one side accepting the problem and the other thinking that it doesn't even exist. — Mr Bee

Your point is well taken. This is why I'm hopeful but not pushing too hard for this -- I know it can be "appropriated" by those who want to see nothing happen whatsoever.

It's actually HG Wells dumbshit. — frank

Lol -- how pathetic. Can the moderators please boot this guy -- at least from this thread? He's contributing nothing, resorts to name-calling, and apparently plagiarizes without citation. Just a thought. I flagged it as well, so take a look.

We're either going to make it happen or we're dead.
— Xtrix

I don't think that's true. There's not one thing to make happen. There are lots of apocalyptic scenarios, but also lots of survivalist scenarios. — Kenosha Kid

It's amazing that people continue on like this.

Yes, a nuclear war would probably not wipe out everyone as well. Would you want to live in that world, however? Probably not. Likewise for climate change -- if we do nothing, we're dead. Period. If we do little, there's a chance we survive in a hellish world. It does seem like the latter is a real possibility, yes.

And I never said "one thing" needs to happen. This is going to take many different changes in many different fields, involving many different countries.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph.
— Xtrix

For most people, this is too abstract. It seems to me that unless people experience climate change directly, in a way that doesn't depend on trusting others, they can't really relate to it. — baker

Yes indeed. But the ozone was a bit abstract too, in a way. Easier to picture, because it was a "hole" and there was a lot of talk about it. But the other difference was that there wasn't as much of a pushback from powerful capitalist industries.

What's happening with climate denial is more on par with what Big Tobacco did when it became clear that smoking causes lung cancer: major pushback, sow doubt, undermine the science, associate it with communism or socialism, make it a matter of "freedom," etc. Some of the same lawyers who represented tobacco companies also represent Exxon, Chevron, etc.

I think that's the real culprit here. We forget that not long ago, George HW Bush, Newt Gingrich, W Bush, and John McCain would openly talk about climate change and the need to do something about it. That was up to about 13 or so years ago. The push came especially from the Koch network. This has been well documented, in fact. That's where I place the majority of blame.

Have you read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein? — Kasperanza

You mean the non-scientist/climate denier/Ayn Rand cultist who was destroyed in debate by Bill McKibben years ago? Regardless, I'm not watching a single thing you suggest until you've shown you've done the minimal amount of reading required to even be taken seriously on this topic. You remind me of a person who, because he's watched a few videos on quantum mechanics on YouTube, feels confident enough to walk into an MIT physics class and lecture the professor. Grow up.

I believe the climate is changing, as it always has. — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Shocker that this tired, stupid line gets regurgitated by you.

That's sarcasm -- not shocked at all. In case that was unclear.

In case others are reading (not you -- go back to sleep):

The latest bullshit from climate deniers is the phrase "the climate is ALWAYS changing." This way they can appear to agree when asked "do you believe in climate change?" An old and rather obvious tactic, straight from the lawyers.

But no, the climate has not "always changed." Not like this, and not since we've been around. There's a mountain of evidence that shows why it's dangerous, and why the scientists are warning us about it. They're being ignored, largely due to propaganda (in my view). Same as all the people who were duped, by tobacco companies, into believing that cigarettes were harmless -- the science wasn't "settled," after all. Exactly the same tactics, almost exactly the same people involved (see above).

NOS is right in the meaty part of the curve for Trump-voting right-wingers. Nothing shocking there, but a good example of what I was saying above about the effectiveness of propaganda.

Next up: "CO2 is good for the planet!" or "It's the sun!" or "It's water vapor!" or "It's all funded by George Soros!" etc. etc.

Most of the human race should revert to a Stone Age level. — frank

No one is- or ever has - said this is what’s necessary. This is yet another common strawman used by science deniers. It’s either catastrophe or Stone Age, according to you. Must take real effort to remain so ignorant.

But the question for philosophy is not, is it happening or is it going to be bad, but how do we need to reimagine ourselves and our societies to include our dependencies on environment? — unenlightened

Exactly right.

There's also geoengineering, which I fear will be the political right's "easy" response to the crisis once they can no longer ignore the asteroid that they've been downplaying for decades, but I don't think we're at that phase yet for them. — Mr Bee

Unfortunately I agree with you, although I’m still hopeful that the carbon removal technology can ramp up quickly. Bill Gates is on the job, after all.

I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention. — Kasperanza

So sayeth the church of neoliberalism. Glad to see someone still parrots the bullshit of Ayn Rand.

Capitalism wouldn’t last one second without “government intervention,” which is obvious to anyone who doesn’t live in Friedman and Rand’s dreamworld.

121 degrees F, 49.6 C, in Canada, more associated with moose and permafrost. More than 500 deaths associated with heat, and the village of Lytton BC totally destroyed by fire.

'Climate emergency' is not political rhetoric, it describes exactly what is happening. — Wayfarer

And this is only one part of the world. We simultaneously have a drought going on here in New England, and one of the hottest Junes on record.

Climate is not weather, but it disrupts the weather. We’re seeing it happen before our eyes. The pattern is obvious, provided we can read a graph.

From a scientist hired by Exxon in the 80s to study the effects on climate:

“We were doing very good work at Exxon. We had eight scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals, including a prediction of how much global warming from carbon dioxide buildup 40 years later. We made a prediction in 1980 of what the atmospheric warming would be from fossil fuel burning in 2020. We predicted that it would be about one degree celsius. And it is about one degree celsius.

It never actually occurred to me that this was going to become a political problem. I thought: “We’ll do the analyses, we’ll write reports, the politicians of the world will see the reports and they’ll make the appropriate changes and transform our energy system somehow.” I’m a research scientist. In my field, if you discover something and it turns out to be valid, you’re a hero. I didn’t realize how hard it would be to convince people, even when they saw objective evidence of this happening.”

https://apple.news/A2Kt3kfswQ6WuG3CulrN58Q

Oh, things are too hot? Blast the air conditioning. Things are too cold? Turn up the heat. I don't really see why it matters what the climate does. — Kasperanza

That’s because you’re completely ignorant about this topic. If you continue to choose not to take 10 minutes to read about it, please stop trolling this thread.

It's climate CHANGE not climate destruction. — Kasperanza

Change is neither good nor bad. — Kasperanza

Then you really don't know what you're talking about, and I suggest taking literally 10 minutes, type in "climate change" in Google, pick one result -- whether from NASA or NOAA or the Royal Academy or MIT or anything you like -- and read about it. Because you're making an utter buffoon of yourself.

Climate change is happening. So what? I'm not denying that. I'm saying we should burn more fossil fuels anyway. — Kasperanza

:chin:

Yeah, and I'm not denying that smoking causes cancer. I just think we should all smoke as much as possible. Because I'm smart.

Don't you realize that you're guilty of what you just criticized me of?

You're ignoring someone who disagrees with you and only choosing to talk to people that fundamentally agree with you. — Kasperanza

No, not with me, with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the undeniable evidence. You choose to ignore all of that -- that's fine. People believe in a flat earth and deny the holocaust -- I have no interest in engaging with them either. At least not on this thread.

What I do not see mentioned above is the interests of the young as expressed by them. I'm too old to worry much. But the children of the world are looking down a real gun barrel that's pointed at them. When enough of them understand that and grasp that as a fact, then they will start to change things, and pretty quickly. Nor do I see them indulging in great patience - why should they? I give it one generation. — tim wood

An interesting point. Notice that polls of younger people (including those identifying as Republicans) show that they are much more concerned about climate change. We're also seeing movements across the globe -- Greta Thunberg, the Sunrise Movement, etc. All youth-led. That gives me great hope and is very inspiring -- but also pretty embarrassing, given that the adults have failed them so much that they have to pick up the slack.

I hope you're right, and that it takes only one generation. We'll see. I just hope that it's not too late by then in terms of salvaging a relatively decent existence.

I say we burn more fossil fuels — Kasperanza

Let the earth change; it's ridiculous to assume that we can stop it. — Kasperanza

So that makes a total of 2 or 3 climate deniers so far. My advice: go back to your echo chamber. You won't learn anything here, since you don't care to in the first place.

The news really likes to amp up "tipping points" and "earth will be venus" crap but these scenarios are usually cherry picked or blown way out of proportion. Hell, the IPCC doesn't even think "collapse of civilization" is on the trajectory despite what the Guardian articles make you think — Albero

What "cherry picking" are you referring to?

https://news.mongabay.com/2021/01/were-approaching-critical-climate-tipping-points-qa-with-tim-lenton/

Also, you may want to take a look at what the IPCC is saying about tipping points:

https://grist.org/science/leaked-un-report-warns-of-climate-tipping-points/

True, they haven't mentioned the "end of civilization," but they include various scenarios that certainly lead to that. But even if it's not the end, it would be a hell on earth. People would probably survive a nuclear war, too...should we therefore not be concerned? Is that really an argument?

In fact, their debunk here on the "Venus Earth" scenario really soothed a lot of my fears
https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Not-as-scary-as-it-seems-Planet-at-risk-of-heading-towards-Hothouse-Earth-state — Albero

This website is kind of a joke.

The Venus question is not meant literally.

We can nit-pick about "collapse of civilization" or anything else if we want to, but it's simply another form of denial. If you're happier because you found a website that "debunks" the "doomsday" scenarios that those awful "climate alarmists" talk about, you're welcome to. But I suggest balancing that with questions for actual climatologists, someone like Dr. Lenton (linked above) -- who has quite a different view.

The fact remains that we're already seeing signs all around us of a rapidly warming planet, and its effects are also all around us -- right now. Not off in the future -- not according to some model. There are such things as tipping points, and there is a real chance we can make the Earth a nearly-unlivable hellhole (true, maybe not exactly Venus, and people may still survive).

This "debunking" website seems to be obsessed with the fact that it may not happen for a long time to come -- centuries, even. But even there they're likely wrong, given the increase in global temperature, droughts, wildfires, floods, etc., that we're already experiencing -- and giving what scientists are warning us about, including the IPCC.

As the CO2 keeps rising (somewhere near 400 ppm), we'll see more and more warming. That's locked in for decades. We can all push to do something about it, or we can pacify ourselves by reading only what makes us feel better, and thus helping the worst outcome come true. Not a hard decision, in my view, but to each his own.

Is it already too late?
— Xtrix
I suspect it might be if one thinks of significantly slowing the process. I don't see the nations of Earth coming together in a meaningful way, but I could be wrong. — jgill

Well there's really no alternative I can see -- so you're either wrong or we're dead. What we feel about this shouldn't really matter -- rather, what is the evidence? There's little reason to believe it can't be done, in fact we know it can be. So what's the real problem? That people like you and I and others aren't pushing hard enough for it.

I'm usually an optimist but my gut feel is that democracies will reject any government that makes meaningful commitments. — Kenosha Kid

As I said to Jgill above, it's not really about gut feelings. This isn't a problem we can be optimistic or pessimistic about -- I don't think that applies. We're either going to make it happen or we're dead. I do like that cartoon though.

This however pivots on how much most of us care about future generations. At the very least the kids we're related to. — javra

Exactly.

Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our times?
— Xtrix

Yes. Most of the people I’m surrounded by, for starters. Then there is a fair sum of the same in government. Also in the media … — javra

Well I meant less about climate deniers and more about people who accept the science and still place it low on their priorities.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
— Xtrix

Kinda hard to say since no-one knows what the tipping points are exactly, but I think it's unlikely enough will be done to avoid very serious climate changes. — Echarmion

We do know what the tipping points are. If you're looking for something like exact numbers, you won't find it, but we have very good idea about what will trigger an irreversible spiraling.

Tim Lenton has done a lot of work on this.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-nine-tipping-points-that-could-be-triggered-by-climate-change

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

You think it's unlikely that anything gets done. So essentially we're doomed, in your eyes. Interesting perspective.

The best way is probably to organise and join in mass protests. No individual consumer level decisions are likely to be very effective. Or rather the effective decisions are very impractical and so unlikely to be adopted by enough people to make a difference. — Echarmion

I agree.

Climate change is not a disease, it's a symptom. I know quite a few doctors and they all say, while relieving the symptom has its merits, treating the disease is the primary goal!

What, in your opinion, is the disease? — TheMadFool

Depends on the level of analysis. But on the whole, aspects of human nature -- in the case, greed -- that have been magnified by a system that prioritizes private power -- namely, capitalism.

If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
— Xtrix
First you should define just what is the tipping point you refer to. Or what you have in mind with climate change. — ssu

There are multiple potential tipping points. See above for some links, or you can Google "climate tipping points."

Climate change in this context refers to a rapid change in the Earth's climate driven by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.

If what this comment really implies, however, is something like "the climate always changes," then there's no sense in continuing. That's just the latest line for climate change denial, and I have no interest.