I long for the day when utterly selfish profit-seeking homosexuals can get filthy rich selling weed.
Republicans in particular, quite recently, are turning their back on capitalism (economic freedom). — Kasperanza

Take your Ayn Rand bullshit and stick it.. No one is interested -- least of all me.



I agree with ssu that history is important, and that both parties are similar in that both have been bought off by corporate interests (among other things). I like Chomsky's assessment on this: "The Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans." I think that's true of the establishment to this day, while the Republicans have gone off the spectrum. But with the influence of Bernie's movement, I think that's beginning to change. We're hearing more sensible (and modest, by international standards) proposals -- universal healthcare, free public education, action on climate change, taxing the wealthy, etc. -- and that's having an effect.

On the other hand, I've been arguing along similar lines with James. It's simply false equivalence to throw our hands up and say "both parties are awful" and leave it at that. That may have been the case as far back as 1996 or even to some degree up to 2008 (at least John McCain had a climate change policy), but it's just obvious now that one party is clearly preferable to the other, despite all their flaws. If for no other reason than what we're seeing with Biden: they're at least capable of being persuaded/pushed into making decent moves. The Republicans? Forget it. They want to go the complete opposite way, so it's hopeless. I use climate change as a good contrast: one party says it's important and makes proposals (usually way to weak, etc), and the other does what? Says it's a hoax. Doesn't get more clear than that. So any kind of variation on the "What about the other side" argument is a pretty tired move to make at this point. Yes, most of us are well aware of the flaws of the Democrats. I'd like to see the two-party system change. But it's what we have right now. So given the choices, I think it's clear which is preferable -- IF we profess to care about the planet, healthcare, the poor, etc.

You're an extremely angry person. — frank

Seems like an odd thing to say, but OK.

:lol:

Evidence, to show what? What exactly is it that you want me to prove? What is it that you can't google for yourself? — counterpunch

If I recommended a book, what are you going to do? Run out and buy it? Read it so we can discuss it? What the point? — counterpunch

Lol. So confused! What is this "reference" you ask for?! I'm a wealth of information about this subject, having read and worried about it for years, but there's no need to point to a single source about the topic when you can Google it all yourself! True, I'm the one making the claims and in fact raising this subject in the first place, but never mind that -- take me on faith, and don't expect me to provide YOU with anything of substance. I'm not your secretary.

Etc.

You have no idea what you're talking about, pal. So don't worry your little head about references or evidence for your crackpot ramblings. Just be happy with knowing that you've cracked the climate crisis -- and I hope humanity starts listening to your extraordinary solution! Well done!

All the rest of it e.g. low taxes, small government, strong military defense, prayer in schools, pro-life, family values, second amendment rights, "America First", reverse discrimination, "Law & Order", "War on Drugs", etc are just window-dressing and bloody chum tossed out to lure sufficient numbers of unwitting, know-nothing/opportunistic centrists to their "cause" in order to cobble together electoral majorities as needed. — 180 Proof

I see it a little differently. I would add racism and fear of "White replacement" on your list of bloody chum. It's become just as embedded in the party as the anti-abortion position, no doubt. As far as being the first priority upon which the others rest, I think that honor goes to anti-New Deal sentiments, exemplified by the thinking of Milton Friedman and others, and enacted under Reagan. It's neoliberalism through and through.

Today it's embodied completely by McConnell, and Paul Ryan before him. Privatize everything by defunding the programs that work for people -- education, Medicare, social security. They were (and are) up front about it. They've been trying to reverse New Deal programs for years, and have systematically succeeded -- especially in the 80s. You recall Shad's appointment to the SEC, as one example. Can't get more obvious than that.

The rest is, as you say, convenient positions taken to secure a patchwork of a coalition. Whip them into a frenzy about "culture issues" like transgender bathrooms, kneeling athletes, Mr. Potato Head, and of course the "crisis" du jour: critical race theory. Distract them, demonize the left as much as possible, and even embrace Donald Trump as the face of your party -- as long as you get to push through those tax cuts, and as long as nothing fundamentally changes in this country, who cares? That's the current Republican party, in my view.

It started in the 1980s. Read David Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism — frank

I haven't yet, but this is the second time it's been recommended to me. Look forward to getting around to it.

The Republicans just look more insane for you. Here it should be good to take a few steps back a glance at the politics from another viewpoint. — ssu

They do look more insane to me, yes. That goes without saying. But I have no loyalty to the Democratic party either. I see what more conservative minded people think of the Democrats, and a lot of it does appear crazy as well. But I'd challenge anyone to show any kind of parity these days.

Yet I think many Americans still are in the center. — ssu

It certainly seems that way, from the numbers. It's worth remembering that of the population that votes, the biggest group are the independents. They split fairly evenly in where they "lean," but it's a surprising fact for many people. Especially if you spend all your time on Twitter, Facebook, etc.

The Republican party exists to line the pockets of their friends and sponsors (and their own as well, of course); to assure that the wealthy and large corporations are predominant in politics; to maintain the status quo socially and culturally; and finally, to convince those who are less fortunate that they should remain so because that is in their own interest and that of the United States. — Ciceronianus the White

A pretty damn good summary, in my opinion.

Is it that - having me point out a possible, but seemingly unlikely means of securing a sustainable future implies horrors too terrible to contemplate? Because, if that's why you would rather not hear from me - I'd counter that's exactly why you need to listen. — counterpunch

No, it's you who need to listen. I didn't say a word of that. You've put those words in my mouth.

I'll repeat: you preach about something you don't understand. You offer to evidence, no research, and refuse even to provide a single link. Later, you admit there *is* no research, and that you're essentially going on your gut. This is why no one is interested. Otherwise, I'm all for magma energy -- and I hope I'm completely wrong and you turn out to be completely right -- I would love nothing more. But anyone can go around claiming they have the silver bullet. Anyone. Without evidence, it's just a claim by a non-expert on the internet. My claim for geo-engineering (as an example) is just as relevant, in that case.

Sustainability is the biggest philosophical question we have ever faced, and your cowardly viciousness doesn't alter the fact I've been thinking about this, reading about it, and worrying for over 25 years. I know what I think about the most important philosophical question of our time, and what I think is at least interesting, but if you're not interested please feel free to go fuck yourself elsewhere! — counterpunch

The fact that you're this defensive, and apparently too blind to see what others are trying to show you here, tells me that this really isn't about sustainability at all. It's about you wanting to believe you've found something other people (including thousands of experts) have somehow ignored. That's your own issue.

So you've been "thinking about, reading about, and worrying about" this for 25 years, yet provide no references whatsoever? Interesting.

magma is potentially, a high grade source of limitless base load power.
— counterpunch

So is absolutely any source whatsoever according to your current usage of 'potentially', which seems to include anything anyone reckons. — Isaac

100% correct. The difference? This happens to be something he's staked his identity on. Good to know, so I can ignore him easily in future conversations. Just placate him and maybe he'll go away.

The fact that anyone can delude themselves into believing they've got an answer to a global crisis is astounding enough. But then to demonstrate no expertise whatsoever, and no references, is beyond the pale.

Capitalism works. Capitalism has the knowledge, technology and skills to develop and apply the technology. — counterpunch

Ah, the picture becomes clearer now.

Capitalism has the knowledge and skills. Good ol' capitalism. Such a fine head on his shoulders.

It is the prevailing economic paradigm — counterpunch

No, it isn't. Because capitalism doesn't exist anywhere. What we have is a state-capitalist system, with massive state intervention on all levels. Subsidies, bailouts, a central bank, etc. etc. We have what boils down to a corporate welfare/socialist system. It's easy to see, when you look around.

I wasn't closely following the debate with the crackpot, — SophistiCat

I laughed at this.

I'm saying a left wing anti-capitalist green commie approach to sustainability is wrong — counterpunch

:rofl:

Hard to believe I took you seriously early on. Silly me.

Wind and solar are weak and inconstant, while magma energy can give us vast, constant base load power. — counterpunch

No, it can’t. I’ll present just as much evidence to support this claim as you have with yours: my gut feelings.

Just stop already. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You offer no evidence. You have no expertise. You admit there’s no research on this yet. So why continue on? The fact that you think you’re “really on to something” just sounds embarrassing.

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but now you’re just sounding ridiculous. Your point has been made— move on.

What I propose hasn't been done. As far as I'm aware, the research doesn't exist. There is other research that is relevant in some respect, a piece of technology here, a geological fact there, but as far as I'm aware, there are no significant plans to plug into the planet at scale. — counterpunch

Okay— then why go around repeating this dream over and over again? Are you an engineer? Or geologist? Or geophysicist? No? Then enough already. No one is interested in your delusions of grandeur.

I could “propose” something too— so what? I can propose we geoengineer the planet to cool it down. I’ll go around preaching this, offer no evidence or references about it, and then act surprised when people ignore me.

But gathering a weak and inconstant form of energy from 225,000 square miles - just to meet current global energy demand; the staggering ongoing costs of constructing and maintaining such an array, and the question of recycling and replacing those panels after 25 years, to say nothing of the facilities required to store that energy, we be locked in and bankrupted, and have no more energy to spend than before. — counterpunch

No, solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels now. You haven’t been paying attention. They pay for themselves within a few years. But most importantly, they’re green. Any issue with them — replacement, etc — pales in comparison to fossil fuels and the magma technology which you propose— which would currently be hugely expensive. But since you provide no numbers, we can only guess. Since it’s not being done, we can assume why.

True, we can think some internet guy has figured it all out and that actual experts have overlooked this amazing discovery— but forgive me if I don’t bet on that.

You given nothing to indicate the underlined. Everything you say might be nonsense for all we know because you refuse to cite anything. — Isaac

Yes, and that’s pretty suspicious to me. It doesn’t take long to provide some links or references. So far it’s been nothing but gut feelings, which is of no value whatsoever.

That some industry is subsidized or, well, basically the whole government is running on money printed by the Central bank, doesn't change either the Democrats or the Republicans having their differences. — ssu

An important point, and worth mentioning again and again.

There are indeed differences between the parties, despite being beholden to special interests. Those who want to claim they’re “all the same” are being mentally lazy, and overlooks both what you’ve pointed out (written policies) as well as actions.

It seems these days the differences are becoming more extreme, with the Republicans going insane. The left are becoming more progressive, which I would argue is a good thing, though many would claim, predictably, is “just as insane” — while pointing to some misconception they’ve heard from Fox. But I’d hardly say that compares to QAnon or Trump worship— which is taking over the base.

In a powerful country, even small differences make a big impact.

ell, if the Republicans are a political party, then presumably there is a political position somewhere like conservatism, capitalism, anti-socialism, etc. — Apollodorus

They do seem to love “capitalism,” yes. But a particular brand of capitalism: namely, anti-New Deal capitalism. The last 40 years has been a reaction to those policies, in a sense. No surprise it’s been a complete disaster.

Usually parties would have an official webpage where this information would be easy to find. — ssu

When you look at that above, it actually does say what modern GOP is all about. — ssu

I see no reason to take what’s written down too seriously. It’s kind of a joke, actually. For example:

A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.

The oil industry in Texas has received huge subsidies from the government— federally and state-wide.

What’s professed and what’s actually believed are two different things, of course, and we should look at real actions to determine which is which.

Both parties are beholden to wealthy interests, and the rest is a matter of degree. What the Republicans seem to stand for, ultimately, is complete loyalty to their corporate masters. It’s impressive.

I feel the only way to escape this paradox is to say that we are designed by some higher truth in the universe. — Franz Liszt

But that could just as easily be delusional.

I think you're caught up in a semantic jumble. People love to throw around "science" and "logic" and "atheism," but first we should ask some questions about those words -- like, "What do they mean?"

What am I not believing in as an "atheist"? God? What's God? A sky-father humanoid? A "higher truth"? Love? Nature?

What is science? Seems to me it's a human activity, involving faculties of thought and creativity -- similar to philosophy, in fact.

And on and on. I don't think it does much good invoking something like a "higher truth," because that's just as meaningless as "God" or "being" or "force" or anything else you like -- it becomes an x, and can be defined almost any way we want. I don't see this adding anything to the world.

I think this is one piece of a larger picture of wealth transfer.
— Xtrix
It's roughly 700 Billion a year literally by the government to the military suppliers. What larger one did you have in mind? — Cheshire

The trillions of dollars transferred to the wealthy due to (mainly) Republican policies for the last 40 years.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html

what do they stand for, at bottom?
— Xtrix

Fear.
Donald Trump.
Some Republicans are on board with their base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base on principle, but subordinate that disagreement with a desire to keep the base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base and would not subordinate their disagreement with their base but they are under threat of physical violence or extortion from their base.
Fear. — James Riley

Well that's the base. All of that seems to be true: fear of being "replaced" by minorities, fear that their way of life is changing for the worse, some legitimate grievances about stagnation, etc. Most adore Trump. But I was talking about he leaders, the establishment. Most of them don't really like Trump at all. Like McConnell. What do they really stand for anymore? Or is it the same thing they've stood for since the 70s?

They maintain the economic dynamic of an economy that relies on wealth transfer to weapons manufacturing in order to sustain a manufacturing base. — Cheshire

I think this is one piece of a larger picture of wealth transfer.

It would be difficult to distill a consistent Republican philosophy from Nixon to Reagan to Bush Sr., to GW, to Trump, domestically or in foreign policy.

Today, it's a party of cult, with absolute allegiance to Trump required.

When not in power, it's an opposition party with little affirmative plans. — Hanover

True. Although I think since Reagan there's a few ideas which have stuck around: "Government is the problem," and cutting taxes.

It does seem like when they're not in power, their strategy is to make the government as dysfunctional as possible, so they can blame the Democrats and get re-elected. It would help perhaps if the Democrats fought a little harder.

Geothermal energy is an existent facet of energy science and engineering. There are already thousands of experts in the field. It's what they believe that is of relevance. — Isaac

Exactly right. I was thinking along similar lines.

There's a famous saying that fusion has been 5 years away for the past 30 years. And that was 20 years ago. It's still five years away. I'm not optimistic. Drilling for magma energy seems a lot more certain, and a less complicated source of energy. — counterpunch

Yes but you have no empirical basis for this. If it’s simply a gut feeling— who cares?

If you’re going to advocate as strongly as you have been for it, I’d expect you to know more about it and tell us where the research is at. You yourself admit that you haven’t really done that.

So what all this talk amounts to is strongly advocating for something you FEEL is potentially a great solution. Others may sincerely feel it’s nuclear energy. Or wind. Or solar. Or geoengineering.

Not very interesting or informative, unfortunately.

Of course, it will be difficult to do - a complex engineering challenge, but it is at least conceivably feasible. There is a vast source of energy there; large enough to make sense of our response to climate change. We need that energy. Are you saying it is technologically impossible to harness the heat energy of the planet on a large scale? I think otherwise. — counterpunch

We do need that energy. But it won’t work everywhere, and the technology isn’t advanced yet. I’d love to see it work, and it’s important to talk about. We should be spending a good deal of money researching and developing this option.

But again—this is one option. It’s not a panacea.

A disinterested view of the science seems to recommend we harness the massive heat energy of magma to produce limitless electrical power - to sustain civilisations carbon free, and to capture carbon, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle — counterpunch

This is one option which has been used for years—nothing new. But we need more than geothermal. You have to have the right conditions for it to be viable. It may work well in Iceland or Hawaii, but it can’t work everywhere.

Wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are all going to be necessary. Becoming dogmatic about one option, or treating it as a silver bullet, isn’t helpful.

You keep saying I want to comfort myself by not calling it an existential threat, but that was never my intention. At every opportunity I said it was going to be very bad... but not an existential threat. I agree that we shouldn't be comforting ourselves by underestimating the risk or ignoring small risks with grave consequences, but at the same time we shouldn't overstate how bad it's going to be either, because really it's bad enough as it is. — ChatteringMonkey

Have it your way. So any time I say "existential" just translate that as "very, very bad." Still, even if there's a small chance that it's existential -- as you said, we should be taking that very seriously. That was my only point. I can't see how that doesn't motivate people more, unless it gets interpreted as "we're all doomed," which isn't the case.

Anyway I think we actually agree for the most part, just not on the way we want to communicate the issue. I think you lose credibility by overstating the case and people get desensitized by continual doomsaying (i.e. the boy cried wolf), while you seem to think we need to spur people into action by putting it into the strongest of terms. — ChatteringMonkey

You could be right in the way it's communicated -- I have no way of knowing. But I do think the hothouse earth scenarios are not talked about nearly enough. Will Steffen's version, not the media saying the world's going to end in 10 years or something ridiculous. That indeed is foolish, not because it's too shocking but because it isn't true.

That we could reach tipping points that run out of control is a possibility, and a serious one which we should consider.

And I think accurate assessment of risks matters, for the kind of measures we are willing to take. If it really were an impending existential threat or even "just" a civilization collapsing threat, a la a large asteroid about to impact, we should we willing to contemplate the most drastic of measure, like shutting down all fossil fuels and slaughtering all livestock overnight, pumping aerosols into the atmosphere, declaring war on nations that aren't complying with zero-emissions etc... Some measure would be more or less disruptive for our societies. That's the question for me.... not should we do something about it, but how far and how fast should we be willing to go? How much disruption to current societies do the risks warrant? — ChatteringMonkey

If people understood the risks, I think we should be disrupting the world much more than the pandemic did. But even if we shut things down, as the pandemic did, or something on that level, I think that would probably be more than enough to solve this issue. We don't even need that extreme level, though -- there are sensible solutions which we have right now. The problem is political will -- which isn't coming from the population, unfortunately. That's a failure in education, a success for propaganda, a failure of the media, and a major failure of corporate America, who'd rather sell the future than do anything right now about this issue.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know much about this and other features of climate change. — frank

:lol: Truly out of Trump’s playbook: look like a complete buffoon, then simply pretend like you’re a very stable genius. Well done. You’re right: you’ve shown multiple times just how knowledgeable you are about climate science.

Whatever I know about climate change, this much I’m clear on: I know more about it than you. Can’t speak for others.

You looked at decline. I said shutdown. — frank

Which is so idiotic I didn’t think it was serious. That’s my fault for thinking you were making more sense than you were. I’ll work on that.

As the IPCC says— which, given your climate expertise you must know— there’s almost no chance that there’s a complete shutdown. Even if there were, we don’t know what would happen.

But please keep lecturing— so far you’ve earned that right.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh?
— Xtrix

Guess what happens if the AMOC shuts down. — frank

Yes, and you've definitely shown yourself to be someone who can tell us.

For those interested in the actual science:

"In climate model simulations of future climate change, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is projected to decline. However, the impacts of this decline, relative to other changes, remain to be identified. Here we address this problem by analyzing 30 idealized abrupt-4xCO2 climate model simulations. We find that in models with larger AMOC decline, there is a minimum warming in the North Atlantic, a southward displacement of the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, and a poleward shift of the mid-latitude jet. The changes in the models with smaller AMOC decline are drastically different: there is a relatively larger warming in the North Atlantic, the precipitation response exhibits a wet-get-wetter, dry-get-drier pattern, and there are smaller displacements of the mid-latitude jet. Our study indicates that the AMOC is a major source of inter-model uncertainty, and continued observational efforts are needed to constrain the AMOC response in future climate change."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24015-w

How odd that it's not as simplistic as Frank would like to believe.

Earth cooling down is what I think'll happen. — TheMadFool

Okay, so no need to answer my question above -- apparently it wasn't a joke.

So the earth will cool down is what you "think", eh? Guess we can tell those idiots who've studied this carefully all their lives that they're wasting their time -- some guy on the Internet has figured it out from perusing the literature and using his keen philosophical powers.

It's not an existential threat, not even close.
— ChatteringMonkey
Really? It certainly is for some people and some nations. Killed some, and soon will make some uninhabitable. Of course, those aren't the important people, so voila, no existential threat! — tim wood

Good point.

If we're going to split hairs about the word "existential," then how about instead of meaning the "human species" we mean the people of Bangladesh? What about them? Or India? Or some of the Polynesian islands? Tell those people it's not "existential."

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.