Whatever we do, the climate will change, sometimes dramatically, as it has in the past. Even if we cancel out all of man's influence, this is still a reality. That's my point. Note that it doesn't say man-made climate change doesn't exist, nor does it say there's nothing we can do.

‘there is nothing we can do’ is just trash.

Agreed!

Important to note that individualistic actions (as has been promoted for the last twenty years by neoliberal agendas) that places the onus solely on the individual (like turning off the lights!) is not only ineffective but false, and hides the true evils responsible at the centre of our economic and cultural systems, not just ~capitalism~ as it contemporarily it is, but the Judeo-Christian concepts of environmental domination, extractivism, and accumulation of resources beyond that merely needed for sustenance...culminating in modern day consumerism

Thanks so much for posting that. It's clear that psychopathic disregard for the planet and all its inhabitants is the corporate norm. I don't think that's anything new, but it has now reached catastrophic proportions.

I believe that your point was that climate catastrophism was unwarranted, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Important to note that individualistic actions (as has been promoted for the last twenty years by neoliberal agendas) that places the onus solely on the individual (like turning off the lights!) is not only ineffective but false, and hides the true evils responsible at the centre of our economic and cultural systems, not just ~capitalism~ as it contemporarily it is, but the Judeo-Christian concepts of environmental domination, extractivism, and accumulation of resources beyond that merely needed for sustenance...culminating in modern day consumerism — Grre

Yep. I despise the way in which individuals are made to bear the brunt of climate change when the biggest polluters and the worst offenders are cooperations and factories. The little micro efforts - take a shorter shower, use less plastic bags, use the recycling bin - are so many distractions from the real locus of environmental destruction. That it disproportionally hurts the underprivileged and the disabled by driving up prices and making unavailable useful goods is environmental injustice in the extreme.

Whatever we do, the climate will change, sometimes dramatically, as it has in the past. — Tzeentch

I'll lend you my support in geoengineering given a classical economic cost-benefit analysis. But, you have to reach a consensus on who stands to benefit the most out of climate change and who stands to lose the most. As it stands, given my memory, China, Russia, and some other countries stand to, yes, actually benefit from climate change. Agriculture will be dramatically changed by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yet, as per @Banno's tragedy of the commons thread, a consensus on the net effects of climate change on the wealth of nations will never be ascertained:

Yet, as per Banno's tragedy of the commons thread, a consensus on the net effects of climate change on the wealth of nations will never be ascertained: — Wallows

Cheers; and as per that thread, the answer is not political, nor economic, neither can provide a solution. The issue is ethical.

The climate and temperature are complicated systems; much more complicated than most people realize. The idea that CO2 is the primary factor in either of them is questionable. I would be surprised to find a scientist make such a claim, and there are certainly scientists who would dispute such claims (and I'd be happy to link them). — Tzeentch

Here you go: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

Links for further reading are included. I'll also suggest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change with several further links.

Humanity has coped with a changing climate since its inception. Nothing we do can stop the climate from changing, since it's a natural phenomenon. Whether we like it or not, there will be ice ages, warm-ups, droughts etc. in the future. If that reality hasn't sunk in, we best get used to it sooner rather than later. — Tzeentch

So, how will we adapt to global average temperatures rising by 4 degrees? Any substantive ideas?

Yes, just another false narrative to justify our power structures and institutions...funny also how the loudest regressive right people are usually those who stand to lose the most by the deconstruction of these systems...ie. Donald Trump and his wealthy empire...or even a trend I'm noticing in my age cohort, youth-particularly white, male, upper middle class youth, feeling threatened by climate change, not because it affects the planet, but because in order to address it (ie. deconstruct current economic/social systems) means that it threatens what they perceive as their entitlement or birth right...by virtue of being rich white boys; they all seem themselves as the next millionaire, and don't like when women, POC/Indigenous, the poor, disabled are beginning to rock that particular boat...

If I recall we have agreed on a few things in the past :yum:

Cheers; and as per that thread, the answer is not political, nor economic, neither can provide a solution. The issue is ethical. — Banno

For some reason this comes to mind:

Yeah. I get that.

I believe that your point was that climate catastrophism was unwarranted [...] — StreetlightX

Yes, that was my second point. I don't believe climate change will lead to the end of the world.

Oh no it won't lead to the end of the world. The world will go on spinning quite nicely without us. It will just lead to the end of any habitable world.

I don't buy into that either.

No doubt. But then, what you buy into is of no consequence.

Here's the good news...it appears squids will do quite well from climate change ! If nothing else will...

https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/squid-could-thrive-under-climate-change

Do you guys and gals know what really weighs heavily on my mind?

That a girl with Asperger's and an IQ to match her candor and concern over the environment has been chosen by the masses to represent the will and fortitude of the coming generation, which we (collectively or not) have essentially handed a no-win situation.

Let that sink in.

I'll admit I haven't read through the whole thing, but I've given the summary and some of its chapters an honest look.

One of the graphs that is used (in Ch. 1) to depict the increase in temperature is the following one:



The summary also claims the following:

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

Yet we see a steady upward trend from where the graphs start (~1880), including several spikes, which would question the anomalous nature of what we observe today. I'm curious how one would account for that.

Also, how would one account for some major criticisms of the climate change narrative, some of which are addressed here:

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

I don't necessarily believe everything that is said by 'climate skeptics'. Similarly I don't necessarily believe everything I'm told by 'climate hysterics'. I observe a narrative and a counter-narrative, both of which are quite likely fueled by political agenda.

The species are fucking dying off, that's what it has to do with climate change. Most species evolved to fit a specific environmental niche. When the niche disappears, the species often goes with it. Environmental change like early or late arrival of blossoming dates or migratory bird arrivals can be curtains. in North America and Europe bird and insect populations are falling. This is really, really bad news. — Bitter Crank

Yea, but this isn't due to climate change, this is due to overconsumption, intensive farming, deforestation, heavy use of pesticides.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47441292
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature

For some reason people want to believe that CO2 emissions are the source of all those problems, they aren't, reducing CO2 emissions without addressing all the other problems won't save the environment, we are destroying it because we're consuming too much and destroying too much.

The focus shouldn't be on the CO2, it should be on those things. Even if the CO2 is as big a problem as some people make it out to be (let's remind ourselves that plants breathe it), we would emit much less CO2 if we addressed these problems (and absorb more CO2 without the deforestation), while we could develop technology to emit much less CO2 and still not address these problems.

There is a growing concern that there is a political agenda behind presenting CO2 emissions as driving us towards extinction, I don't have a definitive opinion on that but I wouldn't be surprised. And I wouldn't be surprised either if the climate models that are presented as "true" today and on which there is a "scientific consensus" turn out to be seen as flawed a few decades from now.

Here's the good news...it appears squids will do quite well from climate change ! If nothing else will... — Grre

The real debate is whether the squid are orchestrating climate change on their own, or are being aided by extra-terrestrial allies. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/07/conspiracy-theory-paranoia-aliens-illuminati-beyonce-vaccines-cliven-bundy-jfk

In the coming millennia, humanity, which came into existence out of a multitude of different hominins, will fragment. Homo technologica, powered by fusion and continuing to make progress in understanding the nature of the universe, will make the first significant steps off-world.

Homo retrogradia will return to a stone age existence for a while and eventually even lose that, as the intelligence its ancestors enjoyed becomes further and further beyond its grasp. By 120,020 CE, when anthropogenic global warming has long since resolved, retrogradia will clearly be a different species.

Who chose her? She's self-appointed and exhibited by the media.

Who actually benefits from the hysteria raised by some kids with signs? The assassinated or the assassins?
It's not a no-win situation, it's an all in at the flop.

Who chose her? She's self-appointed and exhibited by the media. — Shamshir

Not to mention that she's not an authority on the topic, and her frontal lobe isn't fully developed yet. But kids are great pawns to use to influence the masses.

I don't understand why we don't see climatologists marching in the streets or see them on the news explaining to everyone the crisis, if it is a crisis.

I don't disagree that CO2 has increased and human activity can be a partial cause. The spike is both a combination of human activity AND other natural causes. The problem is that we don't know how much is the result of human activity, and we only have records (that aren't exact) that go back to when the recent ice age cycle started (that we are still in).

Cheers; and as per that thread, the answer is not political, nor economic, neither can provide a solution. The issue is ethical. — Banno

Then it would be subjective.

The issue is scientific.

The problem is that we don't know how much is the result of human activity, and we only have records (that aren't exact) that go back to when the recent ice age cycle started (that we are still in). — Harry Hindu

Yes, I've heard this somewhere before, that we are actually just entering a new cooldown period of the climate. Can you provide some links to this or is this just my imagination playing tricks on me?

Yes, I've heard this somewhere before, that we are actually just entering a new cooldown period of the climate. Can you provide some links to this or is this just my imagination playing tricks on me? — Wallows

I'm trying to look for it but I saw something where before the Industrial Revolution the trend was cooling, but the current rise could offset the next cooling. There are several factors that could lead to a new ice age that could offset the current warming though. Solar activity and slight deviations in Earth's orbit are something that we can't predict to far into the future that can have a larger impact than what human's are doing.

Should we have clean air and water? Sure. Absolutely. Should we study new sources of energy. Absolutely. But we shouldn't be promoting this idea as a crisis in order to raise taxes, which just get passed down to the consumer and hurts the lower and middle classes. We shouldn't be hearing about this mostly from one political party but from a-political, objective, scientists. Why is the media putting their cameras and microphones in the faces of politicians and asking them about climate change rather than asking the scientists themselves? Why are they using children instead of scientists?

It will just lead to the end of any habitable world. — StreetlightX

Really? When the dinosaurs evolved, the CO2 in the atmosphere was six times what it was now, and it didn't result in the planet being uninhabitable for animals or plants. Granted, this happened over millions of years, so lots of time to adapt (and no doubt plenty of species went extinct), but animals also didn't have technology. We humans inhabit every climate on Earth from the desert to the arctic. We can pump water form hundreds of miles of way, we can desalanitize ocean water, and we can create climate controlled enclosures. We can also make new hybrid crops. And we can relocate farmlands to Canada and Siberia as needed.

Is climate change really going to make the entire planet uninhabitable? Is there any sort of scientific consensus that we're facing extinction, or just that it's best to mitigate the worst effects?

It should also be noted that there are proposed solutions that don't require drastic changes to the economy, such as planting six trillion trees, large scale carbon sequestering, and Project Vesta.

Is there any sort of scientific consensus that we're facing extinction — Marchesk

None.

Yes, some of the comments here are still exhibiting extreme ignorance of basic, settled science. And we have a President who wants to barricade the southern border with a moat filled with alligators and snakes. That is not an Onion headline but a sad, shocking reality.

“The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why humanity was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.” - Nicholas P. Money

None. — frank

Right, climate models aren't civilization models, and the idea that the entire Earth will become uninhabitable for humans is absurd. Earth isn't Venus. As already mentioned in this thread, some places will probably fare better as more CO2 and warmer conditions benefit plant growth in northern latitudes. But anyway, we have geological history to know that Earth won't become uninhabitable. Fossils of prehistoric crocodiles and palm trees have been found in the arctic region. The question is what sort of difficulties civilization will have to deal with at different levels of warming, and what the time frame is.