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

Illuminati confirmed, Exxonmobil lobbying against climate science to terraform dinosaurs back to life.

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.

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. https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41558-019-0543-4

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

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

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 (sadly the consensus is that we will probably not get to 1.5 degrees though). Even Mann agrees that corporations are largely to blame for this, and blaming people for their lifestyle isn't the root of the issue (not that you've indicated that, but some here were suggesting market only solutions)

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. — Xtrix

Yeah this isn't fear mongering being used to grab political power.

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.

Yeah this isn't fear mongering being used to grab political power. — Kasperanza

I wonder if you have noticed that even if it is fear mongering being used to grab political power, that does not render it false.

It's that logic thing again. Annoyingly difficulty for you, I know, but it comes with the territory.

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 — Xtrix

But again, no scientists are saying "we're doomed," and neither am I — Xtrix

:grin:

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.

Dead, but not doomed. Nice epitaph. :rofl:

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.

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

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

Renewables the cheapest form of energy last year.

Hmmm…

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

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

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

Broaden your temporal horizon and take in more of the situation.

Imagine that 200 short years from now humans decide to release all the CO2 they can get their hands on. This means all the North American coal, which is humongous.

The climate will be altered pretty drastically for a couple thousand years. In about 10,000 years, things will be be getting closer to baseline. In 100,000 years, the CO2 level will be back to preindustrial levels

So we'll have a couple of jolts for life on earth to deal with. Humans will be fine. Primates evolved in the PETM, so there's no reason to think we'll face anything we can't handle. Civilization us a different question.

So if we succeed in completely transitioning off fossil fuels now, that doesn't solve any problems. It's just one hurdle. The problem will still exist for our descendants.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but this issue comes up in any freshman class in climate change: the fact that we have no experience dealing with long range problems. Doesn't mean we couldn't develop the ability, but we haven't even begun to speculate how.

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

I actually was asleep. Unusually rough day at work yesterday.

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. — Xtrix

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.

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. — Xtrix

A holistic view is sometimes quite important. You see, if you start from thinking about yourself and then come to conclusions to what to do, you might not think about the broader effects your actions do.

Understanding that we are a part of nature too, helps think of the situation better in my view.

Better than building rabbit-proof fences, yeah. This mentality is what I was thinking of btw:
— Kenosha Kid

I mean yeah there's all this science, but what are we supposed to do about it? Just cut out fossil fuels without a real replacement? To me that's scary. Epstein's point is that fossil fuels protect and enhance people's lives. Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. And yet the environmentalists want to limit them. I find it to be worrisome.

@Kasperanza

This is very typical in my experience. It'd be like trying to ban guns in the US, people would just lose their minds. — Kenosha Kid

Sometimes it's hard to even face the facts how these things work. Like a Democrat administration banning guns in the current political environment wouldn't do wonders to the already vitriolic political environment. The same problems are when we let's say talk about replacing fossil fuels. The way things work in our global economy is that you would have the cheaper alternative energy resource. Even that still would leave the plethora of uses that for example oil has, which shouldn't be forgotten.



And perhaps there is the distinction of whom we want to listen. We will listen to the scientist and to the activist we agree with. Yet many would be hesitant to listening to economists or people from the corporate sector who basically are in charge of these issues (as we don't trust them). Yet the issue isn't just environmental, it is economic, logistical and political. All those issues have to be tackled before we have the true environmental solution. Otherwise the politicians will just fool us with grand promises of getting solutions in a decade or two that will not become reality.

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.

If we continue business as usual? Yes, then we’re dead. — Xtrix

No. You've got a truckload of self-righteous anger, but few facts. Whether you correct that or not depends on how much you are actually interested in the topic

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

:lol:
:up:

If we continue business as usual? Yes, then we’re dead.
— Xtrix

No. — frank

Business as usual and we're not dead? Or are you thinking just of yourself?

The science I've been exposed to simply points to certain trend lines and says that if those trends continue - business as usual - then we're dead. If they only bend a little, then we're dead. In fact if they don't undergo radical change, then we're dead.

You got anything credible that says otherwise? Key word, "credible."

The science I've been exposed to simply points to certain trend lines and says that if those trends continue - business as usual - then we're dead. — tim wood

Human extinction due to AGW? Who said that?

The question(s) are to you. Replying with a question is a non sequitur, at least.

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

I take from your answer that your statement that any science points to human extinction as a result of AGW is as ridiculous as it sounded.

As you may recall from a former conversation a while back, that all humans die is a given. So the issue is not one of whether or not humans will die.

The issue, at least as some of us see it, is the degree of suffering experienced by us and other humans - including that which is to be experienced by future generations - while alive.

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.

As you may recall from a former conversation a while back, that all humans die is a given. — javra

Human extinction as a result of AGW? Who says that?

He says there is no reason — frank

"No reason"? There is every reason. There's the old story that the way to cook a frog (is it a frog?) is to put it into a pot of cool water and heat it slowly enough so that the frog never realizes it's being cooked, and thus never jumps out of the pot.

We're the frog, and the water which has been for millennia within a certain temperature range, is now and has been for a while heating. It continues and we're cooked dead. And there is some evidence to support the notion of "tipping points." Or do you think this is all nonsense?

Too much nonsense. Must go buy organic bananas.

No, the given is not extinction. But that all humans are mortal, with or without extinction.

My point, again, is that the issue is not death, but suffering in life (much including the suffering caused by the death of loved ones, and the like).

No, the given is not extinction. But that all humans are mortal, with or without extinction. — javra

You may be right about that. :up:

Groovy. What abouts this part heres:

My point, again, is that the issue is not death, but suffering in life (much including the suffering caused by the death of loved ones, and the like). — javra

Or do you find no correlation between increased global warming and increased human suffering?

Or do you find no correlation between increased global warming and increased human suffering? — javra

Hard to say. The human psyche is tricksy.