It is totally unreasonable and vacuous. — unenlightened

You obviously think that most people are "totally unreasonable and vacuous".

Thank goodness we have you to guide us.  :grin:

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change?

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

Rather than claiming "not P", I read un as claiming the form of your argument is:

P
P
Therefore, P


Which is to say you're asserting your opinion three times in a row and citing each rendition as support for the conclusion which is just what you stated at first.

The claim is with respect to the validity of your argument and not with respect to the facts.

I think you understood this, but now that it's been explained there ought not be any doubt.

What you're doing in the first post I quoted is asking a leading question which is not addressing the claim. This will be considered a way of disrupting the thread from here out.

Are you claiming that there is no exaggeration and hype about climate change? — Agree-to-Disagree

No, not at all. Not even the slightest amount. On the contrary I might even sometimes exaggerate myself, and more rarely indulge in hyperbole. But some exaggeration and some underplaying averages out at a serious problem, not at 'do nothing'. And my earlier links to actuarial evidence rather demonstrates that there is already a serious problem.

You obviously think that most people are "totally unreasonable and vacuous". — Agree-to-Disagree

Most people are worried but ignorant. You are not most people. And don't tell me what I obviously think according to your warped notions. I am fairly clear about what I think and not backward about coming forward with my thoughts, particularly on this topic, you arrogant prat; you, and none other, I accuse of being totally unreasonable and vacuous.

Global temperature for 2025 should decline little, if at all, from the record 2024 level.
Absence of a large temperature decline after the huge El Nino-spurred temperature increase in
2023-24 will provide further confirmation that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and
aerosol climate forcing were both underestimates. Specifically, 2025 global temperature should
remain near or above +1.5C relative to 1880-1920, and, if the tropics remain ENSO-neutral,
there is good chance that 2025 may even exceed the 2024 record high global temperature.

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/2025GlobalTemperature.15April2025.pdf

This is rather complex, so I will do my best to give some explanation of the situation and possible significance.

James Hansen has for a while been suggesting that the IPCCs models are wrong in their estimate of climate sensitivity. This is a crude but vital figure that gives the global expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 equivalent. This is fundamental to climate modelling, and Hansen is suggesting that the IPCC figure is low at 3°C by about 1.5°C This is huge.

What seems to have happened is that the IPCC has used its own estimate of the climate sensitivity to calculate from recent actual data, the aerosol climate forcing. This is the temperature reducing effect of pollution (primarily from shipping) by seeding cloud formation such as to reflect solar radiation back into space. This pollution has in effect been masking somewhat the effect of CO2 (equivalent) induced temperature rise, but recent reductions of sulphur emissions are now reducing the cloud cover and thus increasing temperature rise from insolation.

So if the IPCC figures are correct, then we should expect a fall in global temperature this year due to La Nina, (google it if you don't know) but if Hansen's figures are more realistic, he thinks there will be little or no cooling this year. And this would mean that we are already well past 1.5° and pretty much unable to avoid 2° and more in the next decade or so. And all the other figures - for sea-level rise, atmospheric energy and so on - will also be under-estimated in speed and severity.

So there is uncertainty in the science, but errors in the 'official' understanding are more likely to be overly complacent than alarmist.

Fossil fuel companies have caused roughly 28 trillion dollars in damages from 1991 to 2020.

In terms of consequences— the next 20 years will cause much more. Since the “free market” cult doesn’t account for externalities, and since the government never does anything right (according to same cult), there’s nothing we can do.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08751-3.epdf?sharing_token=H5u0C4WGGIkJGCgWbd9eJdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PNVn5qNJQAINIGB8Dl-ZFRseL9v-xVGqFBTn1TeHE_3ueXbo3snVixx3hvsfWgmcaPCnna09SMvt9h8HRBx8EHJnhK9__dORtj8jDr9f7gV6pbSI3Rpd2nqWosrIBEQf_279y5d4WhGC7w6CE0eEdyt5N-ru0E9WwHqgsnL01OkGKaAt1Bk58IOl-dosZblNM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.cbsnews.com

Of course, if you actually believe cult claims like that, I have a used wig to sell you.

:100: :up: :up:

Food would be the main issue. If farmers do not know when to harvest and plant due to the breaking of regular patterns in the seasons then it could cause problems.

Lack of food is an obvious worry. If agriculture can adapt to the current insecurities I do not see much reason to fret about climate change just yet.

Sorry there is nothing for you to moderate here ;)

Food is the priority.

Fossil fuel companies have caused roughly 28 trillion dollars in damages from 1991 to 2020. — Mikie

I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels.

True. But it’s similar to cigarette smoking and tobacco companies. Sure, one perspective puts most of the responsibility on the consumer — no one is forcing you to smoke. But that ignores a lot as well.

The fact is that these “externalities” are never considered. If consumers knew the real risks and were charged the real cost, it would be a different story. There’s also monumental lies, propaganda, and covering up of research by this industry, as is now coming to light more and more.

I read the article you linked. My problem with the analysis that it fails to cast any blame at those who USE fossil fuels. — Relativist

I agree that those who USE fossil fuels should be held to account. They are the ones who create the demand for fossil fuels. The Oil companies supply fossil fuels to meet the demand.

But it’s similar to cigarette smoking and tobacco companies. Sure, one perspective puts most of the responsibility on the consumer — no one is forcing you to smoke. But that ignores a lot as well. — Mikie

Blaming Oil companies for supplying fossil fuels is like overweight people blaming supermarkets for supplying food. The overweight people are trying to avoid their personal responsibility.

Blaming others is the tactic of the irresponsible. We are responsible, and we are irresponsible. We are greedy and we are lazy. Might as well blame it on the boogie.

Might as well blame it on the boog — unenlightened

If I create a product that’s addictive, and I know is addictive, and that causes cancer (which I also know), then spend decades suppressing that knowledge (and my own research), billions of dollars on propaganda to convince people the blame lies on them, lobbying government for tax exemptions, subsidies, and deregulation— yeah, I think I’m mostly to blame.

To say nothing of the externalities, to medical costs and environmental damage. Hardly the free market of choice. Especially when readily available alternatives are systematically discouraged for years.

If ... yeah, I think I’m mostly to blame. — Mikie

If you were that person, you would think otherwise, or else you would act otherwise. But how does this help? I can feel righteous and innocent because I have been speaking and acting environmental for 50 years. Hurray for me, I'll go to heaven. But I'd rather be mending this world.

Surely it is up to "us" to boycott the bullshit, to counter the propaganda, to vote out the liars and thieves. "They" are not going to do it — by definition.

It's up to us...

Surely it is up to "us" to boycott the bullshit, to counter the propaganda, to vote out the liars and thieves. "They" are not going to do it — by definition. — unenlightened

Of course.

I was merely pointing out yet another reason this industry ought to be boycotted, sued, and destroyed as quickly as possible.

The good hardworking folks across the way are having their garden modernised. Out go half a dozen mangy conifers and their roots; out goes a load of gravel atop some black weed suppressing cloth, along with an old barbie, and all the topsoil. In comes several tons of hardcore, some carefully levelled treated wooden edging, and all topped off with fine slate dust.

This has involved three men working for about ten days with a digger, a dumper, and a compactor and delivery and removal lorries, not the electric kind. We helped out one of the guys who needed phone charged as he was homeless and trying to deal with the authorities.

Today, we are awaiting the final crowning glory - the artificial grass. The effort and expense that has gone into creating this small sterile desert is considerable, but the little boy's football ground will be guaranteed level and weed free.

Behold, the enemy!

This is technically off topic, but a survivalists handbook wouldn't make a topic and there is a whole philosophy of environment casually assumed in this handy guide to planning.

Here is an interesting comment on the economic effects of climate change. Basically, since we have been persuaded that adaptation is easier/cheaper than net zero, adaptation is what is going to happen. Here are some adaptations described. Of particular interest are a few remarks about "internal refugees", the unpopularity of whom in the US were recorded by Steinbeck in "The Grapes of Wrath".

This is rather interesting. A significant correlation between Earth magnetic field and atmospheric oxygen levels. I would suspect some crankery to this, but while causal explanations are still up somewhere near cloud cuckoo land, the data themselves are fairly solid.



https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu8826

Behold, the enemy! — unenlightened

The late, great Anthropocene. :monkey:

Here is a video about the economic effects of climate change in the US. Similar and worse effects are available elsewhere.



One of the effects is that involuntary spending on repairs and rising insurance costs is somewhat dominating the rise in GDP, and this explains why people are effectively poorer even though the economy is growing, because they have to reduce 'discretionary' spending (on the good stuff). (See about 18 mins in.)

Make America Cool Again.

Global temperatures are expected to rise by 2-4 degrees Celsius (3.6-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, according to the Wisconsin DNR.

The US Climate Science Special Report projects that if emissions continue to increase rapidly, the global average temperature will be at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and potentially as much as 10.2 degrees warmer, according to Climate.gov.

The United States is projected to experience warming of 3-13 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
This warming will result in more frequent and intense heat waves, with the number of hot days exceeding dangerous conditions expected to increase significantly.

Sea Level Rise:
Sea levels are predicted to rise, potentially by 28-55 centimeters (11-22 inches) compared to current levels, even with carbon neutrality efforts.
The melting of glaciers and ice sheets, as well as thermal expansion of water, will contribute to sea level rise.

Precipitation and Extreme Events:
Changes in precipitation patterns are expected, with some regions experiencing more frequent and intense rainfall and others facing more severe droughts.
The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as storms, floods, and wildfires, are also projected to increase.

Other Impacts:
Ocean acidification, caused by the absorption of excess carbon dioxide, is expected to continue, posing a threat to marine ecosystems.
The Arctic is projected to experience significant warming and melting of ice, leading to changes in habitats and ecosystems.

That you post 5 minutes after me suggests that you might be responding to my post, except that you would not have had time to even skim through the video. Particularly as the previous comment to mine was a week ago.

But the content of your post, which does not mention or address the already happening economic effects that is my topic, shows that you have just posted a random summary of predicted future climate changes that do not address the economy at all.

I wonder why you bothered?

I think it was quantum entanglement. I'd been curious about which parts of N America will have increased rainfall in 2100. It's the Northeast.

Ice. Good with gin, bad with scotch. Fairly short video, and fairly clear warnings.

... why people are effectively poorer... — unenlightened

It occurred to me to make the calculation, how much poorer people are in this case. It's down and dirty, but $1 trillion divided by 340,000,000, (US population) comes out at about $29,000 per person. Can that be right? Have I (ie google) got confused by American trillions?

Ouch! Small wonder folks are feeling unhappy. I live on less than that! It's enough to make a chap vote for Trump!

Edit: I think it's only $2,900. Still quite a sum for a family of 3 or 4 ...

So the consequences of climate change will now be exacerbated. The largest (and only) climate legislation in US history, the Inflation Reduction Act (2022), will now be gutted— almost completely rescinded by the backwards, spineless Republicans in congress. Mark the day.

I was more hopeful this time around when Trump was elected, because I thought with such a slim majority that most Republicans wouldn’t repeal it— since most of the money was aimed at red states. And that they’d be too busy transferring more money from the poor and middle classes to the richest to really care. So it looked like it was safe, and although it wasn’t enough to begin with it got us closer to our goals and was a signal to the rest of the world that the US wasn’t only a bunch of idiotic climate deniers.

But, turns out that nothing can get in the way of them doing the wrong thing. Through hell or high water, they’ll be sure to slug it out until the future is good and fucked.

At this point, adaptation really should be the focus. It’s already over, and today marks when the final nail was put in the coffin. Forget China or market forces.