[News] 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'.

[Stat Brother]

The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do?

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". But once the second world war was under way, "everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday ... so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose - that's what people want."

 

[TSB]

The climate science maverick believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do?

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

On the day we meet, the Daily Mail has launched a campaign to rid Britain of plastic shopping bags. The initiative sits comfortably within the current canon of eco ideas, next to ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on - all of which are premised on the calculation that individual lifestyle adjustments can still save the planet. This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, he explains, when "we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn't know what to do about it". But once the second world war was under way, "everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do, it was one long holiday ... so when I think of the impending crisis now, I think in those terms. A sense of purpose - that's what people want."

Do you think he spoke to a lot of Blitz and Holocaust survivors to arrive at that opinion?

 

[beorhthelm]

so we should give up worrying about it? build nuclear to save the world isnt going to sell well to the rest of the eco-brigade. heard the predictions 10, 15, 20 years ago, how many are accurate?

 

[blue-shifted]

I agree with Lovelock that the tipping point has probably already passed. We might get a bit more than 20 years, but within my lifetime, and certainly my children's, I expect to see 100's of millions starve due to famine and the inevitable wars which follow.

We'll avoid the worst of it in the UK, but life will look very different.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree with Lovelock that the tipping point has probably already passed. We might get a bit more than 20 years, but within my lifetime, and certainly my children's, I expect to see 100's of millions starve due to famine and the inevitable wars which follow.

We'll avoid the worst of it in the UK, but life will look very different.

I've no idea if the tipping point has been passed, and neither does Lovelock in a scientific sense. He might intuitively think that, but Lovelock's key theoretical move is the Gaia hypothesis which is really about how the planet and its biota will correct themselves over time. What most people don't get is that human activity -- or what is becoming more broadly accepted as the anthropocene -- isn't pivotal to this hypothesis because he's engaging at a markedly different level of temporality than the impact humans have had during modernity. He thinks that Gaia will self-correct over time, but the impact of climate change will fall on human shoulders with devastating consequences.
For a long time, certain voices, political parties and movements have been insisting that we move away from fossil fuels, but human complacency has set in, and other political forces and influential figures have distracted the public with reactionary tosh like Brexit, rather than seeking to confront the issues that will enable humans to flourish into the future.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Lovelocks “Gaia” theory is very sobering.

I’ve read a lot of climate science info and many agree that, even stopping all carbon emissions today, climate change is now inevitably going to continue.

He advocated Britain going for a balls out nuclear power fuelled future as the waste produced is far more “clean”, reliable and cost effective in the long term than any alternate source.

I agree with him. Britain must prepare for a very different and hostile future with mass migration and desperation increasing.

 

[Barham's tash]

Whether you believe in conspiracies or not there are some increasingly interesting examples of suppressed data/voices and manipulated data sources by some very large organisations to heighten the perceived threat from climate change.

There are also lots of interesting studies/pronouncements on the likely impact of the Grand Solar Minimum we’ve just entered with some schools of thought suggesting the exponentially lower solar output may well “spare our blushes” and correct the situation.

Whilst this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing all we can to change our increasingly poor habits, develop new technology and increase the use of sustainable/renewable energy production it is interesting that the counter argument is always there if you know where to look.

 

[dingodan]

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Stephen Schneider, Professor of Biology at Stanford University, to Discover magazine in 1989.

(University of East Anglia emails)
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

 

[Trufflehound]

heard the predictions 10, 15, 20 years ago, how many are accurate?

Well that article was from 2008 and the predictions are still pretty accurate 11 years on.

So, nine years left...

 

[Questions]

” enjoy life because in 20 years time global warming will hit the fan'.

Well turn the fan off, that can’t be helping can it ?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
- Stephen Schneider, Professor of Biology at Stanford University, to Discover magazine in 1989.

(University of East Anglia emails)
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"

From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."

I think the continuing and overwhelming evidence that’s come along in the last 10 years pretty much makes the UEA email / data manipulation scandal almost irrelevant.

The fact of global climate change is clearly accepted by pretty much 100% of serious researchers should be enough to convince the most sceptical amateur.

Unless your Donald Trump.

 

[studio150]

Well we better get ready for late evening kick offs at the Amex to avoid the heat of a 3pm kick off, and a slower more technical style of play.

At least the rising sea levels need to get over Race Hill before we need to relocate the Amex so we should be alright. Just hope that the water buses are included in the free transport zone, and there is a moor and ride options for those coming by their own watercraft

 

[The Clamp]

He's correct. I'v ebeen saying for about ten years we are years past the point of fixing the problem. We need to direct our efforts and finances into managing the repurcussions. Even if there was a will to change by the corporations that actually do the damage it's too late now. This planet is ****ed.
Find high ground
Build a bunker
Get lots of guns

We will probably have to g back to paper porn as well.

 

[Questions]

He's correct. I'v ebeen saying for about ten years we are years past the point of fixing the problem. We need to direct our efforts and finances into managing the repurcussions. Even if there was a will to change by the corporations that actually do the damage it's too late now. This planet is ****ed.
Find high ground
Build a bunker
Get lots of guns

I know where there is an old world war 2 Anderson shelter . Maybe I should start stockpiling beer and pot noodles. I have weaponry.

 

[beorhthelm]

He advocated Britain going for a balls out nuclear power fuelled future as the waste produced is far more “clean”, reliable and cost effective in the long term than any alternate source.

instead we're driving to carbon neutral targets requiring twice as much electrical power than we currently use. not going to work without a lot of nuclear construction starting very soon.

 

[The Clamp]

I know where there is an old world war 2 Anderson shelter . Maybe I should start stockpiling beer and pot noodles. I have weaponry.

Yes. And the porn.

 

[Trufflehound]

I know where there is an old world war 2 Anderson shelter . Maybe I should start stockpiling beer and pot noodles. I have weaponry.

Giving someone splinters from an old wooden Westvleteren crate does not count as "weaponry".

 

[Gritt23]

Should I be looking to purchase a retirement home somewhat North of where we currently? No just a little bit North, but Scandinavia, where their climate could go up a bit and I'd still be comfortable, or should I be getting as far away from the impact of the ice melting at the North Pole, and the glaciers disappearing into the seas?

 

[Brovion]

The problem with these predictions is that it's always been "in 20 years' time". Back in the 1990s climate scientists would excitedly claim: "We've keyed all the historical information into this like, really big computer, and it's predicted that by 2020 the bits of the UK that aren't flooded will be scorched desert." Apart from demonstrating a touching faith in the infallibility of computer programmers all it really did was leave themselves hostages to fortune.

No one but the very stupid actually denies climate change, but wolf has been cried so often it is very hard to take all these Doomsday scenarios seriously. Maybe they're 100% right this time, who knows? Rather like Brexit I'm bored with it, even though I know it's important.

 

[Machiavelli]

Whether you believe in conspiracies or not there are some increasingly interesting examples of suppressed data/voices and manipulated data sources by some very large organisations to heighten the perceived threat from climate change.

There are also lots of interesting studies/pronouncements on the likely impact of the Grand Solar Minimum we’ve just entered with some schools of thought suggesting the exponentially lower solar output may well “spare our blushes” and correct the situation.

Whilst this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing all we can to change our increasingly poor habits, develop new technology and increase the use of sustainable/renewable energy production it is interesting that the counter argument is always there if you know where to look.

What is your source for this strange claim?
Why aren't you concerning yourself with clearly documented recent conspiracies, such as Cambridge Analytica? You're welcome to retrieve some prior posts indicating that you have posted on this matter.
Tell us precisely who these 'very large organisations' are that you refer to in your first sentence.