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

[highflyer]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of climate change sceptics are are far more inclined to be right-wing/laissez-faire/libertarian more generally.

A key question is why are people who DO know the science and it;s implications, and have done for 30 years, continuing to fund a disinformation campaign to pursuade people that we can, and should, continue burning fossil fuels?

Part of the answer of course is self interest of a relatively small number of very powerful (mostly) men who's accumulation of personal, vast, wealth was entirely reliant on creating climate change and who's continued greed means they'd rather see the planet burn that live without that top-of-the-range private jet:

https://whygreeneconomy.org/the-polluter-elite-database/

 

[Trufflehound]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of climate change sceptics are are far more inclined to be right-wing/laissez-faire/libertarian more generally.

I think given the overwhelming evidence in 2019 proving climate change to be a fact, there are only two types of people who continue to deny it:

1) Idiots / the wilfully ignorant, and
2) People sponsored in some way by big business who have a vested interest in not changing anything.

And yes, most of the latter will probably fall into the group you describe as well.



Edit: in other words, what [MENTION=33872]highflyer[/MENTION] just said in the post above.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of climate change sceptics are are far more inclined to be right-wing/laissez-faire/libertarian more generally.

Nor do I. CC interferes with either their wallet or their smug certainty that they're more knowing than the rabble.

 

[Machiavelli]

Again I wasn’t meaning to come across as superior intellectually just suggesting it’s worth being open to the possibility that we’ve been fed only one side of the argument and the other has been purposefully suppressed.

Yet again, we are warming and we have caused it but just maybe don’t believe all you hear on mainstream media. Shrug.

Well, I admire your persistence and politeness on this, but I'd recommend that you actually survey what's going on in the 'mainstream media' on this, rather than assuming that they're banging out a simplistic, unified agenda. It was only a few years ago that the BBC moved away from presenting two sides of the argument, rather than accepting that the science was a s close to conclusive and comprehensive as it gets (especially for such a complex, multi-faceted issue).
Can I also suggest that you'll attract far less hostility if, rather than posting your musings on here, you put your ideas and data together into an article, and send it off to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to ascertain whether your argument holds any water.

 

[Barham's tash]

Can I also suggest that you'll attract far less hostility if, rather than posting your musings on here, you put your ideas and data together into an article, and send it off to a peer-reviewed scientific journal to ascertain whether your argument holds any water.

Now that is just patronising and rude.

I’m not an academic merely someone with a smattering of scientific knowledge above the average and can therefore interpret underlying data to a degree and have wholly accepted that it is happening and we are the cause.

Why I have attracted opprobrium for merely hinting that there may be a counteracting force at play or that we only hear what certain parts of the media want us to I hear I’m not really sure

 

[The Clamp]

Now that is just patronising and rude.

I’m not an academic merely someone with a smattering of scientific knowledge above the average and can therefore interpret underlying data to a degree and have wholly accepted that it is happening and we are the cause.

Why I have attracted opprobrium for merely hinting that there may be a counteracting force at play or that we only hear what certain parts of the media want us to I hear I’m not really sure

You drew hostility because you used rhetoric along the lines of “you swallow what you’re fed by the mainstream media” “you need to know where to look” among many other condescending conspiracy theorist cliches. It’s patronising bollocks and whether you count yourself as one or not it makes you come across as a conspiracy loon.

 

[stewart_weir]

It is inevitable and that's because it's political suicide to implement the needed changes.. and so a series of catastrophic climate events over several decades is needed to really focus the minds of the climate change deniers and those who insist on consuming way beyond what the planet sustain.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Now that is just patronising and rude.

I’m not an academic merely someone with a smattering of scientific knowledge above the average and can therefore interpret underlying data to a degree and have wholly accepted that it is happening and we are the cause.

Why I have attracted opprobrium for merely hinting that there may be a counteracting force at play or that we only hear what certain parts of the media want us to I hear I’m not really sure

I agree with you.

 

[portlock seagull]

Ive held a strong belief since the mid 80s when I first learnt about climate change that nothing could prevent it. Humans as a species are simply incapable of overcoming greed, selfishness and the desire for more - whether that’s power, land, money...it’s a basic instinct really. At the expense of everything. We become truly horrific when shortages occur, which is where we’re heading. Conflict and the collapse of society. The poor will die, the rich and powerful will try to isolate themselves from without realising the basic inter dependencies of any ecosystem means they cannot escape whilst the middle classes will become newly impoverished.

I’ve long believed countries like China and Russia will attack others first as their populations put pressure on dwindling resources whilst those from Africa and the ME will overrun Europe as their countries collapse initially; unable to cope, ours will follow. It’s the titanic scenario, not enough life boats. Democratic Governments are too weak to prevent; autocratic regimes, where life is valued less, might just survive because as Stalin said famously a million deaths is just a statistic.

Said all this since the 90s and look, the flight of millions is accelerating year after year. By 2040 I fully expect we will be drowning in chaos caused by climate change and over population. We were warned. We chose to ignore. Or simply argued against what was happening in front of our eyes. This planet needs a killer epidemic on a biblical scale. Of humans. In short, we’re a plague and billions of us need to die if this planets to survive. The belief in sanctity of human life above all else must be challenged. But it won’t because we repeatedly ignore all the hard realities and choices to be faced. Cultures and belief systems prevent radical measures. Politics gets in the way a bit too! But isn’t it really the next generations problem? You know, those funny little things running around our houses right now. The ones we call our children. Want the best for them? You can make a start by not having anymore, raise them as vegans, don’t jet off on holidays and turn yer bleeding heating down / put a jumper on! Way more action than that is needed though. Which is why we’re doomed to our fate. Because even those four basic sustainability goals set by the UN are an affront to millions of us and our individual rights to do what the **** we want in the short time we’re here and to hell with everyone else. We’re selfish and greedy you see. It’s in our DNA.

 

[beorhthelm]

Presumably you are referring to the report earlier this year by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, that well-known climate change denying organisation with a political agenda that has links to and is likely funded by big oil?

OK.

not refering to anything specfic, was giving background to the idea. its not new maybe 20 years or so. and there's no denying the sun is the primary factor in climate, so why wouldnt variance have some impact?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Ive held a strong belief since the mid 80s when I first learnt about climate change <snip>.

Without doubting your sincerity, what individuals believe is great for a chat down the pub (or indeed, on NSC) but it doesn't render it any more or less likely that climate change is a man made phenomenon that has or hasn't crossed an event horizon. I'm not a climatologist but I am a scientist, and I understand the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a proven fact. I also understand about cause and effect, and how one may go about exploring mechanistic connections. My understanding is that there have been recent changes (since the 80s especially) in temperature and greenhouse gases, that correlate with one another. I understand also there is still uncertainty over which is cause and which is effect ('correlation does not guarantee causation'). The problem is that when the stakes are high (human extinction in 50 years according to some computer modelling) the debate attracts lay voices, and people with an agenda (albeit these are predominantly folk with a vested interest in maintaining the oil industry etc etc, and reasonable concern gets dismissed as scaremongering, or even 'anti-American', FFS). But once we start rebutting one another with our opinions, all hope of any rational discussion is rendered null and void. Unfortunately, I get the impression that this isn't much of a concern to those posting on this thread. Sorry if that sounds a bit arrogant. I'm therefore out.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of climate change sceptics are are far more inclined to be right-wing/laissez-faire/libertarian more generally.

reckon its reaction to solutions being focused on proscriptive regulation, restricting economics and state control.

 

[pb21]

reckon its reaction to solutions being focused on proscriptive regulation, restricting economics and state control.

Absolutely. The thing is proscriptive regulation, state control, and managing the economy (not necessarily restricting) may be critically necessary.

If climate change is happening to the extent some/most people believe, then at some point this will directly factor into a free market, but by then it will almost certainly be too late, the market is lagging.

Of course there will be some pure laissez-faire types for which this will hopefully all pan out without any increased regulation etc. and what happens happens and that would be 'best' , but I don't think most think along these lines.

 

[larus]

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Predictions from the UN in 1989. Sounds familiar to what they say now.



UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community is talking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.


So what caused the Dust Bowl conditions in the US in the 1930s?
What caused the little ice age? What caused it to stop?
How much warming is man-made and how much is cyclical?
Predictions of more hurricanes/tornadoes are wrong. There's been fewer.
What about the arctic sea ice death spiral? Meant to be gone by 2012, oh then 2016, then 2019.

Just ask yourself how accurate are global temperatures? 70% of the planet is covered with water? Not many thermometers there. Then look at the vast wildernesses, Amazon, Antartica, SIberia, Central Africa, Australia. How many thermometers there? Then they say that the adjusted temperatures are the warmest by 0.1C. Christ, the planet on the same day will range from -70C in Antarica to +50C in the deserts by the equator.

I'm not denying it's warmed and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, water vapour is much more important a greenhouse gas than CO2.

And as for the climate models - what a joke. Compare all of the historical predictions to the recorded temperatures.

Then consider that the UK burns 14m tonnes of coal p.a., and China 2.8 bln tonnes. And they have no commitments under the Paris accord.

Whatever the UK does (even if there is run-away global warming) is irrelevant.

BTW, I think we should protect the environment more - but CO2 is not pollution. It's a naturally occuring atmospheric gas, and has been as high as 7,000ppm, compared to 400 now. Plant life would cease to exist if we got below 180 ppm, so in historical terms, we are very low now.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Without doubting your sincerity, what individuals believe is great for a chat down the pub (or indeed, on NSC) but it doesn't render it any more or less likely that climate change is a man made phenomenon that has or hasn't crossed an event horizon. I'm not a climatologist but I am a scientist, and I understand the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a proven fact. I also understand about cause and effect, and how one may go about exploring mechanistic connections. My understanding is that there have been recent changes (since the 80s especially) in temperature and greenhouse gases, that correlate with one another. I understand also there is still uncertainty over which is cause and which is effect ('correlation does not guarantee causation'). The problem is that when the stakes are high (human extinction in 50 years according to some computer modelling) the debate attracts lay voices, and people with an agenda (albeit these are predominantly folk with a vested interest in maintaining the oil industry etc etc, and reasonable concern gets dismissed as scaremongering, or even 'anti-American', FFS). But once we start rebutting one another with our opinions, all hope of any rational discussion is rendered null and void. Unfortunately, I get the impression that this isn't much of a concern to those posting on this thread. Sorry if that sounds a bit arrogant. I'm therefore out.

Pah!. You and your “science” . You’re just a mouthpiece for the illuminati. All those years WASTED in a library studying? You’re just a patsy.

Get yourself on YouTube. That’s where science is done these days.

 

[Questions]

It’s been a nice day today hasn’t it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Absolutely. The thing is proscriptive regulation, state control, and managing the economy (not necessarily restricting) may be critically necessary.

If climate change is happening to the extent some/most people believe, then at some point this will directly factor into a free market, but by then it will almost certainly be too late, the market is lagging.

Of course there will be some pure laissez-faire types for which this will hopefully all pan out without any increased regulation etc. and what happens happens and that would be 'best' , but I don't think most think along these lines.

possibly necessary, some areas certainly. one problem is what happens next, poor politically driven decisions. policies such as mandating vegtable oils (leading to deforestation to grow palm oil) and wood chip imported from 3000 miles rather than local gas. potential market solutions are locked out, the public are not informed of the range of outcomes long term, either way, so unable to make informed decision. and indecision and lack of action where strategic government intervention could make a difference, such as nuclear.

 

[portlock seagull]

Without doubting your sincerity, what individuals believe is great for a chat down the pub (or indeed, on NSC) but it doesn't render it any more or less likely that climate change is a man made phenomenon that has or hasn't crossed an event horizon. I'm not a climatologist but I am a scientist, and I understand the difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a proven fact. I also understand about cause and effect, and how one may go about exploring mechanistic connections. My understanding is that there have been recent changes (since the 80s especially) in temperature and greenhouse gases, that correlate with one another. I understand also there is still uncertainty over which is cause and which is effect ('correlation does not guarantee causation'). The problem is that when the stakes are high (human extinction in 50 years according to some computer modelling) the debate attracts lay voices, and people with an agenda (albeit these are predominantly folk with a vested interest in maintaining the oil industry etc etc, and reasonable concern gets dismissed as scaremongering, or even 'anti-American', FFS). But once we start rebutting one another with our opinions, all hope of any rational discussion is rendered null and void. Unfortunately, I get the impression that this isn't much of a concern to those posting on this thread. Sorry if that sounds a bit arrogant. I'm therefore out.

I'm not a scientist, I have a higher education in climate change and have followed the field all my life, read many books on etc by scientists if that helps because of my interest in. I consider myself well informed therefore, above the average joe certainly e.g. I don't know anyone else who reads books on out of general interest, it's not exactly holiday reading. But regardless whether a fact is proven by scientific evidence or merely highly suspect, even an opinion that is we're essentially heading to hell in a handcart appears to be circumstantial. Moreover, shared by many other layman and professionals alike. We needn't wait until the water's risen above our feet after all to know what's coming.

Anyway, the opinion I voiced was more about the chaos that will be unleashed, the inevitability of it all because mankind is unable to resist because of the flaws in our nature. I fundamentally believe that, based on 40 years experience. Whether climate change is man made or not, it's accelerated and latest 'scientific opinion' this week cited it's five times more likely to be caused by human activity; than not.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I'm not a scientist, I have a higher education in climate change and have followed the field all my life, read many books on etc by scientists if that helps because of my interest in. I consider myself well informed therefore, above the average joe certainly e.g. I don't know anyone else who reads books on out of general interest, it's not exactly holiday reading. But regardless whether a fact is proven by scientific evidence or merely highly suspect, even an opinion that is we're essentially heading to hell in a handcart appears to be circumstantial. Moreover, shared by many other layman and professionals alike. We needn't wait until the water's risen above our feet after all to know what's coming.

Anyway, the opinion I voiced was more about the chaos that will be unleashed, the inevitability of it all because mankind is unable to resist because of the flaws in our nature. I fundamentally believe that, based on 40 years experience. Whether climate change is man made or not, it's accelerated and latest 'scientific opinion' this week cited it's five times more likely to be caused by human activity; than not.

Whatever books you’re relying on I sincerely doubt the evidence for your scepticism. Nothing personal, I’m sure you have researched the subject. But I’m hoping the scientists, meteorologists and assorted professionals...are more reliable than you.

 

[vegster]

Lovelock's entire thesis is that the planet -- or Gaia -- in the long run will be fine.

Unless, like a sullen teenager,it metaphorically goes of the rails and turns in to Venus.