Discussion:
OT? - 2021 Climate issues
Add Reply
gggg gggg
2021-07-23 21:55:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
gggg gggg
2021-07-23 22:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://news.yahoo.com/monsoon-flooding-turns-deadly-southwest-183407888.html
gggg gggg
2021-07-24 06:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
Olympics:

https://www.wgrz.com/article/weather/heathers-weather-whys-what-is-weather-like-in-tokyo-summer-olympics/71-f0570cc8-53a2-4be1-be80-87ffa1c28e7a
gggg gggg
2021-07-25 17:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/24/science/welcome-climate-apocalypse-it-will-get-worse/
gggg gggg
2021-07-25 17:17:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/25/gaya-herrington-mit-study-the-limits-to-growth
gggg gggg
2021-07-26 02:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for the references. I've been following what's happening in Madagascar. The South is turning into an uninhabitable desert - no rainfall for years. Sadly the inhabitants there don't even seem to have the strength to migrate to anywhere where there's food.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/huge-wildfires-burn-dixie-bootleg-heat-dome.html
gggg gggg
2021-07-26 16:34:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for the references. I've been following what's happening in Madagascar. The South is turning into an uninhabitable desert - no rainfall for years. Sadly the inhabitants there don't even seem to have the strength to migrate to anywhere where there's food.
https://www.axios.com/record-shattering-heat-waves-becoming-far-more-likely-study-e13fde50-45d8-4bcd-bc86-efecba6c5217.html
gggg gggg
2021-07-28 03:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/27/global-heating-critical-measures-tipping-point-study
gggg gggg
2021-07-28 15:16:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/28/thousands-of-scientists-declare-worldwide-climate-emergency
Andy Evans
2021-07-29 08:23:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, 28 July 2021 at 16:16:28 UTC+1, gggg gggg wrote:
Thanks for that - research from a group of 14,000 scientists couldn't be clearer:
"The authors repeated previous calls for transformative change in six areas:
1. eliminating fossil fuels
2. slashing pollutants
3. restoring ecosystems
4. switching to plant-based diets
5. moving away from indefinite growth models
6. stabilising the human population.

They also called for climate-change education to be included in school core curriculums globally in order to raise awareness of the issue.

The world is resisting almost all of the measures
1. reliance on oil is barely changing. and oil producers do nothing
2. pollutants continue
3. ecosystems are low priority compared with profit and growth
4. the meat industry shows no signs of self control. On the contrary, livestock such as cows and sheep are now at record levels, numbering more than four billion and with a mass exceeding that of all humans and wild land mammals combined. The meat trade is destroying the Amazon at record rates.
5. where is the "new economy" that isn't an indefinite growth model?
6. the human population is unchecked, and the Vatican still only sanctions abstinence as a means of birth control

And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
MELMOTH
2021-07-29 08:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the
question...
HT
2021-07-29 11:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MELMOTH
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases
can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the
question...
RMCR is a digital café. We are all interested in CM, but not exclusively. You might know that by now. Besides, no one is forcing you to listen in and give your opinion.

Henk
Frank Berger
2021-07-29 12:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Frank Berger
2021-07-29 14:19:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.

Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
HT
2021-07-29 16:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.

Looking back always wins over looking forward.

Henk
Frank Berger
2021-07-29 16:59:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
HT
2021-07-29 17:23:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.

Henk
gggg gggg
2021-07-29 18:18:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.
Henk
- ...Surely no creature other than man has ever managed to foul its nest in such short order.

Lynn White
Frank Berger
2021-07-29 19:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.
Henk
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty. Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written about the economic damage.

Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not affect its efficacy.

I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
Steven Bornfeld
2021-07-29 21:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing
about the response.  No one but the best historians will emphasize that
decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty.
Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the
human race from extinction.  OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians
will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy
and the resulting loss of liberty.  Only economists will have written
about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works
in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not
affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate.  My instinct tells me that the most
extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated,
simply because they always have been.  Part of that is that it pays to
write books and publish research predicting future disaster.  They sell
and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
"It is difficult to make predictions--particularly about the future."

--attributed to Niels Bohr
gggg gggg
2021-07-29 21:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Frank Berger
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing
about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that
decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty.
Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the
human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians
will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy
and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written
about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works
in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not
affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most
extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated,
simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to
write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell
and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
"It is difficult to make predictions--particularly about the future."
--attributed to Niels Bohr
As far as I am concerned, will the human race in the future be at the mercy of unintended consequences?

Or unforeseen circumstances?:

- The only thing we can count on is human error.

me
gggg gggg
2021-07-29 21:16:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Frank Berger
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing
about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that
decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty.
Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the
human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians
will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy
and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written
about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works
in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not
affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most
extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated,
simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to
write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell
and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
"It is difficult to make predictions--particularly about the future."
--attributed to Niels Bohr
As far as I am concerned, will the human race in the future be at the mercy of unintended consequences?
- The only thing we can count on is human error.
me
("Human error" still making news):

https://news.google.com/search?q=%22human%20error%22&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
gggg gggg
2021-07-29 21:26:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Frank Berger
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing
about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that
decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty.
Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the
human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians
will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy
and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written
about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works
in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not
affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most
extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated,
simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to
write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell
and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
"It is difficult to make predictions--particularly about the future."
--attributed to Niels Bohr
Will disasters shape our future?:

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.history/c/YTW_lnMsDQA
HT
2021-07-29 21:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.
Henk
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty. Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
Maybe Covid will be a memory. I'm not so sure about other viruses.

I have my doubts about "an environment of extreme uncertainty" unless you add that at least some of all the uncertainty has been caused by Covid policy, political and professional incompetence, and conflicting institutional or personal interests.

I have deep respect for sound scientific research. Scientists (as consultants, advisors, lobbyists, or members of associations and clubs) are just like other people.

The climate is not what it used to be. The symptoms are obvious. The situation is serious. I see genuine concern - and that's more than I expected. But that's about it.

We may have (the) solution(s), at least in theory. But we do not know the consequences of these solutions, and we are certainly not in a position to implement them. There is a lack of expertise, common sense, good will, etc. etc.

An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.

Henk
Frank Berger
2021-07-29 22:20:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.
Henk
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty. Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
Maybe Covid will be a memory. I'm not so sure about other viruses.
I have my doubts about "an environment of extreme uncertainty" unless you add that at least some of all the uncertainty has been caused by Covid policy, political and professional incompetence, and conflicting institutional or personal interests.
I have deep respect for sound scientific research. Scientists (as consultants, advisors, lobbyists, or members of associations and clubs) are just like other people.
The climate is not what it used to be. The symptoms are obvious. The situation is serious. I see genuine concern - and that's more than I expected. But that's about it.
We may have (the) solution(s), at least in theory. But we do not know the consequences of these solutions, and we are certainly not in a position to implement them. There is a lack of expertise, common sense, good will, etc. etc.
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
I don't know the circumstances, but these seem to me to not necessarily be inconsistent with the long run climate health. Gas is better than coal, isn't it? Netherlands is as carbon reliant as anybody. 10 20 and 50 year plans to de-carbonize (or whatever you want to call it) are notional.
Post by HT
Henk
HT
2021-07-30 08:58:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.
Henk
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty. Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
Maybe Covid will be a memory. I'm not so sure about other viruses.
I have my doubts about "an environment of extreme uncertainty" unless you add that at least some of all the uncertainty has been caused by Covid policy, political and professional incompetence, and conflicting institutional or personal interests.
I have deep respect for sound scientific research. Scientists (as consultants, advisors, lobbyists, or members of associations and clubs) are just like other people.
The climate is not what it used to be. The symptoms are obvious. The situation is serious. I see genuine concern - and that's more than I expected. But that's about it.
We may have (the) solution(s), at least in theory. But we do not know the consequences of these solutions, and we are certainly not in a position to implement them. There is a lack of expertise, common sense, good will, etc. etc.
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
I don't know the circumstances, but these seem to me to not necessarily be inconsistent with the long run climate health. Gas is better than coal, isn't it? Netherlands is as carbon reliant as anybody. 10 20 and 50 year plans to de-carbonize (or whatever you want to call it) are notional.
Post by HT
Henk
<g> We are on the move, yes, and will certainly get somewhere in the next 10, 20 and 50 years.

Germany is going from coal to gas. We are going from gas to electricity. The Germans made their move possible by investing in a pipeline from Russia, we are making it possible by investing in biofuel. Since biofuel turns out to have an adverse effect on the climate, we are moving away from it to hydrogen (but that has yet to be produced on a large scale - by Ukraine?).

And this is just the start: what source(s) of energy to use in the future.

BTW, the irony is, Frank, that you cannot let the market decide. A blow for libertarianism.

Henk
Frank Berger
2021-07-30 13:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by HT
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the question...
Obvious. Somehow omitted from the list was the need to eliminate up-beat music, because it makes us want to dance, which makes us eat and copulate, neither of which is good for the environment. In fact, I suspect the elimination of music education from public schools has been a plot by environmentalists all along.
v
Twice recently I came across research that suggests that over the next 30 years or so, global cooling due to lower solar activity (not man made, I think we can be assured) will counteract and perhaps outweigh pollution-caused global warming. I think some NASA scientists have rejected this (not sure why). It's certainly not mainstream thinking at this point. I don't know if these researchers a legitimate, quacks or political stooges. At least one set of researchers is Chinese. One could imagine political reasons for the Chinese government to try to influence thinking on this in either direction. They could your warming and pressure the West to take drastic measures that the Chinese would ignore (even if they agree to it), thereby enhancing their relative power. Or they could tout cooling, to reduce pressure on themselves to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Henk
I'm afraid to ask what you consider the "real problem" to be.
<g> In 2050, I will not be in a position to look back. Others after me will have to do that. They will know, in hindsight.
Looking forward, I can only say that I do not expect man to surpass himself in the next 30 years. We cannot deal in a rational way with Covid, let alone with climate change - if that is the real problem.
Henk
In 2050 Covid will be a distant memory. Historians will still be arguing about the response. No one but the best historians will emphasize that decisions were made in an environment of extreme uncertainty. Progressives will argue that quarantines, masks and lockdowns saved the human race from extinction. OK, so I exaggerate a little. Libertarians will continue talk about Covid Derangement Syndrome and the Covidocracy and the resulting loss of liberty. Only economists will have written about the economic damage.
Aside: Scientists in Israel are testing an oral Covid vaccine that works in such a way that the common ways in which the virus mutates will not affect its efficacy.
I have no idea about the climate. My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. They sell and by the time they are proven wrong, the money is in the bank.
Maybe Covid will be a memory. I'm not so sure about other viruses.
I have my doubts about "an environment of extreme uncertainty" unless you add that at least some of all the uncertainty has been caused by Covid policy, political and professional incompetence, and conflicting institutional or personal interests.
I have deep respect for sound scientific research. Scientists (as consultants, advisors, lobbyists, or members of associations and clubs) are just like other people.
The climate is not what it used to be. The symptoms are obvious. The situation is serious. I see genuine concern - and that's more than I expected. But that's about it.
We may have (the) solution(s), at least in theory. But we do not know the consequences of these solutions, and we are certainly not in a position to implement them. There is a lack of expertise, common sense, good will, etc. etc.
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
I don't know the circumstances, but these seem to me to not necessarily be inconsistent with the long run climate health. Gas is better than coal, isn't it? Netherlands is as carbon reliant as anybody. 10 20 and 50 year plans to de-carbonize (or whatever you want to call it) are notional.
Post by HT
Henk
<g> We are on the move, yes, and will certainly get somewhere in the next 10, 20 and 50 years.
Germany is going from coal to gas. We are going from gas to electricity. The Germans made their move possible by investing in a pipeline from Russia, we are making it possible by investing in biofuel. Since biofuel turns out to have an adverse effect on the climate, we are moving away from it to hydrogen (but that has yet to be produced on a large scale - by Ukraine?).
And this is just the start: what source(s) of energy to use in the future.
BTW, the irony is, Frank, that you cannot let the market decide. A blow for libertarianism.
Henk
As libertarians, by definition, are not anarchists, there is no reason to assume that libertarians are uniformly opposed to government involvement in internalizing externalities. The difference between libertarians and progressives is that we are aware of, and concerned about, government screwing up anything they get involved with and progressives don't seem to care.
Gerard
2021-07-30 09:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
HT
2021-07-30 10:54:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
In that case, the Netherlands could have joined Germany's project or made a deal with Norway.

Henk
Gerard
2021-07-30 11:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
In that case, the Netherlands could have joined Germany's project or made a deal with Norway.
Henk
I suppose they did. Gas from Norway, Denmark and Germany is imported and
transported by the Gasunie.
HT
2021-07-30 11:54:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
In that case, the Netherlands could have joined Germany's project or made a deal with Norway.
Henk
I suppose they did. Gas from Norway, Denmark and Germany is imported and
transported by the Gasunie.
If I understand you correctly, there is at this moment no clear reason to invest in getting Netherlands off gas.

Henk
Gerard
2021-07-31 13:30:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
In that case, the Netherlands could have joined Germany's project or made a deal with Norway.
Henk
I suppose they did. Gas from Norway, Denmark and Germany is imported and
transported by the Gasunie.
If I understand you correctly, there is at this moment no clear reason to invest in getting Netherlands off gas.
Only to get off Groninger gas.
Graham
2021-07-30 14:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The
Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get
off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
It's ironic that the Groningen gas was derived from coal:-)
gggg gggg
2021-07-31 05:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Gerard
Post by HT
An example: Germany spends billions to supply citizens with gas. The
Netherlands is simultaneously spending millions to help citizens get
off gas. All in the name of the climate crisis.
Re the Netherlands - the main reason to help citizens get off gas is the
situation in the province Groningen (with earthquakes).
It's ironic that the Groningen gas was derived from coal:-)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/30/climate-denial-delay-inaction-british-government
Andy Evans
2021-07-31 18:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thursday, 29 July 2021 at 20:41:21 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. >>

It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish 'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been" we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the tipping points we are heading for.

I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic", as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in the sand.
gggg gggg
2021-07-31 22:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. >>
It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish 'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been" we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the tipping points we are heading for.
I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic", as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in the sand.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/30/greenland-ice-sheet-florida-water-climate-crisis
Frank Berger
2021-08-01 15:49:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. >>
It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish 'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been" we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the tipping points we are heading for.
I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic", as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in the sand.
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not science. It is akin to religion.
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-01 18:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Frank Berger
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn
out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been.
Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research
predicting future disaster. >>
It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish
'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy
theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the
money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been"
we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the
tipping points we are heading for.
I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or
anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific
community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it
emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever
that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those
who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic", as
if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be
alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and
without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in the
sand.
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are
ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not
science.  It is akin to religion.
There is no "minority view"--and most claiming to hold views
inconsistent with the evidence have been outed as industry shills.
Herman
2021-08-01 19:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Frank Berger
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are
ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not
science. It is akin to religion.
There is no "minority view"--and most claiming to hold views
inconsistent with the evidence have been outed as industry shills.
Plus, the idea that people are being "intimidated into silence" is eerily reminiscent of people on cable tv who shout day after day that they're not allowed to speak their minds, because of political correctness.
Owen
2021-08-01 23:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Frank Berger
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn
out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been.
Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research
predicting future disaster. >>
It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish
'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy
theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the
money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been"
we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the
tipping points we are heading for.
I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or
anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific
community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it
emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever
that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those
who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic",
as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be
alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and
without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in
the sand.
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are
ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not
science.  It is akin to religion.
There is no "minority view"--and most claiming to hold views
inconsistent with the evidence have been outed as industry shills.
There must always be minority views challenging the status quo, and
that's part of "science" going back to before Galileo, one who held a
very minority view at the time.

-Owen
Frank Berger
2021-08-01 23:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish research predicting future disaster. >>
It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish 'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been" we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for the tipping points we are heading for.
I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic" or anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic", as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in the sand.
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not science.  It is akin to religion.
There is no "minority view"--and most claiming to hold views inconsistent with the evidence have been outed as industry shills.
There must always be minority views challenging the status quo, and that's part of "science" going back to before Galileo, one who held a very minority view at the time.
-Owen
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.
Andy Evans
2021-08-02 00:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.

What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.

So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
Frank Berger
2021-08-02 00:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
Post by Andy Evans
So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
raymond....@gmail.com
2021-08-02 03:42:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
How has he said it wrong?
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
No translation was needed.
Post by Andy Evans
So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.

Ray Hall, Taree
Herman
2021-08-02 07:08:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.

Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.

Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
Gerard
2021-08-02 08:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.
Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.
Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
Besides that. Those guys like liberterians do not want politicians to
have any power to make any decisions about their lifes. Only their free
market should solve all problems.
Frank Berger
2021-08-02 15:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.
Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.
Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
Besides that. Those guys like liberterians do not want politicians to have any power to make any decisions about their lifes. Only their free market should solve all problems.
This is an exaggeration of course. You are describing anarchists not libertarians. Libertarians believe (and if you check Wikipedia you will see there are many variants of libertarianism) believe people should be free to make decisions for themselves as long as those decisions don't hurt others in a way that is not handled by the market. This implies most decisions are to be left to the market, but not all. Of course, there is a distrust of government, in that government seems to be unable to keep itself from growing and politicians often don't have the information or resources necessary to solve a problem even when it exists.
Herman
2021-08-02 16:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is an exaggeration of course. You are describing anarchists not libertarians.
Except they call themselves libertarians, that's why I added "quasi". And "freedom" is the nr 1 battle cry.

I don't think anyone calls him- or herself "anarchist" anymore as a matter of pride.
Frank Berger
2021-08-02 16:33:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
This is an exaggeration of course. You are describing anarchists not libertarians.
Except they call themselves libertarians, that's why I added "quasi". And "freedom" is the nr 1 battle cry.
I could call myself a Martian. That doesn't make me one.
Post by Herman
I don't think anyone calls him- or herself "anarchist" anymore as a matter of pride.
As is often the case, you don't know what you are talking about.
Andy Evans
2021-08-02 08:54:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps. Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now. Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.>>
Herman looks to have it exactly right, based on the evidence we have so far.
Frank Berger
2021-08-02 15:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps. Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now. Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.>>
Herman looks to have it exactly right, based on the evidence we have so far.
What does "destroy itself" actually mean? All plant an animal life extinct? Just humans? Or is it a colorful description of a damaged, but still livable environment?
Frank Berger
2021-08-02 14:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.
Populism and quasi-libertarianism
What you needed an adjective to denigrate libertarisnism and chose "quasi?" What is that supposed to mean? Not sure I've seen populism and libertarianism lumped to together like that.

will continue to grow,


Libertarianism show no signs of growing at all. I don't think you even know what it is.

there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.
Post by Herman
Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
What are you going to do in th meantime?
gggg gggg
2021-08-02 15:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
It just isn't going to happen, the politicians making the right decisions at a time when it helps.
Populism and quasi-libertarianism will continue to grow, there will be more protests and astro-turf mass movements protesting the individual's right to freedoms like burning the planet. Mass anxiety about mass migration will foster violent movements and there is just no way that the voices of reason and science will prevail. They don't now.
Covid is a test case and not the first. A sufficient number of people are being manipulated by populists aided by foreign powers aiming to destabilize the other blocs. The number of people rejecting the experts' advice (just for lolz: "Don't fauci my ouchie") will be sufficient for destruction. This will continue and it will get worse and humanity will destroy itself and it will go faster than we previously pictured.
Ever seen the 2007 movie I AM LEGEND?:

- ...The movie "does ponder some pretty deep questions about the collapse and persistence of human civilization".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Legend_(film)#Critical_response
Frank Berger
2021-08-02 14:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point. So a model might suggest the climate change will end life on earth in, say, 200 years, with a confidence interval of x standard deviations. A model might say, for example that it is 95% confident that the life will end from climate change within 50 and 1000 years from now, with a point estimate of 475 years. Not a ver precise estimate. You need to know the precision with which the estimates are made to know how much confidence to have in the results.
Post by ***@gmail.com
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
How has he said it wrong?
He said "It gives is various models." What is "it?" The data? That's wrong. You develop a theoretical model and test it using data. Data do not provide or produce the model.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
No translation was needed.
I know. It was obvious.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Andy Evans
So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.
Of course they will. No one is arguing that. Not believing or questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of scientists is not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Ray Hall, Taree
raymond....@gmail.com
2021-08-03 00:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point.
You have just repeated what I said.
Post by Frank Berger
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
How has he said it wrong?
He said "It gives is various models." What is "it?" The data? That's wrong. You develop a theoretical model and test it
using data. Data do not provide or produce the model.
I asked you how you came to the conclusion you made about someone getting it wrong. As usual, you veered off onto something quite different. In short you gave no answer, just a stream of consciousness blurb.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
No translation was needed.
I know. It was obvious.
So why then did you make your translation?
Post by Frank Berger
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.
Of course they will. No one is arguing that. Not believing or questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of
scientists is not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.
My question was based upon politicians who, largely on the far right of the spectrum, act as shills for big business and clearly ignore scientific and social needs advice. Again, your answer is actually not an answer, but a deflection. But in your case that is always par for the course.

Finally, your insistence about various forms of libertarianism that exists. How about explaining with full details the exact form of libertarianism *you* believe in. Just for the record. So we all know.

Ray Hall, Taree
Frank Berger
2021-08-03 02:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point.
You have just repeated what I said.
Post by Frank Berger
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
How has he said it wrong?
He said "It gives is various models." What is "it?" The data? That's wrong. You develop a theoretical model and test it
using data. Data do not provide or produce the model.
I asked you how you came to the conclusion you made about someone getting it wrong. As usual, you veered off onto something quite different. In short you gave no answer, just a stream of consciousness blurb.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
No translation was needed.
I know. It was obvious.
So why then did you make your translation?
Post by Frank Berger
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.
Of course they will. No one is arguing that. Not believing or questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of
scientists is not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.
My question was based upon politicians who, largely on the far right of the spectrum, act as shills for big business and clearly ignore scientific and social needs advice. Again, your answer is actually not an answer, but a deflection. But in your case that is always par for the course.
Finally, your insistence about various forms of libertarianism that exists. How about explaining with full details the exact form of libertarianism *you* believe in. Just for the record. So we all know.
Ray Hall, Taree
Whatever I say you you question my motives, accuse me of deflection, etc. I don't know if you really believe that or what, but I will try my best not to interact with you anymore. There is no point.
raymond....@gmail.com
2021-08-03 04:21:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about? And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point.
You have just repeated what I said.
Post by Frank Berger
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
How has he said it wrong?
He said "It gives is various models." What is "it?" The data? That's wrong. You develop a theoretical model and test it
using data. Data do not provide or produce the model.
I asked you how you came to the conclusion you made about someone getting it wrong. As usual, you veered off onto something quite different. In short you gave no answer, just a stream of consciousness blurb.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when you want them to take them.
No translation was needed.
I know. It was obvious.
So why then did you make your translation?
Post by Frank Berger
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific advice.
Of course they will. No one is arguing that. Not believing or questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of
scientists is not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.
My question was based upon politicians who, largely on the far right of the spectrum, act as shills for big business and clearly ignore scientific and social needs advice. Again, your answer is actually not an answer, but a deflection. But in your case that is always par for the course.
Finally, your insistence about various forms of libertarianism that exists. How about explaining with full details the exact form of libertarianism *you* believe in. Just for the record. So we all know.
Ray Hall, Taree
Whatever I say you you question my motives, accuse me of deflection, etc. I don't know if you really believe that or what, but I will try my best not to interact with you anymore. There is no point.
Of course not. And once again ducking all the questions. How about simply answering them?

Ray Hall, Taree
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-03 01:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is
disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the
existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the
argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects
for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all
exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It
gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have
that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence
interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about?  And besides which,
the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a
confidence interval around that point.  So a model might suggest the
climate change will end life on earth in, say, 200 years, with a
confidence interval of x standard deviations.
I have to say that I remember literally no one who says anthropogenic
climate change will end life on earth--no one. There are thermophilic
bacteria that can survive to about 120 degrees C. We'd probably be
pretty uncomfortable though.


A model might say, for
Post by Frank Berger
example that it is 95% confident that the life will end from climate
change within 50 and 1000 years from now, with a point estimate of 475
years.  Not a ver precise estimate.  You need to know the precision with
which the estimates are made to know how much confidence to have in the
results.
Post by Frank Berger
You've said it wrong, by the way. Scientists build models and test
them using data. The results are only as good as the model and the data.
How has he said it wrong?
He said "It gives is various models."  What is "it?"  The data?  That's
wrong.  You develop a theoretical model and test it using data.  Data do
not provide or produce the model.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
What we don't have is any indication of what politicians are going
to do - the human element. We know they make promises and we know
they don't take the action needed.
Translation: They don't take the action you want them to take, when
you want them to take them.
No translation was needed.
I know.  It was obvious.
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Andy Evans
So what we know is that we can put the most trust in scientists and
the least trust in politicians. And even if politicians bring in
radical measures, as they will have to eventually, we know it will
be resisted by big business and citizens and collective groups who
continue to protest about their right to "freedom"........
Even if true, it will always be politicians making the decisions.
Sadly true. But the more intelligent ones, and those who are not mere
shills for business, will make them based upon the best scientific
advice.
Of course they will.  No one is arguing that.  Not believing or
questioning a statement made by scientist or a group of scientists is
not "denying science," no matter how many times the accusation is made.
Ray Hall, Taree
Frank Berger
2021-08-03 02:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
They always claim unanimity among the scientists. The claim is disingenuous, though. There is unanimity, or nearly so, on the existence of human-caused global warming.. But that's not what the argument is about, which is the severity and timing, the prospects for a human solution to the human-made problem, and most of all exactly what to do and when it needs to be done.>
Scientists make forecasts based on data. That's the best we have. It gives us various models in regard to severity and timing. We do have that. And a fair idea of what to do and when.
You do know the difference between a point estimated and a confidence interval, right? All you ever read about is the point estimate.
How do know that that is all he has read about?  And besides which, the confidence interval is based upon a point interval.
The statistical evaluation of a model produces a point estimate and a confidence interval around that point.  So a model might suggest the climate change will end life on earth in, say, 200 years, with a confidence interval of x standard deviations.
I have to say that I remember literally no one who says anthropogenic climate change will end life on earth--no one.
That's conmforting to know, but it was an example illustrating my point about modeling and statistics. It doesn't matter what example I chose.
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-02 03:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Owen
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Frank Berger
My instinct tells me that the most extreme prognostications will
turn out to be severely exaggerated, simply because they always have
been. Part of that is that it pays to write books and publish
research predicting future disaster. >>
It pays to be outside of mainstream science if you want to publish
'original' ideas, but this applies equally to wacky conspiracy
theories, or utopian scenarios, not to mention publications with the
money of vested interests behind them. As for "what always has been"
we're in completely new territory here - we don't have models for
the tipping points we are heading for.
I simply don't believe in "being optimistic"or "being pessimistic"
or anything else based on human attitudes. I follow the scientific
community in general in simply accepting the evidence and data as it
emerges and is backed up by research science and analysis. Whatever
that tells us is what is happening. I pay no attention to all those
who when interviewed in the media glibly say they are "optimistic",
as if it's a sin to be realistic and alarm people. People should be
alarmed by what's happening. That's the essential first step, and
without it we'll all just continue to have our collective heads in
the sand.
When people (including scientists) who express a minority view are
ridiculed, and though ridicule, intimidated to silence, that is not
science.  It is akin to religion.
There is no "minority view"--and most claiming to hold views
inconsistent with the evidence have been outed as industry shills.
There must always be minority views challenging the status quo, and
that's part of "science" going back to before Galileo, one who held a
very minority view at the time.
-Owen
These guys ain't Galileo
gggg gggg
2021-08-01 23:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Frank Berger
Unfortunately, I don't expect be around in 2050 to see who's right.
In 2050, today's predictions will have been largely belied, most will be different from what we currently expect, and our children and grandchildren will blame us (despite all our
good intentions) for having overlooked the real problem and only made it bigger with ill-considered measures.
Looking back always wins over looking forward.
Not fer nuttin': (Rhode Island expression)
I'm not hearing many "Damn you, Grandfather!!" calls from our generation
to theirs, which transitioned from a rural, horse powered environment to
a carbon burning, meat packing, ice cap melting one.
Maybe we'll get off easy.
-Owen
- My message is that we'll be watching you. This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. Yet I am one of the lucky ones. People are suffering.

Greta Thunberg
Mr. Mike
2021-07-29 20:53:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MELMOTH
Post by Andy Evans
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases
can't be reversed.
Relationship with the recordings of Classical Music ?...I ask the
question...
OT = Off-Topic, y'know...
Todd Michel McComb
2021-07-29 16:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
5. moving away from indefinite growth models
6. stabilising the human population.
Perhaps it's worth noting that the modern (i.e. imperial) era
explicitly linked these items, i.e. in the negative: More people
equals more labor equals more production equals more profits. That's
the modern model. (And consequently one sees e.g. the witch hunts
& other assaults on reproductive knowledge in the early modern
period. This is not generally well understood.) One might thus
characterize the period as one of mechanization in general, including
of the population, the imposition of monocrops, etc.
gggg gggg
2021-07-29 16:52:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
1. eliminating fossil fuels
2. slashing pollutants
3. restoring ecosystems
4. switching to plant-based diets
5. moving away from indefinite growth models
6. stabilising the human population.
They also called for climate-change education to be included in school core curriculums globally in order to raise awareness of the issue.
The world is resisting almost all of the measures
1. reliance on oil is barely changing. and oil producers do nothing
2. pollutants continue
3. ecosystems are low priority compared with profit and growth
4. the meat industry shows no signs of self control. On the contrary, livestock such as cows and sheep are now at record levels, numbering more than four billion and with a mass exceeding that of all humans and wild land mammals combined. The meat trade is destroying the Amazon at record rates.
5. where is the "new economy" that isn't an indefinite growth model?
6. the human population is unchecked, and the Vatican still only sanctions abstinence as a means of birth control
And so we are progressively passing "tipping points" which in many cases can't be reversed.
Concerning "slashing pollutants", long after humanity is dead and gone, Pearl Harbor will still have an oil slick due to oil leaking from the U.S.S. Arizona which was sunk on Dec. 7, 1941:

https://mtviewmirror.com/oil-leaks-from-war-industry-are-destroying-our-oceans/
gggg gggg
2021-07-29 21:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
"Are we entering a great collapse and extinction process caused by accelerating global warming worsening our 11 other worsening global crises?":

https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/world_s_most_critical_global_challenges
gggg gggg
2021-07-30 06:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/07/sea-level-rise-rates-more-than-double-along-part-of-u-s-east-coast/
gggg gggg
2021-08-01 14:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/earths-energy-imbalance-removes-almost-doubt-human-made-climate-change-rcna1562
gggg gggg
2021-08-01 15:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
"Civilization-Ending Climate Change Is Knocking On Our Door":

https://hartmannreport.com/p/civilization-ending-climate-change
gggg gggg
2021-08-03 06:27:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/climate-emergency-tipping-points-are-already-here-scientists-warn-78236
Andy Evans
2021-08-03 17:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe. Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to change, and quickly?

It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the damage to believe it.
Herman
2021-08-03 17:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe. Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the damage to believe it.
There are still plenty people who fall for the "it's snowing somewhere else right now" ploy.
gggg gggg
2021-08-03 20:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe. Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the damage to believe it.
There are still plenty people who fall for the "it's snowing somewhere else right now" ploy.
Ever read Tuchmann's 1984 book MARCH OF FOLLY?:

- In 1984, American historian Barbara Tuchman published "The March of Folly, from Troy to Vietnam", describing how throughout history governments made the most stupid mistakes, almost knowingly, blind to warnings, tell-tale signs that they were wrong, yet with arrogance and short term personal gain on their agenda, they created the exact opposite of what they intended to do...

Shouldn't the final 21st-c. chapter of that book be entitled?:

- Headlong rush to the abyss

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/march-folly-repeated-stefan-gijssels
gggg gggg
2021-08-05 01:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe. Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the damage to believe it.
There are still plenty people who fall for the "it's snowing somewhere else right now" ploy.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rare-snowfall-blankets-cities-across-brazil-180978339/
Bob Harper
2021-08-06 18:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe. Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the damage to believe it.
'
I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks. We flew to Milwaukee from
Portland, then drove almost 1700 miles in a fossil-fueled vehicle (33
MPG, though), so I suppose that makes me a villain to some.

That said, I commend to all here this essay by Bjorn Lomborg, which
appears in today's WSJ. As they have a paywall, I'm posting the full text:

Climate Change Doesn’t Cause All Disasters
Warming annually causes about 120,000 heat deaths but prevents nearly
300,000 cold deaths. by Blorn Lomborg



By Bjorn Lomborg
Aug. 5, 2021 12:17 pm ET


Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.
That old quip, often attributed to Mark Twain or his friend Charles
Dudley Warner, now guides most news coverage of severe weather. The
media say that natural disasters are a result of climate change and we
need to adopt radical policies to combat them.

But this framing tells only a small part of what is scientifically
known. Take the recent flooding in Germany and Belgium, which many,
including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are blaming on climate
change. Yet a new study of more than 10,000 rivers around the world
shows that most rivers now flood less. What used to be a 50-year flood
in the 1970s happens every 152 years today, likely due to urbanization,
flood-control measures, and changes in climate.

Some rivers still flood, and reporters flock there, but more scare
stories don’t mean more global flooding. The river Ahr, where most of
the German flood deaths occurred, had a spectacular flow on July 14,
2021, but it was lower than deadly flows in 1804 and 1910. The real
cause of increased fatalities from riverine flooding in Germany and many
other places is more people building settlements on flood plains,
leaving the water no place to go. Instead of more solar panels and wind
turbines to combat climate change, riverside communities need better
water management. And foremost, they need a well-functioning warning
system so they can evacuate before disaster strikes.

Here, Germany has failed spectacularly. Following the deadly European
floods in 2002, Germany built an extensive warning system, but during a
test last September most warning measures, including sirens and text
alerts, didn’t work. The European Flood Awareness System predicted the
floods nine days in advance and formally warned the German government
four days in advance, yet most people on the ground were left unaware.
Hannah Cloke, the hydrologist who set up the system, called it “a
monumental failure.”


But of course, blaming the deadly floods on climate change instead of
taking responsibility for the missed early warnings is convenient for
politicians like Ms. Merkel, who, during a visit to Schuld, a devastated
village on the Ahr, said, ”We must get faster in the battle against
climate change.”


Similarly, climate change is often blamed for wildfires in the U.S., but
the reason for them is mostly poor forest management like failing to
remove flammable undergrowth and allowing houses to be built in
fire-prone areas. Despite breathless climate reporting, in 2021 the
burned area to date is the fourth-lowest of the past 11 years. The area
that burned in 2020 was only 11% of the area that did in the early
1900s. Contrary to climate clichés, annual global burned area has
declined since 1900 and continues to fall.

We have data on global deaths from all climate-related weather disasters
such as floods, droughts, storms and fire from the International
Disaster Database. In the 1920s, these disasters killed almost half a
million people on average each year. The current climate narrative would
suggest that natural disasters are ever deadlier, but that isn’t true.
Over the past century, climate-related deaths have dropped to fewer than
20,000 on average each year, even though the global population has
quadrupled since 1920.

And look at 2021, which is now being branded the year of climate
catastrophes. Add the deaths from the North American heat dome, from
floods in Germany and Belgium, from Indian climate-related catastrophes
that you may not have heard about, and from more than 200 other
catastrophes. Adjusted to a full year, climate-related weather disasters
could cause about 6,000 deaths in 2021. With greater wealth and
technological development, we no longer see half a million or even
18,000 lives lost to climate-related weather disasters, but 6,000.

Every death is a tragedy, yet current warming is avoiding many more
tragedies.

One of the few well-documented effects of climate change is more heat
waves, which have made headlines around the world this summer. But
global warming also reduces cold waves, which kill many more people
globally than heat waves, according to a new study in the Lancet.

According to the study, temperature increases over the past two decades
in the U.S. and Canada cause about 7,200 more heat deaths a year. But
the study also shows that warming prevents about 21,000 cold deaths a
year. Globally, the study shows that climate change annually causes
almost 120,000 additional heat deaths but avoids nearly 300,000 cold deaths.

Climate change is a real problem we should fix. But we can’t rely on
apocalyptic stories when crafting policy. We must see all the data.

Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting
fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How
Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to
Fix the Planet.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire away.

Bob Harper
MiNe109
2021-08-06 19:13:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe.
Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to
change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the
damage to believe it. '
I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks. We flew to Milwaukee
from Portland, then drove almost 1700 miles in a fossil-fueled
vehicle (33 MPG, though), so I suppose that makes me a villain to
some.
That said, I commend to all here this essay by Bjorn Lomborg, which
Climate Change Doesn’t Cause All Disasters Warming annually causes
about 120,000 heat deaths but prevents nearly 300,000 cold deaths. by
Blorn Lomborg
Fire away.
Recent review of Lomborg:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html

As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that deserve
to be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens a wound
the writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book, though, I felt
compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to convert anyone
worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg’s work would be
downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there
was merit in its arguments.

This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. It’s
nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution.
Frank Berger
2021-08-06 19:34:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MiNe109
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe. Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the
damage to believe it. '
I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks. We flew to Milwaukee
from Portland, then drove almost 1700 miles in a fossil-fueled
vehicle (33 MPG, though), so I suppose that makes me a villain to
some.
That said, I commend to all here this essay by Bjorn Lomborg, which appears in today's WSJ. As they have a paywall, I'm posting the full
Climate Change Doesn’t Cause All Disasters Warming annually causes
about 120,000 heat deaths but prevents nearly 300,000 cold deaths. by
Blorn Lomborg
Fire away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html
As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that deserve to be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens a wound the writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book, though, I felt compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to convert anyone worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg’s work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading anyone that there was merit in its arguments.
This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous. It’s nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution.
Lomborg on Stiglitz on Lomborg:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/edswahs/2020/08/03/lomborg-on-stiglitz-on-lomborg/
Bob Harper
2021-08-06 22:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe.
Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to
change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the
damage to believe it. '
I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks. We flew to Milwaukee
from Portland, then drove almost 1700 miles in a fossil-fueled
vehicle (33 MPG, though), so I suppose that makes me a villain to
some.
That said, I commend to all here this essay by Bjorn Lomborg, which
Climate Change Doesn’t Cause All Disasters Warming annually causes
about 120,000 heat deaths but prevents nearly 300,000 cold deaths. by
Blorn Lomborg
Fire away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html
As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that
deserve to be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens
a wound the writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book,
though, I felt compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to
convert anyone worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg’s
work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading
anyone that there was merit in its arguments.
This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous.
It’s nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution.
https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/edswahs/2020/08/03/lomborg-on-stiglitz-on-lomborg/
Frank, the problem is that Lomborg, like Shellenberger and Koonin, does
not buy into the groupthink, but rather thinks for himself. That is not
allowed, hence the outrage.


Bob Harper
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-07 01:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Frank Berger
Post by MiNe109
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Andy Evans
Record temperatures around the world, forest fires across Europe.
Surely the message is starting to get through that things have to
change, and quickly?
It seems to me that people have to actually see (and feel) the
damage to believe it. '
I've been on vacation for a couple of weeks. We flew to Milwaukee
from Portland, then drove almost 1700 miles in a fossil-fueled
vehicle (33 MPG, though), so I suppose that makes me a villain to
some.
That said, I commend to all here this essay by Bjorn Lomborg, which
Climate Change Doesn’t Cause All Disasters Warming annually causes
about 120,000 heat deaths but prevents nearly 300,000 cold deaths. by
Blorn Lomborg
Fire away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/books/review/bjorn-lomborg-false-alarm-joseph-stiglitz.html
As a matter of policy, I typically decline to review books that
deserve to be panned. You only make enemies. Even a slight barb opens
a wound the writer will seldom forget. In the case of this book,
though, I felt compelled to forgo this policy. Written with an aim to
convert anyone worried about the dangers of climate change, Lomborg’s
work would be downright dangerous were it to succeed in persuading
anyone that there was merit in its arguments.
This book proves the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous.
It’s nominally about air pollution. It’s really about mind pollution.
https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/edswahs/2020/08/03/lomborg-on-stiglitz-on-lomborg/
Frank, the problem is that Lomborg, like Shellenberger and Koonin, does
not buy into the groupthink, but rather thinks for himself. That is not
allowed, hence the outrage.
Bob Harper
Of course they do. It's just a different group.
Todd Michel McComb
2021-08-07 03:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-07 15:44:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
HT
2021-08-07 16:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?

Henk
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-08 15:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.

https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Frank Berger
2021-08-08 15:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
Your statement does not necessarily have any meaningful content. As she explains the small amount of funding she has received from fossil fuel industries for storm forecasting has no implication for bias on her part. Why not just evaluate what she says instead of impugning here for a barely existing affiliation?
Post by Steven Bornfeld
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Andy Evans
2021-08-08 16:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, 8 August 2021 at 16:46:13 UTC+1, Frank Berger wrote:
Why not just evaluate what she says instead of impugning here for a barely existing affiliation? >>

Why not evaluate the overwhelming amount of mainstream climate change science, instead of dredging up all these people on the fringes of the mainstream? What particular attraction do they have, or is it just that you like their opinions?
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-08 18:00:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Frank Berger
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed
by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
Your statement does not necessarily have any meaningful content. As she
explains the small amount of funding she has received from fossil fuel
industries for storm forecasting has no implication for bias on her
part.   Why not just evaluate what she says instead of impugning here
for a barely existing affiliation?
Post by Steven Bornfeld
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
I'm not a climatologist. How can you say that her funding does not pose
a conflict?
I've already said I don't have standing to evaluate the substance of
what she says. However, I know very smart and knowledgeable people IN
THE FIELD who are very familiar with her work. Those people do NOT have
any conflict I have been able to discover.
HT
2021-08-08 17:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Thanks. An interesting article and an interesting scientist.

I agree with her on at least these two points:
1. The earth is changing, and so is the climate - not just since the arrival of Homo sapiens.
2. We don't know exactly how the climate will change. The sequence a, b, c, d need not be followed by e. Conversely, there is no certainty that the measures we take can prevent the sequence from being followed by e.
Let alone that we can be sure that our measures will only have the expected positive effect (vaccines don't).

This is not defeatist, but an invitation to keep our eyes wide open and avoid Draconian top-down measures.
Also, because our governments have proven to be easily overtaxed when they have to ensure that measures are implemented wisely.

Henk
Todd Michel McComb
2021-08-08 17:15:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
This is not defeatist, but an invitation to keep our eyes wide
open and avoid Draconian top-down measures.
Ignoring the preponderance of evidence because something "might"
not be well enough understood is NOT keeping one's eyes open.
Indeed, once one starts dismissing the likely outcomes (in anything...)
because of some possibility of doubt, everything is turned on its
head. Such a situation is pure wishful thinking.
Steven Bornfeld
2021-08-08 18:08:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by HT
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Thanks. An interesting article and an interesting scientist.
1. The earth is changing, and so is the climate - not just since the arrival of Homo sapiens.
2. We don't know exactly how the climate will change. The sequence a, b, c, d need not be followed by e. Conversely, there is no certainty that the measures we take can prevent the sequence from being followed by e.
Let alone that we can be sure that our measures will only have the expected positive effect (vaccines don't).
This is not defeatist, but an invitation to keep our eyes wide open and avoid Draconian top-down measures.
Also, because our governments have proven to be easily overtaxed when they have to ensure that measures are implemented wisely.
Henk
You are not "wrong" per se; but what exactly does "keep(ing) our eyes
wide open really mean?
My oceanographer friend is convinced it is too late to prevent very
serious consequences to the globe, making large parts of the inhabitable
world uninhabitable. So the question of course becomes can we take
meaningful action at this point? I don't know the answer to that, nor
what we will accomplish IF we can take meaningful action.
I'm probably no more confident in what governments can do than you are.
But what I'm hearing and seeing is that individual action ain't gonna
cut it.
Todd Michel McComb
2021-08-08 18:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So the question of course becomes can we take meaningful action
at this point?
We can still do better & worse things. That will remain true.

But yes, the possibility of a "soft landing" is no more. The 2020s
were always the "drop dead" decade, and some people are dismayed
that we're passing thresholds at their start, but it's not surprising
after the various accelerating factors of the past few years....

Most of us in the 1990s believed these problems to be solveable.
For instance, my personal estimate is that US consumer culture is
at approximately triple the level of consumption it would have been
simply absent exhortations to consume more. That's without "sacrifice"
-- other than, I suppose, in the area of corporate greed. (And
then other countries have continued to follow the bad US example
in this regard.)
gggg gggg
2021-08-08 18:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Thanks. An interesting article and an interesting scientist.
1. The earth is changing, and so is the climate - not just since the arrival of Homo sapiens.
2. We don't know exactly how the climate will change. The sequence a, b, c, d need not be followed by e. Conversely, there is no certainty that the measures we take can prevent the sequence from being followed by e.
Let alone that we can be sure that our measures will only have the expected positive effect (vaccines don't).
This is not defeatist, but an invitation to keep our eyes wide open and avoid Draconian top-down measures.
Also, because our governments have proven to be easily overtaxed when they have to ensure that measures are implemented wisely.
Henk
You are not "wrong" per se; but what exactly does "keep(ing) our eyes
wide open really mean?
My oceanographer friend is convinced it is too late to prevent very
serious consequences to the globe, making large parts of the inhabitable
world uninhabitable. So the question of course becomes can we take
meaningful action at this point? I don't know the answer to that, nor
what we will accomplish IF we can take meaningful action.
I'm probably no more confident in what governments can do than you are...
Concerning "...what governments can do...":

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics/c/s4J4N3o-H6Q/m/3VbAssCiBAAJ
gggg gggg
2021-08-08 18:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Thanks. An interesting article and an interesting scientist.
1. The earth is changing, and so is the climate - not just since the arrival of Homo sapiens.
2. We don't know exactly how the climate will change. The sequence a, b, c, d need not be followed by e. Conversely, there is no certainty that the measures we take can prevent the sequence from being followed by e.
Let alone that we can be sure that our measures will only have the expected positive effect (vaccines don't).
This is not defeatist, but an invitation to keep our eyes wide open and avoid Draconian top-down measures.
Also, because our governments have proven to be easily overtaxed when they have to ensure that measures are implemented wisely.
Henk
You are not "wrong" per se; but what exactly does "keep(ing) our eyes
wide open really mean?
My oceanographer friend is convinced it is too late to prevent very
serious consequences to the globe, making large parts of the inhabitable
world uninhabitable. So the question of course becomes can we take
meaningful action at this point? I don't know the answer to that, nor
what we will accomplish IF we can take meaningful action.
I'm probably no more confident in what governments can do than you are...
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.politics/c/s4J4N3o-H6Q/m/3VbAssCiBAAJ
Tonight, see the following tv program about "...officials [who] failed to act":

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-lewis-premonition-60-minutes-2021-08-01/
HT
2021-08-08 20:10:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Steven Bornfeld
Post by HT
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do. It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook. There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior.... Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose. My oceanographer friend seems to hold a
special antipathy for Judith Curry. I certainly don't have the training
or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does. I've listened to
some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an
out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers. From
his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of
course he ain't.
If I understand correctly, she wants to know if the measures proposed by her colleagues make sense. I'd want to know that ... Don't you?
Henk
Of course; but she is not necessarily an honest broker of facts.
https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
Thanks. An interesting article and an interesting scientist.
1. The earth is changing, and so is the climate - not just since the arrival of Homo sapiens.
2. We don't know exactly how the climate will change. The sequence a, b, c, d need not be followed by e. Conversely, there is no certainty that the measures we take can prevent the sequence from being followed by e.
Let alone that we can be sure that our measures will only have the expected positive effect (vaccines don't).
This is not defeatist, but an invitation to keep our eyes wide open and avoid Draconian top-down measures.
Also, because our governments have proven to be easily overtaxed when they have to ensure that measures are implemented wisely.
Henk
You are not "wrong" per se; but what exactly does "keep(ing) our eyes
wide open really mean?
My oceanographer friend is convinced it is too late to prevent very
serious consequences to the globe, making large parts of the inhabitable
world uninhabitable. So the question of course becomes can we take
meaningful action at this point? I don't know the answer to that, nor
what we will accomplish IF we can take meaningful action.
I'm probably no more confident in what governments can do than you are.
But what I'm hearing and seeing is that individual action ain't gonna
cut it.
If your friend the oceanographer is right, and it is too late to prevent climate change, then we need only worry about the consequences.
By focusing on preventing what cannot be prevented, we are only making the problem worse.

In that context, it is interesting what Judith Curry says about predictability. We don't yet know what the consequences of climate change will be.
"Large parts of the world will become uninhabitable" is too vague. Perhaps Curry and her colleagues can fill that in?

Henk

Frank Berger
2021-08-08 05:08:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Todd Michel McComb
Of course they do.  It's just a different group. [re: groupthink]
And someone like me who's been involved in this arena for decades
is just a kook.  There are various labels available for the do-nothings
to feel superior....  Doing nothing always has a sort of "coolness"
to it, right?
In some quarters, I suppose.  My oceanographer friend seems to hold a special antipathy for Judith Curry.  I certainly don't have the training or standing to evaluate her views, but my buddy does.  I've listened to some of her positions--to me they may be dangerous because she's not an out-and-out lunatic--she SOUNDS credible.
Lomborg seems to be on all the lists of prominent climate deniers.
You have just characterized Lomberg as a "climate denier" when he, in fact, accepts climate change as a problem, but not as big a problem as you do.



From his reputation, one might think that he is a climatologist, which of course he ain't.
raymond....@gmail.com
2021-08-07 01:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
By Bjorn Lomborg
Aug. 5, 2021 12:17 pm ET
. Instead of more solar panels and wind
Post by Bob Harper
turbines to combat climate change, riverside communities need better
water management.
Why has he used the phrase "instead of", as if solar panels and wind energy were not necessary? A clear case of trying to blame alternative sources of energy for water-caused disasters, rather than the real cause, which is climate change.
Post by Bob Harper
Here, Germany has failed spectacularly. Following the deadly European
floods in 2002, Germany built an extensive warning system, but during a
test last September most warning measures, including sirens and text
alerts, didn’t work. The European Flood Awareness System predicted the
floods nine days in advance and formally warned the German government
four days in advance, yet most people on the ground were left unaware.
Hannah Cloke, the hydrologist who set up the system, called it “a
monumental failure.”
Maybe true, but the above doesn't address the climate issue, merely pointing out human failure. More obfuscation, and intended to deflect from the real cause of the floods. Which is - climate change.
Post by Bob Harper
But of course, blaming the deadly floods on climate change instead of
taking responsibility for the missed early warnings is convenient for
politicians like Ms. Merkel, who, during a visit to Schuld, a devastated
village on the Ahr, said, ”We must get faster in the battle against
climate change.”
As I pointed out above, Lomborg is confusing, quite deliberately of course, the effects of the floods, with the cause of the floods. The cause is climate change, and Merkel was merely trying to deflect from political failure. She is after all a politician even if perhaps one of the more intelligent.
Post by Bob Harper
Similarly, climate change is often blamed for wildfires in the U.S., but
the reason for them is mostly poor forest management like failing to
remove flammable undergrowth and allowing houses to be built in
fire-prone areas. Despite breathless climate reporting, in 2021 the
burned area to date is the fourth-lowest of the past 11 years. The area
that burned in 2020 was only 11% of the area that did in the early
1900s. Contrary to climate clichés, annual global burned area has
declined since 1900 and continues to fall.
Again, good forest management, is not related to the cause of climate change. It is related to poor management. Surely people cannot fail to see the difference?
Post by Bob Harper
We have data on global deaths from all climate-related weather disasters
such as floods, droughts, storms and fire from the International
Disaster Database. In the 1920s, these disasters killed almost half a
million people on average each year. The current climate narrative would
suggest that natural disasters are ever deadlier, but that isn’t true.
Over the past century, climate-related deaths have dropped to fewer than
20,000 on average each year, even though the global population has
quadrupled since 1920.
Where does Lomborg get this unsupported by science data? The Institute of Business Studies?
Post by Bob Harper
And look at 2021, which is now being branded the year of climate
catastrophes. Add the deaths from the North American heat dome, from
floods in Germany and Belgium, from Indian climate-related catastrophes
that you may not have heard about, and from more than 200 other
catastrophes. Adjusted to a full year, climate-related weather disasters
could cause about 6,000 deaths in 2021. With greater wealth and
technological development, we no longer see half a million or even
18,000 lives lost to climate-related weather disasters, but 6,000.
Unbelievable incoherence above. Basically we need less wealth, and more wisdom.
Post by Bob Harper
One of the few well-documented effects of climate change is more heat
waves, which have made headlines around the world this summer. But
global warming also reduces cold waves, which kill many more people
globally than heat waves, according to a new study in the Lancet.
This does not address the effects of global warming, but merely attempts to portray it as some kind of saviour. In short, Lomborg is saying global warming is good.
Post by Bob Harper
According to the study, temperature increases over the past two decades
in the U.S. and Canada cause about 7,200 more heat deaths a year. But
the study also shows that warming prevents about 21,000 cold deaths a
year. Globally, the study shows that climate change annually causes
almost 120,000 additional heat deaths but avoids nearly 300,000 cold deaths.
Cold deaths are mostly caused by people not having sufficient wealth to afford heating. It is as simple as that.
Post by Bob Harper
Climate change is a real problem we should fix. But we can’t rely on
apocalyptic stories when crafting policy. We must see all the data.
I am glad Lomborg has stated that climate change is a real problem.
Post by Bob Harper
Mr. Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting
fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is “False Alarm: How
Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to
Fix the Planet.”
Lomborg is well known in Australia as being a conservative shill for big business, ably supported by cretins such as Tony Abbott, and a whole bunch of conservative politicians, who together have managed to make Australia the worst country globally for doing anything about climate change. The man is not even an idiot.

Ray Hall, Taree
gggg gggg
2021-08-05 01:05:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/opinion/wildfires-oregon-west-congress.html
gggg gggg
2021-08-06 05:02:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/05/civilization-ending-climate-change-is-knocking-on-the-door--unless-we-act-now_partner/
gggg gggg
2021-08-06 05:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
Could N. America freeze?:

https://sports.yahoo.com/study-warns-irreversible-transition-ocean-201451215.html
gggg gggg
2021-08-06 16:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/06/climate-news-un-ipcc/
gggg gggg
2021-08-06 16:10:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://news.yahoo.com/scientists-fear-critical-atlantic-ocean-214801130.html
gggg gggg
2021-08-07 18:36:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by gggg gggg
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/564591-how-severe-is-the-megadrought-in-the-west
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/world/climate-gulf-stream-collapse-warning-study-intl/index.html
Loading...