CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Deleted User wrote:

As we are now proving in this COVID-19 induces economic coma, life goes on and can exist with less economic activity, Just that business & politicians just need to "re-jig" the hard coded growth only economic model to one that can support far fewer full time workers, where UBI is acceptable and the 0.001% do not hoover up most of the global capital. They should recognise the work that automation actually archives as opposed to seeing it as free labour, which has displaced paid labour.

Deleted User wrote:

Yep! I have the popcorn on tap, waiting to see how this all pans out, the pump up & trickle down economic model is so screwed up by the disruption that anything could happen.

Deleted User wrote:

As for climate change, the human terraforming of the planet will continue to cause changes to local weather in most places, I do hope that people will wake up to the fact that (in some places) they now actually have clean air and will fight to keep it that way.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"Political language..... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".

-George Orwell

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/08/the-lies-that-led-to-the-iraq-war-and-the-persistent-myth-of-intelligence-failure/

Never ceases to amaze me just how readily people will gobble up, without question, everything that self serving men in suits tell them to gobble up. Technocratic sycophants ripe for the taking.

Akrasia wrote: »

The intelligence organisations have confirmed that there is absolutely no evidence that this virus was created in a lab
zero

Akrasia wrote: »

We do not have all of the information needed to know for certain

Akrasia wrote: »

The parallels between attitudes and beliefs surrounding this virus and Climate change are many

Akrasia wrote: »

I checked what the expert scientists had to say... not half baked conspiracy theories

Danno wrote: »

Why?, science=knowledge=intelligence.

You blissfully accept "climate science", but are very quick to dismiss agency science!



There is also zero evidence that we didn't too...

Akrasia wrote: »

The US political system is a total train wreck right now

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Frankly, I don't know who to believe about this virus and its origins but it sure was fishy to say the least that Chinese government scientists were working in a Canadian lab several years ago where something very similar was being studied, and then they got kicked out of Canada for violating the terms of their contractual arrangement, and some samples of various pathogens were shipped to Beijing against the wishes of the lab. Now these may all be facts that don't line up to the conclusion that COVID-19 was deliberately created or enhanced for bad purposes, but you can't blame anyone for being suspicious about it, given the nature of the government of China and the relationships of western nations with China (a mixture of fear, respect and entrapment).

FVP3 wrote: »

Climate change.

FVP3 wrote: »

You don't live in the US dude. Both sides are nuts. The US, as a whole, is conspiratorial about other nations, particularly any nation that stands up to it, or stands in the way or global or regional hegemony.

FVP3 wrote: »

Sure because I am pointing to the experts,

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I continue to think that the main problem creating this division of opinion is that one side has attempted to claim absolute certainty about something that is only being estimated, while another side doesn't want to legitimize the debate and awaits a restart from those making the unacceptable pronouncements.

Having said that, the predictable response will be that I am not "following the evidence," in other words, a complete inability to recognize that there could be any merit in the charge of incomplete development of the climate change theory.

So if the climate change theory is incompletely developed, then the agenda that follows is both irrelevant and dangerous. Anyone could have an agenda based on what they believe, see for example widely different political positions on abortion or gay rights. In those sorts of fields, there is no scientific test, it's a moral question and therefore can only be settled by the eventual dominance of one position over its alternative.

With this incomplete science looming over us, the solution is to complete the science. Many of the people who are skeptical of the details of the AGW position are reasonable people who have long ago accepted most other scientific propositions because they see no compelling reason not to accept them. It must be maddening and somewhat difficult to understand this call to go back and finish the work properly, when the workers believe they have done a great job. I think the canary in the coal mine was that exchange over natural variability -- not that the loudest voices on that were necessarily speaking for anyone but themselves, but on the assumption that their views might reflect those of more senior people in the AGW community (something I have not yet totally established to my own satisfaction) then that needs to be revisited, and the Toronto data shows why. There was obviously a much stronger role for natural variability in changes that took place in that data set than is widely accepted by modern climate science. But I consider that to be partly due to a blind spot within modern climate science, it developed more or less out of the marriage of climate change investigation and political theories that would bias the holders towards anti-development solutions. Nobody in that movement apparently wants to engage with these unpleasant realities that climate has shown similar tendencies to decadal change in the past and that a larger part of recent warming could very well be natural in its origins.

If so, we are just wasting our time with these conferences, political pressure movements and other phenomena that cannot change anything even if they succeeded, and I note that success is more or less defined as the failure of development economies. So that is dangerous and with the pandemic as a sort of cautionary tale, just closing down large sectors of economies can only work for a short time before chaos and economic collapse follow.

Now some will argue, scientists should not worry about economic abstractions, this is purely a scientific question. Well not really, the pure scientific question is, how much will sea levels rise and when will they do so? And a secondary question, is there really any substantial danger from other aspects of warming, or is that being overblown to scare people into acting? When I hear such chestnuts as the Syrian civil war being a direct consequence of global warming, I would have to say the AGW lobby has rolled the dice and decided to go "all in" on a theory that has to explain a lot of things that probably cannot be explained by the weather at all. People have been fighting and killing each other in the Middle East since a historical record was kept.

I would like to see the international community acting on the potential for warming, make no mistake about that, because there are things we can do and should do now. But to imagine that it will be preventable if we change "our ways" is to throw out the important foundation of our science in general, that natural variability plays a large role, always has and always will unless we invent climate modification on a much larger scale than increasing greenhouse gases slightly. Yes it leaves a signal in the temperature record, but so do other things.

We are being asked, essentially, to accept that greenhouse gases have some way of increasing the frequency and intensity of the El Nino effect -- because that's what drove the warming phase from 1998 to 2012. I don't see how the physics establishes any such cause and effect. And when there was a massive El Nino in the mid 1870s, guess what happened at Toronto -- the climate warmed by 3 degrees. The years from 1876 to 1881 were considerably warmer than the years up to 1875. Because it was a somewhat colder background global climate, it became highly variable at times and the warming more or less collapsed around mid-1882. The idea that the 1880s were cold because of Krakatoa seems to be fundamentally flawed because the 1880s turned very cool a year before Krakatoa erupted. The eruption may have prolonged what was already going to be a lengthy cold spell (it faded out in North America at least around 1889).

You can't win a debate if nobody says it's a debate, so I don't know what to make of this situation, people who seem to know very little about past weather and climate blandly telling people who I know do understand it in considerable detail that they are not drawing responsible conclusions -- this is rather like the students telling the teacher that he has no clue and they will take over instruction. But in this case the students have a lot of clout with the media and political parties. So we may just have to throw out hands up and say, I give up, go ahead and wreck the economy and see what happens next. It won't be what you expect.

Our findings indicate that reported occurrences of extreme TW have increased rapidly at weather stations and in reanalysis data over the last four decades and that parts of the subtropics are very close to the 35°C survivability limit, which has likely already been reached over both sea and land. These trends highlight the magnitude of the changes that have taken place as a result of the global warming to date. At the spatial scale of reanalysis, we project that TW will regularly exceed 35°C at land grid points with less than 2.5°C of warming since preindustrial—a level that may be reached in the next several decades (35). According to our weather station analysis, emphasizing land grid points underplays the true risks of extreme TW along coastlines, which tends to occur when marine air masses are advected even slightly onshore (14). The southern Persian Gulf shoreline and northern South Asia are home to millions of people, situating them on the front lines of exposure to TW extremes at the edge of and outside the range of natural variability in which our physiology evolved (36). The deadly heat events already experienced in recent decades are indicative of the continuing trend toward increasingly extreme humid heat, and our findings underline that their diverse, consequential, and growing impacts represent a major societal challenge for the coming decades.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/19/eaaw1838

Hooter23 wrote: »

Who is your source RTE news:pac: where you are forced to pay for your own brainwashing...it wasn't too long ago that they used to have ads on tv threatening people with jail if they didnt pay...yeah they are a respectable source to get your news from

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Good for you, but as recent posts have shown, it is you and your beloved 'climate scientists' that unquestioningly buy into and push establishment approved conspiracy theories and not I. That you cannot even acknowledge this shows that you are not really a good faith actor at all, but instead, are little more than a zealot. But no matter, you keep believing what you need to believe in, and I'll do the same.

Nabber wrote: »

That's some leap of faith, scientist, therefore science, therefore my nature is to contribute to science at all causes. Perhaps true of pre-modern science, but today's scientists are regarded with high esteem, this inevitably draws people to associate themselves with science for the approval received from society. I can't speak globally, but in Ireland pay between €50,000 to €75,000 can be expected, hardly on the bread line.

The reward comes from ground breaking discoveries and/or media/entertainment pay outs (not significant I'd imagine)
Probably explains why scientists author and step forward to validate sensationalist claims.

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah yeah yeah, you keep talking about how the coronavirus was a chinese Bioweapon and calling me a conspiracy theorist