I can really recommend Bankless podcast. https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/ really great non spammy content. They have a lot of different people on from all walks of life and really do in-depth interviews.
Which have shown us that we are in much less danger than was originally believed yet the media and politicians keep pushing the climate catastrophist narrative. Thats the actual denial going on here.
Which shouldn't be given a nobel price unless they can explain exactly why which they can't just like we can't really explain why the temperature didn't increase for a period after 2nd world war without getting into speculation.
It's bogus and as far some anything related to scientific standards as we can come.
The source is the reason given. Modelling is NOT physics, it's not even science its statistics and does not actually produce the result that are claimed.
There is a reason why the IPCC comes out with a range and not a specific number. They haven't found the right initial conditions or they would only use his to move forward.
In fact if that had really been the case he should have been the only person who got the prize as that would have been an amazing achievement.
This is just "sciencewashing" speculative modelling based on models about the climate that can't be proven to be correct in the future. (Hence the reason they are not going to stop modelling different initial conditions.
So yes it's political nothing else. Politics not software is eating the world.
It's not like the US system. It's a negative credit score meaning that you start as a good lender and then you can only fuck it up by not paying your bills.
In the US we have positive credit score meaning you have to show you are a good lender to get a better score.
Victims of climate related issues of plummeted the last 150 years. Drought death have plummeted by 98% alone.
The always changing climate is less of a challenge today than it was 200 years ago when we were under 2billion people.
That's the rational lense to look at this through not whether humans have some impact or whether the climate is changing which we do and which it always is.
No it's not and you have not a single scientifically demonstrated foundation for that kind of claims.
Using fossil fuels is saving more lives, in fact it's making it possible for billions of people to live today. That wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels. In fact most of us wouldn't be here.
99% of all the products you take for granted are using fossile fuels.
Medicin, contact lenses, paint, textiles, electronics, windmills, solar cells, concrete, asphalt, heavy machinery, most industrial manufactoring, all types of lubricants, plastic, mining, food production and I could go on.
If you like living you are going to need most of the above. In fact if it wasn't for fossil fuel usage the likely hoood of you being alive let alone as rich as you are today would be very small.
Energy is the industry that powers all other industries. You make that more expensive you make everything more expensive which means more people go hungry, less people can afford medicine, food production becomes more expensive and more people will die. It's really that simple.
If you really believe we can do without all these things I would urge you to live without anything that has been made possible by fossil fuel industry for a month. Then you will realize just how live giving fossile fuel actually is.
Anyone who claims to be "following the science" knows that there is no such thing as "code red" in science and lo and behold it's not what the IPCC report says but a UN representative. This is a media and ideologically driven narrative and have absolutely nothing to do with reality yet it's used to scare people who can do absolutely nothing and will only be used to push draconian and anti-human decisions on the energy front.
Anyone who wants to actually understand what the IPCC is finding should go read the actual report and they will find just like all the other IPCC reports that things are not even close to what the media and environmental organizations want you to believe, in fact, the IPCC reports are getting less concerned not more and you will find there is a lot more uncertainty with a lot of metrics.
There is no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with today let alone in 80 years from now. Yes the use of fossil fuel have externalities, some of them negative luckily most of them positive.
I am not sure why you think it does but let me then be more precise.
1. All choices have consequences. The choice to not use combustion engines would have meant that most of us would not be alive, we wouldn't have the internet or 99% of all the things we take for granted today. The use of combustion engines have positive and negative externalities. The positive far outweighs the negatives. The problems we have to deal with because of our use of combustion engine are better problems to have than those we had before the combustion engine was invented.
2. Said no one ever. Coming up with better alternatives that pollute less is an ongoing project humans have been involved with since the combustion engine was invented.
The issue is when there is no better alternatives and inferior solutions like wind and solar (which btw cannot be created without fossile fuels) is pushed as a better solution even though it means less reliable energy supply. It's one thing to solve with something like fusion or nuclear but what we are seeing currently is creating worse not better problems because it's trying to solve something it can't solve.
3. Humans have the potential of solving any problem they encounter with enough knowledge. There is no guarantee though and the history of the world is that 99.9999% of all species went extinct, but the fact that we can come up with something like a combustion engine makes us able to potentially solve the problems the climate have always presented us with.
With regards to wind and solar. No, just know, even in principle it can't be a better solution. It's simply a question of physics and energy density.
For some things it's great but it's unreliable and completely depending on the weather which means that we have to create backup systems of coal, gas, oil and nuclear to deal with it just as we are doing today which only makes the entire sytem more complex, less reliable and more expensive.
So lets get alternatives to fossil fuels as fast as possible, but they have to be better not worse in terms of reliability, price and scale.
I don't care about models either exactly because there IS variance and because the climate is a dynamic system.
We also know that to be true historically.
Climate itself varies over time. So to the extent that permafrost is time specific speculation it's not really useful for anything.
The only thing I worry about is to which extent the current hysteria ends up pushing catastrophic political decisions which will kill millions of people not in 80 years but today. Trying to push for alternatives to oil, gas and coal when there is no real contender besides nuclear is going to make everything much more expensive.
When everything becomes more expensive it means people can afford less. This will especially hit the poorest. So when faced with that kind of choice I choose.
Combustion was done in the way it was because it solved a problem which was much bigger than the ones it created. The problem of how to make combustion engines cleaner is a much better problem to have than coming up with a reliable, clean and plentiful energy resource.
You most certainly wouldn't be around and the internet certainly wouldn't if it wasn't for combustion engine freeing up time for humans to focus on other things than just surviving.
So again. I am unconvinced by the revisionist historical logic at display here. The world is like it is for a reason the combusting engine have saved many many many many more lives than it's taken.
The climate models aren't really improving and to the extent they have the IPCC is getting less and less concerned. There is still quite a big spread between the predictions from no problem at all to world is ending.
You don't have to choose between my forecasting or the climate models you just have to understand how models work to realize that you aren't being as critically thinking as you might think you are.