2020 is on course to be the warmest year on record(weforum.org)
weforum.org
2020 is on course to be the warmest year on record
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/climate-change-environmnet-earth-temperature-global-warming-heat/
25 comments
A record it will likely hold for just one year.
We have global lockdowns with dramatically reduced amounts of automobile usage. We should be seeing at least some reduction in temperatures.
Also kind of inaccurate title. 115,000 years ago during the eemian period the Earth was 2 celcius warmer than today. More than what the predictions of climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot...
50 million years ago the Earth was 14 celcius warmer.
Also kind of inaccurate title. 115,000 years ago during the eemian period the Earth was 2 celcius warmer than today. More than what the predictions of climate change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot...
50 million years ago the Earth was 14 celcius warmer.
> We have global lockdowns with dramatically reduced amounts of automobile usage. We should be seeing at least some reduction in temperatures.
Temperatures are correlated with the stocks, not the flows, of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Temperatures are correlated with the stocks, not the flows, of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We weren't there, we might not survive on that kind of climate for long periods, or the plants/animals we depend on. And the change is happening fast, fast enough to not leave much room for adaptation, you will get extinction of key pieces needed for our survival instead of adaptation. And something that is slower to adapt is a civilization tied to the ground by buildings and agricultural fields.
And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones.
With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages.
And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones.
With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages.
>We weren't there, we might not survive on that kind of climate for long periods, or the plants/animals we depend on. And the change is happening fast, fast enough to not leave much room for adaptation, you will get extinction of key pieces needed for our survival instead of adaptation. And something that is slower to adapt is a civilization tied to the ground by buildings and agricultural fields.
20,000 years ago the Earth was 6 celcius colder. From 20,000-10,000 years ago the Earth warmed 6 celcius. Humans benefitted greatly from this warming and we didn't yet have technology which enables us to survive extinction.
I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate.
>And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones.
We could discuss why you believe that science to be inaccurate. Could you tell me more please?
>With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages.
I'm not sure I necessarily follow. The paris/kyoto accords are focusing on reducing emissions but your assertion is that we are passed the limit and that it continues due to a positive feedback loop. Then the proposals by the paris and kyoto accords are wrong. That would make me want to re-evaluate the entire topic.
Did you know that after 9/11 terrorist attacks and air traffic being grounded for 3 days dropped global temperatures by 1.1 celcius? Certainly something the airlines don't want the public to know; the amount of planes with giant engines spewing ridiculous amounts of diesel/jet fuel in the upper atmosphere has a huge effect on temperature.
Obviously we didnt end airtravel but we have dramatically reduced the amount of planes in the air. People are staying home in lockdown. We absolutely should be seeing reductions in temperature. Since we aren't, it makes me question the original premise.
20,000 years ago the Earth was 6 celcius colder. From 20,000-10,000 years ago the Earth warmed 6 celcius. Humans benefitted greatly from this warming and we didn't yet have technology which enables us to survive extinction.
I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate.
>And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones.
We could discuss why you believe that science to be inaccurate. Could you tell me more please?
>With the lockdown, less circulation and flying, it may have helped to add less carbon to the atmosphere than we the previous year. But adding less doesn't mean that will be a reduction of what is already is in excess, the carbon added to the atmosphere could stay there from decades to centuries, and we keep adding new carbon to that furnace (fossil fuels, and positive feedback releasing frozen carbon around the poles). Even with full zero emission the carbon that is already there will keep increasing global temperature averages.
I'm not sure I necessarily follow. The paris/kyoto accords are focusing on reducing emissions but your assertion is that we are passed the limit and that it continues due to a positive feedback loop. Then the proposals by the paris and kyoto accords are wrong. That would make me want to re-evaluate the entire topic.
Did you know that after 9/11 terrorist attacks and air traffic being grounded for 3 days dropped global temperatures by 1.1 celcius? Certainly something the airlines don't want the public to know; the amount of planes with giant engines spewing ridiculous amounts of diesel/jet fuel in the upper atmosphere has a huge effect on temperature.
Obviously we didnt end airtravel but we have dramatically reduced the amount of planes in the air. People are staying home in lockdown. We absolutely should be seeing reductions in temperature. Since we aren't, it makes me question the original premise.
It doesn't matter how frequently or uneventfully my car has been at 0 or 60 mph. If it goes from 60 to 0 too fast (e.g. as it would upon contact with a sturdy tree), I will probably not have a good day.
If you're in default on debts and the debt collectors are stalking you, you do need to stop spending and paying down debts -- merely slowing your spending, not paying anything off and then continuing to get collections calls does not rationally conclude with "boy, I guess this whole concept of fiscal responsibility is debunked!"
If you're in default on debts and the debt collectors are stalking you, you do need to stop spending and paying down debts -- merely slowing your spending, not paying anything off and then continuing to get collections calls does not rationally conclude with "boy, I guess this whole concept of fiscal responsibility is debunked!"
> 20,000 years ago the Earth was 6 celcius colder. From 20,000-10,000 years ago the Earth warmed 6 celcius. Humans benefitted greatly from this warming and we didn't yet have technology which enables us to survive extinction.
We were leaving an ice age. The end of it enabled agriculture, more permanent settlements and civilization. Now we are more tied to the land, and we are far more than what we've been 15k years ago.
> I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate.
Don't look at the photo, look at the movie. You are in the middle of it. Even without our intervention, it will keep warming up because the added carbon to the system. And it is a fast movie. Take https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a reference (it is visual enough, and backed with strong enough science), it took a thousand years to change just a degree, we are doing twice of that amount in 50.
>>And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones.
>We could discuss why you believe that science to be inaccurate. Could you tell me more please?
I correct myself, ice cores don't get that far, they can be used to measure less than a million of years ago.
The period you said that had like 12ºC over current temperature seem to be the Paleocene-Eocene termal maximum, google for it, it was caused by CO2 (tectonic activity in the oceans) and caused massive extinctions. And still, it was a process that lasted 10k years. We are doing that at a much faster pace.
> I'm not sure I necessarily follow. The paris/kyoto accords are focusing on reducing emissions but your assertion is that we are passed the limit and that it continues due to a positive feedback loop. Then the proposals by the paris and kyoto accords are wrong. That would make me want to re-evaluate the entire topic.
That positive feedback loop may have smaller dimensions and impact (yet, at least) than what we keep doing. But will add something even if we stop adding. And it is not just adding, but what is in place already.
> Did you know that after 9/11 terrorist attacks and air traffic being grounded for 3 days dropped global temperatures by 1.1 celcius? Certainly something the airlines don't want the public to know; the amount of planes with giant engines spewing ridiculous amounts of diesel/jet fuel in the upper atmosphere has a huge effect on temperature.
Regarding the planes for 3 days, we are dealing with global yearly averages of temperatures. What happens over 3 days is weather, not climate.
We were leaving an ice age. The end of it enabled agriculture, more permanent settlements and civilization. Now we are more tied to the land, and we are far more than what we've been 15k years ago.
> I believe asserting that climate change of an average increase of 1.8celcius as extinction level is quite inaccurate.
Don't look at the photo, look at the movie. You are in the middle of it. Even without our intervention, it will keep warming up because the added carbon to the system. And it is a fast movie. Take https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a reference (it is visual enough, and backed with strong enough science), it took a thousand years to change just a degree, we are doing twice of that amount in 50.
>>And even if you can call "record" what can be indirectly deduced from ice cores, the records they are talking are methodically measuring and registering them live. Those records are the broken ones.
>We could discuss why you believe that science to be inaccurate. Could you tell me more please?
I correct myself, ice cores don't get that far, they can be used to measure less than a million of years ago.
The period you said that had like 12ºC over current temperature seem to be the Paleocene-Eocene termal maximum, google for it, it was caused by CO2 (tectonic activity in the oceans) and caused massive extinctions. And still, it was a process that lasted 10k years. We are doing that at a much faster pace.
> I'm not sure I necessarily follow. The paris/kyoto accords are focusing on reducing emissions but your assertion is that we are passed the limit and that it continues due to a positive feedback loop. Then the proposals by the paris and kyoto accords are wrong. That would make me want to re-evaluate the entire topic.
That positive feedback loop may have smaller dimensions and impact (yet, at least) than what we keep doing. But will add something even if we stop adding. And it is not just adding, but what is in place already.
> Did you know that after 9/11 terrorist attacks and air traffic being grounded for 3 days dropped global temperatures by 1.1 celcius? Certainly something the airlines don't want the public to know; the amount of planes with giant engines spewing ridiculous amounts of diesel/jet fuel in the upper atmosphere has a huge effect on temperature.
Regarding the planes for 3 days, we are dealing with global yearly averages of temperatures. What happens over 3 days is weather, not climate.
>We were leaving an ice age. The end of it enabled agriculture, more permanent settlements and civilization. Now we are more tied to the land, and we are far more than what we've been 15k years ago.
The argument that was made was that we can't withstand 1.8celcius increase in temperatures as a species and we are about to go extinct. I showed that we warmed 6 celcius and benefitted.
>Don't look at the photo, look at the movie. You are in the middle of it. Even without our intervention, it will keep warming up because the added carbon to the system. And it is a fast movie. Take https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a reference (it is visual enough, and backed with strong enough science), it took a thousand years to change just a degree, we are doing twice of that amount in 50.
While I like Xkcd like the next guy. My link showed a 6 degree increase. The xkcd comic for some reason is only showing 4 celcius. So I'm questioning the veracity of the comic naturally.
I also see that they too have graphed the RCP8.5 as a 4 celcius increase on 'the current path' which I addressed in my comments. The wiki page on RCP8.5 clearly indicates is that it's NOT the current path and was never ever portrayed as the current path by the IPCC.
Furthermore, the actual path we are on given we have taken measures in the last 10+ years to reduce emissions is RCP4.5 which is 1.8 celcius. The optimistic scenario. Which is great, I am optimistic that the actions we are taking are good and working.
>I correct myself, ice cores don't get that far, they can be used to measure less than a million of years ago.
So you're asserting all temperature record in the graphs are fabricated? Certainly makes the entire graph subject. Perhaps all of the temperature growth is fabricated?
>The period you said that had like 12ºC over current temperature seem to be the Paleocene-Eocene termal maximum, google for it, it was caused by CO2 (tectonic activity in the oceans) and caused massive extinctions. And still, it was a process that lasted 10k years. We are doing that at a much faster pace.
You just said that we don't really know beyond a million years ago. Googling this event as I have in the past, "Discriminating between different possible causes of the PETM is difficult. Temperatures were rising globally at a steady pace, and a mechanism must be invoked to produce an instantaneous spike which may have been accentuated by positive feedbacks."
In other words we don't really know. I think the more important problem is that climate change is very real, but humans were certainly not around for this one and yet it changed far greater than what is happening on Earth. It really pokes some major holes in the predictions of climate change. Especially if we are even the ones doing it.
>That positive feedback loop may have smaller dimensions and impact (yet, at least) than what we keep doing. But will add something even if we stop adding. And it is not just adding, but what is in place already.
If I am understanding correctly, the positive feedback loop is set. The only possible solution to solve climate change is complete abolition of emissions. Why then does the IPCC not propose this? Why does our current path seem to be mapping to RCP4.5 and the issue not be as bad as it is?
>Regarding the planes for 3 days, we are dealing with global yearly averages of temperatures. What happens over 3 days is weather, not climate.
Global temperature decreases is not weather. This is why the "Green New Deal" included complete ban on airplanes and large ships. Mind you, AOC was literally the only person to vote for it. It was unanimously killed by democrats and republicans.
The argument that was made was that we can't withstand 1.8celcius increase in temperatures as a species and we are about to go extinct. I showed that we warmed 6 celcius and benefitted.
>Don't look at the photo, look at the movie. You are in the middle of it. Even without our intervention, it will keep warming up because the added carbon to the system. And it is a fast movie. Take https://xkcd.com/1732/ as a reference (it is visual enough, and backed with strong enough science), it took a thousand years to change just a degree, we are doing twice of that amount in 50.
While I like Xkcd like the next guy. My link showed a 6 degree increase. The xkcd comic for some reason is only showing 4 celcius. So I'm questioning the veracity of the comic naturally.
I also see that they too have graphed the RCP8.5 as a 4 celcius increase on 'the current path' which I addressed in my comments. The wiki page on RCP8.5 clearly indicates is that it's NOT the current path and was never ever portrayed as the current path by the IPCC.
Furthermore, the actual path we are on given we have taken measures in the last 10+ years to reduce emissions is RCP4.5 which is 1.8 celcius. The optimistic scenario. Which is great, I am optimistic that the actions we are taking are good and working.
>I correct myself, ice cores don't get that far, they can be used to measure less than a million of years ago.
So you're asserting all temperature record in the graphs are fabricated? Certainly makes the entire graph subject. Perhaps all of the temperature growth is fabricated?
>The period you said that had like 12ºC over current temperature seem to be the Paleocene-Eocene termal maximum, google for it, it was caused by CO2 (tectonic activity in the oceans) and caused massive extinctions. And still, it was a process that lasted 10k years. We are doing that at a much faster pace.
You just said that we don't really know beyond a million years ago. Googling this event as I have in the past, "Discriminating between different possible causes of the PETM is difficult. Temperatures were rising globally at a steady pace, and a mechanism must be invoked to produce an instantaneous spike which may have been accentuated by positive feedbacks."
In other words we don't really know. I think the more important problem is that climate change is very real, but humans were certainly not around for this one and yet it changed far greater than what is happening on Earth. It really pokes some major holes in the predictions of climate change. Especially if we are even the ones doing it.
>That positive feedback loop may have smaller dimensions and impact (yet, at least) than what we keep doing. But will add something even if we stop adding. And it is not just adding, but what is in place already.
If I am understanding correctly, the positive feedback loop is set. The only possible solution to solve climate change is complete abolition of emissions. Why then does the IPCC not propose this? Why does our current path seem to be mapping to RCP4.5 and the issue not be as bad as it is?
>Regarding the planes for 3 days, we are dealing with global yearly averages of temperatures. What happens over 3 days is weather, not climate.
Global temperature decreases is not weather. This is why the "Green New Deal" included complete ban on airplanes and large ships. Mind you, AOC was literally the only person to vote for it. It was unanimously killed by democrats and republicans.
This assumes that consumer use of automobiles contributes in a significant way to global warming. Supply chain use of automobiles (trucks, trains, planes, ships, etc.) continued throughout lockdown as goods still needed to be delivered to consumers.
>This assumes that consumer use of automobiles contributes in a significant way to global warming. Supply chain use of automobiles (trucks, trains, planes, ships, etc.) continued throughout lockdown as goods still needed to be delivered to consumers.
You are right that we haven't completely ended use of transportation but we have seen decreases in all transportation.
That is the prevailing argument is that we need to reduce CO2 which certainly has happened in 2020. If the fix to climate change is far more significant of a reduction. I posit that the fix is untenable or the premise is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon...
Why does climate change people always focus on 1800s to today? Perhaps it has something to do with a very large swing in solar activity?
You are right that we haven't completely ended use of transportation but we have seen decreases in all transportation.
That is the prevailing argument is that we need to reduce CO2 which certainly has happened in 2020. If the fix to climate change is far more significant of a reduction. I posit that the fix is untenable or the premise is false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Carbon...
Why does climate change people always focus on 1800s to today? Perhaps it has something to do with a very large swing in solar activity?
This stuff has been debunked over and over. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record...
Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time.
But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing"
Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time.
But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing"
>This stuff has been debunked over and over.
Debunked? I linked the science around the subject. I have never seen anyone debunk these scientific theories.
>. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record...
Your link is looking at 1960s and closer. My links are looking at the last 20,000 years. Solar activity dips are not measured in such a short period of time. The solar activity is in the 'modern maximum' for the entire graph from 1960s on. You are not debunking anything with that link. It is of no surprise to me that during a 'modern maximum' solar cycle that temperatures are going up.
>Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time.
The 6 celcius increase in the last 20,000 to 10,000 years ago was something humans greatly benefitted from. The IPCC says that we are going to warm 1.4celcius by 2100. I'm 100% certain that humans can survive and very likely thrive because of this warming.
>But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing"
Are you asserting that I am a denier? I have never been a denier. No, my links literally prove climate change is real. My problem is that people like Al Gore who outright lied about Florida being under water right now. Miami should be completely destroyed right now according to Al Gore.
The problem I have is that people are exaggerating the risk of climate change for their personal gain. Al Gore has significant investment in that field.
My problem is that we have the Mayan Calendar doomsday people now jumping on climate change and saying it's the end times if we dont do something within 10 years. Worse yet, that 'something' is not in line with fixing the problem. It's in line with their political ideology.
Debunked? I linked the science around the subject. I have never seen anyone debunk these scientific theories.
>. Just one example showing increasing temperatures with low solar activity http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record...
Your link is looking at 1960s and closer. My links are looking at the last 20,000 years. Solar activity dips are not measured in such a short period of time. The solar activity is in the 'modern maximum' for the entire graph from 1960s on. You are not debunking anything with that link. It is of no surprise to me that during a 'modern maximum' solar cycle that temperatures are going up.
>Also arguments about temperature millions of years ago are not really meaningful, humans (and most other of the current species) did not live on earth at the time.
The 6 celcius increase in the last 20,000 to 10,000 years ago was something humans greatly benefitted from. The IPCC says that we are going to warm 1.4celcius by 2100. I'm 100% certain that humans can survive and very likely thrive because of this warming.
>But at least the deniers have now as predicted progressed from "it's not happening", to "it's happening but it's not that bad", soon we will be at "it is definitely happening but it's to late now to do anything so might as well do nothing"
Are you asserting that I am a denier? I have never been a denier. No, my links literally prove climate change is real. My problem is that people like Al Gore who outright lied about Florida being under water right now. Miami should be completely destroyed right now according to Al Gore.
The problem I have is that people are exaggerating the risk of climate change for their personal gain. Al Gore has significant investment in that field.
My problem is that we have the Mayan Calendar doomsday people now jumping on climate change and saying it's the end times if we dont do something within 10 years. Worse yet, that 'something' is not in line with fixing the problem. It's in line with their political ideology.
We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will.
Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinctio...
Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinctio...
>We are currently on path to surpass 4-5C increases globally by 2100. And it's an exponential growth; who knows when it might taper off. I certainly don't expect it will just stop increasing when we hit that, although maybe it will.
Happy to tell you that we aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...
The 4-5celcius number you provide comes from the IPCC RCP8.5. Though would be more accurately represented at 2.5-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...
As you can read there. This is a grossly overestimated projection that's worse than worse case scenario.
With all current actions taken by humans on Earth to reduce emissions. We are currently on the RCP4.5 path. So more like an average of 1.8celcius increase. Which is great news, very little impact to our society.
>Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there.
Here's the graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot...
As you can see there's quite the variation over the last 500 million years. For about 200 million years the Earth was 2-10 celcius warmer until that asteroid.
Long story short, the climate change issue is far less problematic than you believe.
Happy to tell you that we aren't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...
The 4-5celcius number you provide comes from the IPCC RCP8.5. Though would be more accurately represented at 2.5-5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...
As you can read there. This is a grossly overestimated projection that's worse than worse case scenario.
With all current actions taken by humans on Earth to reduce emissions. We are currently on the RCP4.5 path. So more like an average of 1.8celcius increase. Which is great news, very little impact to our society.
>Also, 50 million years ago the temperature was that warm but it also happens to be around the time when an impact of a large asteroid caused one of the greatest extinction events in the history of the planet[1]. Not sure if that's relevant to the temperature aspect or not. Just throwing it out there.
Here's the graph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeot...
As you can see there's quite the variation over the last 500 million years. For about 200 million years the Earth was 2-10 celcius warmer until that asteroid.
Long story short, the climate change issue is far less problematic than you believe.
If you don’t see the threat of an increase, and don’t understand why scientists are worried about it, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind about it. Even if it does end up being less of an issue, the risk of it being possibly bad for humans is enough reason for me to want to do something about it.
>If you don’t see the threat of an increase, and don’t understand why scientists are worried about it, then nothing I can say is going to change your mind about it. Even if it does end up being less of an issue, the risk of it being possibly bad for humans is enough reason for me to want to do something about it.
The problem isn't the science. The science clearly is controversial and to date not confirmed. As my devils advocate posting, which only uses scientific positions, clearly explains is that people will attack this science and claim they are 'debunked' or 'just wrong'
The problem is the politics. People who wish to push their ideology have usurped the climate change issue. They propose the only fix to climate change catastrophe is to completely accept their political positions. However, we science deniers haven't given them complete power for 30+ years and so they continue to overexagerate the threat. In 1989: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
The united nation was pushing that it's too late by the year 2000. Their alarmism was wrong and they just kept restarting the number saying another 10 years in 2000. Now if you have seen AOC, we are back to about 10 years from complete disaster. It's the same old story over and over.
The problem is that what if THIS TIME they were right? It's completely unbelievable now.
Look at the people responding to me, they are all asserting that the 'current path' we are on is the IPCC RCP8.5. Which is wrong, the IPCC never asserted that was the expected path. They are outright misrepresenting the threat of climate change. Why are they doing this? Because they wish to take power and push their political ideology.
If you are concerned about climate change risks, you must oppose these people who are abusing the climate change problem for their political gain.
The problem isn't the science. The science clearly is controversial and to date not confirmed. As my devils advocate posting, which only uses scientific positions, clearly explains is that people will attack this science and claim they are 'debunked' or 'just wrong'
The problem is the politics. People who wish to push their ideology have usurped the climate change issue. They propose the only fix to climate change catastrophe is to completely accept their political positions. However, we science deniers haven't given them complete power for 30+ years and so they continue to overexagerate the threat. In 1989: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
The united nation was pushing that it's too late by the year 2000. Their alarmism was wrong and they just kept restarting the number saying another 10 years in 2000. Now if you have seen AOC, we are back to about 10 years from complete disaster. It's the same old story over and over.
The problem is that what if THIS TIME they were right? It's completely unbelievable now.
Look at the people responding to me, they are all asserting that the 'current path' we are on is the IPCC RCP8.5. Which is wrong, the IPCC never asserted that was the expected path. They are outright misrepresenting the threat of climate change. Why are they doing this? Because they wish to take power and push their political ideology.
If you are concerned about climate change risks, you must oppose these people who are abusing the climate change problem for their political gain.
So you're saying you feel they cried wolf before, and you'll never believe them again?
Do you know what happens at the end of that fable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
Do you know what happens at the end of that fable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf
"Their political gain" would still likely bring about changes that would mitigate said "climate change risks".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record