Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[Bioluminescence]

If we are definitely making rare events more frequent and you can definitely reverse that trend by "reducing the impact of climate change" then you would have a case to say to the guy in the third world: -"Look I know it's in your best interests not to buy a scooter instead of walking 5 miles to work to feed your family" and he might be persuaded by the decision.

But that's the point - you can't.

The modelling systems we have can't predict the outcome of our match against Udinese let alone the weather this time next next week let alone changes to the climate 40 years from now.

At the moment you can say to him "According to the data we think human activity is causing climate change but we don't know how much of a contribution it has. We think if you don't buy that scooter it might make a difference but we don't know how much and over how long." Do you think he would think twice before heading off to the Honda dealership?

"Different paths to economic growth", "reducing the impacts of climate change" and using alternative routes of economic development are all weasel words. If fighting climate change meant relatively low impact measures like separating out rubbish so it can be recycled easier then everyone can pretty much get on board - as they do - if only to shut the Eco-mentalists up for half an hour.

But when you are talking about restricting growth in developing countries you are going to need a higher standard of proof. Economic growth, more than democracy, education and even the rule of law is the best bet for most of these people to improve their lot and those of their families and your shrill assertions that the argument is settled and glib comments about changing their economies is not hitting home in the real world. And rightly so.

Scientific theories are not about proof, they're about probabilities. And the probability of a 3ºC warming is much more likely than the probability of a 1ºC warming for a CO2 doubling. But I doubt there will ever be enough evidence for some, because having to take action goes against their ideology or vested interests - that's why there are still some people doubting the link between tobacco and cancer for example. All along contrarians have dismissed the science - they first claimed that there was no warming and then that the warming was natural. Now they accept the part played by humans, but claim that the impacts will be minimal or there's nothing we can do. They have been wrong time and again, yet some still seem to think their word is gospel.

Climate models have actually been pretty accurate in predicting a temperature rise of 0.2ºC per decade over the long term. They are improving all the time and most importantly, those who claim that climate sensitivity is low have failed to show this conclusively.

And again you harp on about your imaginary arguments, such as me wanting to restrict growth. I'm intrigued as to why you feel the need to do this since I've already told you you're wrong - we don't live in a dichotomous world where it's either growth using fossil fuels or no growth. There are other ways of doing things.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

You don't understand statistics. Within a chaotic complex system it is impossible to predict an exact outcome. It is not a deterministic system, but it is perfectly possible to model the system and ascertain that there will be a vastly increased probability of extreme weather. The position of rejecting all modelling because the weather is not deterministic is frankly so bizarre that it fatally undermines your credibility on the whole issue.

I understand enough statistics to realise you missed the point with three of your four sentences - that's like what? 75%?

The fact is I'm not the problem - the problem is the people whose lives depend on economic growth.

If you want to persuade them to change how they live you'll need a higher standard of proof than current modelling systems can offer.

As said before its not rejecting all modelling - the modelling is OK for low impact measures that don't cost much - if you want people to make major sacrifices the standard of proof will have to be much more substantial than it currently is.

[SP]

I understand enough statistics to realise you missed the point with three of your four sentences - that's like what? 75%?

The fact is I'm not the problem - the problem is the people whose lives depend on economic growth.

If you want to persuade them to change how they live you'll need a higher standard of proof than current modelling systems can offer.

As said before its not rejecting all modelling - the modelling is OK for low impact measures that don't cost much - if you want people to make major sacrifices the standard of proof will have to be much more substantial than it currently is.

You are rejecting the models because they cannot do something they are not intended or designed to do. The argument about what the response to man-made climate change is, is very different. And the point about impact is perfectly valid in human impact terms. But you are not attacking the polictical and economic response. You are attacking the science, and you are painfully ill-equipped to do that.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Scientific theories are not about proof, they're about probabilities. And the probability of a 3ºC warming is much more likely than the probability of a 1ºC warming for a CO2 doubling. But I doubt there will ever be enough evidence for some, because having to take action goes against their ideology or vested interests - that's why there are still some people doubting the link between tobacco and cancer for example. All along contrarians have dismissed the science - they first claimed that there was no warming and then that the warming was natural. Now they accept the part played by humans, but claim that the impacts will be minimal or there's nothing we can do. They have been wrong time and again, yet some still seem to think their word is gospel.

Climate models have actually been pretty accurate in predicting a temperature rise of 0.2ºC per decade over the long term. They are improving all the time and most importantly, those who claim that climate sensitivity is low have failed to show this conclusively.

And again you harp on about your imaginary arguments, such as me wanting to restrict growth. I'm intrigued as to why you feel the need to do this since I've already told you you're wrong - we don't live in a dichotomous world where it's either growth using fossil fuels or no growth. There are other ways of doing things.

I'd say its the contrarians who have caused our race to advance from using stone tools in caves to the present day.

Your example of cigarette smoking and lung cancer is a poor one.

It took decades to associate a single factor (smoking) with a single outcome (lung cancer) strongly enough that it could be thought to be causative. Yet now we can apparently use a model which has an almost infinite number of inputs and an almost infinite number of outputs to determine what is going to happen in a hundred years time? Why didn't you use an example that was similar to modelling climate to show how we had cracked the problem previously? Its because we haven't.

Your posts are full of "modelling systems are improving" scientists know things with a "degree of certainty" etc. is that not the same things saying they haves degree of uncertainty? With these kinds of dynamic, chaotic systems, small changes in the input can cause huge changes in output.

And again, to quote you, there are "other ways of doing things" that won't negatively impact on growth. I would be more than happy to discuss these with you if you could enlighten us all on what they are.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

You are rejecting the models because they cannot do something they are not intended or designed to do. The argument about what the response to man-made climate change is, is very different. And the point about impact is perfectly valid in human impact terms. But you are not attacking the polictical and economic response. You are attacking the science, and you are painfully ill-equipped to do that.

Cool - if I'm painfully ill-equipped you'll have no problem blowing my point of view out of the water will you?

I'm glad you concede that the scientific models should not be used as a basis for the political and economic response to climate change since that is not what they are intended or designed for (that's what I got from reading your paragraph).

As for the science itself - well with your no-doubt literate and erudite understanding of the field and your mastery of statistics could you point to another system that is:

A) similar to climate

and

B) has been modelled to produce accurate long term outcomes?

(*PS this does not include the smoking-lung cancer model)

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Can someone with one of these models come up with one that would predict the next Euro Lottery. If they can factor in millions of unknowns and get it spot on, then a few balls in a machine shouldn't be much of a challenge

[Bioluminescence]

I'd say its the contrarians who have caused our race to advance from using stone tools in caves to the present day.

Your example of cigarette smoking and lung cancer is a poor one.

It took decades to associate a single factor (smoking) with a single outcome (lung cancer) strongly enough that it could be thought to be causative. Yet now we can apparently use a model which has an almost infinite number of inputs and an almost infinite number of outputs to determine what is going to happen in a hundred years time? Why didn't you use an example that was similar to modelling climate to show how we had cracked the problem previously? Its because we haven't.

Your posts are full of "modelling systems are improving" scientists know things with a "degree of certainty" etc. is that not the same things saying they haves degree of uncertainty? With these kinds of dynamic, chaotic systems, small changes in the input can cause huge changes in output.

And again, to quote you, there are "other ways of doing things" that won't negatively impact on growth. I would be more than happy to discuss these with you if you could enlighten us all on what they are.

No, contrarians have only managed to confuse people because they either didn't quite understand the science themselves and were basing their arguments on ideology, or because they had vested interests and wanted to maintain the status quo.

The risks of smoking were known for years before anything was done about smoking, that's why class action has been taken against the tobacco industry which knew its products were harmful and took steps to create confusion by, among other things, highlighting uncertainties. Sounds familiar? Unfortunately they had to release their documents and it's there for all to see. There's a lot of evidence that shows how Philip Morris and Exxon Mobil operated, including this report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. All referenced so the reader can check whether the claims are valid or not.

My posts don't hide the uncertainties, that's true. But I also say that empirical evidence supports model findings, which reduces the uncertainty. So it's not simply about models, it's also about observations. And some outcomes are more likely than others and more likely to occur than not. The problem for you is that your starting point is a refusal to change things, and therefore no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. So while the world warms, the ice melts, storm tracks move polewards, etc., as predicted by models, all you can do is claim, without providing any evidence, that there is no problem.

[Bioluminescence]

Can someone with one of these models come up with one that would predict the next Euro Lottery. If they can factor in millions of unknowns and get it spot on, then a few balls in a machine shouldn't be much of a challenge

The thing with contrarians is that it becomes difficult to know whether they are being serious or not... Maybe you should use your model that incorporates the possibly warm stuff the Earth and other planets move through

[SP]

Cool - if I'm painfully ill-equipped you'll have no problem blowing my point of view out of the water will you?

People have been doing it for pages, you just seem to lack the wit or the scientific literacy to notice.

[The Gulleysucker]

Or to visually model what's been going on, perhaps this.. 

[RojoLeón]

The thing with contrarians is that it becomes difficult to know whether they are being serious or not... Maybe you should use your model that incorporates the possibly warm stuff the Earth and other planets move through

The warm stuff called hard vacuum. Measured at a baseline temp at approx 3 degrees Kelvin. That is what is warming the Earth, despite all of the climate science saying that the causes are terrestrial and man made.

It is instructive that all of those who adopt a denier position regarding human causation in climate change, have no professional education in the field of climate science, and few of them understand the statistical (or mathematical) mechanisms used to support the models.

All of them do so because they do not like the political/social consequences, not because the science is flawed. That they attack the science and fail miserably is part of the reason they are in such a minority.

And interestingly enough: The idea that the changes needed to halt or reverse the consequences of climate change, will harm the poor or third world.
Well: Don't you think droughts, rising sea levels, reduced access to food and fresh water due to the effects of climate change are going to make life hard for them also?

Seems like the poor get screwed over regardless, in the denier conspiracy theory. So maybe the 'concern' for their well being is a ruse to emotionally manipulate the debate.

The link between tobacco/cancer, and climate science is valid in many ways. The science was discovered a long time before it was widely known to the public. The tobacco companies hid this, and when outsiders developed the links, they used the same debating tactics, disruption and anti-science PR used by fossil fuel industries today (who attack climate science).
That is part of the reason why it took so long to form a public consensus - the links were there, and they fought tooth and nail to muddy the waters and disrupt the debate. The consequences were unpalatable to the tobacco industry (loss of income, lawsuits, etc..), so they fought to protect their interests.

But there is hope for changing peoples dogmatic, misinformed belief structures..

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzw1dZNWiL8?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US&amp;amp;rel=0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Xzw1dZNWiL8?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US&amp;amp;rel=0</a>

[MHLC]

And interestingly enough: The idea that the changes needed to halt or reverse the consequences of climate change, will harm the poor or third world.
Well: Don't you think droughts, rising sea levels, reduced access to food and fresh water due to the effects of climate change are going to make life hard for them also?

Seems like the poor get screwed over regardless, in the denier conspiracy theory. So maybe the 'concern' for their well being is a ruse to emotionally manipulate the debate.

I wouldn't say all the contrarians in this topic are denying climate change or humans are the principle contributors. Andy possibly (I'll let him speak for himself on that accusation), but Carlos Qiqabal (brilliant user name by the way ) seems more concerned about the reliability of climate modelling and its input to the political debate.

That's fair enough as we'd all agree it's a hugely complex discipline. However, questioning the accuracy of models cuts both ways. Laymen will use it as a means to confuse and discredit, but there are climate scientists using inaccurate predictions to show just how rapidly change is occurring. What can we draw from this? Perhaps that ever increasing volumes of empirical data are essential to improving models in the following decades.

Completely agree with you though that, in CQ's world, the poorest nations look to be in a no win situation. Do nothing then some will inevitably be displaced. Attempt to cooperate globally in cutting emissions and be accused of acting against the interests of underdeveloped countries.

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord included commitments from developed countries to financially support less developed nations in maintaining low emission economies. This is absolutely right, but whether the aid is arriving and how it is being spent is open to debate. Which leads nicely back to my original post in the topic:

I believe in the ingenuity of mankind to solve (or at least mitigate) highly complex problems such as this, but have absolutely no faith that the political will exists to work together globally, let alone for us as individuals in the developed and developing world to change our consumption habits.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

People have been doing it for pages, you just seem to lack the wit or the scientific literacy to notice.

Ha ha yeh probably - your attacks on me aside though, its notable that you avoided answering the question. Thread readers can draw their own conclusion about who is under-equipped for the debate. 

No, contrarians have only managed to confuse people because they either didn't quite understand the science themselves and were basing their arguments on ideology, or because they had vested interests and wanted to maintain the status quo.

Wow really? Well that's that sorted out. I guess we have very different versions of history - hoorah for  conventional wisdom.

The risks of smoking were known for years before anything was done about smoking, that's why class action has been taken against the tobacco industry which knew its products were harmful and took steps to create confusion by, among other things, highlighting uncertainties. Sounds familiar? Unfortunately they had to release their documents and it's there for all to see. There's a lot of evidence that shows how Philip Morris and Exxon Mobil operated, including this report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. All referenced so the reader can check whether the claims are valid or not.

I have no idea why you are trying to conflate cigarette smoking with climate modelling - as I explained before it's a poor example and one that only shows that the truth will out DESPITE vested interests. You know - the same kind of vested interests that supports funding for all those PhDs and research grants? It's important that we study this phenomenon but as with any field there is an interest in overstating the importance of its work and findings.

My posts don't hide the uncertainties, that's true. But I also say that empirical evidence supports model findings, which reduces the uncertainty. So it's not simply about models, it's also about observations. And some outcomes are more likely than others and more likely to occur than not. The problem for you is that your starting point is a refusal to change things, and therefore no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient. So while the world warms, the ice melts, storm tracks move polewards, etc., as predicted by models, all you can do is claim, without providing any evidence, that there is no problem.

Well you're right in the sense they don't hide the uncertainties but you do everything you can to mask them. Your précis of my argument is instructive in its inaccuracy.

Still waiting to hear your brilliant economic ideas that won't impact growth or climate change. Why the suspense? If you we're making them up it would be best just to let us know now and we can file your views appropriately.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

I wouldn't say all the contrarians in this topic are denying climate change or humans are the principle contributors. Andy possibly (I'll let him speak for himself on that accusation), but Carlos Qiqabal (brilliant user name by the way ) seems more concerned about the reliability of climate modelling and its input to the political debate.

 I have no idea what MHLC stands for but many thanks and Merry Christmas! 

EDIT: take care with mentioning human ingenuity - it raises quite a lot of blood pressure around here ( see the increasing GDP thread) - wouldn't want the older posters getting apoplectic and keeling over on their keyboards after too much Christmas pud

[Bioluminescence]

Wow really? Well that's that sorted out. I guess we have very different versions of history - hoorah for  conventional wisdom.

Indeed. Read up on the denial of the link between tobacco and cancer, between HIV and AIDS, between CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer, between NOx and SO2 and acid precipitation... Measures could have been adopted much sooner were it not for vested interests trying to confuse and misinforming.

I have no idea why you are trying to conflate cigarette smoking with climate modelling - as I explained before it's a poor example and one that only shows that the truth will out DESPITE vested interests. You know - the same kind of vested interests that supports funding for all those PhDs and research grants? It's important that we study this phenomenon but as with any field there is an interest in overstating the importance of its work and findings.

I'm not conflating those things - the tobacco industry spread confusion and misinformed to delay the implementation of policies that would ban smoking in public places. Similarly, vested interests such as Exxon Mobil, are spreading confusion and misinformation while there is a strong consensus on climate science and current climate change. See the pattern?

Well you're right in the sense they don't hide the uncertainties but you do everything you can to mask them. Your précis of my argument is instructive in its inaccuracy.

Oh, I mask them by admitting they're there... Interesting.

Still waiting to hear your brilliant economic ideas that won't impact growth or climate change. Why the suspense? If you we're making them up it would be best just to let us know now and we can file your views appropriately.

What? Do you mean like developing the renewable energy sector, which creates more jobs than the fossil fuel industry? By encouraging R&D in all things related to reducing the emissions of CO2 and other pollutants? By developing crops that can withstand different climatic conditions? By improving energy conservation? There are a lot of things which can be done that will encourage growth as well as reduce CO2 emissions. How do you expect economic growth to persist when you are using finite resources?

And you can drop the patronising comments - considering your ignorance of the subject being discussed, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[MHLC]

Ha ha yeh probably - your attacks on me aside though, its notable that you avoided answering the question. Thread readers can draw their own conclusion about who is under-equipped for the debate. 

I'm running models on this right now, based on several scenarios:

Scenario A1: We're all laymen who rely on what is reported in mainstream media/tv
Scenario A2: We're all laymen who rely on mainstream media/tv but also try to understand the scientific methods behind the reports.
Scenario A3: Some shun mainstream media/tv in favour of obscure publications that lack scientific consensus.
Scenario A4: Some contributors are climate science specialists, who've written peer reviewed papers published in pre-eminent journals.

So far models A1, A2 and A3 point to 99.999% of us in this topic being bullshitters who just enjoy a good old fashioned argument despite not being equipped to understand the science. However, scenario A4 completely failed to run due to lack of valid inputs.

Sounds about right, no?

(P.S. - it's hypocritical of you to accuse SP of personal attacks after your woeful generalisations earlier in the topic, which you conveniently swerved when challenged).

[Bioluminescence]

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord included commitments from developed countries to financially support less developed nations in maintaining low emission economies. This is absolutely right, but whether the aid is arriving and how it is being spent is open to debate. Which leads nicely back to my original post in the topic:

That's what I'd like to see happen. I don't think it's a new idea so I'm not holding my breath.

And your original point was spot on.

[RojoLeón]

What? Do you mean like developing the renewable energy sector, which creates more jobs than the fossil fuel industry? By encouraging R&D in all things related to reducing the emissions of CO2 and other pollutants? By developing crops that can withstand different climatic conditions? By improving energy conservation? There are a lot of things which can be done that will encourage growth as well as reduce CO2 emissions. How do you expect economic growth to persist when you are using finite resources?

For anyone interested in the ideas where we can do things cleaner, and better - with no loss, and even measurable gains economically, here are a few links.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-simple-fix-for-food/

IT’S becoming clear that we can grow all the food we need, and profitably, with far fewer chemicals. And I’m not talking about imposing some utopian vision of small organic farms on the world. Conventional agriculture can shed much of its chemical use — if it wants to.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20583663

A UK firm has announced plans to build what it claims is the biggest photovoltaic (PV) solar power plant in Africa.

The Nzema project, based in Ghana, will be able to provide electricity to more than 100,000 homes.

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-bulletin-german-nuclear-exit-economic.html

The German Nuclear Exit," shows that the nuclear shutdown and an accompanying move toward renewable energy are already yielding measurable economic and environmental benefits

[Bioluminescence]

For anyone interested in the ideas where we can do things cleaner, and better - with no loss, and even measurable gains economically, here are a few links.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/a-simple-fix-for-food/

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20583663

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-bulletin-german-nuclear-exit-economic.html

Good resources, thanks

[Bioluminescence]

Renewable Energy - Without the Hot Air is also an excellent place to get information on the potential contribution of renewable energy to meet our demands while reducing CO2 emissions.

[RojoLeón]

Renewable Energy - Without the Hot Air is also an excellent place to get information on the potential contribution of renewable energy to meet our demands while reducing CO2 emissions.

Here's another lefty, pinko environmentalst: Plotting the downfall of those poor third world folk.

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/most-popular/americas-top-young-scientist-2012.html

A 14-year-old New York student was named “America’s Top Young Scientist” for inventing a solar-powered water jug that changes dirty water into purified drinking water.

[Bioluminescence]

Here's another lefty, pinko environmentalst: Plotting the downfall of those poor third world folk.

http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/most-popular/americas-top-young-scientist-2012.html

Wow. What a brilliant idea. I'm very impressed by what the top four achieved.

[MHLC]

I don't think it's a new idea so I'm not holding my breath.

Me neither.

Seems the scientific debate has swung heavily in favour of anthropogenic driven climate change. Nobody can say the argument is "won" though as that ignores the questions of scale, impact, increased understanding and mitigation.

It's the last of those points that worry me most as it relies on the notoriously dysfunctional system of international diplomacy. Those currently negotiating will be long dead before the worst predictions may or may not unfold.

[RojoLeón]

Wow. What a brilliant idea. I'm very impressed by what the top four achieved.

Unless that stuff an be harnessed for profit, the 'free market', isn't interested. Is sad to see school children outperform professionally trained adults at providing every day solutions to real problems. Instead, our best minds are encouraged to find new ways of making dollar bills multiply - a problem that goes hand in hand with the causation of climate change, funny enough.

[RojoLeón]

I wouldn't say all the contrarians in this topic are denying climate change or humans are the principle contributors. Andy possibly (I'll let him speak for himself on that accusation), but Carlos Qiqabal (brilliant user name by the way ) seems more concerned about the reliability of climate modelling and its input to the political debate.

You're right - My point was a general one for the debate at large. I am tickled by this idea that; 'it's all a lefty, pinko-liberal conspiracy to force people to go live in yogurt knitting education camps', or something.

That's fair enough as we'd all agree it's a hugely complex discipline. However, questioning the accuracy of models cuts both ways. Laymen will use it as a means to confuse and discredit, but there are climate scientists using inaccurate predictions to show just how rapidly change is occurring. What can we draw from this? Perhaps that ever increasing volumes of empirical data are essential to improving models in the following decades.

Also true; but presented like this gives the impression that there are equal numbers, from both sides of the debate seeking to confuse and misinform. All of the professional deniers are seeking to disrupt and misinform, whereas only a small minority of the climate scientists are scaremongering. In fact, there is much debate as to their having been too conservative in the past, and that those considered extremists previously, were in fact the ones predicting current trends most accurately.

Completely agree with you though that, in CQ's world, the poorest nations look to be in a no win situation. Do nothing then some will inevitably be displaced. Attempt to cooperate globally in cutting emissions and be accused of acting against the interests of underdeveloped countries.

It is a fundamentally contemporary libertarian idea. To decry environmentalists for trying to stop third worlders from achieving their free market dreams. When, in reality, they mean that the political shift (to address climate change) would stop these third worlders from being harvested by the free market; chewed up and spat out by growth obsessed global capital.

Their well-being is a transparent ruse. It is their potential for being exploited for profit that they want to protect.

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord included commitments from developed countries to financially support less developed nations in maintaining low emission economies. This is absolutely right, but whether the aid is arriving and how it is being spent is open to debate. Which leads nicely back to my original post in the topic:

I believe in the ingenuity of mankind to solve (or at least mitigate) highly complex problems such as this, but have absolutely no faith that the political will exists to work together globally, let alone for us as individuals in the developed and developing world to change our consumption habits.

I don't know what the answer is. There seems to be too much invested in this course - perhaps too much to realistically expect the necessary changes. There are sacred political cows that are never challenged in the public sphere. 'Growth', is one of them. 'Progress' is another.

They are seen as being necessary components of our ongoing evolution. Except, what they mean is profit growth for a small few, and the intricately related drive to expand markets. Noble and lofty to want to better you and yours - but conceptually, this is corrupted to the point where it is irrevocably tethered to need for financial profit.

We need to evolve past this, and quickly. Time is always a ticking, and there have been important junctures in past history. What makes this time special, is that until now, we have lacked the tools and tech to effect complete catastrophic harm upon the planet's residents.

The actions of a very small number of people have the potential to create wide reaching consequences - far more so than in any time in documented history. Andy can recycle his aluminum cans, and we can chat shit about climate change this, or that; Ultimately, the only ones who can effect change are the the money men. The only way to reach and influence them is via mass public consensus.

[Bioluminescence]

Me neither.

Seems the scientific debate has swung heavily in favour of anthropogenic driven climate change. Nobody can say the argument is "won" though as that ignores the questions of scale, impact, increased understanding and mitigation.

It's the last of those points that worry me most as it relies on the notoriously dysfunctional system of international diplomacy. Those currently negotiating will be long dead before the worst predictions may or may not unfold.

That's the problem in a nutshell. We are dealing with a complex issue whose impacts are not immediate and where uncertainties remain, therefore the political will to tackle it is pretty weak. I think that public opinion is shifting, which means there might be enough pressure for the politicians to start thinking about solutions more seriously. Interestingly it is weather events that seem to be driving this shift in public opinion, in the US in particular. So even if we can't say that climate change is behind these weather events, they appear to be making climate change more real, more tangible. It's no longer something that will happen in the distant future and/or in distant lands, which was perhaps a barrier to accepting the findings of climate scientists. 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You're all dreaming. It's obvious that there will be a major war sooner rather than later over resources. That'll put a bit of a dent in o2 reduction, The good news though, is that it seems to be after major wars that the greatest technological advances appear.

I'm still waiting for shiny space suits and flying cars.

[Bioluminescence]

Unless that stuff an be harnessed for profit, the 'free market', isn't interested. Is sad to see school children outperform professionally trained adults at providing every day solutions to real problems. Instead, our best minds are encouraged to find new ways of making dollar bills multiply - a problem that goes hand in hand with the causation of climate change, funny enough.

The thing is that such thinking is incredibly short sighted as well as, well, sad. We only need to look at the web and open source projects to see that considerable wealth and opportunities can be created when tools are freely available.

I know you're no fan of Monbiot but he's written an article on neoliberalism and how it is an obstacle to addressing environmental issues as it has created something resembling a plutocracy. Governments have their hands tied and they will do nothing until the proverbial hits the fan - that's what happened with the 2008 banking crisis, when all of the sudden we needed a strong state to bail out the banks that were 'too big to fail'.

[Bioluminescence]

I'm thinking of enrolling on the Coursera course - Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Conversations. Seems like quite a comprehensive course on where we find ourselves.

[MHLC]

It's obvious that there will be a major war sooner rather than later over resources.

When do you predict this? And between whom? And how will such a war be fought? Will it be by proxy? Or involve nuclear weapons? This idea belongs to the argument about global population and finite resources. It's a discussion in its own right as well as being linked to climate change, but it does not validate any of your increasingly random rants. I'm losing count of the number of questions in the topic you've completely ignored....

That'll put a bit of a dent in o2 reduction

,

I hope not. I need oxygen to breath, not to mention my reliance on its network to send text messages.

The good news though, is that it seems to be after major wars that the greatest technological advances appear.

Likewise, some of the greatest technological advancements have come about FOR and BECAUSE of war. I pity anyone who advocates or passively accepts nations going to war over trying to negotiate peacefully. And you say we're dreaming? Oh well, to paraphrase John Lennon, at least we're not the only ones. Haha

[Andy @ Allerton!]

When do you predict this? And between whom? And how will such a war be fought? Will it be by proxy? Or involve nuclear weapons? This idea belongs to the argument about global population and finite resources. It's a discussion in its own right as well as being linked to climate change, but it does not validate any of your increasingly random rants. I'm losing count of the number of questions in the topic you've completely ignored....
,

I hope not. I need oxygen to breath, not to mention my reliance on its network to send text messages.

Likewise, some of the greatest technological advancements have come about FOR and BECAUSE of war. I pity anyone who advocates or passively accepts nations going to war over trying to negotiate peacefully. And you say we're dreaming? Oh well, to paraphrase John Lennon, at least we're not the only ones. Haha

Won't someone think of the trees?

"Passively Accepts" or "advocates" what you on about lad? Just because you can see something coming doesn't mean that you "Passively accept" it or want it to happen.

Can I ask you a question? Do you think that if population increases the way it has been doing for the last 50 years into the next 50, 100, 500, 1000 years... Do you think that conflict might emerge because of conflict over living space, resources, water and other basics?

There are already plenty of tensions in Europe, in the Far East, in the Middle East, In the US, In South America.. Around the globe there are conflicts entrenched in history that could escalate. It's happened before. It'll happen again. If it's about money and power then that's one set of potential combatants. If it's about survival and water and land and resources then that's a mighty large number of potential combatants.

[MHLC]

Won't someone think of the trees?

I'm willing. What do you suggest we think about?

"Passively Accepts" or "advocates" what you on about lad? Just because you can see something coming doesn't mean that you "Passively accept" it or want it to happen.

Why then are you so dismissive towards some in this topic, calling people "dreamers"? Why is it ok for you to "see" impending war but then ridicule others who "see" problems with climate change occurring if humanity continues its current course? Do you not detect even the slightest hint of hypocrisy there?

Can I ask you a question?

You certainly may.

Do you think that if population increases the way it has been doing for the last 50 years into the next 50, 100, 500, 1000 years... Do you think that conflict might emerge because of conflict over living space, resources, water and other basics?

Refer back to my previous posts for the answers. When you were randomly waffling on about Cosmology and conditions on planet earth 4 billion years ago I was trying to introduce the idea that population levels are intrinsically linked to this debate on climate change.

Really astonishes me that some cannot differentiate between events that occur over thousands of years and what is currently being empirically measured as occurring in tandem with the industrialisation of society and an explosion in human population.

My view is that you cannot decouple the two. It's not a case of population/resources -vs- climate destruction. They are linked and I said as much earlier in this topic.

Earlier today you argued that nature and the universe will determine the fate of human existence. Now you're arguing that it's actually man mad war that will determine our fate. That's a pretty extreme change of view without explaining how you joined up all the dots.

Back to you....

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'm willing. What do you suggest we think about?

Why then are you so dismissive towards some in this topic, calling people "dreamers"? Why is it ok for you to "see" impending war but then ridicule others who "see" problems with climate change occurring if humanity continues its current course? Do you not detect even the slightest hint of hypocrisy there?
 

You certainly may.

Refer back to my previous posts for the answers. When you were randomly waffling on about Cosmology and conditions on planet earth 4 billion years ago I was trying to introduce the idea that population levels are intrinsically linked to this debate on climate change.

My view is that you cannot decouple the two. It's not a case of population/resources -vs- climate destruction. They are linked and I said as much earlier in this topic.

Back to you....

(From Above)

There are already plenty of tensions in Europe, in the Far East, in the Middle East, In the US, In South America.. Around the globe there are conflicts entrenched in history that could escalate. It's happened before. It'll happen again. If it's about money and power then that's one set of potential combatants. If it's about survival and water and land and resources then that's a mighty large number of potential combatants.

[MHLC]

(From Above)

There are already plenty of tensions in Europe, in the Far East, in the Middle East, In the US, In South America.. Around the globe there are conflicts entrenched in history that could escalate. It's happened before. It'll happen again. If it's about money and power then that's one set of potential combatants. If it's about survival and water and land and resources then that's a mighty large number of potential combatants.

I acknowledge your edit mate.

How did you logically go from billions of years of the universe doing its thing to geopolitical tension? Which argument are you putting forward as a climate change denier?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I acknowledge your edit mate, but will refrain from a reply until you join the dots I previously mentioned.

How did you logically go from billions of years of the universe doing its thing to geopolitical tension? Which argument are you putting forward as a climate change denier?

'Climate Change Denier' - interesting since it's obvious that "Climate Change" is the usual state of the climate. The climate has done nothing but change. The climate will do nothing but change.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

/snip/

thanks - i find your blinkered approach to the subject leaves you without a leg to stand on.

Sounds about right, no?

(P.S. - it's hypocritical of you to accuse SP of personal attacks after your woeful generalisations earlier in the topic, which you conveniently swerved when challenged).

oh well the festive cheer didnt last long.

no idea what you are talking about with inputs and scenarios. And what exactly have i swerved? I read your sentence twice and couldnt make any sense of it.    

Also  regarding impending conflicts - the difference is that no-one is asking you to give up your car on the projection that it will help prevent war with Latvia in 2050, so no, it isn't hypocritical.

[MHLC]

'Climate Change Denier' - interesting since it's obvious that "Climate Change" is the usual state of the climate. The climate has done nothing but change. The climate will do nothing but change.

You are right. For the sake of the pedants here let's address the issue in terms of anthropogenic driven climate change....

How did you logically go from billions of years of the universe doing its thing to geopolitical tension? Which argument are you putting forward as an anthropogenic driven climate change denier?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You are right. For the sake of the pedants here let's address the issue in terms of anthropogenic driven climate change....

How did you logically go from billions of years of the universe doing its thing to geopolitical tension? Which argument are you putting forward as an anthropogenic driven climate change denier?

I'm saying that climate has always changed. Will always change. Additionally humans may be one of the additional inputs to the model with their heavy industry and use of technology to alter the climate. It's likely that in the future that human conflict will occur to alter the model more. But in the scale of the World it's all short term. What affect did World War I have on the climate? What effect did the biggest conflict ever - World War II have on the climate? Did the climate 'recover' or change? What effect did countless nuclear weapons test have upon the climate across the globe?

There are so many inputs. Many known and calculable. Many unknown and either ignored or guessed at or not even ignored - but not known.

Regardless of all the above it's silly to think that the 'progress' (If you would like to call it that) of the Human race will suddenly stop of its own accord. Ironically, the people making the most fuss about the problem are the Western states whose demand for more and more goods has led to countries like China adding again and again to their heavy industry. Is it likely that the demand in the West will suddenly stop? If it does what happens to the workers and people in other areas like China and the like.

Each and every way you would wish to paint it, as time progresses and the population increases then it looks (Barring a miracle) that it's going to be a bad ol' time for everyone.

[MHLC]

no idea what you are talking about with inputs and scenarios.

An attempt at humour re: climate modelling

And what exactly have i swerved?

My response to this (which is at the top of this particular page):

The fact you guys can't admit this simple truth impacts pretty much negates most of what you have written so far in this thread.

Luckily, those people to whom it matters, ie the people who have families to feed, have a better grasp of reality than hipsters who have chosen environmental care as their personal hobby horses.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

An attempt at humour re: climate modelling

My response to this (which is at the top of this particular page):

oh i see - apologies.

as for the swerving I have to admit I hadnt written the preceeding post with you in mind - i thought you had posed a question you were accusing me of swerving.