Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

Water John

Scientists generally agree that their is a 'tipping point' to global warming. They are not sure what point that is. We may have already passed it but their general reckoning is around 1.5 C and definitely less than 2 C.
That's where 12 years comes from, an imprecise calculation. Simplified for a simple message.

KSU

Water John wrote: »

Scientists generally agree that their is a 'tipping point' to global warming. They are not sure what point that is. We may have already passed it but their general reckoning is around 1.5 C and definitely less than 2 C.
That's where 12 years comes from, an imprecise calculation. Simplified for a simple message.

I want to preface this first by saying I am not a climate change denier however saying scientist generally agree is not as empirical as you might think

Climate Policy initiatives in the last five years have accounted for almost 500 billion in global investment into the field. As this funding is driving the research there is always going to be motives behind it. Many scientists will fail to secure funding for other topics or to go against this general consensus.

Such a short term timeline helps drive that industry, I am all for making changes but I feel like this is an agenda which is being pushed to drive a newer industry especially following on from climate change alarmist history of predictions.

jackboy

Water John wrote: »

Scientists generally agree that their is a 'tipping point' to global warming. They are not sure what point that is. We may have already passed it but their general reckoning is around 1.5 C and definitely less than 2 C.
That's where 12 years comes from, an imprecise calculation. Simplified for a simple message.

The 12 years thing is widely believed to be fact, especially by the youth. It’s all over the media without any clarification.

So if scientists widely believe the time to save the planet will pass very soon, then why are they not advocating serious solutions. All I hear are minor ideas which would be fine if we had 50 or 100 years to sort things out.

Shai

KSU wrote: »

<snip for brevity>

Sorry, are you trying to argue that climate scientists are getting rich from global warming?

20Cent

KSU wrote: »

I want to preface this first by saying I am not a climate change denier however saying scientist generally agree is not as empirical as you might think

Climate Policy initiatives in the last five years have accounted for almost 500 billion in global investment into the field. As this funding is driving the research there is always going to be motives behind it. Many scientists will fail to secure funding for other topics or to go against this general consensus.

Such a short term timeline helps drive that industry, I am all for making changes but I feel like this is an agenda which is being pushed to drive a newer industry especially following on from climate change alarmist history of predictions.

Thats not how science works.
It's also a massive conspiracy theory.
500 billion sounds like a lot where does that number come from?

Shai

20Cent wrote: »

500 billion sounds like a lot where does that number come from?

that number is roughly correct (https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2017/), but refers to the global investment by both public and private sources in climate-friendly technology and renewable energy sources. It does not refer to grants given to climate scientists. So it is somewhat of a mystery how climate scientists are supposed to get rich from this.

KSU

Shai wrote: »

Sorry, are you trying to argue that climate scientists are getting rich from global warming?

No what I am saying is that you are more likely to get funding approved for research into something climate change related than say literacy levels and the socio economic ramifications because funding is being targeted towards the field and as such scientist are moved towards and adhere to the agenda because it is the only way for some research to be supported.

Similar to how many people have been wary in the past of nutrition papers which were funded by Kelloggs or Coca Cola etc.

klaaaz

Banning straws hurts the disabled, they fecking need them. Ya can't compare kids in McD's with their disposable straws to an essential item to help feed a disabled person.

Shai

jackboy wrote: »

The 12 years thing is widely believed to be fact, especially by the youth. It’s all over the media without any clarification.

So if scientists widely believe the time to save the planet will pass very soon, then why are they not advocating serious solutions. All I hear are minor ideas which would be fine if we had 50 or 100 years to sort things out.

yes, climate scientists are indeed experts in every possible field of engineering. Solar panel construction, chemical scrubbers, CO2 capture, ... they can do it all. They're just too lazy to sit down, have a think, and write the solution down for the likes of you and me.

Or could it perhaps be that climate scientists analyze climate data? and that massive research efforts by entire industries is required to come up with a solution?

Gosh, this sure is a toughie.

20Cent

KSU wrote: »

No what I am saying is that you are more likely to get funding approved for research into something climate change related than say literacy levels and the socio economic ramifications because funding is being targeted towards the field and as such scientist are moved towards and adhere to the agenda because it is the only way for some research to be supported.

Similar to how many people have been wary in the past of nutrition papers which were funded by Kelloggs or Coca Cola etc.

What agenda?

Scientists around the world faking data is a massive conspiracy, this is huge if true.

20Cent

klaaaz wrote: »

Banning straws hurts the disabled, they fecking need them. Ya can't compare kids in McD's with their disposable straws to an essential item to help feed a disabled person.

Straws haven't been banned.

klaaaz

20Cent wrote: »

Straws haven't been banned.

They're on the list in 2020 or is it 2021, another populist move. Sure let's save the turtles, do not penalise the disabled minority who depend on straws to feed themselves.

Shai

KSU wrote: »

No what I am saying is that you are more likely to get funding approved for research into something climate change related than say literacy levels and the socio economic ramifications because funding is being targeted towards the field and as such scientist are moved towards and adhere to the agenda because it is the only way for some research to be supported.

Similar to how many people have been wary in the past of nutrition papers which were funded by Kelloggs or Coca Cola etc.

alright, it's a valid concern. Luckily, independent research on this has been sponsored in the past (https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7?op=1&r=US&IR=T). The research was done by a scientist who was climate change skeptic (not a denier, an actual skeptic). He ended up concluding that the predicted climate change would actually be worse.

KSU

20Cent wrote: »

What agenda?

Scientists around the world faking data is a massive conspiracy, this is huge if true.

Science can be politically motivated

Research always has an agenda this is why these days you can have 100 research papers which contradict each other but all are "science" depending on the source of funding, sample sizes manipulation. this is not faking data it is having the data back up your hypothesis

If you don't believe it you only have to look as far as the Volkwagen emissions scandal to realize that this is not unheard of in recent times.

Water John

I'm sure there is little problem in writing exceptions into legislation or guidelines.
Thanks for bringing the issue for the disabled to our notice.

20Cent

klaaaz wrote: »

They're on the list in 2020 or is it 2021, another populist move. Sure let's save the turtles, do not penalise the disabled minority who depend on straws to feed themselves.

Suppose they could starve to death or an alternative would be to use a straw made of a different material.

jackboy

Shai wrote: »

yes, climate scientists are indeed experts in every possible field of engineering. Solar panel construction, chemical scrubbers, CO2 capture, ... they can do it all. They're just too lazy to sit down, have a think, and write the solution down for the likes of you and me.


Or could it perhaps be that climate scientists analyze climate data? and that massive research efforts by entire industries is required to come up with a solution?


Gosh, this sure is a toughie.

If the 12 years thing is true then it is way too late for all that. Immediate, drastic action is needed. I haven’t heard scientists try to push such action.

20Cent

KSU wrote: »

Science can be politically motivated

Research always has an agenda this is why these days you can have 100 research papers which contradict each other but all are "science" depending on the source of funding, sample sizes manipulation. this is not faking data it is having the data back up your hypothesis

If you don't believe it you only have to look as far as the Volkwagen emissions scandal to realize that this is not unheard of in recent times.

If the Volkwagen data was peer reviewed by multiple scientists in the way the climate change data is the incorrect information would have been found much earlier.

Shai

jackboy wrote: »

If the 12 years thing is true then it is way too late for all that. Immediate, drastic action is needed. I haven’t heard scientists try to push such action.

https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=scientists%20urge%20action%20on%20climate%20change


then I would suggest you haven't been paying any attention for a long time now.

SirGerryAdams

Sure it wasn't long ago scientists claimed diesels were good for the environment?

jackboy

Shai wrote: »

https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=scientists%20urge%20action%20on%20climate%20change


then I would suggest you haven't been paying any attention for a long time now.

As I said previously and supported by your link, scientists are not pushing for immediate drastic action. There are no such actions proposed in your link.

Shai

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Sure it wasn't long ago scientists claimed diesels were good for the environment?

yes, and asbestos was considered a miracle material, leaded paint was seen a good idea, and ingesting radium was once a surefire way towards good health. And then scientists learned they weren't.

SirGerryAdams

Here's a scientist claiming cities like Kolkata will be underwater by 2020.

https://www.countercurrents.org/en-dc071203.htm

Here is a disaster prediction. Coastal cities such as
Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai could go under sea by 2020 at the present
levels of global warming and the concomitant rise in sea level, says a
Goa-based scientist Dr Rajiv Nigam.

Here's the Egypital foreign minister saying 15% of their land will be threatened.

https://www.npr.org/2008/04/20/89660898/rising-sea-levels-threaten-egypts-ancient-cities?t=1558904583629

Here's the IPCC claiming we need action by 2020.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ngo_28feb_cc.pdf

The new IPCC assessment report says that humanity has time until 2020 to reverse
the path of constantly growing GHG emissions. If we don’t act in these remaining 13
years dangerous climate change will become irreversible.

Phil.x

Ireland the saviour of the world.........not.

Shai

jackboy wrote: »

As I said previously and supported by your link, scientists are not pushing for immediate drastic action. There are no such actions proposed in your link.

pretty sure those links say "scientists urge action". Here is one: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/may/environment-consensus-statement-052313.html. Notice the part where it says they offered "recommendations for solving global environmental challenges"?

Or are you suggesting scientists should somehow force politician's to do their bidding? You tell me how that would work. Or should the scientists actually sit down and come up with a bullet point based plan, like build 452 wind farms here, nevermind how you would get the funds for that? Is that what we're going for here? In which case, awesome, I would love to live in a world where scientists had a greater say in government policy, but unfortunately that is not quite the case at this time.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

They're on the list in 2020 or is it 2021, another populist move. Sure let's save the turtles, do not penalise the disabled minority who depend on straws to feed themselves.

The plastic straws are not being banned, just their availability is being restricted, those who need them will still be able to get them.
They just won't be handed out like sweets any more.

thecretinhop

KSU wrote: »

jackboy wrote: »

But sure if we want to tackle climate change then most of the export/import activities will have to stop. Or, should we just pretend to tackle climate change by increasing taxes.

Sure kill off half the population, destroy cities and lets get back to living off the land. Humans living too long these days with all those imported pharmaceuticals.

Paleo diets are the answer the the worlds woes

Loren Cordain will be happy

that is literally the plan of the greens. dont have children yet Mohamed has 8 no problem. ireland 2040 plan reduce emissions by 50pc yet we will need 50o,000 houses for African immigrants
we are not deserving of planet.
go you tube ex greenpeace founders view on it. very illuminating

thecretinhop

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Here's a scientist claiming cities like Kolkata will be underwater by 2020.

https://www.countercurrents.org/en-dc071203.htm

Here is a disaster prediction. Coastal cities such as
Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai could go under sea by 2020 at the present
levels of global warming and the concomitant rise in sea level, says a
Goa-based scientist Dr Rajiv Nigam.

Here's the Egypital foreign minister saying 15% of their land will be threatened.

https://www.npr.org/2008/04/20/89660898/rising-sea-levels-threaten-egypts-ancient-cities?t=1558904583629

Here's the IPCC claiming we need action by 2020.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ngo_28feb_cc.pdf

The new IPCC assessment report says that humanity has time until 2020 to reverse
the path of constantly growing GHG emissions. If we don’t act in these remaining 13
years dangerous climate change will become irreversible.

oh yeah acid rain global cooling global warming climate change. al gore no polar caps by 1990. im sick of the lies constantly being spewed out by radical left media. 97 per cent consensus eh?. a joke.

jackboy

Shai wrote: »

pretty sure those links say "scientists urge action". Here is one: https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/may/environment-consensus-statement-052313.html. Notice the part where it says they offered "recommendations for solving global environmental challenges"?

Or are you suggesting scientists should somehow force politician's to do their bidding? You tell me how that would work. Or should the scientists actually sit down and come up with a bullet point based plan, like build 452 wind farms here, nevermind how you would get the funds for that? Is that what we're going for here? In which case, awesome, I would love to live in a world where scientists had a greater say in government policy, but unfortunately that is not quite the case at this time.

Again, in the link you have posted, there are no immediate drastic actions proposed to reverse human caused climate change in the next 12 years. It just includes medium to long actions which will be way too little too late to meet the 12 year deadline. If the 12 year thing is true then it is too late for wind farms, solar technology and even population controls.

SirGerryAdams

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Sure it wasn't long ago scientists claimed diesels were good for the environment?

In the sense that they were less damaging (lower CO2) than petrol vehicles, which is correct, but ignores the remainder of the pollutants that come out of the exhaust.

A real coup for manufacturers of Diesel cars, created a new market out of peoples fears and got government support for it.

How many other "green initiatives" are really being pushed to promote a business somewhere.

EVs spring to mind, but there is a real benefit for switching to electric vehicles as they will mean that the city air will be much cleaner as they displace ICE vehicles.

It seems to me that only initiatives that benefit business will succeed.