5 ms·

We don't hear enough serious talk like this. Dr. James Hansen called out the problem as Scientific Reticence [1]. While I'm not certain that CO2 is the primary

We don't hear enough serious talk like this. Dr. James Hansen called out the problem as Scientific Reticence [1]. While I'm not certain that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, it's clear that there are wildly out of norm changes occurring. Minimum Arctic sea ice extent is one of the main measurements that I've started paying attention to lately, and it's been outside of, or close to the -2s mark for five of the last seven years compared to a 1981-2010 average [2]. According to the IPCC things will be very bad somewhere near the end of the century, and according to Guy McPherson civilization is coming to an end within the next ten years [3]. There's a huge variation in time frame and severity in predictions, but it's clear that climate change is already severely affecting certain groups of people, and changes are occurring faster than expected [4]. [1] http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/24/dangerous-scientific-reticence/ http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/24/dangerous-scientific-... [2] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqIt93dDG1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqIt93dDG1M [4] http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/ http://www.fasterthanexpected.com/

specialist 9y ago
"While I'm not certain that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change..." The alternatives being methane, increased albedo, loss of biomass...?
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  And emission of methane and other hydrocarbons from thawing permafrost. Plus changes in global ocean currents. Plus emissions of sulphide and nitride into atmosphere. The answer is all of the above and they feed into each other. The main question that remains is whether we should try to attack CO2 or methane emissions first. Which will be more cost effective and more attainable in short term.
  - specialist 9y ago
    Ok, thanks. I misunderstood, worried tejohnso was ‘skeptical’ (denier). Agree on thawing permafrost, don’t know anything about atmospheric sulphides & nitrides (will read up, thanks). Regarding (human) emissions, sure, reduce at best available speed. But now that warming is self sustaining, we need to aggressively sequester, and hopefully figure out ways to slow and reduce ongoing methane release.
    - tejohnso 9y ago
      I don't think skeptics and "deniers" should be considered equivalent. One group endeavours to verify facts before accepting them, while the other ignores facts or deliberately misrepresents them.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        > I don’t think skeptics and "deniers" should be considered equivalent. You’re right in that they’re not equivalent, but often deniers (of any widely supported viewpoint) have learned to speak in terms of skepticism in order to deflect criticism of their denial. They say “oh, I’m a skeptic”, but provide the same stale arguments, and when those arguments are refuted (yet again), they don’t move their position one jot. They just retreat, and bring them up again at the next opportunity. So no, they’re not the same, but plenty of people are suspicious of “skeptics”, having run into too many that don’t argue in good faith.
        meko 9y ago
        So would you say you're... skeptic of skeptics?

specialist 9y ago

"While I'm not certain that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change..." The alternatives being methane, increased albedo, loss of biomass...?

AstralStorm 9y ago
And emission of methane and other hydrocarbons from thawing permafrost. Plus changes in global ocean currents. Plus emissions of sulphide and nitride into atmosphere. The answer is all of the above and they feed into each other. The main question that remains is whether we should try to attack CO2 or methane emissions first. Which will be more cost effective and more attainable in short term.
- specialist 9y ago
  Ok, thanks. I misunderstood, worried tejohnso was ‘skeptical’ (denier). Agree on thawing permafrost, don’t know anything about atmospheric sulphides & nitrides (will read up, thanks). Regarding (human) emissions, sure, reduce at best available speed. But now that warming is self sustaining, we need to aggressively sequester, and hopefully figure out ways to slow and reduce ongoing methane release.
  - tejohnso 9y ago
    I don't think skeptics and "deniers" should be considered equivalent. One group endeavours to verify facts before accepting them, while the other ignores facts or deliberately misrepresents them.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      > I don’t think skeptics and "deniers" should be considered equivalent. You’re right in that they’re not equivalent, but often deniers (of any widely supported viewpoint) have learned to speak in terms of skepticism in order to deflect criticism of their denial. They say “oh, I’m a skeptic”, but provide the same stale arguments, and when those arguments are refuted (yet again), they don’t move their position one jot. They just retreat, and bring them up again at the next opportunity. So no, they’re not the same, but plenty of people are suspicious of “skeptics”, having run into too many that don’t argue in good faith.
      - meko 9y ago
        So would you say you're... skeptic of skeptics?