5 ms·

If someone want to convince me that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of

If someone want to convince me that climate change is the biggest threat to humanity they need to explain to me what scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate change are we currently not able to deal with and won't we be able to deal with 50-100 year from now. Climate change will happen whether we emit CO2 or not and we always have to find ways to co-exist with that fact. But the idea that climate change is catastrophic to the extent a sudden impact from an astroid is just not convincing and it's certainly not scientific no matter how many scientist are behind that view. "threat to humanity" is a big concept and it's disheartening to see it being thrown around with regards to climate so easily. My position on this is that we start taking care of our close environments rather than worrying about climate change as that's not something we can really do anything about (and no solar and wind will not solve our problems) The current debate about climate change is politics masquaraded as science. Until we accept this we can't have a constructive debate.

uxcolumbo 8y ago
I don't think people are saying it's like being hit by an astroid. It's gradual, like a frog being slowly boiled alive. There is lot of science in here: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-i... Other climate scientists (like P. Wadhams) think that report is too conservative. The way I understood it is (some major points): - The arctic ice is melting, which will reduce how much sunlight is reflected back into space (albedo effect). - melting permafrost releases methane - a very potent greenhouse gas, which can accelerate global warming. - More droughts can cause crop failures and eventually can cause social instability, starvation, malnutrition and wars for resources. This is a good summary of the IPCC report - it says we have around 12 years to avert major climate catastrophe: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w... Also look into what Dr James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) says. I think the scientific community is in consensus that climate change can become an existential threat if we don't act now. I don't understand why you don't think that's the case, even though there is so much scientific evidence out there. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment. Edit: typos and clarity
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Everything you point to is speculations they are not scientifically demonstrated. This is the main problem here. "It can lead to", "it might", "potentially" etc. that's not actually science. Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated. And just because you can show something in a lab you can't necessarily show that in larger scale systems. I am well aware of the claims about the 12 years and all that but I challenge anyone to show where it's demonstrated and I would invite anyone to dig into the material themselves. What you will quickly realize is that the actual science is a very small fraction of all the things you read about. The climate is changing yes. Besides that, the actual science starts to turn into more speculative territory. And then there are the issues with curve fitting etc. So much fud on both sides. IPCC does not actually do any science themselves, they don't even check the data they just do meta-studies and much of that is based on best guesses. They are an organization who only exist because there is a fear of climate change. That's not science that's politics. Let the scientists do science rather than this absurd political circus which gets in the way. There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes and that should be a big red flag to anyone who claims to be a critical thinker. Furthermore, none of the things you claim are things we won't be able to deal with or can't already. The frog metaphor would work fine if we didn't become better and better at dealing with the challenges nature puts towards us but that's not how things work. Nature doesn't give us a safe environment we don't make unsafe. It gives us a hostile and unsafe environment we then make safe and will continue to affect. There is no consensus that climate change can become an existential threat in anything than a speculative sense and it doesn't matter. A consensus is not proof nor is it science. Only demonstration is science.
  - uxcolumbo 8y ago
    I'm aware IPCC doesn't do science themselves and it is a study of studies like you said. But meta studies are a gold standard (especially for complex systems) as they average out the errors. Those studies are from scientists who do science, so I don't quite follow your comment. If I understand your comment correctly ("test in a large scale system"), in order to be 100% sure what would happen if the global temperature rises above 1.5C we would somehow have to replicate planet Earth with all its complex systems and speed up time to see what will actually happen? What about the models that scientists create? Are you saying that's not real science? Keep in mind that Earth climate models were used to successfully predict Martian weather, so I think we can trust those models that warn us of a climate threat if we don't cut our CO2 emissions. Are you basically saying there is nothing to worry about, because nothing has been proven yet?
rnernento 8y ago
How many people have to die for you to consider it a threat to humanity. Not trying to be dramatic, just understand that small changes in climate and crops have the potential to starve millions if not billions.
- krageon 8y ago
  For humanity to be properly threatened the threat needs to make humanity stop existing. Starving/dying people are bad, but not unusual even in current day to day life. It might even ramp up, that's really bad. But that doesn't make it a threat to humanity as a whole.
  - rnernento 8y ago
    I take the question as humanity as a whole, not just the existence of humanity. If something is capable of wiping out 50% of humanity, I consider that a threat. I understand what you're saying though.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Can you point to where it's been demonstrated that climate change will wipe out 50% of humanity?
      - rnernento 8y ago
        50% was an arbitrary percentage, does it matter? My point was where do you draw the line? My thought is that a billion people dying constitutes a threat to humanity. The reality is we don't know exactly how we'll react to climate change but it is in the realm of possibility that there will be significant losses to crop productivity in places like India.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        Again. Can you point to the evidence that billions will die? People die every day from nature already and already have. We've become better and better at dealing with nature. Many things are in the realm of possibility big astroid hitting earth is certainly going to be quite dramatic and in the billions. We aren't just dealing with one scenario here there are many ways that billions can be affected. So why try to force solar and wind when they can't even deliver the amount of energy we need, they aren't stable and they aren't even close to being green either. It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods. This idea that we can push some pause button and still get people out of poverty and make peoples lives safer or whatever it is people are suggesting is simply out of touch with any reasonable measure up against the consequences of climate change we can actually predict.
dTal 8y ago
The collapse of the entire food chain? Insect biomass is down 80% in the last 40 years. Ocean phytoplankton is down 40% since 1950. Both are attributed to climate change. These things are at the bottom of the land and sea food chains respectively. If the food chain collapses completely, we will all starve. This is not a gradual change of the type we need to learn to adapt to. This is a sudden, full-blown, in-progress apocalypse of a scale only seen once before in Earth's history.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Care to point to the scientific demonstrated evidence that the food chain is collapsing? We are much more people today when we were in the 50ies yet we are doing much better. So once again besides all the speculation what can you prove? I don't care about speculations i was asking about demonstrated evidence.
  - dTal 8y ago
    I just gave you two pieces of evidence.

uxcolumbo 8y ago

I don't think people are saying it's like being hit by an astroid. It's gradual, like a frog being slowly boiled alive. There is lot of science in here: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-i... Other climate scientists (like P. Wadhams) think that report is too conservative. The way I understood it is (some major points): - The arctic ice is melting, which will reduce how much sunlight is reflected back into space (albedo effect). - melting permafrost releases methane - a very potent greenhouse gas, which can accelerate global warming. - More droughts can cause crop failures and eventually can cause social instability, starvation, malnutrition and wars for resources. This is a good summary of the IPCC report - it says we have around 12 years to avert major climate catastrophe: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-w... Also look into what Dr James Hansen (ex NASA climate scientist) says. I think the scientific community is in consensus that climate change can become an existential threat if we don't act now. I don't understand why you don't think that's the case, even though there is so much scientific evidence out there. Or maybe I misunderstood your comment. Edit: typos and clarity

ThomPete 8y ago
Everything you point to is speculations they are not scientifically demonstrated. This is the main problem here. "It can lead to", "it might", "potentially" etc. that's not actually science. Science is not about consensus. Science is what can be tested and thus demonstrated. And just because you can show something in a lab you can't necessarily show that in larger scale systems. I am well aware of the claims about the 12 years and all that but I challenge anyone to show where it's demonstrated and I would invite anyone to dig into the material themselves. What you will quickly realize is that the actual science is a very small fraction of all the things you read about. The climate is changing yes. Besides that, the actual science starts to turn into more speculative territory. And then there are the issues with curve fitting etc. So much fud on both sides. IPCC does not actually do any science themselves, they don't even check the data they just do meta-studies and much of that is based on best guesses. They are an organization who only exist because there is a fear of climate change. That's not science that's politics. Let the scientists do science rather than this absurd political circus which gets in the way. There is no shortage of speculated outcomes. What there is a shortage of is demonstrated outcomes and that should be a big red flag to anyone who claims to be a critical thinker. Furthermore, none of the things you claim are things we won't be able to deal with or can't already. The frog metaphor would work fine if we didn't become better and better at dealing with the challenges nature puts towards us but that's not how things work. Nature doesn't give us a safe environment we don't make unsafe. It gives us a hostile and unsafe environment we then make safe and will continue to affect. There is no consensus that climate change can become an existential threat in anything than a speculative sense and it doesn't matter. A consensus is not proof nor is it science. Only demonstration is science.
- uxcolumbo 8y ago
  I'm aware IPCC doesn't do science themselves and it is a study of studies like you said. But meta studies are a gold standard (especially for complex systems) as they average out the errors. Those studies are from scientists who do science, so I don't quite follow your comment. If I understand your comment correctly ("test in a large scale system"), in order to be 100% sure what would happen if the global temperature rises above 1.5C we would somehow have to replicate planet Earth with all its complex systems and speed up time to see what will actually happen? What about the models that scientists create? Are you saying that's not real science? Keep in mind that Earth climate models were used to successfully predict Martian weather, so I think we can trust those models that warn us of a climate threat if we don't cut our CO2 emissions. Are you basically saying there is nothing to worry about, because nothing has been proven yet?

rnernento 8y ago

How many people have to die for you to consider it a threat to humanity. Not trying to be dramatic, just understand that small changes in climate and crops have the potential to starve millions if not billions.

krageon 8y ago
For humanity to be properly threatened the threat needs to make humanity stop existing. Starving/dying people are bad, but not unusual even in current day to day life. It might even ramp up, that's really bad. But that doesn't make it a threat to humanity as a whole.
- rnernento 8y ago
  I take the question as humanity as a whole, not just the existence of humanity. If something is capable of wiping out 50% of humanity, I consider that a threat. I understand what you're saying though.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Can you point to where it's been demonstrated that climate change will wipe out 50% of humanity?
    - rnernento 8y ago
      50% was an arbitrary percentage, does it matter? My point was where do you draw the line? My thought is that a billion people dying constitutes a threat to humanity. The reality is we don't know exactly how we'll react to climate change but it is in the realm of possibility that there will be significant losses to crop productivity in places like India.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        Again. Can you point to the evidence that billions will die? People die every day from nature already and already have. We've become better and better at dealing with nature. Many things are in the realm of possibility big astroid hitting earth is certainly going to be quite dramatic and in the billions. We aren't just dealing with one scenario here there are many ways that billions can be affected. So why try to force solar and wind when they can't even deliver the amount of energy we need, they aren't stable and they aren't even close to being green either. It's much more responsible to keep using the resources we have, become better at utilizing them keep developing new methods. This idea that we can push some pause button and still get people out of poverty and make peoples lives safer or whatever it is people are suggesting is simply out of touch with any reasonable measure up against the consequences of climate change we can actually predict.

dTal 8y ago

The collapse of the entire food chain? Insect biomass is down 80% in the last 40 years. Ocean phytoplankton is down 40% since 1950. Both are attributed to climate change. These things are at the bottom of the land and sea food chains respectively. If the food chain collapses completely, we will all starve. This is not a gradual change of the type we need to learn to adapt to. This is a sudden, full-blown, in-progress apocalypse of a scale only seen once before in Earth's history.

ThomPete 8y ago
Care to point to the scientific demonstrated evidence that the food chain is collapsing? We are much more people today when we were in the 50ies yet we are doing much better. So once again besides all the speculation what can you prove? I don't care about speculations i was asking about demonstrated evidence.
- dTal 8y ago
  I just gave you two pieces of evidence.