4 ms·

> "omg panic!! code red!!" based on the least realistic models in the IPCC reports, You mean articles like this Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for h

> "omg panic!! code red!!" based on the least realistic models in the IPCC reports, You mean articles like this Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'? [0] Because that specific quote, "code red" is not BBC editorialization. It is a direct quote from UN Secretary-General António Guterres [1] > Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. People accuse you ave being a skeptic not because you are saying "hey, we should consider this...", it's because, as exemplified by this exact comment, you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate. "Code red" is not based on the "least realistic" models, they are based on our current pathway, that was what made the most recent IPCC report so alarming. Climate change poses an extremely serious, near term threat to our very way of life. I know that this can be hard to accept, but it is important to, at the very least, not silence those who are pointing this out. 0. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58130705 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58130705 1. https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sgsm20847.doc.htm

rglover 5y ago
> you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate I'm literally not. It's in the report [1]. Your condescension here is exactly what I'm getting at. You assume I'm an idiot because we disagree. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (Page 304, lines 15-27). Edit: not my own math but this is important, too, and further cements my point: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424718032279011339 https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424718032279011339.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- time_to_smile 5y ago
  I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared. You're playing the exact tricks here that I just pointed out in the previous comment but I'm genuinely unsure of your motives. (btw, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think most climate skeptics are idiots, I think they're terrified beyond what they themselves even realize) The page you linked to says that RCP 8.5 is very unlikely, but none of the "code red" reports claim otherwise. All of the "code red" reports claim that we are virtually certain to be unable to stay below 1.5 preindustrial. This is RCP 4.5 and above. Something that if we had this conversation 20 years ago was also viewed as very unlikely. I think either you don't know or are wildly underestimating the severe impact that these alternative pathways will have on human populations. RCP 8.5 is as horrific as it is unlikely, but all the other pathways we are rushing towards are still absolutely "code red". In the early 2000s most people earnestly thought we wouldn't get past 1C, now that is impossible. It's not even worth getting into all the ways that many people agree the IPCC reports tend to be a bit conservative. I'm fine throwing out all of these concerns, and sticking with just the report, but even with just the report, even on RCP 4.5, we're in very real trouble. It is absolutely a 'code red'.
  - rglover 5y ago
    > I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared. None of the above. I'm reading the report and forming my own opinion while factoring out the hyperbole and panic of the media, politicians, etc. My motivation is thinking for myself and considering whether all of the theatrics align with the reality in front of me (they don't). To further elaborate on my skepticism, perfectly valid technologies that could have been implemented decades ago (while there was plenty of awareness of this problem, as well as "global cooling") like nuclear have been foolishly ignored, discredited, etc. The primary argument I hear is "too expensive" and "too long to build," yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions. All of what I said above combined with that tells me the motivation of the people trying to scare everyone is disingenuous. When someone's actions don't align with their speech, it's often indicative of dishonesty. Considering how much money is at stake, the probability of that is increased.

rglover 5y ago

> you are deliberately misrepresenting your position to make it seem more legitimate I'm literally not. It's in the report [1]. Your condescension here is exactly what I'm getting at. You assume I'm an idiot because we disagree. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... (Page 304, lines 15-27). Edit: not my own math but this is important, too, and further cements my point: https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424718032279011339 https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/1424718032279011339.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
time_to_smile 5y ago
I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared. You're playing the exact tricks here that I just pointed out in the previous comment but I'm genuinely unsure of your motives. (btw, I don't think you're an idiot, I don't think most climate skeptics are idiots, I think they're terrified beyond what they themselves even realize) The page you linked to says that RCP 8.5 is very unlikely, but none of the "code red" reports claim otherwise. All of the "code red" reports claim that we are virtually certain to be unable to stay below 1.5 preindustrial. This is RCP 4.5 and above. Something that if we had this conversation 20 years ago was also viewed as very unlikely. I think either you don't know or are wildly underestimating the severe impact that these alternative pathways will have on human populations. RCP 8.5 is as horrific as it is unlikely, but all the other pathways we are rushing towards are still absolutely "code red". In the early 2000s most people earnestly thought we wouldn't get past 1C, now that is impossible. It's not even worth getting into all the ways that many people agree the IPCC reports tend to be a bit conservative. I'm fine throwing out all of these concerns, and sticking with just the report, but even with just the report, even on RCP 4.5, we're in very real trouble. It is absolutely a 'code red'.
- rglover 5y ago
  > I'm honestly confused as to whether or not you are willfully trolling, tricking yourself, or just very scared. None of the above. I'm reading the report and forming my own opinion while factoring out the hyperbole and panic of the media, politicians, etc. My motivation is thinking for myself and considering whether all of the theatrics align with the reality in front of me (they don't). To further elaborate on my skepticism, perfectly valid technologies that could have been implemented decades ago (while there was plenty of awareness of this problem, as well as "global cooling") like nuclear have been foolishly ignored, discredited, etc. The primary argument I hear is "too expensive" and "too long to build," yet somehow congress manages to find money for inanities to the tune of billions every year. You'd think if this was seriously catastrophic, we'd be going in to debt to finance better energy solutions. All of what I said above combined with that tells me the motivation of the people trying to scare everyone is disingenuous. When someone's actions don't align with their speech, it's often indicative of dishonesty. Considering how much money is at stake, the probability of that is increased.