4 ms·

Even here.

nemo44x 3y ago
I think there's a difference between denying that carbon emissions into the atmosphere will create a warming and acknowledging that but not being a fear monger or climate doomer. That we don't need to quickly take drastic action that will upend numerous livelihoods and quality of life because we will be able to engineer things to limit effects of warming and probably limit it. You can acknowledge that there are problems to solve but that doesn't mean that we are doomed as some would have you believe. Even challenging the worst case models is OK as that's how these things work. There's just so many variables that blindly listening to the worst case people without considering other things is foolish.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  With all due respect, the models have been correct since the 70s and continue to be correct, we don't assume or operate on the basis of "worst case scenario", we use ensembles of models and operate on those. The models are correct, have been correct, will continue to be correct. We lived, we live, and will continue to live with the consequences of our inaction. There is literally nothing you can express to change the mind of a person unwilling to change their beliefs in direct presence of evidence, let alone challenge them when the evidence is indirect, more abstract, or existing in the broader environment beyond themselves. Frankly speaking, if all the droughts and floods of the past few years in Europe, US, China, etc didn't cause people to wake up, nothing will and they will eventually ponder how we got where we have. > drastic action that will upend numerous livelihoods and quality of life because we will be able to engineer things to limit effects of warming and probably limit it. With all due respect, that is absolute bogus. Even the most optimistic scenarios of changing our behaviour tomorrow disagree. We could have done things since the 90s to improve the situation, and it wouldn't have reached the current state. Whether we "succeed" is not a boolean value conditioned on the average global temp increase < 2.0C. What climate scientists express is that along the way to 2.0C, we will observe many irreversible tipping points, e.g. Ice-sheet of Greenland, change of oceanic currents, yada, issues with polar vortex e.g. increased splitting which causes heat-domes and people suffer and die from heat and so on. Frankly, I don't expect that anything will change and I have made peace with it. > "Their excellent climate modelling was at least comparable in performance to one of the most influential and well-regarded climate scientists of modern history," Prof Supran said, comparing ExxonMobil's work to Nasa's James Hansen who sounded the alarm on climate in 1988. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994

Even here.

I think there's a difference between denying that carbon emissions into the atmosphere will create a warming and acknowledging that but not being a fear monger or climate doomer. That we don't need to quickly take drastic action that will upend numerous livelihoods and quality of life because we will be able to engineer things to limit effects of warming and probably limit it. You can acknowledge that there are problems to solve but that doesn't mean that we are doomed as some would have you believe. Even challenging the worst case models is OK as that's how these things work. There's just so many variables that blindly listening to the worst case people without considering other things is foolish.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
With all due respect, the models have been correct since the 70s and continue to be correct, we don't assume or operate on the basis of "worst case scenario", we use ensembles of models and operate on those. The models are correct, have been correct, will continue to be correct. We lived, we live, and will continue to live with the consequences of our inaction. There is literally nothing you can express to change the mind of a person unwilling to change their beliefs in direct presence of evidence, let alone challenge them when the evidence is indirect, more abstract, or existing in the broader environment beyond themselves. Frankly speaking, if all the droughts and floods of the past few years in Europe, US, China, etc didn't cause people to wake up, nothing will and they will eventually ponder how we got where we have. > drastic action that will upend numerous livelihoods and quality of life because we will be able to engineer things to limit effects of warming and probably limit it. With all due respect, that is absolute bogus. Even the most optimistic scenarios of changing our behaviour tomorrow disagree. We could have done things since the 90s to improve the situation, and it wouldn't have reached the current state. Whether we "succeed" is not a boolean value conditioned on the average global temp increase < 2.0C. What climate scientists express is that along the way to 2.0C, we will observe many irreversible tipping points, e.g. Ice-sheet of Greenland, change of oceanic currents, yada, issues with polar vortex e.g. increased splitting which causes heat-domes and people suffer and die from heat and so on. Frankly, I don't expect that anything will change and I have made peace with it. > "Their excellent climate modelling was at least comparable in performance to one of the most influential and well-regarded climate scientists of modern history," Prof Supran said, comparing ExxonMobil's work to Nasa's James Hansen who sounded the alarm on climate in 1988. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994