I really don't understand what these people want. Every morsel of food that goes into their mouths, every stitch of clothing on their bodies, every object they touch in their daily lives, every byte of data that goes to and from their computers does so because of fossil fuels. The climate has changed since the earth was formed. Without fossil fuels they and we will starve to death in the freezing darkness. What is their answer to that?
It's hard to debate facts/science with someone who's principle position is emotional. Countless parallels exist between climate and COVID and people's feelings that you should change your behavior to accommodate their feelings. Peta fits into this too.
It's hard to debate facts with people who can't accept facts, like yourself. Anthropogenic climate change is real, it is negatively affecting life on earth and if we don't stop using fossil fuels and reduce the human load, we will cause an extinction event. The fossil record proves this. Also, PETA is spot on as the lives that you take are not yours.
Anthropogenic influence on climate change is real, no doubt. But you're overstating your case in these comments by claiming that the science is completely settled. There is no such a thing. Climate science, as it was called before it was changed to climate change science (an interesting fact that's not without consequences), is comprised of so many disciplines whose members can barely find a common language to talk to each other. A physicist who does research on the dynamics of clouds knows absolutely nothing about oceanography, the effects of ocean currents and temperatures, and those two can barely follow someone who analyzes fossil records. The collection of temperature data is anothrr subject that is complicated and full of problems historically and methodically. While you're quick to insult people for not agreeing with you the vast majority of the environmental movement disagrees with you on the nuclear power, don't they? You will be called a lunatic if you propose more nuclear power plants. I agree with you on nuclear power. Over 350,000 people die every year with illnesses related to air pollution. How many people have died from all nuclear accidents and radiation (nuclear bombs not included)? A couple of thousand? I think pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere is a gamble but find the widespread rhetoric of CO2 output being described like a thermostat dial that we can simply reverse ludicrous and unscientific. And as one commenter pointed out somewhere below: global cooling could be more devastating than global warming. For the environmental movement to be successful and credible it has to rid itself from the depressed apocslypse now types like Greta who are screaming indiscriminate confused nonsense and are used by spineless politicians and bureaucrats who have to intentions of changing anything.
Anthropogenic influence is estimated to be about 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere; hardly a game changer. Eliminate that, if you can, and nothing really changes. After the 12 years (bought and paid for deadline for climate Armageddon) are up (more like 10 and counting) just like the 2k. The real problems are ignored while the deep pockets market climate change. Why?
This is a facetious argument. Nobody is claiming carbon dioxide wasn't in the atmosphere before people. The exact percentage added by humans is not relevant - what's relevant is that the increase in greenhouse gasses caused by human emissions is throwing the planets climate system out of wack and increasing temperatures. There is myriad data to show this - you're using bullshit late 90s talking points
That's not my argument. I think the claim that CO2 causes "climate change" has no such study to prove it. Professor Ole Humlum demonstrated that increased CO2 apparently had no causal relationship to global temperature at all. Climate scientist Piers Corbyn challenged the BBC, leading advocates of anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and the UK climate scientists at the U of E. Anglia to cite just one peer reviewed paper which proves CO2 is the driver of climate change. To date no one has cited any such paper. It appears anthropogenic climate change barely qualifies as a hypothesis under the rigors of empirical investigation. It's model driven - "meta-science".
Doubt is the basis of scientific inquiry. Without it there is no science...it becomes SWAG at best. I will concede that there's vast amounts of data and empirical evidence that here, on planet Earth, human interventions have been most assuredly catastrophic. 5G, pesticides, air, water, and soil contamination are avoided while deep pockets pay for CO2 climate change that doesn't even have a basis for causing warming, or change. And almost all of it is in the atmosphere, and has been for eons.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of interdisciplinarity. It's worth a Google. Everything you posted here is bullshit I used to see in garbage early 00's chain emails.
Interdisciplinarity? Wow! Yeah, never heard of it. Lol You've heard it all, ay? 1990, 2000s...who are you trying to impress here? In the aerosol research they still haven't even figured out the net effects of the feedback dynamics on cloud building and surface temperatures and you're playing master historian! Not even the methodology is settled science. The models used are super simplified and have been so far way off the mark. Your self- important babble doesn't intimate anyone. You're light on facts and heavy on insults. Go yell at your dog!
What's funny is people like you want to talk shit and condescend to people are supported by the science (coincidentally the same people who hate PC society!), Then you piss and moan about your fucking feelings when the facts are put in your face. Nobody cares how you feel. Recorded data is what it is. You accuse alarmists of being emotional and here you are whining about people being mean?
PS, I don't yell at my dog, I'm very fond of her. She's smart.
I'm spot on. You really need to read some of the links that I provided. We're on target for a Permian level extinction event if we don't stop what we're doing and reverse wildlife population declines and prevent the extinctions that we're currently causing.
"Almost no one who has fervent ideas has a good epistemic basis for the level of certainty they hold. There is a disconnect between the amount of certainty they have, and the amount of certainty they SHOULD have, through right process."
I am discussing climate. Read through my posts and you'll see that. Look for "Permian Extinction" and it will make sense. I will summarize: AGW is but one more human caused stressor on wildlife that is experiencing population declines that will reach a tipping point of functional extinction that will result in an extinction event like the Permian Extinction.
No, I was too depressed. I've been fighting this battle since the American people chose Reagan's entitlement over Carter's sustainability and have limited my intake of bad news.
These idiots aren't skeptics, it takes some competency to be a skeptic. They are deniers through and through. What I find interesting is just how many clueless people read Matt's stuff. They don't seem to get his point, protest correctly, appropriately.
Frankly at this point in the crisis, I don't really give a shit if people protest "incorrectly". The seriousness of the crisis justifies it. What's the worst that will happen - zero action from Washington? Are we really supposed to believe that a bipartisan climate package of appropriate scale is just around the corner, if only these protestors would stop blocking the road and dividing people? I say fuck em, good on the protestors. The reality is that fools like the person cited in the piece screaming about his unborn kid have far more inconvenience and misery baked in from climate chaos than they do from some people blocking a highway.
LOL! Facts are facts. Only an ideologue would continue to question the effects of sudden climate change on life. No one is skeptical, they are deniers, as you are.
The fossil record indicates that the Permian Extinction took 60,000 +- 40,000 years (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/) and we're causing a decline in wildlife populations far faster from everything that humans do. That we will cause a mass extinction is certain unless we change now, as in now.
Like many true believers, your alarm regarding climate/atmospheric sciences (chaotic, dynamic and non-linear) gets conflated with loss of species, pollution, and depletion of resources, which are easily measureable and rarely disputed.
Getting back on topic, the latest satellite data shows that the actual warming is approximately one third that of the model projections, from which most of the fear is based. If the science is so settled regarding climate, then why do they have to lie about it? Because they're herding sheep, that's why.
LOL! You're the true believer, someone who denies facts. The problem for you is that all the research and evidence prove that we are the cause of this climate change event and that it adds to all of the other human caused catastrophes due to our overpopulation, extractive economy and callousness. It isn't a conflation, it is but one human caused problem of many.
Getting back on topic, AGW has already caused weather pattern changes that is negatively affecting not only human communities, but wildlife and AGW is happening faster than evolution can accommodate and so wildlife must cope with another human caused stressor that adds to the others that is causing population declines and thus threatens an extinction event. Models be damned, we have actual data, population declines and the fossil record to indicate that we're doing will not end well. Keep your head up your ass.
I agree, but the fact is that we can prevent it reaching the tipping point. While most wildlife populations are in decline, there are many that have not reached the functional extinction limit, but we need to act now, as in immediately.
Agreed, but cold hard reality is that we've known about this problem for a half century and done next to nothing. Even now, as dire as the situation and IPCC reports are, we see no tangible action from the US in particular and almost nobody is meeting their Paris targets.
These people blocking the street are annoying fucks, but given the gravity and hopelessness of the situation, I don't blame them. Not only that, I don't believe they will hurt the cause - that's not possible given our inaction.
It has nothing to do with climate per se, but everything to do with Man. It has always been an offshoot of Malthusianism, that Man is a stain on the earth. Global cooling, holes in the ozone, nuclear power, SST planes, population bomb, these are all things I have heard bandied about by the ever-changing environmental movement, and as soon as it becomes clear that the cause du jour is BS, they move on to something new.
So, no. Using reason to start with a scientific argument will never work, as they didn't get to this point via reason. They got there by emotion.
While I agree with some of your points, the notion that "we" actually decided the context in which we live is pure bunk. Civilization by definition is rule of the few over the many and domination of everything. Call it a stain, call it narcissism, call it hegemonic, call it empire...whatever. The data is suggests that human's are not responsible for "global warming"; but we damn well are responsible for destruction on a massive scale.
I am mostly with you on the climate alarmism, but you seem to be deliberately obtuse here regarding the very real problem of habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity.
The fact is, humanity has not yet figured out how to use our natural resources sustainably. By any measure we are barely even making an effort. As of right now the only real question seems to be whether there is a mass die off of humanity before or after the entire planet becomes easter island.
Yes there was extinction before we arrived, good job pointing that out. Seems real relevant.
Both habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity are real issues, but so are job losses, economic destruction, and lack of intellectual diversity. And while they might seem like an apples to automobiles comparison, I find them to be one and the same; examples (which you fail to provide, but I will give one here in a moment) of the need for cost benefit analysis.
Take the Delta Smelt in CA. The habitat was used as a reason to not make improvements to CA fresh water system, which is used by farmers and families throughout the state. Now, which ever side you take on this, it is an example of cost/benefit analysis. My take, as we have seen repeatedly in CA when I was a resident, was to remove any and all dissenting voices from the environmental aspect; farmers were shouted down, business was closed out, all for the voices of Berkeley meanwhile the cost of water is rising, as pointed out by others in this thread. So, whose habitat has been destroyed? Families or fish? And at what cost?
But to get back to the first point I made, humanity did not kill off the dinosaurs. We did not destroy their environment, we didn't wipe out the planets biodiversity at that time. Something else did. Now, we can sit here and bemoan this, or we can look to the stars for our environmental diversity, look to destroying or moving objects before they hit the earth, and, yes, look at any and all current issues facing us. Or we could try to create the conditions of a massive volcanic eruption in the name of global cooling (this has been talked about by people such as Bill Gates) and possibly destroy life this way.
Really? I am looking around and not seeing a pile of bodies from all the environmental destruction. But I am seeing the environment in the best shape of my life, all of which is due to humanity. And I am also seeing much of this pass without the environmental movement involved. The reduction of smog in LA and London was due to business activity, namely finding a cheaper method of energizing production, to wetlands restoration due to pressure from hunting groups. In fact, it is that later issue, hunting land restoration and game preservation, that has done much of the most important work for over a century, vastly predating the post war environmental movement.
Mankind is going to do things, many will start off seemingly bad for the environment, but will move on the other methods as our standards of living increase. Thus it always was.
Animals piss in streams, humans treat waste water.
Every "problem's" solution usually brings multiple problems - some worse than the original problem - that's called "progress". It's like the medical treatments and their effect suppression and ultimate "side-effects".
The Amazon rainforest has been burned to such an extent that it may never recover and you're over here claiming things have never been better. Get a fucking clue.
So true. These true believers are not mentally and emotionally developed enough to understand that something came before them--and it was a lot worse than today. It takes real effort to get the entire direction wrong, but they's managed it...
Then what, exactly, are you calling destruction? I listed a bunch of things that went extinct, or were destroyed, long before mankind evolved, showing that mankind is not the sole destroyer, if it is indeed any sort of destroyer that any other type of animal is. So, what do you think has been destroyed by mankind and whatever changes to the environment it causes?
Have you been to Libya or Iraq? The 2 million dead in those nations alone and millions more scattered, homeless...have you been to any major US city? Seen the decay....and bodies strewn across the landscape. And don't tell me you haven't pissed in a river or some body of water....I this needs to be pointed out I suspect nothing will effect your sensibility. So, CA is now free of smog...but it's spewing all sorts of waste...it's scrounging for water. Toxins in City water like DC and Flint MI - and that's what we know about. Toxins in our food. Medications that pile up and create more disease as the body tries to get rid of it. Injections that deplete the body's capacity to produce health.
LOL! Are you really that stupid? Death is also natural, so you're ready to die now? Do you understand what life will be like when pollinators become functionally extinct? Have you heard of famine? Did you ever read about WWII? We're facing a global civilizational collapse if a few foundational species disappear. Get your head out of your ass.
Humans are a stain. We have been destroying ecosystems for centuries and our extractive economy, overpopulation and use of fossil fuels will result in an extinction event as seen in the fossil record, but over a shorter period of time than due to all natural causes. Science doesn't work because deniers are either too stupid or ideological to accept facts.
Jeff Biss I agree that humans have negatively impacted our ecosystems. I think this is because somehow we've separated ourselves from our natural habitat - our home. My concern with science is who pays for it. In major medical journals, for instance, after years of examination, most of the studies presented, many actually published are garbage. And many others are paid for by pharmaceutical companies.
In varies ways our "science" has become corrupted, and the ideology that prevails seems to be scientism and dogma. Over the years for various reasons that dogma rests on "global climate change". And this is a real problem as science is NEVER settled. Fear driven science is not science.
2. The only reason that earth supports life as we know it is because of the greenhouse gas effect. If not for GHGes, the earth's temperature would be 255 degrees Kelvin, -18 degrees C.
3. We know how much GHGes that our use of fossil fuels has added to the system and therefore know that the temperature increase is due to them.
4. We have the fossil record that indicates the effects of climate change has on life on earth and what happens when evolution can't keep up.
Well, your vision of science is a tad different than mine. Science is not settled. It's an inquiry and the idea is to reject theories at every turn not willingly comply and create "consensus". That's group think usually persuaded by funding grants. I'm not interested in arguing what humans have done or not done to the atmosphere. I don't argue with models which have yet to be right about anything...and that's what your "settled" science is based on. Sadly much of our science is bought and paid for. There's no money in ending ecosystem degradation - but Bill Gates and his clan see huge profits in "climate change". (An economy based on endless growth is deeply problematic - regardless the energy source.)
I would be more concerned if we were entering a global freeze which would be far more dangerous.
The cause of this climate change event is settled, our use of fossil fuels is the cause. That climate change has caused mass extinctions is also a fact as seen in the fossil record. That humans have decimated wildlife and its habitat is also a fact.
Models are irrelevant to these facts. However, models are but tools that if accurate can help make predictions; Science is not based on models, it is based on evidence and facts. Your argument about money is just stupid as there is no money to be made from accepting the fact fossil fuels are the problem, but in perpetuating bullshit "skepticism" about global warming causes that allow continued fossil fuel use.
You should be concerned that humans are causing an extinction event that will reach a tipping point to collapse if we don't end our evil ways now, not in the future at your convenience.
Shermer is wrong, Malthus is correct. The problem is that he didn't use science nor didn't understand the resilience of nature to accommodate harms, much like the human body can take a while to die of alcoholism. The fact is that humans have been causing extinctions faster than the background rate and due to overpopulation, our extractive economy, and now anthropogenic global warming, the rate of wildlife population decline is increasing.
Human biomass amounts to about 0.06 GtC (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115), that of our livestock is 0.1 GtC, that of all wild mammals is 0.007 GtC and all wild birds is 0.002 GtC. That alone indicates a huge imbalance that Shermer either ignores or is ignorant of. We depend on functional ecosystems and when they collapse an extinction event occurs and that collapse has been on-going for some time now and in a shorter time period than seen in the fossil record of previous such declines.
We need to a) develop policies that get people to stop having babies to drive our population to a sustainable level, (b) replace our extractive economy with a sustainable one based on closing the loop from waste back to manufacture and (c) replace all fossil fuels with fast reactors and hydrogen. We could have been there but for the deniers.
You just said 40-60K years, but I’ll be generous and spot you 75% off, so maybe 10K years from now, m’k?Keep in mind that no one actually knows what’s going to happen next week, but somehow you have certainty about your timeline? And you expect to be taken seriously? You REALLY need to get out more…
LOL! You just don't get it! It took a natural climate change event to cause a massive extinction event. However, we're causing population declines of a far faster rate due to a number of human activities and AGW is but one more stressor that will cause us to reach the tipping point faster, in a couple of decades if we don't reverse our overpopulation, replace our extractive economy with a sustainable one and leave wildlife alone.
The climate changes continuously. It's never stable. Climate change is normal. You'd expect a gentle warming trend on average (like the one we have) after the end of the last ice age and during the current interglacial period.
Climate change has never been a problem before. Why should we think it's a problem now?
Yes, the climate has changed since the earth was formed. But never this suddenly and this rapidly. Never due primarily to the actions of humankind. We are knowingly creating a massive shift in climate that will be nothing short of catastrophic for most forms of life on earth, and this climate change is fueled primarily by our use of fossil fuels. Hence the need to shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, which we easily have the capacity to do. I don't understand how this is controversial.
None of your stated assumptions or beliefs is true. I suggest you look at realclimatescience.com by Tony Heller for a better understand of the facts. The global temperature was warmer 100 years ago than it is now. 1921 and 1936 were much warmer and that entire period was as well. Thus the Dust Bowl. There is no massive shift. The climate has been warmer and colder during HISTORICAL times. The Romans grew grapes in Scotland, The Germans are only now finding old mines that have been covered by glaciers for centuries, the Vikings farmed Greenland. There were almost no fossil fuels and many fewer people then. There have been many ice ages followed by periods of interglaciation. You can address your unreasonable fears by trying to understand the facts about climate. Government "scientists" are not your friends.
You really have to stop with the conspiracy theory nonsense. You need to take actual classes and get a real education of facts. Understand this: science is based on evidence and rejects belief and science is democratic in that it is open to all who are competent to experiment and obtain data to verify theories. Therefore, it isn't about having friends, it is about having data and you have none.
What is also funny, as in your cluelessness, is that the Dust Bowl was caused by farming practices that were not aligned with that region's climate, it was yet another human caused catastrophe that happened due to human greed and ignorance. The temperatures were not higher then as shown by the anomolies that I posted a link to below. Here is NOAA graph of the temperatures instead of the anomolies: https://www.weather.gov/lsx/avgtmp. Note, once again, temps were NOT higher 100 years ago!
"The global temperature was warmer 100 years ago than it is now. 1921 and 1936 were much warmer and that entire period was as well. Thus the Dust Bowl."
Now read that again, but slowly. "Major climate event caused by human activity causes loss of livelihood, life savings, and migration on massive scale in one of worst national catastrophes in history of country." Are you seeing the connection yet?
LOL! That's all bullshit. Tony Heller is a denier. You are a denier also. And to prove this, all I need is but one example that you're simply wrong. The average global temperature was NOT warmer 100 years ago:
A couple questions, if I may. How will you live without energy? How will you get food? How will you survive the winter without electricity? Regardless of your silly assertions about an existential threat, I repeat my claim: without fossil fuels you will starve to death in the freezing darkness. The rest of it doesn't matter. We will die.
Live without energy? What are you talking about? You can't tell me you're honestly not aware that other viable sources of energy exist... come on man, it's 2022. Wind, solar, geothermal hydroelectric, nuclear... even hydrogen is looking more and more promising. If the world actually cooperated on switching to renewable energy, we easily, EASILY have the capacity to phase out fossil fuels within the decade. Hell we could do it in 5 years if it was urgent enough. It's not like humanity doesn't easily have the capacity to ditch fossil fuels, we just choose not to do it because there's too much money to be made.
We do not need fossil fuels, period. They can be replaced by the fast reactor that would use the current thermal reactor waste and then breed its own and replace all fossil fuel fired power plants. It would also provide the capacity to produce hydrogen that would replace all fossil fuels used in transportation.
Never this fast, this suddenly? And never due to mankind?
Huh, do you have video of the whole time the earth was around? Any first-hand accounts of Krakatoa being set off by mankind, or any of the meteor hits that created massive craters being pulled to the earth by humans? And, finally, can you tell me the make and model of the SUV's they were driving?
Are you telling me you're honestly not aware that humans have methods of modeling past geological and climate events? We've been doing it with extreme accuracy for well over a century now... it's not exactly a new concept.
How do we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old even though we don't "have a video of it"? How are we able to date the beginning and end of every ice age in history? How are we able to date the formation of geological features that formed literal billions of years ago? How do we know when the continents separated? How do we know when animals first walked on land? How do we know when the dinosaurs died out? Come on man, this is like high school level stuff...
You dishonestly told me that the earth has never changed as "suddenly" as it has under human hands. That massive shocks to the system such as well documented meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions are nothing in comparison to the human use of fossil fuels.
We have documented eras such as the medieval warm period (hotter on average than now) and the little ice age (colder on average than now) no modeling necessary. And no SUV's needed either. But, as I have been pointing out in this tread, some of us have been hearing the same BS over and over again over the last 40-50 years and can look back even farther to see the same pattern.
Observation. I have used it over the last 50 years, and the biggest thing I have seen is BS.
1. Every major climate shift in the past has been naturally occurring. The world goes through cycles - sometimes it becomes unusually hot for a few years, decades or centuries, sometimes it becomes unusually cold. But then it returns to normal because that is a normal cycle the planet goes through. This is the first time humans have created a major climate event through our actions alone. It's an entirely unnatural phenomenon, and it's on track to go far beyond the natural cycles the earth occasionally goes through.
2. Every major climate event in the past has been absolutely catastrophic for life on earth. Essentially your argument is "who cares if we're going to undergo a mass extinction event, it's happened many times in the past and the earth has ended up being fine." Yeah the earth may very well recover in a few centuries, but how does that make it ok that billions of peoples lives are going to be upended or even extinguished if we continue warming the planet at the rate we currently are?
Are you really this stupid? Do you understand what an extinction event is? You're arguing over whether this climate change event that is due to our use of fossil fuels is faster or slower than others when it is obvious that it is but one more stressor of life on earth that will cause a mass extinction is a far shorter time span than past events, save the instantaneous one caused by impact. The Permian Extinction was caused by climate change due to volcanic eruption over a long period and it took 60,000 +- 48,000 years to happen. Does that matter? We will collapse ecosystems in decades in a process that stared a few hundred years ago as human populations increased and started destroying wildlife and its habitat at an ever increasing rate. And, this doesn't even begin to consider the changes in weather patterns that are already affecting crops and costs.
Anthropogenic global warming is an existential threat to all life on earth. Climate change events have caused mass extinctions in the past and this one is threatening one far faster, in decades versus 60,000 +- 48,000 years because human evil, activity and greed have been decimating wildlife for hundreds of years that has increased in severity over the past few decades. For example, human biomass is estimated at 0.06 GtC while that of all wild mammals is 0.007 GtC. That indicates a huge and severe imbalance, but add that of our livestock, at 0.1 GtC, and you should see that we are at a tipping point that will cause most species to enter functional extinction that will collapse every ecosystem on earth. Got it?
So, while we know it was warmer in centuries past, this time it will kill everything?
But, in the meantime, fossil fuels will bring more people across the globe out of poverty. People in India, Africa, South America. The vaunted brown people that the left claims to care so much about. Why are you so racist?
"But, in the meantime, fossil fuels will bring more people across the globe out of poverty. People in India, Africa, South America. The vaunted brown people that the left claims to care so much about. Why are you so racist?"
LOL! People are THE problem.
Human population growth and our extractive economy has been degrading ecosystems over the past few hundred years! We need to develop policies that get people to stop having kids to drive our population to a sustainable level of well below 2 billion. Understand that your "concern" is misplaced as it is an impossibility to raise those people out of poverty without increasing the risk of reaching the extinction tipping point as it is precisely because so many live on so little that we have avoided collapse so far.
Consider that 5% of the earth's humans use 25% of its production. This shows that for your impoverished to live at our standard of living, we'd need to increase the earth's production 5X and that's an absolute impossibility. If we do not end the use of fossil fuels, replace our extractive economy with a sustainable one and reduce the human load, we're done and that could happen in a very short term, a decade or so. Got it?
"So, while we know it was warmer in centuries past, this time it will kill everything?"
Climate change, global warming due to volcanic CO2 emissions was the cause of the Permian Extinction, not short term trends like you present, such as happened with Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, etc, precisely because it isn't the actual temperature, but the warming rate and the attendant changes in chemistry that outpace evolution, which is happening now that is additional to all of the other human caused stressors.
And yet fossil fuels are THE problem! Imagine that. Only an absolute idiot would even attempt to use the "climate has changed" argument because what matters is how fast the climate changes versus the evolutionary capacity of the flora and fauna.
We could end the need for fossil fuels by replacing fossil fuel fired power plants with fast nuclear reactors that would enable the hydrogen era.
Maybe. Nuclear power has a rather checkered past and is widely believed to be dangerous. However, the fossil fuel problem is going to eliminate itself, either by running out or by cooking its users. Fossil fuel itself is inert; it's the desire for more and more stuff that's the problem.
What people believe is not fact, people believe all sorts of nonsense. The EBR-II proved itself capable and safe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIeE9NMP8Oc&t=92s and "Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor" by Charles E. Till) and had we been better people and accepted the fact that our extractive economy and overpopulation were fundamental problems, we could have made the requisite changes starting in the 1980s and we'd be in a far better place. But Americans hate long range planning and reality and so here we are.
The fast reactors also enable the hydrogen era that would replace all gas and diesel. Battery based electrical drive systems cannot due to their low energy capacity and weight. We'd have unlimited power and a closed-loop fuel supply.
In the 1970s and 1980s, people (at least the five or ten percent in my area who ever think about anything) often perceived the nuclear industry as aggressively dishonest. Given its connection with the government, especially the military, this was not an unreasonable opinion. I can give tedious examples of this if you wish. My congressman was an ardent supporter of nuclear power, as he was of anyone who had a lot of money, and we had an amusing exchange of correspondence about the issues. Talk about believing in nonsense! But he was just doing his job. I thought many of the technological problems with nuclear power could be solved but no one was going to do it because they were too expensive to allow the nuclear industry to turn a fast, immediate profit.
But in any case, to me the idea of unlimited growth seems like an obvious fallacy regardless of the technology employed, and unlimited energy will soon produce new and greater problems than those we already observe. To say nothing of the problem of its possible use in war and terrorism. (Another soluble problem, but as above, one which the people involved obviously don't _want_ to solve.)
I experienced that period. The problem is the thermal reactor, being pressurized, requiring active cooling, low efficiency, high waste production, etc. Read the book and watch the video that I refer to. Charles Till discusses the proliferation issue.
We are where we are because of Americans misplace belief in market ideology. We could have developed a plan to get off fossil fuels, but chose to let the market work its magic and here we are. Fusion may never be practical, but the fast reactor is and it could have been developed to play a supporting role in providing baseline power in a redesigned grid that would accommodate wind, solar and geothermal along with the necessary storage to make them practical and provide the means to enable the hydrogen era that would negate any need for fossil fuels.
You deniers are THE problem, too stupid to understand that there is something to be afraid of. Our overpopulation, extractive economy and abject stupidity, hubris, selfishness, will be the end of us and it wont be pleasant. Get your head out of your ass.
The IPCC is a political body and the Assessment reports on the scientific basis are political documents with a pre-determined political conclusion in mind.
This is true, but not in the way you're pretending. Political decisions absolutely do skew what's published in the IPCC reports, but they are biased to the conservative side which downplays climate, not to a side which over hypes it. Oil producing nations like the US and Saudi Arabia put tremendous pressure on IPCC to issue a more conservative report, which is why the scientists working on it leaked their draft a number of months ago.
People who participate in civil disobedience aren't scientists at all. Because when belief is a moral imperative, what you have is religion, not science.
TIL none of these 1000 scientists is actually a scientist! None of these people are believers based on moral imperative, they're believers because they understand the climate science and are experts in the field (unlike you).
The data quite literally says that there's high confidence that we are disrupting Earth's climate system and the effects are already here. What you've really just admitted is that you refuse to believe what's right in front of your face despite the mountain of evidence. You instead choose to retreat to uninformed uneducated dogma that makes you feel better about the reality you refuse to face. Ironically this is an emotionally driven response - the exact thing which you are accusing "alarmists" of.
You have it exactly backwards - only a religious fanatic could look at collapsing ecosystems and climate systems and think it's something people should not fear. Yours is truly an amazing statement - sea level rise threatens cities around the world from Jakarta to NYC and Miami (which is already experiencing sunny day flooding) while mega drought is punishing the southwest putting western communities and agriculture on the brink. Seeing this unfold before you and thinking it's nothing to worry about is truly a "this is fine" dog mentality.
I’m still trying to figure out if anyone took a page from the old enviro-psycho playbook and chained themselves to the Cool Bus before the fuzz showed up.
And no, it’s not a redwood tree. But at least they’re trying.
Jeepers jebediah, your britches were made with cotton picked by slave labor and sewn in child sweatshops, how can you be against that? - this guy 200 years ago.
Nobody likes these people because their core message is always "Screw you, this is what we want and that's all that counts!" The richest ones post signs on their lawns professing love and support for people who can't afford to live near them or go to their schools.
Even better, treat the ten as abortion protesters were treated years ago. Charge massive fines that were actually collected and jail time. Arrogant, undemocratic snobs can choose to ignore that Thoreau protested from jail, acknowledging that civil society and democracy have rules and rights.
I have no patience for these protesters. They should be hit with large fines, as well as the cost of the police response, and then jail time if they continue these tactics. However, I doubt the courts would step up and do their job.
I happen to believe we need to address the issue of climate change in some fashion, but these protesters are unintentionally hilarious in their tactical cluelessness.
99.9999% of climate protesters are vacuous morons trying to demonstrate their moral virtue. The problem will only be solved by pushing the boundaries of science and engineering. The best thing these people could possibly do is to go home and make babies. One of those babies out of a million will be the one that has the talent to solve important problems.
Isn't it amazingly neat how the people who virtue signal the loudest about the horrors of climate change, and who constantly tell the rest of us that we're going to have to make some changes in order to save the world, are in fact the assholes who are the driving force behind climate change?
"The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth.
"Oxfam’s new report, ‘Confronting Carbon Inequality,’ is based on research conducted with the Stockholm Environment Institute and is being released as world leaders prepare to meet at the UN General Assembly to discuss global challenges including the climate crisis.
"The report assesses the consumption emissions of different income groups between 1990 and 2015 – 25 years when humanity doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It found:
"The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).
"During this time, the richest 10 percent blew one third of our remaining global 1.5C carbon budget, compared to just 4 percent for the poorest half of the population. The carbon budget is the amount of carbon dioxide that can be added to the atmosphere without causing global temperatures to rise above 1.5C – the goal set by governments in the Paris Agreement to avoid the very worst impacts of uncontrolled climate change.
"Annual emissions grew by 60 percent between 1990 and 2015. The richest 5 percent were responsible for over a third (37 percent) of this growth. The total increase in emissions of the richest one percent was three times more than that of the poorest 50 percent."
Call me paranoid but climate change just seems like another mechanism of control aimed at the mass of non-elites. Guilt ridden mechanisms of control seem to be back in fashion these days.
Jeepers jebediah, your breeches are made of cotton picked by slave labor and were sewn in a sweatshop staffed by children! What do you say to that?! - This clown, 200 years ago.
If these people want to do something useful with their life they should form a cult dedicated to Elon Musk. It can't be denied that one Elon Musk has done literally multiple trillions times more for the environment than all climate activists put together.
I admire these folks for putting their bodies on the line for what they believe in, but I am appalled by their naivete. There is no effective Left left in this country. Climate change is happening, and it will bring famine, disruption and death. It is already too late to stop it and we are still not doing enough to mitigate the worst effects that are coming.
This comical video only reminds me how hopeless things are.
MATT: I have to say I'm a little surprised that so few of your readers have any sympathy for climate change protesters, because they don't fear climate change. Is that your position?
I'm not so surprised -- I think he attracts readers who don't feel bound by the carefully-negotiated Democratic Party platform, people who haven't trained themselves to agree with every left-wing position as their dogma. Lots of folks think climate change is real but don't want to sacrifice their living standards to do anything about it, because they already feel exploited by the system, why should they have to sacrifice. And then lots of folks don't think climate change is real. I think it tends to be the higher-income, professional-degree folks on the left who feel willing to make some personal sacrifice for climate change, but certainly they're not the majority, and even so they're usually not willing to give up their higher-than-median incomes to show their commitment to Less Stuff for All to Save the Planet. Instead they buy offsets.
I wasn't just surprised by the non-acceptance of the threat of climate change, but the seeming antagonism against people who do. I get that we've been brainwashed by the oil companies to think that individuals are responsible for changing their lifestyles (carbon footprint and all that), but these protests were not arguing for more personal action - instead they are trying to change corporate and government policy. That is what will be necessary so that the people who can least afford the affects of climate change don't suffer them. And neither do I subscribe to the presumed platform of the Democratic party, which is hardly left wing, but bought by the very industries that are killing our planet.
I really don't understand what these people want. Every morsel of food that goes into their mouths, every stitch of clothing on their bodies, every object they touch in their daily lives, every byte of data that goes to and from their computers does so because of fossil fuels. The climate has changed since the earth was formed. Without fossil fuels they and we will starve to death in the freezing darkness. What is their answer to that?
It's hard to debate facts/science with someone who's principle position is emotional. Countless parallels exist between climate and COVID and people's feelings that you should change your behavior to accommodate their feelings. Peta fits into this too.
It's hard to debate facts with people who can't accept facts, like yourself. Anthropogenic climate change is real, it is negatively affecting life on earth and if we don't stop using fossil fuels and reduce the human load, we will cause an extinction event. The fossil record proves this. Also, PETA is spot on as the lives that you take are not yours.
Anthropogenic influence on climate change is real, no doubt. But you're overstating your case in these comments by claiming that the science is completely settled. There is no such a thing. Climate science, as it was called before it was changed to climate change science (an interesting fact that's not without consequences), is comprised of so many disciplines whose members can barely find a common language to talk to each other. A physicist who does research on the dynamics of clouds knows absolutely nothing about oceanography, the effects of ocean currents and temperatures, and those two can barely follow someone who analyzes fossil records. The collection of temperature data is anothrr subject that is complicated and full of problems historically and methodically. While you're quick to insult people for not agreeing with you the vast majority of the environmental movement disagrees with you on the nuclear power, don't they? You will be called a lunatic if you propose more nuclear power plants. I agree with you on nuclear power. Over 350,000 people die every year with illnesses related to air pollution. How many people have died from all nuclear accidents and radiation (nuclear bombs not included)? A couple of thousand? I think pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere is a gamble but find the widespread rhetoric of CO2 output being described like a thermostat dial that we can simply reverse ludicrous and unscientific. And as one commenter pointed out somewhere below: global cooling could be more devastating than global warming. For the environmental movement to be successful and credible it has to rid itself from the depressed apocslypse now types like Greta who are screaming indiscriminate confused nonsense and are used by spineless politicians and bureaucrats who have to intentions of changing anything.
Anthropogenic influence is estimated to be about 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere; hardly a game changer. Eliminate that, if you can, and nothing really changes. After the 12 years (bought and paid for deadline for climate Armageddon) are up (more like 10 and counting) just like the 2k. The real problems are ignored while the deep pockets market climate change. Why?
This is a facetious argument. Nobody is claiming carbon dioxide wasn't in the atmosphere before people. The exact percentage added by humans is not relevant - what's relevant is that the increase in greenhouse gasses caused by human emissions is throwing the planets climate system out of wack and increasing temperatures. There is myriad data to show this - you're using bullshit late 90s talking points
That's not my argument. I think the claim that CO2 causes "climate change" has no such study to prove it. Professor Ole Humlum demonstrated that increased CO2 apparently had no causal relationship to global temperature at all. Climate scientist Piers Corbyn challenged the BBC, leading advocates of anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and the UK climate scientists at the U of E. Anglia to cite just one peer reviewed paper which proves CO2 is the driver of climate change. To date no one has cited any such paper. It appears anthropogenic climate change barely qualifies as a hypothesis under the rigors of empirical investigation. It's model driven - "meta-science".
Doubt is the basis of scientific inquiry. Without it there is no science...it becomes SWAG at best. I will concede that there's vast amounts of data and empirical evidence that here, on planet Earth, human interventions have been most assuredly catastrophic. 5G, pesticides, air, water, and soil contamination are avoided while deep pockets pay for CO2 climate change that doesn't even have a basis for causing warming, or change. And almost all of it is in the atmosphere, and has been for eons.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the concept of interdisciplinarity. It's worth a Google. Everything you posted here is bullshit I used to see in garbage early 00's chain emails.
Interdisciplinarity? Wow! Yeah, never heard of it. Lol You've heard it all, ay? 1990, 2000s...who are you trying to impress here? In the aerosol research they still haven't even figured out the net effects of the feedback dynamics on cloud building and surface temperatures and you're playing master historian! Not even the methodology is settled science. The models used are super simplified and have been so far way off the mark. Your self- important babble doesn't intimate anyone. You're light on facts and heavy on insults. Go yell at your dog!
Way off the mark? Afraid not.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
What's funny is people like you want to talk shit and condescend to people are supported by the science (coincidentally the same people who hate PC society!), Then you piss and moan about your fucking feelings when the facts are put in your face. Nobody cares how you feel. Recorded data is what it is. You accuse alarmists of being emotional and here you are whining about people being mean?
PS, I don't yell at my dog, I'm very fond of her. She's smart.
This post is diarrhea of the fingertips.
Calling it an extinction event is beyond brain-dead…
The only one brain dead here is you. Google Holocene extinction.
I'm spot on. You really need to read some of the links that I provided. We're on target for a Permian level extinction event if we don't stop what we're doing and reverse wildlife population declines and prevent the extinctions that we're currently causing.
"...we will cause an extinction event."
"The fossil record proves this."
"Almost no one who has fervent ideas has a good epistemic basis for the level of certainty they hold. There is a disconnect between the amount of certainty they have, and the amount of certainty they SHOULD have, through right process."
-Daniel Schmactenberger
A mass extinction event is already occuring. Have you read the latest IPCC report?
We were discussing climate. Somehow the discussion veered into die-off of species and human extinction.
The two are not mutually exclusive and are in fact intertwined.
I am discussing climate. Read through my posts and you'll see that. Look for "Permian Extinction" and it will make sense. I will summarize: AGW is but one more human caused stressor on wildlife that is experiencing population declines that will reach a tipping point of functional extinction that will result in an extinction event like the Permian Extinction.
No, I was too depressed. I've been fighting this battle since the American people chose Reagan's entitlement over Carter's sustainability and have limited my intake of bad news.
These idiots aren't skeptics, it takes some competency to be a skeptic. They are deniers through and through. What I find interesting is just how many clueless people read Matt's stuff. They don't seem to get his point, protest correctly, appropriately.
Frankly at this point in the crisis, I don't really give a shit if people protest "incorrectly". The seriousness of the crisis justifies it. What's the worst that will happen - zero action from Washington? Are we really supposed to believe that a bipartisan climate package of appropriate scale is just around the corner, if only these protestors would stop blocking the road and dividing people? I say fuck em, good on the protestors. The reality is that fools like the person cited in the piece screaming about his unborn kid have far more inconvenience and misery baked in from climate chaos than they do from some people blocking a highway.
LOL! Facts are facts. Only an ideologue would continue to question the effects of sudden climate change on life. No one is skeptical, they are deniers, as you are.
The fossil record indicates that the Permian Extinction took 60,000 +- 40,000 years (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/) and we're causing a decline in wildlife populations far faster from everything that humans do. That we will cause a mass extinction is certain unless we change now, as in now.
Like many true believers, your alarm regarding climate/atmospheric sciences (chaotic, dynamic and non-linear) gets conflated with loss of species, pollution, and depletion of resources, which are easily measureable and rarely disputed.
Getting back on topic, the latest satellite data shows that the actual warming is approximately one third that of the model projections, from which most of the fear is based. If the science is so settled regarding climate, then why do they have to lie about it? Because they're herding sheep, that's why.
Too bad your argument is bullshit and not backed up by any evidence.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
LOL! You're the true believer, someone who denies facts. The problem for you is that all the research and evidence prove that we are the cause of this climate change event and that it adds to all of the other human caused catastrophes due to our overpopulation, extractive economy and callousness. It isn't a conflation, it is but one human caused problem of many.
Getting back on topic, AGW has already caused weather pattern changes that is negatively affecting not only human communities, but wildlife and AGW is happening faster than evolution can accommodate and so wildlife must cope with another human caused stressor that adds to the others that is causing population declines and thus threatens an extinction event. Models be damned, we have actual data, population declines and the fossil record to indicate that we're doing will not end well. Keep your head up your ass.
We are already living through a mass extinction event.
I agree, but the fact is that we can prevent it reaching the tipping point. While most wildlife populations are in decline, there are many that have not reached the functional extinction limit, but we need to act now, as in immediately.
Agreed, but cold hard reality is that we've known about this problem for a half century and done next to nothing. Even now, as dire as the situation and IPCC reports are, we see no tangible action from the US in particular and almost nobody is meeting their Paris targets.
These people blocking the street are annoying fucks, but given the gravity and hopelessness of the situation, I don't blame them. Not only that, I don't believe they will hurt the cause - that's not possible given our inaction.
It has nothing to do with climate per se, but everything to do with Man. It has always been an offshoot of Malthusianism, that Man is a stain on the earth. Global cooling, holes in the ozone, nuclear power, SST planes, population bomb, these are all things I have heard bandied about by the ever-changing environmental movement, and as soon as it becomes clear that the cause du jour is BS, they move on to something new.
So, no. Using reason to start with a scientific argument will never work, as they didn't get to this point via reason. They got there by emotion.
While I agree with some of your points, the notion that "we" actually decided the context in which we live is pure bunk. Civilization by definition is rule of the few over the many and domination of everything. Call it a stain, call it narcissism, call it hegemonic, call it empire...whatever. The data is suggests that human's are not responsible for "global warming"; but we damn well are responsible for destruction on a massive scale.
Destruction of what? Dinosaurs? Dodos? Pangea? Neanderthals?
I am mostly with you on the climate alarmism, but you seem to be deliberately obtuse here regarding the very real problem of habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity.
The fact is, humanity has not yet figured out how to use our natural resources sustainably. By any measure we are barely even making an effort. As of right now the only real question seems to be whether there is a mass die off of humanity before or after the entire planet becomes easter island.
Yes there was extinction before we arrived, good job pointing that out. Seems real relevant.
Both habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity are real issues, but so are job losses, economic destruction, and lack of intellectual diversity. And while they might seem like an apples to automobiles comparison, I find them to be one and the same; examples (which you fail to provide, but I will give one here in a moment) of the need for cost benefit analysis.
Take the Delta Smelt in CA. The habitat was used as a reason to not make improvements to CA fresh water system, which is used by farmers and families throughout the state. Now, which ever side you take on this, it is an example of cost/benefit analysis. My take, as we have seen repeatedly in CA when I was a resident, was to remove any and all dissenting voices from the environmental aspect; farmers were shouted down, business was closed out, all for the voices of Berkeley meanwhile the cost of water is rising, as pointed out by others in this thread. So, whose habitat has been destroyed? Families or fish? And at what cost?
But to get back to the first point I made, humanity did not kill off the dinosaurs. We did not destroy their environment, we didn't wipe out the planets biodiversity at that time. Something else did. Now, we can sit here and bemoan this, or we can look to the stars for our environmental diversity, look to destroying or moving objects before they hit the earth, and, yes, look at any and all current issues facing us. Or we could try to create the conditions of a massive volcanic eruption in the name of global cooling (this has been talked about by people such as Bill Gates) and possibly destroy life this way.
Seems pretty relevant.
I would say of the aforesaid environment as a habitable place. But at least we're not responsible for offing the dinosaurs.
Really? I am looking around and not seeing a pile of bodies from all the environmental destruction. But I am seeing the environment in the best shape of my life, all of which is due to humanity. And I am also seeing much of this pass without the environmental movement involved. The reduction of smog in LA and London was due to business activity, namely finding a cheaper method of energizing production, to wetlands restoration due to pressure from hunting groups. In fact, it is that later issue, hunting land restoration and game preservation, that has done much of the most important work for over a century, vastly predating the post war environmental movement.
Mankind is going to do things, many will start off seemingly bad for the environment, but will move on the other methods as our standards of living increase. Thus it always was.
Animals piss in streams, humans treat waste water.
Every "problem's" solution usually brings multiple problems - some worse than the original problem - that's called "progress". It's like the medical treatments and their effect suppression and ultimate "side-effects".
The Amazon rainforest has been burned to such an extent that it may never recover and you're over here claiming things have never been better. Get a fucking clue.
So true. These true believers are not mentally and emotionally developed enough to understand that something came before them--and it was a lot worse than today. It takes real effort to get the entire direction wrong, but they's managed it...
I assumed the science to be correct and approached the problem as a political one. The accuracy of the science is a different issue.
Extinction is not destruction. It's natural.
Then what, exactly, are you calling destruction? I listed a bunch of things that went extinct, or were destroyed, long before mankind evolved, showing that mankind is not the sole destroyer, if it is indeed any sort of destroyer that any other type of animal is. So, what do you think has been destroyed by mankind and whatever changes to the environment it causes?
Have you been to Libya or Iraq? The 2 million dead in those nations alone and millions more scattered, homeless...have you been to any major US city? Seen the decay....and bodies strewn across the landscape. And don't tell me you haven't pissed in a river or some body of water....I this needs to be pointed out I suspect nothing will effect your sensibility. So, CA is now free of smog...but it's spewing all sorts of waste...it's scrounging for water. Toxins in City water like DC and Flint MI - and that's what we know about. Toxins in our food. Medications that pile up and create more disease as the body tries to get rid of it. Injections that deplete the body's capacity to produce health.
LOL! Are you really that stupid? Death is also natural, so you're ready to die now? Do you understand what life will be like when pollinators become functionally extinct? Have you heard of famine? Did you ever read about WWII? We're facing a global civilizational collapse if a few foundational species disappear. Get your head out of your ass.
Humans are a stain. We have been destroying ecosystems for centuries and our extractive economy, overpopulation and use of fossil fuels will result in an extinction event as seen in the fossil record, but over a shorter period of time than due to all natural causes. Science doesn't work because deniers are either too stupid or ideological to accept facts.
You might be a stain, but you can only speak for yourself
No, you're the shit stain that we have to clean up.
I’m gonna buy you a nice fruit basket…
OK
Jeff Biss I agree that humans have negatively impacted our ecosystems. I think this is because somehow we've separated ourselves from our natural habitat - our home. My concern with science is who pays for it. In major medical journals, for instance, after years of examination, most of the studies presented, many actually published are garbage. And many others are paid for by pharmaceutical companies.
In varies ways our "science" has become corrupted, and the ideology that prevails seems to be scientism and dogma. Over the years for various reasons that dogma rests on "global climate change". And this is a real problem as science is NEVER settled. Fear driven science is not science.
"My concern with science is who pays for it."
What are you alleging here? Anthropogenic global warming is a proven fact:
1. We have known about the greenhouse effect since the discovery that gases trap heat (https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/who-discovered-greenhouse-effect).
2. The only reason that earth supports life as we know it is because of the greenhouse gas effect. If not for GHGes, the earth's temperature would be 255 degrees Kelvin, -18 degrees C.
3. We know how much GHGes that our use of fossil fuels has added to the system and therefore know that the temperature increase is due to them.
4. We have the fossil record that indicates the effects of climate change has on life on earth and what happens when evolution can't keep up.
This science is settled.
Well, your vision of science is a tad different than mine. Science is not settled. It's an inquiry and the idea is to reject theories at every turn not willingly comply and create "consensus". That's group think usually persuaded by funding grants. I'm not interested in arguing what humans have done or not done to the atmosphere. I don't argue with models which have yet to be right about anything...and that's what your "settled" science is based on. Sadly much of our science is bought and paid for. There's no money in ending ecosystem degradation - but Bill Gates and his clan see huge profits in "climate change". (An economy based on endless growth is deeply problematic - regardless the energy source.)
I would be more concerned if we were entering a global freeze which would be far more dangerous.
The cause of this climate change event is settled, our use of fossil fuels is the cause. That climate change has caused mass extinctions is also a fact as seen in the fossil record. That humans have decimated wildlife and its habitat is also a fact.
Models are irrelevant to these facts. However, models are but tools that if accurate can help make predictions; Science is not based on models, it is based on evidence and facts. Your argument about money is just stupid as there is no money to be made from accepting the fact fossil fuels are the problem, but in perpetuating bullshit "skepticism" about global warming causes that allow continued fossil fuel use.
You should be concerned that humans are causing an extinction event that will reach a tipping point to collapse if we don't end our evil ways now, not in the future at your convenience.
You’re a moron
No, you are.
Thanks for the link. A most interesting analysis.
Intensely interesting subject matter.
Shermer is wrong, Malthus is correct. The problem is that he didn't use science nor didn't understand the resilience of nature to accommodate harms, much like the human body can take a while to die of alcoholism. The fact is that humans have been causing extinctions faster than the background rate and due to overpopulation, our extractive economy, and now anthropogenic global warming, the rate of wildlife population decline is increasing.
Human biomass amounts to about 0.06 GtC (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115), that of our livestock is 0.1 GtC, that of all wild mammals is 0.007 GtC and all wild birds is 0.002 GtC. That alone indicates a huge imbalance that Shermer either ignores or is ignorant of. We depend on functional ecosystems and when they collapse an extinction event occurs and that collapse has been on-going for some time now and in a shorter time period than seen in the fossil record of previous such declines.
We need to a) develop policies that get people to stop having babies to drive our population to a sustainable level, (b) replace our extractive economy with a sustainable one based on closing the loop from waste back to manufacture and (c) replace all fossil fuels with fast reactors and hydrogen. We could have been there but for the deniers.
You just said 40-60K years, but I’ll be generous and spot you 75% off, so maybe 10K years from now, m’k?Keep in mind that no one actually knows what’s going to happen next week, but somehow you have certainty about your timeline? And you expect to be taken seriously? You REALLY need to get out more…
LOL! You just don't get it! It took a natural climate change event to cause a massive extinction event. However, we're causing population declines of a far faster rate due to a number of human activities and AGW is but one more stressor that will cause us to reach the tipping point faster, in a couple of decades if we don't reverse our overpopulation, replace our extractive economy with a sustainable one and leave wildlife alone.
The climate changes continuously. It's never stable. Climate change is normal. You'd expect a gentle warming trend on average (like the one we have) after the end of the last ice age and during the current interglacial period.
Climate change has never been a problem before. Why should we think it's a problem now?
Utopia!! That place where everyone on the "right side of history" resides.
Yes, the climate has changed since the earth was formed. But never this suddenly and this rapidly. Never due primarily to the actions of humankind. We are knowingly creating a massive shift in climate that will be nothing short of catastrophic for most forms of life on earth, and this climate change is fueled primarily by our use of fossil fuels. Hence the need to shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, which we easily have the capacity to do. I don't understand how this is controversial.
None of your stated assumptions or beliefs is true. I suggest you look at realclimatescience.com by Tony Heller for a better understand of the facts. The global temperature was warmer 100 years ago than it is now. 1921 and 1936 were much warmer and that entire period was as well. Thus the Dust Bowl. There is no massive shift. The climate has been warmer and colder during HISTORICAL times. The Romans grew grapes in Scotland, The Germans are only now finding old mines that have been covered by glaciers for centuries, the Vikings farmed Greenland. There were almost no fossil fuels and many fewer people then. There have been many ice ages followed by periods of interglaciation. You can address your unreasonable fears by trying to understand the facts about climate. Government "scientists" are not your friends.
"Government "scientists" are not your friends."
You really have to stop with the conspiracy theory nonsense. You need to take actual classes and get a real education of facts. Understand this: science is based on evidence and rejects belief and science is democratic in that it is open to all who are competent to experiment and obtain data to verify theories. Therefore, it isn't about having friends, it is about having data and you have none.
What is also funny, as in your cluelessness, is that the Dust Bowl was caused by farming practices that were not aligned with that region's climate, it was yet another human caused catastrophe that happened due to human greed and ignorance. The temperatures were not higher then as shown by the anomolies that I posted a link to below. Here is NOAA graph of the temperatures instead of the anomolies: https://www.weather.gov/lsx/avgtmp. Note, once again, temps were NOT higher 100 years ago!
"The global temperature was warmer 100 years ago than it is now. 1921 and 1936 were much warmer and that entire period was as well. Thus the Dust Bowl."
Now read that again, but slowly. "Major climate event caused by human activity causes loss of livelihood, life savings, and migration on massive scale in one of worst national catastrophes in history of country." Are you seeing the connection yet?
LOL! That's all bullshit. Tony Heller is a denier. You are a denier also. And to prove this, all I need is but one example that you're simply wrong. The average global temperature was NOT warmer 100 years ago:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
You obviously have done zero research, such as in taking actual classes, but instead go to denier web sites like of that clown Tony Heller.
A couple questions, if I may. How will you live without energy? How will you get food? How will you survive the winter without electricity? Regardless of your silly assertions about an existential threat, I repeat my claim: without fossil fuels you will starve to death in the freezing darkness. The rest of it doesn't matter. We will die.
Live without energy? What are you talking about? You can't tell me you're honestly not aware that other viable sources of energy exist... come on man, it's 2022. Wind, solar, geothermal hydroelectric, nuclear... even hydrogen is looking more and more promising. If the world actually cooperated on switching to renewable energy, we easily, EASILY have the capacity to phase out fossil fuels within the decade. Hell we could do it in 5 years if it was urgent enough. It's not like humanity doesn't easily have the capacity to ditch fossil fuels, we just choose not to do it because there's too much money to be made.
We do not need fossil fuels, period. They can be replaced by the fast reactor that would use the current thermal reactor waste and then breed its own and replace all fossil fuel fired power plants. It would also provide the capacity to produce hydrogen that would replace all fossil fuels used in transportation.
Never this fast, this suddenly? And never due to mankind?
Huh, do you have video of the whole time the earth was around? Any first-hand accounts of Krakatoa being set off by mankind, or any of the meteor hits that created massive craters being pulled to the earth by humans? And, finally, can you tell me the make and model of the SUV's they were driving?
Are you telling me you're honestly not aware that humans have methods of modeling past geological and climate events? We've been doing it with extreme accuracy for well over a century now... it's not exactly a new concept.
How do we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old even though we don't "have a video of it"? How are we able to date the beginning and end of every ice age in history? How are we able to date the formation of geological features that formed literal billions of years ago? How do we know when the continents separated? How do we know when animals first walked on land? How do we know when the dinosaurs died out? Come on man, this is like high school level stuff...
You dishonestly told me that the earth has never changed as "suddenly" as it has under human hands. That massive shocks to the system such as well documented meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions are nothing in comparison to the human use of fossil fuels.
We have documented eras such as the medieval warm period (hotter on average than now) and the little ice age (colder on average than now) no modeling necessary. And no SUV's needed either. But, as I have been pointing out in this tread, some of us have been hearing the same BS over and over again over the last 40-50 years and can look back even farther to see the same pattern.
Observation. I have used it over the last 50 years, and the biggest thing I have seen is BS.
Two points you're somehow completely overlooking:
1. Every major climate shift in the past has been naturally occurring. The world goes through cycles - sometimes it becomes unusually hot for a few years, decades or centuries, sometimes it becomes unusually cold. But then it returns to normal because that is a normal cycle the planet goes through. This is the first time humans have created a major climate event through our actions alone. It's an entirely unnatural phenomenon, and it's on track to go far beyond the natural cycles the earth occasionally goes through.
2. Every major climate event in the past has been absolutely catastrophic for life on earth. Essentially your argument is "who cares if we're going to undergo a mass extinction event, it's happened many times in the past and the earth has ended up being fine." Yeah the earth may very well recover in a few centuries, but how does that make it ok that billions of peoples lives are going to be upended or even extinguished if we continue warming the planet at the rate we currently are?
Are you really this stupid? Do you understand what an extinction event is? You're arguing over whether this climate change event that is due to our use of fossil fuels is faster or slower than others when it is obvious that it is but one more stressor of life on earth that will cause a mass extinction is a far shorter time span than past events, save the instantaneous one caused by impact. The Permian Extinction was caused by climate change due to volcanic eruption over a long period and it took 60,000 +- 48,000 years to happen. Does that matter? We will collapse ecosystems in decades in a process that stared a few hundred years ago as human populations increased and started destroying wildlife and its habitat at an ever increasing rate. And, this doesn't even begin to consider the changes in weather patterns that are already affecting crops and costs.
Yes, please, call me stupid. When you have not, and I am guessing cannot, explain why the earth was warmer in recent centuries, along with colder.
And yet you double down on your racist wish list.
Anthropogenic global warming is an existential threat to all life on earth. Climate change events have caused mass extinctions in the past and this one is threatening one far faster, in decades versus 60,000 +- 48,000 years because human evil, activity and greed have been decimating wildlife for hundreds of years that has increased in severity over the past few decades. For example, human biomass is estimated at 0.06 GtC while that of all wild mammals is 0.007 GtC. That indicates a huge and severe imbalance, but add that of our livestock, at 0.1 GtC, and you should see that we are at a tipping point that will cause most species to enter functional extinction that will collapse every ecosystem on earth. Got it?
So, while we know it was warmer in centuries past, this time it will kill everything?
But, in the meantime, fossil fuels will bring more people across the globe out of poverty. People in India, Africa, South America. The vaunted brown people that the left claims to care so much about. Why are you so racist?
"But, in the meantime, fossil fuels will bring more people across the globe out of poverty. People in India, Africa, South America. The vaunted brown people that the left claims to care so much about. Why are you so racist?"
LOL! People are THE problem.
Human population growth and our extractive economy has been degrading ecosystems over the past few hundred years! We need to develop policies that get people to stop having kids to drive our population to a sustainable level of well below 2 billion. Understand that your "concern" is misplaced as it is an impossibility to raise those people out of poverty without increasing the risk of reaching the extinction tipping point as it is precisely because so many live on so little that we have avoided collapse so far.
Consider that 5% of the earth's humans use 25% of its production. This shows that for your impoverished to live at our standard of living, we'd need to increase the earth's production 5X and that's an absolute impossibility. If we do not end the use of fossil fuels, replace our extractive economy with a sustainable one and reduce the human load, we're done and that could happen in a very short term, a decade or so. Got it?
"So, while we know it was warmer in centuries past, this time it will kill everything?"
Climate change, global warming due to volcanic CO2 emissions was the cause of the Permian Extinction, not short term trends like you present, such as happened with Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, etc, precisely because it isn't the actual temperature, but the warming rate and the attendant changes in chemistry that outpace evolution, which is happening now that is additional to all of the other human caused stressors.
Gosh willikers, jebediah! Why, your very breeches are made from cotton picked by slave labor - what do you say to that? - OP 200 YEARS AGO.
I saw you on good morning Britain last week, you were great!
https://youtu.be/XzzGlyeI2WM
LOL! And no one listens!
Not only that, they treat YOU as the asshole for bringing it up! Don't Look Up was maddening and cathartic.
And yet fossil fuels are THE problem! Imagine that. Only an absolute idiot would even attempt to use the "climate has changed" argument because what matters is how fast the climate changes versus the evolutionary capacity of the flora and fauna.
We could end the need for fossil fuels by replacing fossil fuel fired power plants with fast nuclear reactors that would enable the hydrogen era.
Maybe. Nuclear power has a rather checkered past and is widely believed to be dangerous. However, the fossil fuel problem is going to eliminate itself, either by running out or by cooking its users. Fossil fuel itself is inert; it's the desire for more and more stuff that's the problem.
What people believe is not fact, people believe all sorts of nonsense. The EBR-II proved itself capable and safe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIeE9NMP8Oc&t=92s and "Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor" by Charles E. Till) and had we been better people and accepted the fact that our extractive economy and overpopulation were fundamental problems, we could have made the requisite changes starting in the 1980s and we'd be in a far better place. But Americans hate long range planning and reality and so here we are.
The fast reactors also enable the hydrogen era that would replace all gas and diesel. Battery based electrical drive systems cannot due to their low energy capacity and weight. We'd have unlimited power and a closed-loop fuel supply.
In the 1970s and 1980s, people (at least the five or ten percent in my area who ever think about anything) often perceived the nuclear industry as aggressively dishonest. Given its connection with the government, especially the military, this was not an unreasonable opinion. I can give tedious examples of this if you wish. My congressman was an ardent supporter of nuclear power, as he was of anyone who had a lot of money, and we had an amusing exchange of correspondence about the issues. Talk about believing in nonsense! But he was just doing his job. I thought many of the technological problems with nuclear power could be solved but no one was going to do it because they were too expensive to allow the nuclear industry to turn a fast, immediate profit.
But in any case, to me the idea of unlimited growth seems like an obvious fallacy regardless of the technology employed, and unlimited energy will soon produce new and greater problems than those we already observe. To say nothing of the problem of its possible use in war and terrorism. (Another soluble problem, but as above, one which the people involved obviously don't _want_ to solve.)
I experienced that period. The problem is the thermal reactor, being pressurized, requiring active cooling, low efficiency, high waste production, etc. Read the book and watch the video that I refer to. Charles Till discusses the proliferation issue.
We are where we are because of Americans misplace belief in market ideology. We could have developed a plan to get off fossil fuels, but chose to let the market work its magic and here we are. Fusion may never be practical, but the fast reactor is and it could have been developed to play a supporting role in providing baseline power in a redesigned grid that would accommodate wind, solar and geothermal along with the necessary storage to make them practical and provide the means to enable the hydrogen era that would negate any need for fossil fuels.
Read the book and this opinion piece: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare. The fast reactor is the ONLY solution to the energy needs of an overpopulated earth, period.
"We need to listen to the scientists. We need to listen to the indigenous people."
Brilliant. Just brilliant. Do people still say LARP?
I appreciate these videos, and they are very well done, but this DC-style community theater doesn't engage me.
LMFAOOOOOOOOOO.... Community theater. What an "on the nose" description.
Well spoken.
Climate change activism has absolutely nothing to do with science. It's a religious exercise.
You're a real idiot. We're in a human caused extinction event that will rival those seen in the fossil record, such as the Permian Extinction that was due to climate change from greenhouse gases (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/).
You deniers are THE problem, too stupid to understand that there is something to be afraid of. Our overpopulation, extractive economy and abject stupidity, hubris, selfishness, will be the end of us and it wont be pleasant. Get your head out of your ass.
You're gullible and credulous. Go put your fucking mask on, serf.
LOL! You are too uneducated for your own good, paid no attention in school and so fall for any conspiracy theory that aligns with your stupid nature.
Unlike you, I can divine facts from feelings.
You just don't comprehend what you read, so don't post a response. You just aren't bright enough to.
Have you read the latest IPCC report?
Yes
The IPCC is a political body and the Assessment reports on the scientific basis are political documents with a pre-determined political conclusion in mind.
This is true, but not in the way you're pretending. Political decisions absolutely do skew what's published in the IPCC reports, but they are biased to the conservative side which downplays climate, not to a side which over hypes it. Oil producing nations like the US and Saudi Arabia put tremendous pressure on IPCC to issue a more conservative report, which is why the scientists working on it leaked their draft a number of months ago.
Climate change alarmism is a boutique concern of the affluent for whom virtue signaling is of primary importance.
Poor people don't give a shit about climate change.
Wow, so all these people blocking traffic are rich?
Then why are you spouting ignorant bullshit like "climate activism has nothing to do with science"?
If that's the case, why are climate scientists themselves participating in civil disobedience campaigns?
People who participate in civil disobedience aren't scientists at all. Because when belief is a moral imperative, what you have is religion, not science.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-stage-worldwide-climate-protests-after-ipcc-report-180979913/
TIL none of these 1000 scientists is actually a scientist! None of these people are believers based on moral imperative, they're believers because they understand the climate science and are experts in the field (unlike you).
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Perhaps you're not aware of this.
I've looked at the data and arrived at my own conclusions. Only a religious fanatic would conclude climate change is something we should fear.
The data quite literally says that there's high confidence that we are disrupting Earth's climate system and the effects are already here. What you've really just admitted is that you refuse to believe what's right in front of your face despite the mountain of evidence. You instead choose to retreat to uninformed uneducated dogma that makes you feel better about the reality you refuse to face. Ironically this is an emotionally driven response - the exact thing which you are accusing "alarmists" of.
You have it exactly backwards - only a religious fanatic could look at collapsing ecosystems and climate systems and think it's something people should not fear. Yours is truly an amazing statement - sea level rise threatens cities around the world from Jakarta to NYC and Miami (which is already experiencing sunny day flooding) while mega drought is punishing the southwest putting western communities and agriculture on the brink. Seeing this unfold before you and thinking it's nothing to worry about is truly a "this is fine" dog mentality.
I completely reject the conclusions of the IPCC which are politically motivated. All of the data support my point of view.
How many people have died from climate change? Zero.
I don't belong to your little cult. Sorry!
it's a lot of pages, LOL, I'm not sure many people read all of it
If only these Earth-hating, climate-killing, industrial combustion users had ridden bicycles to the protest.
Then their irresponsible CO2 emitting mode of transportation would not have broken down and they would not have been fined.
Oh the humanity.
Just imagine the pollution that was spewed from that worn-out school bus, which rather obviously had not been maintained property.
I’m still trying to figure out if anyone took a page from the old enviro-psycho playbook and chained themselves to the Cool Bus before the fuzz showed up.
And no, it’s not a redwood tree. But at least they’re trying.
Jeepers jebediah, your britches were made with cotton picked by slave labor and sewn in child sweatshops, how can you be against that? - this guy 200 years ago.
You mean like Nike or something? Progs rock. LOL
Nobody likes these people because their core message is always "Screw you, this is what we want and that's all that counts!" The richest ones post signs on their lawns professing love and support for people who can't afford to live near them or go to their schools.
Block the road and you deserve to get your bitch ass run over. End of story.
Even better, treat the ten as abortion protesters were treated years ago. Charge massive fines that were actually collected and jail time. Arrogant, undemocratic snobs can choose to ignore that Thoreau protested from jail, acknowledging that civil society and democracy have rules and rights.
I have no patience for these protesters. They should be hit with large fines, as well as the cost of the police response, and then jail time if they continue these tactics. However, I doubt the courts would step up and do their job.
I happen to believe we need to address the issue of climate change in some fashion, but these protesters are unintentionally hilarious in their tactical cluelessness.
sure. maybe. except it's only the little people that always pay the price. fuck that.
note the carbon footprint to climate change conferences. those assholes can use Zoom like the rest of us.
99.9999% of climate protesters are vacuous morons trying to demonstrate their moral virtue. The problem will only be solved by pushing the boundaries of science and engineering. The best thing these people could possibly do is to go home and make babies. One of those babies out of a million will be the one that has the talent to solve important problems.
Isn't it amazingly neat how the people who virtue signal the loudest about the horrors of climate change, and who constantly tell the rest of us that we're going to have to make some changes in order to save the world, are in fact the assholes who are the driving force behind climate change?
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/carbon-emissions-richest-1-percent-more-double-emissions-poorest-half-humanity
"The richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who made up the poorest half of humanity during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth.
"Oxfam’s new report, ‘Confronting Carbon Inequality,’ is based on research conducted with the Stockholm Environment Institute and is being released as world leaders prepare to meet at the UN General Assembly to discuss global challenges including the climate crisis.
"The report assesses the consumption emissions of different income groups between 1990 and 2015 – 25 years when humanity doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It found:
"The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).
"During this time, the richest 10 percent blew one third of our remaining global 1.5C carbon budget, compared to just 4 percent for the poorest half of the population. The carbon budget is the amount of carbon dioxide that can be added to the atmosphere without causing global temperatures to rise above 1.5C – the goal set by governments in the Paris Agreement to avoid the very worst impacts of uncontrolled climate change.
"Annual emissions grew by 60 percent between 1990 and 2015. The richest 5 percent were responsible for over a third (37 percent) of this growth. The total increase in emissions of the richest one percent was three times more than that of the poorest 50 percent."
Call me paranoid but climate change just seems like another mechanism of control aimed at the mass of non-elites. Guilt ridden mechanisms of control seem to be back in fashion these days.
If they ever really left, that is.
Jeepers jebediah, your breeches are made of cotton picked by slave labor and were sewn in a sweatshop staffed by children! What do you say to that?! - This clown, 200 years ago.
You aren't protesting when you are that few in number, you are attention whoring.
really "rather curmudgeonly."
If these people want to do something useful with their life they should form a cult dedicated to Elon Musk. It can't be denied that one Elon Musk has done literally multiple trillions times more for the environment than all climate activists put together.
If you are wondering what happened to all the people who abandoned religion - look no further. Global Warming apocalyptic beliefs have all the pieces.
If they only these Earth-hating, climate-killing, industrial combustion users had ridden bicycles to the protest.
Then their irresponsible CO2 emitting mode of transportation would not have broken down and they would not have been fined.
Oh the humanity.
I admire these folks for putting their bodies on the line for what they believe in, but I am appalled by their naivete. There is no effective Left left in this country. Climate change is happening, and it will bring famine, disruption and death. It is already too late to stop it and we are still not doing enough to mitigate the worst effects that are coming.
This comical video only reminds me how hopeless things are.
Correct. Just remember though that in the 70s/80s the looming climate apocalypse was global cooling with an Ice Age on the way…..
MATT: I have to say I'm a little surprised that so few of your readers have any sympathy for climate change protesters, because they don't fear climate change. Is that your position?
I'm not so surprised -- I think he attracts readers who don't feel bound by the carefully-negotiated Democratic Party platform, people who haven't trained themselves to agree with every left-wing position as their dogma. Lots of folks think climate change is real but don't want to sacrifice their living standards to do anything about it, because they already feel exploited by the system, why should they have to sacrifice. And then lots of folks don't think climate change is real. I think it tends to be the higher-income, professional-degree folks on the left who feel willing to make some personal sacrifice for climate change, but certainly they're not the majority, and even so they're usually not willing to give up their higher-than-median incomes to show their commitment to Less Stuff for All to Save the Planet. Instead they buy offsets.
I wasn't just surprised by the non-acceptance of the threat of climate change, but the seeming antagonism against people who do. I get that we've been brainwashed by the oil companies to think that individuals are responsible for changing their lifestyles (carbon footprint and all that), but these protests were not arguing for more personal action - instead they are trying to change corporate and government policy. That is what will be necessary so that the people who can least afford the affects of climate change don't suffer them. And neither do I subscribe to the presumed platform of the Democratic party, which is hardly left wing, but bought by the very industries that are killing our planet.
I live around lots and lots of those people, and actually they don’t do even the teeny-weeny sacrifices you think they do
The Democrats do not prioritize climate action. Biden approved more permits on public land in year 1 than trump did.