[crispinb]

Not news of course, but worth restating. Credulous 'scepticism' about the fundamentals of the climate collapse threat has been largely driven by corporate propaganda campaigns. Those campaigns were themselves constructed by people who weren't 'sceptics' -- they believed AGM was happening -- but considered their short-term profitability more important. Climate collapse 'sceptics' were nearly all gulls.

[jokoon]

This is one way to look at it.

My view is that climate change is a world problem. Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

Steps should be taken in advance so that once green deals are put in place, countries can implement those effortlessly.

We often hear that some countries don't make enough efforts, but

1. Other countries import carbon emitting products

2. The developed countries of today have emmited greenhouse gases for decades, which allowed them to become developed countries.

The geopolitics of climate change are extremely difficult. I don't think the UN is up for it.

Although a better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country basis, but it's a political minefield. Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.

[chewz]

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

Here is the catch - efforts to reduce overconsumption mean slowing economy and lower tax base. No goverment can afford that.

> Imagine riots because people want to keep using their cars and trade goods that have become illegal, or vendettas against people who emit co2.

I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes.

[mcv]

For a long time, the only times pollution reduced was during economic slowdowns. Lately, these movements have become separate. Measures to make our consumption cleaner means we can reduce our pollution without having to reduce our consumption, and that's basically what we need. Cleaner energy production, electric cars, better insulated houses, etc. It's happening way too slowly, but it is happening. We can absolutely do this if we put more effort in phasing out the old technologies.

[crispinb]

The superstition that so-called 'economic growth' (which is actually not growth at all, but just a global entropy increase) can be decoupled from physical dismantling of ecosystems is a faith-based initiative of consumer-fundamentalism. There's no evidence that it's possible, and even the best approaches we can make would take centuries of technological advance - each decade destroying more of our living home.

[solarkraft]

> I believe we are on a verge of Millenial movement of some sort that will make a matter of enviroment a quasi religion of sorts. That would change the attitudes.

It's happening. And I'm really happy about it.

[robbiep]

So did everyone in the 60s and at other periods. The world changes, but it’s no revolution. I’ll believe it when I see it, I remain cautiously optimistic but have my doubts as to whether the ‘millennials’ will be able to pry themselves away from their self interest for long enough

[whatshisface]

Leaded gasoline, rivers that you can light on fire with a match, and chlorofluorocarbons are all things that were around America in 1960.

[robbiep]

And the world will be a different place in another 50 years, but did the golden age that all our parents thought was coming in the 60s materialise to their expectations? let's temper ours lest we grow disappointed and jaded.

Change is slow when viewed in a small timescale, and massive when viewed on a large one. I hope we sort our shit out, and I will contribute to the best of my ability to bring this about if at all possible. But, you know, history.

[Sharlin]

The birth of the first Green movement in the 70s was very much revolutionary. The cultural memory of just how bad things used to be has unfortunately already faded, to the extent that reactionary forces are endeavoring to bring back the bad old times.

[solarkraft]

I'd like to add, in case you don't know what I'm refering to:

There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.

[crispinb]

Sure, and there's the Extinction Rebellion stuff in the UK. Here in Australia we're kind of complacent/lazy, not often giving a stuff about anything except sports, celebrities, and limitless acquisition of consumer crap. But there is a bit of the school strike stuff happening.

It's all a bit marginal though, isn't it?

People might object to the 'quasi religious' aspect of what you're talking about. I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now. The latter is either going to give way to something that is a better fit for physical reality, or it will destroy itself by soiling its own nest, largely in hapless ignorance regarding what's at stake.

[solarkraft]

I can only speak out of my bubble here, but I believe the Fridays for Future movement and resistance against the copyright reform really shook the German youth and the whole country as a consequence.

I have a feeling things are actually moving: A few days ago a mid-sized German YouTuber has published a 1 hour long video harshly criticizing the major German party CDU, not for its support of the copyright reform, but largely on economic and ecologic grounds. Everyone, from younger friends to older coworkers are talking about it, sharing how far they have watched it so far, pledging to watch it ...

I don't think it would have spread this rapidly and far (it was at 2.4M views the last time I checked) without the already tense climate.

Maybe this movement is not a "quasi-religion" (though it might become so), but environment-politics are finally a major, widely discussed point.

[inflatableDodo]

>I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now.

I call it the 'Global Non-Denominational Death-Cult'. Ultimately it favours no particular group, but the tithe is very high.

[mythrwy]

I'm not happy about it.

Replacing one faith based authoritarian system with another isn't really a leap forward.

[crispinb]

Consumer-fundamentalism is the most dangerous faith-based authoritarian system the world has yet seen.

[Super_Jambo]

Just so long as they don't bio-char the boomer unbelievers. (Burning of course having too high a carbon footprint).

[js8]

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort

It's interesting though that they will oblige them to wars.

This is generally not a true statement. Government is not entirely segregated from the citizenry. It is, in some form, representation of society (even in a dictatorship).

[Gravityloss]

If half of the media tells it's a hoax, why would the population want to endure inconvenience for it.

Denialism has a real effect.

[mythrwy]

Was this a hoax?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

It isn't necessarily denialism nor shilling to question the validity of predictions. It's a good thing.

Unfortunately the whole topic has become breathless "99% of scientists!" and tied in with social economic programs to the point I'm not convinced any more. To say nothing of failed predictions.

Ya, I believe C02 _should_ warm the earth based on the science. But this whole world is ending thing I'm waiting to actually see something.

For the record, I've been hearing this for over 30 years as an adult and so far not much. Perhaps one day it will all catch up, but I'm skeptical at this point.

[bumby]

I think it's more about the way we communicate model results. In the media, it's communicated as absolutes like "The ice caps will be gone by 2100!"

In reality, the model results are communicated in uncertainty. More akin to "There's a 70% chance the ice caps will be gone by 2100 if the current level of CO2 emissions are not abated." That's a much less sexy headline to say nothing about the fact that most people wouldn't be shocked if a 3 in 10 chance event actually happens. Nate Silver does a much better job explaining this in his book "The Signal and the Noise"

[sundvor]

It got the anti-environment pro-coal Liberals reelected in Australia last weekend, for sure. That, and fear of taxes for the stupidly rich.

[crispinb]

And now Labor is careening in the same pro-coal direction. Sad!

[ThomPete]

Half of the media don't. Most of the media live from the climate catastrophe rhetoric

[NeedMoreTea]

> better scenario would be to enact tight regulations on a country

Here, I am less convinced.

Globalisation came about in good part to move from the places with tighter regulation - on pollution, on employment, on finance - to those without.

It is the same way that offshore finance came about by trading each regulation against each other. The net result is there are fewer controls everywhere, despite a few headline money laundering regs. The history of this is fascinating.

[Mirioron]

I find it difficult to imagine how solutions to climate change, that don't rely on improvement in technology, won't result in authoritarianism. I don't think that all the world governments will accept limitations on their people freely.

[NeedMoreTea]

The clean air acts, the banning of freon and other CFCs, and other public health measures like treated water and ending leaded fuel required regulation not authoritarianism. All placed limitations on their people.

Why would this be any different?

We don't need to replace political choice, or freedoms with repression to bring in carbon taxes and start banning plastic, coal or gas.

[Mirioron]

Because those limitations are minor compared to "eat less meat", "don't drive a car" and "food will be more expensive in general". These are going to be very tough sells among populations that are not rich. Look at the Yellow Vests in France.

[NeedMoreTea]

Goods were more expensive in general when a sales tax or VAT was brought in. Without riots or oppressive regime.

If taxes and regulation penalise meat, people will buy less meat - just as taxes and regulation have changed the town landscape from cigarette butts everywhere, to remarkably infrequent. When I was at school pretty much everyone smoked. Now it's really uncommon to see a smoker. Again, there were no riots or oppression.

Considering the clear majority on both sides of the political map in Europe are convinced by AGW, rich and poor alike, I don't think it as tough a sell as you make out. Inequitable solutions will, rightfully, be a tough sell among populations.

[Mirioron]

None of those things are even remotely comparable to eating meat. Meat is the easiest way to have a balanced diet in terms of nutrition. When you increase the price then people will simply pay more. Besides, VAT and other such taxes are only around 20%. You need far more than that. Look at the Yellow Vests if you want to see what happens when prices go too high. We even have instances of political parties being voted out because they increased alcohol taxes too much. What do you think would happen with meat?

[specialist]

Versus the "eat more meat", "drink more milk", "ingest more HFCS", "build more sprawl" campaigns?

Freedom Markets™ proponents always obsesses over taxes and ignore the incentives.

Consumption will follow the subsidies.

[coldtea]

>Why would this be any different?

Because nobody cares about "freon banning" with plenty of alternatives, or treated water, and leaded fuel had a long runway letting people the time to replace cars etc.

It's the actual "hard" bans and lifestyle change requiring laws that people would complain about.

And doubly so corporations and private interests making money off of them.

[coldtea]

Or, inversely, that those seeking to expand their powers and enforce authoritarianism wont hijack the "climate change" as their excuse...

[crispinb]

I don't know about the solutions - my view is that the die is cast.

> My view is that climate change is a world problem

That's undoubtedly true, and the fossil fuel companies clearly acknowledge this - their 30 year anti-science propaganda campaigns have been waged across the world.

[crottypeter]

>30 year

40 year

[consp]

> Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

The effects climate change has and will have are doing that for them.

[maxxxxx]

" if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power."

This is not really clear. You could argue that using more solar and electric vehicles will increase comfort due to cleaner air.

[inflatableDodo]

>Governments will not oblige their citizens to make steps on their consumption if it means reducing their comfort and their economic power.

The UK government is currently delivering on all three, though I suspect not for any ecological reasons.

[jacobush]

"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and 𝙀𝙭𝙭𝙤𝙣. Those are the nations of the world today."

The Network (1976)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9XeyBd_IuA

[inflatableDodo]

Top 100 Corporate and National economies, by revenue - https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/r...

edit - there was a World Bank blog post about this, but it has mysteriously disappeared.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/miga/world-s-top-10...

here's google's cached version -

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qt-r1E...

[amanaplanacanal]

It's interesting how much has changed since that movie came out. What was then shocking, now is mundane. Watching it now it's hard to see what the fuss was about. We've just all gotten used to it.

[jacobush]

I know. I thought the same when watching it the last time. What struck me is we are still yelling (on the keyboard) to our 21 inch screens...

[modzu]

there has been plenty of genuine scepticism from within the scientific community (as there should be). what has happened is that it has become politicized such that the science is suffering for fear of being labeled a heretic. much of the research is published via the intergovernmental panel on climate change; well it's right there in the title. none of this is to say that there aren't also entities pushing propaganda (exxon, etc)

[adrianN]

Unless you literally don't believe the raw numbers coming from sensors all over the world there is no room for doubting that the climate is changing.

There can, and has been, plenty of discussion as to the reasons, but for at least thirty years now the consensus has been that human activity is responsible for the vast majority of the effects we've seen.

[civility]

Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science. The scientific method does not say, "get everyone you think is smart to vote on it, if they all agree, it must be true". I really wish lay people would quit turning science into a religion and scientists into priests.

[adrianN]

I'm not a climate scientist, so I let the experts battle it out and then look at the scientific consensus. I trust experts in all areas of my life, because I don't have the time to become an expert myself. Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're a politician and your task is to ensure that future generations have a chance to live a more prosperous life.

[civility]

That's a very reasonable position, and I won't argue with you there. Many times you need to make a decision with imperfect or incomplete information.

However you go one step further and attack anyone who dares question that view, and you do it with the a sense of righteousness as though you did understand the topic and applied the scientific method to get there. That's just bullying, but you get away with it because you're part of a mob. I mean it's one thing for an expert to claim certainty and argue their point of view, but you aren't actually certain - you just picked the safer bet.

To be clear, I think the world would be a lot better place with less burning coal. I care a lot about the poisoning and pollution in the oceans. I think smog is disgusting. I probably have one of the smallest "carbon footprints" of any adult you know. However, I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future.

And concensus doesn't compel me much at all. Once upon a time in America, you could probably get a concensus (even among scientists!) that God was real.

[adrianN]

The very fact that the climate is hard to predict and the models we use probably linearize a lot of nonlinear systems is what scares me most. The further we depart from normal average temperatures, the more likely it becomes that we hit some scary feedback loop the models don't account for and enter a hothouse Earth climate with palm trees at the poles.

[Gupie]

Conversely if you are not a climate scientist what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?

[acqq]

> I know a fair amount about programming, math, and simulations, and I don't trust anyone who says they can predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future.

Then you obviously don't know basic physics. The average temperature is much easier to predict (if some worse feedback doesn't get involved to make the development even worse, that is) than the microscopic "chaotic movements." I rather believe that what's behind your statement is that you just don't care what is going to happen in 50 or 100 years.

[lm28469]

> Following the consensus is a fine choice if you're trying not to get lynched by the mob, but it really has very little to do with science.

As opposed to ? Being so skeptic that you deny everything you don't personally believe in no matter the amount of proof your are given ?

[baq]

the scientific method is about hypotheses and experiments. we're running a global experiment now, with potentially disastrous consequences, which can't be repeated, and you're saying you're fine to wait for its outcome because it's unscientific to do otherwise, basic thermodynamics notwithstanding, and you dare to tell others that science is turning into a religion, where in fact you have an irrational approach to the problem at hand which you're rationalizing as 'scientific method'.

i'm afraid that in fact your stance on climate warming is a question of your identity instead of logical thought.

[ptah]

the scientific method DOES say that a result should be reproducible. and in this case it is reproducible beyond what is required for it to become accepted

[civility]

I'd believe the simulations are reproducible. However, re-running the atmosphere of the earth is certainly not an experiment anyone has reproduced. There's at least some room for questioning whether the simulations have sufficient fidelity to predict a chaotic system 50-100 years into the future.

Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt and uncertainty about whether the apocalypse is coming. Most people just lock their heels and reinforce their current beliefs. This message will probably fade away into a light shade of grey, making me wonder why I even bothered.

However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth.

[dTal]

>However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth.

Me too. Because it's spelled 'consensus'.

[agent008t]

It would be really interesting to know if the research/models have been verified by any independent researchers not employed in academia - ideally from the world of finance, where evaluating correctness of methodology and models is absolutely crucial. Ideally they would also be highly sceptical of the predictions and have a pro-economic growth bias.

[modzu]

just wanted to thank you. advocating for scientific literacy is my only stake in this debate

[anthuman]

The climate has always been changing. That's the problem. We have been in a "long trend" global warming period for at least 20,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

Much of the world was under ice 20K years ago. And the earth has generally warmed since then and melted much of the ice ( with occasional refreezes ).

And the "consensus" that human activity is responsible is utter nonsense. Feel free to research where the "consensus" came from. Also, whenever "science" relies on "consensus", you have to start wondering because real science doesn't rely on consensus - it relies on hypothesis and experimentation. The speed of light isn't derived from "consensus" but rather experiments. Science isn't politics, people don't vote for what the facts of science are.

You talk of 30 years of consensus. Do you know what the consensus was before the consensus on global warming? We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling. And before then we had decades of consensus of malthusian collapse. And before then consensus on social darwinism. Strange how all these "consensus" driven science has been debunked as pseudoscientific nonsense.

We are in many millenia long global warming period. This trend started long before humans started using oil. Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water.

[josho]

Your comment seems completely rational but ignores that we have science refuting your opinion. Not only that, the research on this comes from different branches of science that all converge on the same conclusions.

I suggest you do a little more reading on the topic. Storms of My GrandChildren is an easy place to start.

And as always if you have a good source that disputes climate science I would really appreciate a reference.

[soulofmischief]

I'm always changing. But you could point to a moment before and after I hit puberty, or, on a long enough scale, the period during which I morphed from teenager to adult.

This "the climate is always changing" was just classic anti-intellectual rhetoric spread in response to changing the name from "Global Warming" (Oh but the Earth isn't warming during winter!) to "Climate Change". Be careful. Don't let yourself be swayed by those who only wish to harm you.

[inflatableDodo]

>We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling.

No we didn't. That is completely and utterly false.

[adrianN]

At no point were more papers predicting cooling than warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[lm28469]

No one denies that the climate changed before and that it's a natural thing. The problem is that in 100 years we went from slow changes to 10 times the amplitudes ever recorded. The questions isn't "Do these cycles exist ?" it's "Are we sure we want to trigger one early ?"

Greenhouse effect is a very well studied effect. CO2 / other gases level are a very well studied field. CO2/other gases dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. Are you also denying that ?

When you study something you have to look at the settings in which it happens and look at the time frame. Sure changes happened 10k+ years ago, that's not invalidating anything related to our role in the current change.

> Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water.

You won't win anyone over with such nonsensical arguments.

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-th...

https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-00...

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-2000-years

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[consp]

You are mistakenly conferring the correlation between long and short term trends I think. The reason for long term trends is (as far as I know) somewhat uncertain and might be having an effect, but the short term trend is mostly attributed to humans doing things and can be shown to massively correlate to events (like the industrial revolution in the UK, massive oil consumption etc).

The consensuses you mention were in their time not a 'consensus' and dubious at best and already recognized by the contemporaries of the time.

> This trend started long before humans started using oil

Correct to a certain extend (see other post for sources), they started using (very broadly as greenhouse gas emissions concern) agriculture/herding first, wood, and coal. Oil as a source of greenhouse gasses is mainly 20th century thing.

[trophycase]

I urinate 5-6 times a day, but yesterday I went 60 times. But hey, it fluctuates by the day. Nothing to see here.

[modzu]

um, "climate changing" is uncontroversial. the question that science is trying to answer, is "why". one hypothesis being fossil fuel emissions. you will note even the IPCC does't claim to have a definitive answer. yet a bunch of programmers and entrepreneurs on HN have no doubts.

[tempestn]

Sorry, but that's just not true anymore. Fossil fuel emissions causing climate change has been proven pretty conclusively at this point. Anyone saying otherwise is either misinformed or is intending to misinform others. I do agree with you that the issue has been overly politicized though, which has taken something that would be simply taken as fact given the weight of evidence otherwise, and somehow made it controversial.

[adrianN]

So what's your gripe with "climate change" being in the name of the IPCC?

[modzu]

sorry it wasnt clear from my comment, but mainly that a governmental panel == politicized, and also that the IPCC reports to the UNFCCC, whose mission is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system". in other words, it assumes the hypothesis that the science should be testing

[tzs]

It's not a hypothesis. That greenhouse gases affect heat retention can and has been directly observed. That the rise in greenhouse gases is mostly human-induced can also be pretty directly shown by isotope analysis, which can distinguish CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels or burning forests from other CO2 sources.

[adrianN]

Yeah well the UNFCCC is from the nineties. By then the consensus was already there that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the culprit.

[igor47]

it's politicized in the other direction. the ipcc reports have to be approved by all the member countries, many of whom (like the good 'le USofA) really don't want to take action on climate change. this results in IPCC reports that are watered down. for example:

> Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.[142][143]

[ThomPete]

The consensus is not science.

There is no accurate number not even a range which can be scientifically demonstrated.

The data is not showing what you think it is and it's not the data you are getting served. You are getting served interpretation of that data which is very very very different.

The reality is this:

Temperature increased 0.5 degree celcius from late 1800's to 1950 before there were any significant CO2 emissions. Then it took a break and continued with about the same up until today.

How much of those last 0.5-0.6 are caused by humans?

That would be science. What we have today is mostly political and ideological and only a fraction of it is actually scientific by any reasonable interpretation of that word.

[tempestn]

You might have a point if we were just taking temperature readings and guessing about the cause. However, the greenhouse gas effect is known, and can be easily demonstrated. Likewise, we can measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and see it rapidly rising[1]. We also know all the many human activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere. So there's a pretty clear causal chain here.

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-re...

[ThomPete]

It can be demonstrated but that does not mean the entire system can be.

There is as an example negative feedback effects too in the system.

The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900.

So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variation.

If you want to convince me you provide me with actual scientific demonstration that aligns with the claim.

If we know how much humans are actually affecting due to CO2 then we can figure out what we can do about it. But as long as we don't know how much humans affect it I don't see any scientific foundation to go into the kind of panic we have seen the last 20 years really getting into the extremes these days.

It's not science it's politics.

[tempestn]

> The temperature hasn't increased significantly from 1960's til today relative to CO2 more than it did from late 1800 to mid 1900.

> So the question still becomes if the temperature increased 0.5 degrees while we weren't emitting that much co2 and it's done more or less the same in more or less the same timeframe with us putting much more co2 out there. How big a part is really humans and how much is natural variation.

First of all, global average temperature increase actually has accelerated significantly since the 1950s: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

The increase has not been proportional to the increase in C02 in the atmosphere, but that is expected. Temperature is not directly proportional to atmospheric greenhouse gasses. Rather, heat loss is dependent on them (and on other factors like surface color, which is affected by ice melting, to name one. The main one that has changed thus far though is atmospheric C02). Just because the earth is trapping more heat though, doesn't mean that the temperature will make a large change instantaneously. Instead, the change in temperature over time will be proportional to the difference between energy in from the sun, and energy out in the form of emitted heat. By increasing greenhouse gasses, we reduce the latter, causing temperature to rise over time.

Since heat emission is proportional to temperature, eventually (if we stopped emitting CO2) we would reach a new equilibrium at a higher temperature. In order to get back to a lower temperature, we need to eventually actually remove C02 from the atmosphere.

This is precisely why climate change is currently such a crisis: even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emission now, which is obviously impossible, we would still see a significant further increase in temperature due to the imbalance in heat transfer that already exists due to past emissions. The more that is added, the greater that increase will be.

Everything I've said is backed up by clear science, so if you're really looking at this with an open mind, please tell me what part you disagree with or are unsure about, and I'll be happy to provide supporting evidence.

[rmellow]

The fact you are being downvoted really makes the case that any dissent on climate change makes you a heretic.

And before I'm downvoted, note that you don't know my position on climate change: all I'm against is punishing people for genuine disagreement of thought.

[mikestew]

all I'm against is punishing people for genuine disagreement of thought.

I'll down vote you for the straw man. You have no idea why parent is being down voted, but a top runner on my list of guesses is that "scientists want to disagree, but they don't for fear of speaking up" is a pretty weak argument.

[logjammin]

Example of investigators whose work has suffered for fear of being labeled a heretic?

[akvadrako]

One of the more famous cases recently was Peter Ridd. He just won a court case against his university after being sacked for questioning the climate consensus.

[kaybe]

He said the Great Barrier reef will profit from climate change and not die off because of it, is that the issue you mean?

Sooo - if it's true, great, one problem less! Regardless, there are still many other problems caused by climate change that he did not dispute and that we still have to fight. So the best course forward is still to reduce emissions, and keep an eye on the reef to see what's true.

---

Googling around I found the statement that

“Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced about his scientific views, a matter which was admitted during the court hearing.” [0]

(But if that's true or not.. hard to say from here. The court recordings would have evidence.)

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/16/james-co...

[modzu]

Freeman Dyson

[scotty79]

He's a physicists. Why would he have any idea about climate?

He's just a person with an opinion not a dissenting scientist.

And if his work suffered as a result of voicing such opinion then it was only to be expected.

If you voice stupid opinion regarding domain you know almost nothing about and prop it up with your work reputation it's only fair if that reputation takes a hit.

[Youcandothis]

The climate is a physical phenomenon.

[scotty79]

Everything in existence is a physical phenomenon. That doesn't mean physicists have authority on everything.

You might as well consider every philosopher an authority on everything because every problem ever solved was solved by thinking and that's what philosophers do. While in reality philosophers are only authorities on (the history of?) philosophy.

[kaybe]

And many climate scientists are in fact physicists.

[maxlybbert]

The “97% consensus” number is based on surveys of scientists in general, not just climate scientists. Including scientists when they agree with a position, but not when they disagree (because they aren’t real climate experts) is a very strange debate tactic.

[esailija]

Well, everything you said is false:

"Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused."

[rjf72]

This is not a well supported position. There are numerous well established scientists who have expressed concern and criticism on the current 'consensus' in regards to climate change. These include for instances Richard Lindzen [1], a member of the National Academies of Science, an MIT atmospheric physicist, and also a lead author on one of the scientific sections of IPCC climate report. Appeals to authority are foolish, but I think his credentialing is relevant to this discussion.

Beyond that, one major issue is that the extreme politicization of this issues makes it difficult for people to speak freely. Anybody who speaks their mind on this topic, when such view doesn't abide the 'proper' view is labeled, attacked, and ostracized when and if possible. So you end up primarily with radicals, fools, and a handful of people with extremely thick skin willing to speak. A similar treatment was given to those who, for instance, suggested that leaded fuel might indeed be harmful - the official government and 'consensus' position for decades was that it was safe or posed negligible risk.

I am not, in this posting, thus taking any side. But I do think if you ever want to achieve progress on any topic, people being able to speak freely is critical to progress. Only weak or poorly supported ideas need fear 'contrarian' views. And even in the rare case where those weak or poorly supported ideas happen to be the truth, they invariably become stronger over time (due to the accumulation of validated falsifiable evidence) while, vice versa, alternative views become weaker.

But perhaps more importantly, I think the desire to squash contrarian views has a paradoxical effect. The idea is of course to try to prevent the spread of these ideas, yet in reality there never works - even less so now that we've entered the era of the internet. See: China + Winnie the Pooh for an amusing example. But far more critically, I think efforts to avoid discussion are often seen as an inability to compellingly respond. Once ideas reach a critical mass, they will spread unless compellingly challenged. Refusing to challenge these ideas in a fair and impartial way only strengthens them.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

[graeme]

Lindzen doesn't dispute that CO2 warms the atmosphere! The vast majority of "skeptics" seem to think it's all a fraud, and that CO2 does nothing.

There is zero support for that position.

If you would like to debate the merits of Lindzen's views, feel free to do so: he thinks there will be less warming than existing models predict. He doesn't deny warming!

Meanwhile he retired in 2013, and as far as I can tell has produced no active research in this field since 2011. And his 2011 paper was widely panned including by reviewers he selected. He had to correct numerous errors in the paper. According to wikipedia, he eventually argued that at least 75% of predicted warming was happening.

So, a 25% margin off a catastrophic level of warming. And that's the very best name you can produce. And this info is all in the link you sent. And that's apart from the question of whether he was right in his argument in 2011, which is a factual answer we can measure with temperature sensors. (IIRC, warming has progressed faster than expected instead)

Contrary to your point, there is tremendous economic incentive to prove that fossil fuels are safe, cause us no trouble, and can continue to be used. Anyone who decisively proved that would be a hero, as fossil fuels are very useful indeed. The absence of such a person suggests that this view is mistaken.

[rjf72]

You're fighting against strawmen, which is understandable when everybody is afraid to talk unless it's to repeat the 'right' thoughts. It's quite obvious that greenhouse gases can increase temperatures. A basic understanding of how high frequency energy is converted into low frequency energy as is absorbed/emitted by the Earth and how the greenhouse gases react to both forms of energy is sufficient to prove this.

Lindzen's main issue is that the models are completely broken. As one example of this there is the 'Holocene temperature conundrum.' If you run our models on all data we have from around 10k to 6k years ago they all show there should have been significant warming. Instead we know there was significant cooling. And the reason for this remains completely unknown. In effect we are trying to forecast many decades into the future using models that break, even on their training data! This is a major problem.

And your perception of warming increasing faster than expected is once again being driven by the media. Our warming has lagged far behind models. For instance the first major climate report was the IPCC's report in 1990. That's nice because it forecast out to 30 years, which is just about now! They predicted a global warming of 0.3C per decade with an uncertainty of 0.2C to 0.5C on the 'business as usual' forecast, which is what we have followed. In reality, we haven't come anywhere near that. You can find various global temperature data, but here [1] are NASA's data. In particular (going decade by decade):

- 1990 = starting point

- 2000 = -0.04 'increase'

- 2010 = 0.3 increase

- 2019 = 0.1 increase

The IPCC was expecting an increase of 0.9 by 2020, with a minimum increase of 0.6. We've increased a bit less than 0.4 degrees. We're not even falling within the bottom end of their rather generous interval. That's, again, a major problem.

You're also misunderstanding that 75% comment. What Wiki (and he) was saying is that the temperature response is nonlinear. He is arguing that there will be a fraction of the expected heating due to a nonlinear response. In particular CO2 concentration levels have increased by about 30% and are at 75% of his expected temperature increase for a doubling of CO2. Does this mean his predictions are wrong, or does it mean the heating will slow? And similarly, we are only 15% of the expected heating for IPCC predictions, which are going in the opposite direction. Are the IPCC wrong, or will the rate of heating accelerate? This is an extremely critical distinction because if it turns out that increasing levels do not result in accelerating heating, then there's basically no problem whatsoever. Note both sides agree we'll continue to see 'the hottest year on [modern] record' for the foreseeable future. This might be what drove you to believe we were seeing more heating than expected.

All this said, I somewhat tend to agree that this is a dumb experiment to be running. I'd much rather roll back emissions, but I think the current science surrounding the arguments for such is running in an increasing number of problems as we start to be able to falisify or validate predictions. They're mostly turning up false (or at the very bottom of ranges), yet the media continues running sensationalized fearmongering nonethless. I think this is irresponsible, at best.

[1] - https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

[kaybe]

> Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate.

> According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[9] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.[51]

Hm.. So he has a diverging view on the consequences of warming on the tropical cirrus cloud coverage, and thinks the models are not good enough to reproduce the real climate. That's disagreement about the projections, not the basics, with most of the community, and that's ok, we can research more and figure out the truth. The problem is, we don't have that time (unless he's right).

Only reality will really tell. Let's hope he's right (not that probable), but act as if he wasn't, and see what else we can learn about the system to improve our understanding.