[tapan_jk]

> Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it.

I wish to see this kind of positivity around me more often. I have worked with a colleague or two in the past who viewed problems as something that needed to be solved, and were a step or two ahead of the rest of us in terms of finding solutions. Lately, I see that the default reaction to problems is to complain. Don't get me wrong... complaining is fine if it leads to action, but isn't it rare.

[rhizome31]

I don't understand how it is possible to still have this view of the problem. All the resources I am aware of that seem backed by facts and science are currently forecasting an utter disaster. I think I'm someone with a rather positive attitude in life and as you said I always try to look at solutions rather than just complain. In fact I'm doing rather well at the personal level. But in the case of the environmental crisis (which isn't limited to a climate crisis), I honestly can't see how it's going to work. In the optimistic camp all I see so far is wishful thinking.

> Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it.

It's all about what this mess and pain is going to be about. If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances, that doesn't qualify as a success to me. The fact that a handful of privileged people will manage to get through and still have cars and smartphones isn't really a relief.

[laurent92]

> If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances

Right here, here is a sign that you are reading quite extreme literature. More importantly: Unbalanced, uncriticized literature.

Scientific studies don’t only need to seem backed up by facts, they also need to be criticized to ensure the facts were not cherry-picked.

Studying science in the current political climate is like saving paintings during a revolution.

[rhizome31]

I pulled that number as an exaggeration to illustrate the fact that even if "our civilization" survives (whatever it may mean), it doesn't mean things are going to be OK. Even if you make that 50% it's still not great news in my book.

I've read Dire Predictions written by members of the IPCC, the famous Limits to Growth and I follow the works of Jancovici, a French engineer specialized in these issues (here is a talk in English he did for MIT Media Lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA ) Do those qualify as biased sources to you?

[laurent92]

> Do those qualify as biased sources to you?

Potentially yes. Everyone can be biased. Do they share a common interest or trait? They do.

I have been a fan of Jancovici in 2006. I see through his game now. He’s the master of correlations and he’s sorely lacking causations. Because causations at global scale are hard to demonstrate, short of actually doing global-scale experiments, which we can’t do.

Another aspect is that we citizen can’t measure it, so it’s hard to discuss on something that we can’t see (It’s the Covid effect). Another is that we’re planning on literally playing chemists with the Earth’s atmosphere composition, despite just having concluded that large-scale chemical experiments are to be avoided. One last point is Janco divides emissions by the number of people on Earth, which is a heavily-loaded formula with extremely bad side effects (but has been approved by UN), such as giving advantage to countries who overpopulate, which Janco himself demonstrates is bad, but he doesn’t see that because he’s under his own ideology. The EU follows and in June it plans to vote an increase of population of 12% by 2030 (through external growth). It feel like all our efforts will reduce global emissions by 5% or 10% only to be cancelled by a population increase. So it just seems that they want us to consume less.

It’s a minefield that would be easily influenced by many parties for political gain. I’m not saying global warming doesn’t exist.

[rhizome31]

> Another aspect is that we citizen can’t measure it, so it’s hard to discuss on something that we can’t see

That was true 20 years ago but not anymore. Glaciers, ice melting on the poles, extreme weather events, air and land pollution, biodiversity collapse, primary commodity shortages... some of which we can observe ourselves and some of which is measured by scientists. And again, it's not only about climate.

> Another is that we’re planning on literally playing chemists with the Earth’s atmosphere composition, despite just having concluded that large-scale chemical experiments are to be avoided.

If you're referring to geoengineering, it sounds like a very bad idea to me as well.

> The EU follows and in June it plans to vote an increase of population of 12% by 2030 (through external growth).

I didn't really get this point about population but I'll do my research. I just hope it's not related to the "Great Replacement" theory. I find it interesting that you didn't mention nuclear power as it's one of the most frequent criticism against him (which seems like a straw man to me).

> I’m not saying global warming doesn’t exist.

OK so if I understand correctly your doubts are more about to what extent global warming is caused by human activities? Or do you agree that it's caused by human activities but you think isn't not going to be as bad as some people say?

[laurent92]

> I just hope it's not related to the "Great Replacement" theory.

Would you not envision a hypothesis because you’re afraid of reaching the same conclusion? It’s pretty clear given the quantity of muggings/harassment in my neighborhood (formerly posh CBD) that it’s here, and 67% of French people in average think it’s happening (IPSOS 2021). The only question that raises people’s doubt is, was it intentional.

> Or do you agree it’s caused by human activities but you think it’s not going to be as bad as some people say?

I just despair that the people pushing it are constantly pushing other goals for society, goals that we didn’t approve, that have been kicked out by the main door and coming back through the window.

- Either it exists, and the complementary solution is to depopulate. Clearly the land cannot withstand so many people, and if you also have a humanist goal to offer each person a decent living, then each of them will need to emit for travels, consumption, heating. But that would be incompatible with their other goal which they also want to implement. To see whether people are ideologues using Global Climate Change (GCC) for political gains or whether they are genuinely solely fighting GCC, ask them whether they would be ok to make a concession on their ideology if it meant better fighting GCC. They don’t. They really want to overpopulate the land with people who vote for them, while asking others to do the efforts for climate. Again the only way to durably not weigh too much on this land in EU is to profit from the natural decline of population to lessen the burden on Earth.

- Either those global changes are stronger than us and independent of our atmospheric CO2, after all everything fluctuates naturally, and in 30 years, after limiting the development of the Western countries, they will tell us “We’ve solved it.” Or “You didn’t do enough”, it doesn’t matter since they won’t be here.

I have studied the science side of other similar topics and I can confirm it is possible to reach wrong scientific solutions for political gain, at a massive university/researchers scale, convincing everyone from the lowerclass to the world leaders. It wouldn’t be the first time.

So, if someone uses fear and the sense of urgency to trigger an action from you that severely hampers your life, it’s important to find its opposite and study it too.

One thing which is clear, the people currently pushing are not going to solve it.

[danielvaughn]

So I'm (1) all for green energy, and (2) not very knowledgeable about climate issues so I defer to experts. However, I feel skeptical about climate forecasts because there is a long (and rarely mentioned) track record of dire predictions that never came true.

In 1970, scientists predicted that we would be in a new ice age by the 21st century. In 1988, scientists predicted that rising sea levels would cover every island in the Indian ocean by 2018. In 2004, they predicted that Britain would be "plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020".

By all means, we should take meaningful steps towards cleaner energy, because it's better overall. But the idea that we're on the verge of an apocalyptic disaster...no, I just can't get behind that.

[slothtrop]

According to the IPCC, climate change will not lead to apocalyptic results. There will be discomfort and further destruction of the environment, but that's as much as is telegraphed by bulk of climate scientists.

It's still imperative that changes be made, but soothsaying is irrational and therefore unhelpful because it can easily be identified and disregarded by deniers, but also because it's more demotivating than it is motivating. If you're convinced the world is going to end, you'll just withdraw.

[solveadwordsin]

Quoting: 'Don't get me wrong... complaining is fine if it leads to action, but isn't it rare.'

Solved! ^^ Somehow it may be related (but OT) Comic: > //ibb.co/hXjtxLr [sings:] 'freedom!...freeedom!...' (-;

regards,