Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[Unrepresented]

I had to google the meaning.

I had to google what google is.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I'd much rather climate change was not happening, but it does seem to be. It would be nice if the climate sensitivity was low.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

He's getting his figures from the 'Rumbustious Book of Science for Boys' published by Ladybird in 1923...

That seems to be an unfair characterisation.

 

[will33]

I learned a new word today...rumbustious. Sounds a bit like rambunctious. Turns out it means something similar as well.


One of these words is redundant and needs to go.

 

[GrumpiusMaximus]

That seems to be an unfair characterisation.

I never claimed to be 'fair'.

 

[Tituscrow]

I never claimed to be 'fair'.

You're not a ginger are you? Say it ain't so, Joe....

 

[duff beer]

Reality check:

If this ginormous international government conspiracy that goes deep enough to manipulate multiple scientific fields and thousands of academic bodies, why would they:

1) Not simply take what they want? They have enough evil genius to pull this off without having to backdoor it like you're suggesting.

2) Waste their time trying to limit your ability to pollute unchecked? Why not control something meaningful?

I'm not suggesting that there is a government conspiracy, only that the majority of funding heavily slanted towards those who agree with climate change. Most of those who don't agree or have a less extreme position don't get the same funding and don't get the same media coverage.

The media is so fascinated with doom and gloom, that it's no surprise that moderate opinions in this issue are often overlooked in favour of the extreme projections. "It might not be so bad" doesn't sell papers, but "We're all going to die a fiery death" does.

 

[Unrepresented]

I'm not suggesting that there is a government conspiracy, only that the majority of funding heavily slanted towards those who agree with climate change. Most of those who don't agree or have a less extreme position don't get the same funding and don't get the same media coverage.

The media is so fascinated with doom and gloom, that it's no surprise that moderate opinions in this issue are often overlooked in favour of the extreme projections. "It might not be so bad" doesn't sell papers, but "We're all going to die a fiery death" does.

Or maybe the funding goes to qualified groups and those qualified groups keep getting similar results which is kinda the definition of how science works.

 

[richntiff]

I'm not suggesting that there is a government conspiracy, only that the majority of funding heavily slanted towards those who agree with climate change. Most of those who don't agree or have a less extreme position don't get the same funding and don't get the same media coverage.

The media is so fascinated with doom and gloom, that it's no surprise that moderate opinions in this issue are often overlooked in favour of the extreme projections. "It might not be so bad" doesn't sell papers, but "We're all going to die a fiery death" does.

You would do very well to consider the opposite side of that coin. Tell me, who profits with the status quo? Don't follow the obvious money.

 

[will33]

You would do very well to consider the opposite side of that coin. Tell me, who profits with the status quo? Don't follow the obvious money.

Good point here as well.

 

[hbarcat]

Here is the abstract from a peer reviewed scientific article:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.
Invalid Link Removed



I'm not quite sure what this means, but if I'm wrong about its intent and significance, than I'll edit this post accordingly.

But it appears that this peer reviewed scientific article is condoning the practice of exaggerating the affects of global warming in order to get the public scared enough to join the movement.

 

[hbarcat]

Why not just cite the actual studies that are scientific and peer reviewed?

Why cite a report that is not?

Why do people keep pointing to this IPCC report thing, like it's the be all-end all document? Why point to something speculative, not peer reviewed, etc. when they could point to, I don't know, some analysis of some ice-core samples or something that is basically hard, opinionless data. That stuff is all out there. Why not cite it rather than the opinions of some global political body? If anything, it would better bolster the case that we are affecting the climate.

An excellent question.

The answer is:
The IPCC report contains a conclusion that no peer reviewed scientific study does - that the Earth's atmosphere will heat up by 3 C during the next century and that this will be a global catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

Other scientific, peer reviewed studies only conclude that global warming is occurring and that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant factor. Some of them conclude that a relatively straightforward calculation of the change in radiative forcing due to increasing CO2 levels will result in an increase of about 1.5 C during the next century.

It remains to be seen why the popular press highlights the IPCC report's conclusions and pays little attention to the peer reviewed studies. Personally, I think that the "sensationalism" explanation suffices. Catastrophic problems sell where issues of modest concern don't.

 

[Immigrant]

I'm looking to reduce my carbon footprint and I figured the large brains here can help me out. If I attach a hose from my exhaust pipe and filter it through the passenger compartment, will I be doing my part?



Edit: It's a 1995 Nissan Quest if that helps

 

[will33]

I'm looking to reduce my carbon footprint and I figured the large brains here can help me out. If I attach a hose from my exhaust pipe and filter it through the passenger compartment, will I be doing my part?



Edit: It's a 1995 Nissan Quest if that helps

Congratulations. You've discovered a way to recycle carbon emissions and combat the overpopulation problem in one fell swoop.

Nobel prize for you sir!

 

[will33]

An excellent question.

The answer is:
The IPCC report contains a conclusion that no peer reviewed scientific study does - that the Earth's atmosphere will heat up by 3 C during the next century and that this will be a global catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

Other scientific, peer reviewed studies only conclude that global warming is occurring and that the burning of fossil fuels is a significant factor. Some of them conclude that a relatively straightforward calculation of the change in radiative forcing due to increasing CO2 levels will result in an increase of about 1.5 C during the next century.

It remains to be seen why the popular press highlights the IPCC report's conclusions and pays little attention to the peer reviewed studies. Personally, I think that the "sensationalism" explanation suffices. Catastrophic problems sell where issues of concern don't.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, these are my words as follows....

/ quote

It seems to me 1.5C is happening, and it may indeed be us that are responsible for that, or at least contributing to it, and we really shouldn't be doing that.....but apparently, that's not enough to scare the worlds population into global governance. According to these people, 3C might be, and they can bend the data that far without appearing as snakeoil salesman to at least the majority of the population.

Basically good science found 1.5C.....chicanery found 3C, and more if they could get it.


Kind of goes back to the whole "truth is in between the extremes" thing.

/end quote

Thank you sir, for using science to vett science. Provided with honest information, I have what I need to draw conclusions. If someone does not agree with my conclusions, they're more than welcome to direct their disagreement towards me, rather than lambast the studies.

 

[hbarcat]

^^^ You seem to have nailed it.


Get ready for the onslaught of "Tool of Big Oil!" and "Science denier!"

 

[hbarcat]

Just to be clear on what my priorities are on this issue, I know that many of those pushing the global warming awareness agenda are truly doing the right thing and are personally doing their part to keep their carbon footprint to a minimum. Some of these people are my personal friends and I recognize that they are not only sincere in their practices, but they are on the right side of truth.

It is a fact that we humans are altering the environment for the worse and our wasteful use of fossil fuels is heating up our atmosphere in a way that we can't accurately predict but that we know is imprudent. While I've been very vocal about the necessity of being skeptical of the rhetoric of the global warming crisis mongers, it's equally important to claim foul on those who describe the entire issue as a hoax that we can safely ignore. Both sides of the issue have seemingly become overrun with political propagandists and the objective, scientific truth is the victim.


Don't waste our natural resources.
Resist the temptation to burn cheap energy for convenience when you can just as easily expend some muscle power.
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. If everyone lived their lives this way, regardless of ideology, the problem of global warming would disappear overnight and so would many other problems.

IMO.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Eat less beans - fart less. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[bolophonic]

Just to be clear on what my priorities are on this issue, I know that many of those pushing the global warming awareness agenda are truly doing the right thing and are personally doing their part to keep their carbon footprint to a minimum. Some of these people are my personal friends and I recognize that they are not only sincere in their practices, but they are on the right side of truth.

It is a fact that we humans are altering the environment for the worse and our wasteful use of fossil fuels is heating up our atmosphere in a way that we can't accurately predict but that we know is imprudent. While I've been very vocal about the necessity of being skeptical of the rhetoric of the global warming crisis mongers, it's equally important to claim foul on those who describe the entire issue as a hoax that we can safely ignore. Both sides of the issue have seemingly become overrun with political propagandists and the objective, scientific truth is the victim.


Don't waste our natural resources.
Resist the temptation to burn cheap energy for convenience when you can just as easily expend some muscle power.
Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. If everyone lived their lives this way, regardless of ideology, the problem of global warming would disappear overnight and so would many other problems.

IMO.

Love this. Bravo.

 

[will33]

+1

IMO, it's a moral duty to be good stewards of the earth and leave her in good shape for those who come after us. This doesn't require any sort of deviousness, devotion to some political bent, or disdain for our fellow man. All it takes is using the smarts we are given, the good heart we are blessed with, and the humility to let those lead the way.