Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

That "peer-reviewed" study posted by SoloSailor is a fake:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clima ... l-warming/

remember when the future seemed like a better place and not like a dystopian nightmare?

i don't. most of you probably do, though.

WTF HAPPENED?

There are scientists who have made a career out of explaining science to the general public. The scientists who are doing actual research now are not in the spotlight.

Are you able to name the scientists who won the Nobel Prize this year in medicine? in physics? Without looking it up? Had you heard of them before they won the Nobel Prize? These are the best in the world and most people have never heard of them. Most scientists are famous only within their small band of specialists.

This is the rapidly approaching end of the world we're talking about. The worst thing that's ever happened in human history. Something that is going to destroy the planet and wipe out all humans and most animals. And no scientist or scientific team is out there in the open warning the UN, the White House, Parliament etc.

The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.

Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. The assessment reports are a key input into the international negotiations to tackle climate change. Created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988, the IPCC has 195 Member countries. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

Have you never heard of the IPCC?

Not that I recall. That's my point.

remember when the future seemed like a better place and not like a dystopian nightmare?

i don't. most of you probably do, though.

WTF HAPPENED?

I find that somewhat hard to believe, given you participated in a thread that had IPCC in the title, and where the OP specifically named them, just 2-3 weeks ago (your first post is on page 2):

viewtopic.php?t=382782

Countries such as China and India remain firm in exempting themselves from serious emissions reductions under the Paris Accord. They continue to assert their rights to expand their economies, burn more coal, increase their emissions, and produce the goods that become too expensive to produce in Japan and the West.

China emits more CO2 than the U.S. and E.U. combined! Taking the world's number one and number three emitters out of the mix effectively renders anything the UN does under the Paris Accord meaningless in terms of altering world temperature.

Unfortunately, governments and scientists aren't above feeding on those fears as a way of dispersing money globally.

So my knowledge of it is supposed to be dependent on a layperson posting something on the internet? That also has been my point.

Also believe it or not I do not savor and memorize every word and acronym you post.

If you really had not heard of the IPCC, then you have a lot to learn about the topic. Your playing "skeptic" doesn't really work if you just sit back and expect people to spoonfeed you basic info about the topic. I've provided you plenty of basic resources to better understand the subject, you should take the initiative and read up on them. You can be so much more productive in these discussions if you'd taken the time to do that, rather than resorting to conspiratizing about the left.

Seriously, for a "true centrist" and skeptic like Ezra, he sure is lazy when it comes to understanding the mainstream scientific position on climate change. He's also quick to resort to assuming foul play on their part, like when we discussed the ice core + atmospheric measurements chart, he just assumed that "the ice core measurements are giving a different level reading than the atmospheric measurements" and thus they must have just snuck the atmospheric measurements in, even though the very caption under the figure makes very clear that atmospheric measurements were put in addition to the ice core measurements--and a bit of reading up on the subject explained why they did this. He is completely unfair to the scientific community, and shows little interest in understanding the mainstream scientific position unless it's spoonfed to him.

A true skeptic doesn't do this. What do we call someone who thinks they know better than the scientists and shows little interest in even understanding the mainstream scientific position? We call them a crank.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

If anybody is interested in educating themselves and actually understanding the mainstream scientific position, here is a very good website on the matter. It looks at common arguments from denialists and gives the mainstream scientific point of view:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Climate change is a complex field to study, and it's easy to misunderstand what the scientists are doing, so I hope this website can clear things up for the people who are willing to learn.

So looking at what we've discussed in this thread, that climate has changed before, here is the mainstream position (there are a number of references given in the original):



https://skepticalscience.com/climate-ch ... period.htm