this way of framing the issue ("that climate change is not man made and is not inevitable") is rather question-begging in the sense that the interesting question is what proportion of climate change is man made/anthropogenic versus "natural." If climate change is 1% anthropogenic and 99% natural, then there's little we can do about it. If on the other hand climate change is 99% anthropogenic and only 1% natural, that's a different story. If it's more like 50/50, that's another story.
Mike Hulme: https://mikehulme.org/shortly-to-pu...tm_campaign=shortly-to-publish-as-open-access Shortly to publish as open-access … Posted in A Critical Assessment of the IPCC, News 19/11/2022 A Critical Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be published shortly (December) on-line by Cambridge University Press as open-access. The book is edited by myself and Kari De Pryck and you can view the contents already at the CUP web-site here. Click here for a flyer and a 20% discount on the (rather hefty) price of a printed hard-back copy.
Hulme talk from September. Cued it up to 9:00 or thereabouts where he starts describing where the disagreement is:
This gets again to the issue there is entrenched interests in keeping the status quo. The status quo thought of development is unsustainable but also need to not be the only way we do things. As said we’ve seen a lot of change in the last few decades. Cynicism about it is also an easy way out but it also belies that change is being made. It might not be fast enough and it might not be enough but doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.
I respect @Os Trigonum and @B-Bob. They are scientists and professors. Also, I think they are old as ****. So they have probably learned a lot in their lives.
Good thing we have scientists and mathematicians who have a solid estimate based on modeling and data. And news flash, it's mostly human made. I mean the most basic surface level way of seeing this is the fact it took 200 years(start of the industrial revolution) to amass as much carbon in the air in units of parts per million that it took 1 million years from natural causes.
Did you know professors are only have expertise level knowledge on the specific field they study? The more you know.
Thank you for posting this. I watched the entire video. This lady is not just some uninformed person, she is a serious scientist. I have observed much of what she is describing - alarmism, ostracizing non-alarmist scientists and discrediting them as "climate change deniers" - the hysteria of organizations like "Extinction Rebellion" or "Last Generation" and other apocalyptic sects is insane. I would recommend that people watch this entire video with an open mind.
Briggs on this newest climate advisor: Why The Continuing Appeal Of The Appeal To Non-Authority Fallacy? https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/43784/ excerpt: This is the first tweet in a thread in which that young lady describes her duties. One is to “Attend meetings with UN officers and country ambassadors to exchange ideas on how the United Nations can drive climate ambition and action to steer the planet to a path of sustainability by keeping global warming under 1.5C”. I want to be both hyper-precise and perfectly accurate here. Sophia, like Great Thunberg before her, is ignorant on these matters. She knows almost nothing about them. The bulk of what little she does know is hyperbolic propaganda. There is nothing this woman has to offer on this subject. Not one thing. Can she suggest better cloud parameterizations in GCMs? Does she know the amounts governments should force companies to pay in “carbon” taxes? Could she define centigrade? Or a kilowatt? Can she define photosynthesis? Could she point to the ionosphere? Does she even know why the sky is blue? It’s a fifty-fifty bet whether she knows which of the two, sun and earth, revolves around the other. In the picture which heads the post it appears she could best advise the UN that her favorite color is blue. So why is the UN touting this silly non-authority? more at the link
I expressed mixed feelings when this was broached because gatekeeping has been thrown around frequently in today's culture wars enough to be apprehensive about it. I agree with the writer's principle though. If interests want to prop up young folks into Public Domain with official sounding positions, then it opens them up to scrutiny because that status confers legitimacy or credibility. Maybe it's old fashioned beliefs about meritocracy or the feeling of earned/unearned that's also at play. Conflating social influencer with that role is yet another slow boil into Idiocracy, our mental climate change calamity, If there was a child genius with the iq and eq to that role, I doubt the writer would still express that particular issue.
hard to say. on the one hand the woman got into Stanford, so she may have more on the ball than Briggs suggests. On the other hand, everything I've seen so far about her suggests she was probably selected on the basis of being eye candy rather than being a child genius. So who knows.
