I for one am enjoying these tweets by people who aren't scientists criticizing other people who also aren't scientists.
I’m guessing there’s more to this quote. As climate isn’t self regulating the way that quote cites. That quote makes it seem like climate is at a steady state when we know for a fact historically it’s not and there have been periods of greater and less warmth.
That the temperature of the earth has changed of course. That doesn’t rule out that the current temperature rise isn’t caused by human actions.
LOL, talking about slow. You are about 16 years late. This is a favorite argument from 15+ years ago by those who denied that humans are causing the current warming. Climate has always changed. What’s different is the rapid rate of change due to human activities. It made the top spot and remained there for 15+ years. Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says (skepticalscience.com)
If humans are to survive on earth for thousands or millions more years, wouldn’t it be beneficial to learn how to control the climate? We can do things to cool the planet as needed and we can do things to warm the planet as needed. If we can’t learn to control the climate, then we will have to learn to adapt. Not all species can adapt to climate change, and some become extinct.
That's great. Plus more funding to help aging nuclear power plants. Biden admin offers $1.2 bln for distressed, shut nuclear plants
It looks like we are altering the climate but in an uncontrolled and unintentional way. Theoretically we can alter the planet’s climate deliberately through geoengineering. Those would take a massive effort and require global cooperation. Unfortunately it’s hard to get humans united for long scale projects.
I don’t speak for the Left but as stated even if global warming was bunk there are still issues with using fossil fuels such as particulate and ground water pollution along with geopolitical Issues. Even if the planet was cooling it would still make sense to invest in renewables and greater energy efficiency. In the case of a colder planet nuclear and geothermal would make a lot more sense.
The author intermixes “doom” messages with disruptive protests. On a Venn diagram, those aren’t necessarily the same. There are those who don’t engage in doom but participate in disruptive protests, and there are those who embrace doom but don’t take part in disruptive protests. I would also add that the true doomer wouldn’t bother with protests (or be paralyzed). They would be more likely to party or be depressed. Furthermore, you should lay it all out with varying degrees of certainty communicated. You can’t deal effectively with something when it’s partially hidden, even for fear of inactions—a social state that I doubt the UN climate chief or most anyone is an expert on and one that is very hard to quantify, as it involves complex human emotions at a global scale.
that's a good point about the article, but I think the main target is scientists who veer from their narrow disciplinary lanes and engage in political adventuring because they enjoy the publicity. I've worked with many of those folks for the past 30 years. Doom-and-gloom gets them article citations and conference invitations. on a related note, Pielke has a thing about heat wave attribution citing this article SERIES: What the media won't tell you about . . . U.S. heat waves Let's take a look at what the IPCC and official data really say https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-9f9 I think his take-home lesson is the real moral of the story: The climate is changing, there is no doubt. In many places around the world the signal of these changes has been observed in the occurrence of heat waves. But the United States is not among those places - not yet. But so what? If climate change is real and responding to it is important, why does it matter if we incorrectly attribute today’s weather to climate change? Maybe such incorrect attribution will be politically useful? I can think of two reasons why it matters. First, our assessment of risk can be skewed. If we think this week’s heat wave is a novel event juiced by climate change, rather than within the bounds of observed variability, then we are fooling ourselves. If electrical grids fail and people die this week, that will mean that we are not even prepared for the present. We need only look back to the 1930s to understand that we are also not prepared for the past, much less a more extreme future. Casual claims of detection and attribution can mislead. Second, sustained support for action on climate will require also sustaining public and policy maker trust in science and scientific institutions. Claims that go well beyond scientific understandings place that trust at risk. A scientific consensus doesn’t exist only when it is politically useful — it also exists when it is politically unwelcomed. Accurately producing and reporting on scientific assessments surely helps to foster trust in experts and the institutions that they inhabit. The scientific community and the journalists who report on its findings would do well to call things straight, rather than make a mockery of climate science by quickly claiming that every weather event that just happened was due to climate change. I agree with him here, and I think one of the reasons there is so little faith in science as an institution right now is because of repeated hits to the credibility of science from overblown claims about covid, climate change, nutrition, etc.
Science shouldn't be dictated by politics but rather science. If the climate was cooling and one way to normalize temps would be to increase the amount of CO2, then finding ways to do that would be smart, yes. But the climate is warming rapidly, and it's due to an increase in CO2. We need to find ways to reduce the level of atmospheric CO2 before we reach a critical impasse. Whether that's fusion power, carbon sequestration, or cutting fossil fuels down - or all of the three - is what we should be debating - not whether or not the climate is warming. It is and CO2 is to blame.
