Because they are scientists and have to protect their professional reputations against politicians and ridicule in the media, climate scientists are only telling the partial, the easy truth about global warming.
I’m old, I’m tired of screwing around and ignoring the real problems.
Unless we have some extreme event such as massive volcanic eruptions sending dust into the atmosphere and shielding the planet, or an asteroid strike (we know they are dangerous but also where they are so they are of no immediate concern even for my contacts at B612) the planet earth will see a 4 degree increase in global temperature in 80 years.
Climate Change
A 4 degree increase (we’ve already seen a 1.51 degree increase over 1900, what was expected by 2050 and 0.5 in 7 years) will make the earth too hot for humans to survive outdoors in daylight unless they are in the far north or in Antarctica. It is likely that all sea life will be gone before then due to oxygen depletion and heat. Cold water holds more gasses than hot water.
A 6 degree increase, which is entirely possible by 2200 will be unsurvivable, in dramatic terms this will be an E.L.E. or extinction level event.
People will say this is alarmist, it is, but it is also the consensus of 3,997 climate scientists out of 4,000 peer reviewed journal articles and the other three have obvious errors in their calculations or are in the pay of coal or petrochemical companies such as Exon or Peabody Energy (Coal) and can be compared to the scientists who said cigarettes don’t cause cancer and the tobacco executives who swore before Congress that nicotine isn’t addictive.
(You may have been told on social media that tens of thousands of scientists disagree. True, but not one of them was a climate scientist. I wouldn’t want my broken leg set by a climate scientist, nor would I rely on my MD to predict global warming.)
Climate Science Consensus
Between 5 and 7 peer reviewed studies of the 4,000 reports agreed, all of them.
Climate moderates who have some remaining legitimacy because they both agree that we have global warming and that it is anthropogenic that is, caused by humans, say it won’t be that bad. But they say that totally without any scientific backing for their claims.
Deniers, the few who are left may say that there are exaggerations. OK, but if they are wrong then there will be no human life on Earth in 250 years or so.
If the scientists are right, and we really listen to them, then we will have new industries making lots of new jobs and cutting the cost of power for everyone.
The deniers also say that 90 percent of CO2 emissions are natural. That is correct. But they neglect to mention that those have happened for millenia and are all reabsorbed by nature. The remaining 10% is caused by burning carbon which isn’t compensated for and is increasing every year because it stays in the atmosphere for centuries.
One company built a large machine to trap CO2. It was the size of a small office building. It works. Good, if we had 150,000,000 of those built next year that would solve the problem in 20 years. Do you think that is likely? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?
That, essentially, means that if we stopped burning wood, coal, natural gas, and oil tomorrow, the global temperature would still increase by at least 4 degrees by about 2100.
Climate Change Catastrophe
In short, we as a species are facing a global catastrophe of a scale not seen since the last global extermination event (900.000 years ago human population dropped to just 1,280 and didn’t expand much again for another 117,000 years, you are a descendent of them) or the Chicxulub impact 66 million years ago which seems to have killed off the dinosaurs and all animal life weighing more than about 10 lbs.
Climate moderates point out that this sort of catastrophic event has happened 5-6 times in earth’s history and nature/ecology/the environment has always recovered.
They are correct, that is true, this is not the end of the Earth. This is not the end of the environment.
The environment has always compensated for drastic threats by eliminating the cause.
Unfortunately for your great grandchildren, in this case, the main cause is the human race. Unless we stop this insanity the environment will eliminate humanity.
Governments are not going to fix this. There are too many very rich and powerful people who can pay to survive and profit. Too many greedy politicians to buy off. Not to mention those who simply love to cause chaos. If you doubt that some people could consciously lie about this impending E.L.E. just remember that there are thousands of school and other mass shooters out there, we see one every week. Some people just don’t care about human life, not even their own.
There is little you personally can do about this as a voter, but, by actually thinking rather than merely repeating slogans, some voters may be able to save the species, if you think it is worthwhile saving.
If so, your choice should probably not be for the person who, by executive order, removed the terms climate change and global warming from all U.S. government websites (or who suggested drinking Clorox would cure COVID – anyone who did that is still alive to vote).
If you are fan of horror movies or stories read 6 degrees “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” is a book by Mark Lynas. Warning, it will make nuclear war or zombie apocalypse a real nightmare.
Mark is NOT a climate scientist, he is a science reporter, a person who, like myself, has a deep understanding of how science works, and he has a full year of concentrated research reading every climate science report he could lay his hands on.
If you don’t have a decade or more of post high school hard science education please read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect before sounding off in opposition.
If he and I are wrong but you follow us, the planet will be nicer. If we are right but you ignore science, there will be no humans left to blame you.
Mark is qualified to do this. People who spend 40 plus years studying the climate are qualified, politicians who know exactly which donor is likely to pay off next, are NOT qualified to make scientific decisions, nor are meteorologists, who are qualified to tell you what the weather is likely to be next week.
That blogger on social media who even conceals their identity may barely know how to access the internet and cause trouble with nonsense.
This won’t be much of a problem for anyone over 60 except that, unless there is some major disaster such as multiple volcanos or an asteroid strike, you will not have great or great great grandchildren to blame you.
https://newsblaze.com/thoughts/opinions/the-consequences-of-climate-change-denial_194605/
“The major problem I have with with climate change denial, besides their being unable to show any actual evidence in support – all the objections I can find are actually either about weather, not climate, or are personal, that is, anecdotal rather than scientifically documented evidence is the consequences.
Suppose 99.9% of actual climate experts are wrong but we still follow their advice and change from a petrochemical-based society to a civilization based on renewables.
In that case, the world will have changed to a more sustainable way of life with less pollution, with far less in the way of carcinogens and microplastics which are now found even in all human blood, all the while saving a limited supply of petrochemicals for critical uses such as producing fertilizer and medicines, emergency transportation, even directly turning it into food and future as yet unrealized uses.
We would also end up with better insulated houses, cars with much better mileage even if they are oil powered which is essential in rural areas (my 5.000 lb SUV gets 35 mpg and being diesel could run on corn oil, how does your pickup truck compare?), less poverty, and so forth ALL at the cost of 60 thousand coal jobs here in the US (good honest hard workers but awful jobs, I’ve worked in an Appalachian coal mine. Have you?) and devaluing oil and gas income for warlike dictators, countries in the mid-east where people fear democracy and who support radicals and terrorists.
If anti-climate activists are wrong and we don’t quickly move to a sustainable economy producing less methane and carbon dioxide, then upwards of a billion people will soon starve or drown causing vast forced migration and small or large wars. (In just 20 years, not centuries.)
We will continue to work most of our lives to pay for energy we waste. incidentally making some already very few very rich people even more rich.
Part of the surge in immigrants on the Southern U.S. border is already due to droughts in South America.
In the worst case scenario we could have the case of Venus and since the human race has never been particularly good looking at long term consequences even when they are obvious, we will wait far too long, and perhaps we already have.”
Which world do your kids and their kids want to live in?
Climate Change Alternatives? How about nuclear fusion?
Fusion? A pipe dream for two reasons, it will cost hundreds of billions to even possibly be useful in 10-20 years.
Two, it will see the exact same opposition as plain, safe, easy nuclear power has. (How many French, 90% nuclear, and Americans have died from civilian nuclear power plant accidents? ZERO. I’ve actually seen men die in just one coal mine.)
When you see climate and global warming denial, just repeat to yourself, nicotine is not addictive and cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
You know by now how much you can trust the tobacco lobby and politicians, just apply common sense to climate change propaganda.
