Assuming the effects are as bad as they believe. That is still uncertain, altho many believe probable. Climate science is one of the least exact sciences in existence, which is one of the reasons for the hyperbole. You can create models for many many different outcomes. The media and the likes of Greta Thunberg (and her parents no doubt) like to focus people's minds on the worst scenarios, because this creates better headlines and more research grants. They might turn out to be right, and we might be facing devastation and mass extinction. On the other hand Trump (much as I despise him) might be right. He is as well qualified as Greta, i.e. not very.
I know you say you have studied climate science, but as someone with expertise in it, I'm afraid your understanding of how climate models work is incorrect.
When you hear headline figures from the IPCC, these are based on climate models which are implementations of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and Newton's Laws of motions. The most important reason for the spread in climate model projections (given the same greenhouse gas concentration pathway) is that there are small-scale processes, such as cloud formation, which cannot be represented in this way in a global model, which must therefore be parameterised. Taking the example of clouds, different models will give different cloud-feedbacks to climate change, either amplifying or damping it. This is why some climate models will give a climate sensitivity (response to doubling of CO2) of 3 degrees C and others will give a climate sensitivity of 5 degrees C, for example.
You simply cannot set these models up to give you whatever response you want. Now, there are also such things as box models, used (by me, for example) for conceptual purposes. These could, in principle, be tuned to give a wide range of results. However (1) these models are not used for headline IPCC figures; (2) if tuned to give a crazy result, they would fail to reproduce the most basic aspects of 20th century climate anyway.
By all means criticise Greta Thunberg if you want. A clearer example is that Extinction Rebellion do exaggerate, and that irritates me as a scientist.
By all means argue for emphasis on adaptation to climate change, rather than mitigation to prevent it. It's a valid political viewpoint, though I certainly disagree.
But falsely dragging the fundamental science into it, as you are doing, is simply delusional. You might as well state that evolution is one of the least exact sciences there is (it is far less well understood than climate change), and then use that as the basis for arguing that creationists are as likely to be right as anyone else.
Plus, you don't understand research funding if you think research grants are motivating Thunberg and the media.
On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
Point me to this open discussion of drastic human population changes, please.
And just how are these massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people to be enforced without scrutiny or consent ? Unless you mean the normal operations of the market ?
Thought I would add this to the mix.
'rable rouses' have been saying 'what everybody is doing is wrong; and you must all change your ways, and do exactly what I tell you to do since the old testament days.
A peak came in the 1968 with the book 'population bomb' by Paul Ehrlick, non of the predictions came true, in fact just about the opposite happened. In 2020 pritiy much identical arguments are being razed by Extinction Rebellion and others.
I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.
What expenses do you incur that you claim back when you go to the pub after work? I want to work there.
? If it’s organised as a networking event, 100% expensed.
I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.
What expenses do you incur that you claim back when you go to the pub after work? I want to work there.
? If it’s organised as a networking event, 100% expensed.
Really. You would go to the bar and buy a drink and claim it back because you were talking shop.
I thought the Bible forbid premarital sex and adultery.
So long as you never get married, you're safe
The third date thing for women has become culturally ingrained.
This implies a male strategy of theatre and cinema dates for dates one and two where you have less interaction and thus less chance of fucking it up. Manage a good dinner on date three and you are in.
Gay men and sex are quite different. They’ll have sex on the first date and if they really get on, after three or four meetings they might exchange names and phone numbers.
I thought the Bible forbid premarital sex and adultery.
So long as you never get married, you're safe
I believe Islam and Sikhism forbids sex outside marriage too, as does Catholicism of course and most evangelical Churches, Hinduism is a bit more flexible if voluntary on the part of both parties and a strong desire and Buddhism also allows sex outside marriage if both parties are truly in love.
Orthodox Judaism generally forbids it unless the male marries his partner afterwards.
Comments
When you hear headline figures from the IPCC, these are based on climate models which are implementations of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and Newton's Laws of motions. The most important reason for the spread in climate model projections (given the same greenhouse gas concentration pathway) is that there are small-scale processes, such as cloud formation, which cannot be represented in this way in a global model, which must therefore be parameterised. Taking the example of clouds, different models will give different cloud-feedbacks to climate change, either amplifying or damping it. This is why some climate models will give a climate sensitivity (response to doubling of CO2) of 3 degrees C and others will give a climate sensitivity of 5 degrees C, for example.
You simply cannot set these models up to give you whatever response you want. Now, there are also such things as box models, used (by me, for example) for conceptual purposes. These could, in principle, be tuned to give a wide range of results. However (1) these models are not used for headline IPCC figures; (2) if tuned to give a crazy result, they would fail to reproduce the most basic aspects of 20th century climate anyway.
By all means criticise Greta Thunberg if you want. A clearer example is that Extinction Rebellion do exaggerate, and that irritates me as a scientist.
By all means argue for emphasis on adaptation to climate change, rather than mitigation to prevent it. It's a valid political viewpoint, though I certainly disagree.
But falsely dragging the fundamental science into it, as you are doing, is simply delusional. You might as well state that evolution is one of the least exact sciences there is (it is far less well understood than climate change), and then use that as the basis for arguing that creationists are as likely to be right as anyone else.
Plus, you don't understand research funding if you think research grants are motivating Thunberg and the media.
This implies a male strategy of theatre and cinema dates for dates one and two where you have less interaction and thus less chance of fucking it up. Manage a good dinner on date three and you are in.