Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The myth of the climate ‘apocalypse’ | The spiked podcast" video.

  1. Gee ... yet another bunch of contrarians trying not to relate to the actual problem as described by science, but instead blaming the messenger. Even if no ones used the term "the world is going to end" (and scientists don't, btw) the potential consequences as described by science are dire enough ... don't give us all those excuses for not taking it serious.
    3
  2.  @jamescaley9942  Huh? Did I read that correctly??? ... Do you guys expect an impact from the COVID-19 lockdowns to show up in ice-core data ?!?!
    3
  3.  @sirrathersplendid4825  I'm just tired of seeing people finding all sorts of bad excuses for relating to the actual science. - like claiming the scientists are "activists". The scientists have actually been extraordinarily conservative and reserved given the severity of the situation, but of course some of them are frustrated seeing a public more interested in pointing to AOC saying the world will end in 12 years than listening to the science and contributing to taking action. I have NO patience for those bad excuses anymore ... and anyway... the time for nipping this in the bud has passed ... from now on the real life consequences of not listening will be way more effective in convincing people there's a huge problem than any time wasted on Youtube arguing with contrarians who have had 25+ years to understanding what 120+ years of science says, but instead have chosen to behave in a way very similar to that which creationists behave towards the theory of Evolution. Sorry... but I will only spend time on good faith discussions.
    2
  4.  @jamescaley9942  I don't know why you would expect that the change in behavior we saw in 2020 would actually make a significant difference. .... but yes, significant changes in the way we produce and consume energy has to happen. I'm also not sure what that observation should be an argument for. It's not like nature cares about economics. Either we make those changes, or nature will force us to make them later. (at enormous economic cost btw). The world is not going to end ... that's just a silly unscientific strawman. But sea levels will rise - and keep rising until all the polar ice has melted. That will take many centuries, but once it gains momentum the end result will be 60m higher sea levels. ... long before that point our coastal cities (which are most of humanity's cities) will run into serious trouble. Some areas (like the middle east) it will become physiologically dangerous to be outside in the daytime with temperatures above 50C. (Try Ask British Columbia how they handled 49.5C recently). Precipitation patterns will shift and together with that and rising sea levels the end result will be huge streams of climate refugees - sure to generate conflicts. Btw... that's a part I simply don't get. A lot of those very against migrants also insist not doing anything about the climate ... Good luck with that. ... So no - the world will not end. But a lot of ecosystems will collapse and aside from sea-level rise, once of the most dangerous consequences will be the geo-political conflicts which will come from that.
    2
  5.  @sirrathersplendid4825  ... yet, even though the actual science is readily available in a not too complicated format, a lot of people seem to prefer to not actually reflect on the science, but instead use the hyperbole of some media and some activist organizations as an excuse to ignore the science. The picture the science describes is bad enough...
    1
  6.  @benmarr352  So .. assuming you are an honest actor here and truly interested. There's some backed in misunderstandings in your questions. First: "The perfect temperature" *for what*? No doubt is has been warmer (and colder), but we and our civilization was not around at that point. Other animals were - and those who couldn't cope with the warmth had went instinct. If we want to keep the ecosystems we rely on and not make some areas physiologically uninhabitable in summer, then the perfect temperature is pretty much the one we have now. But what's more important than the static temperature is the rate of change. And we are changing the temperature faster than it was changes in a lot of the large mass-extinction events. You polemic question about where the carbon for life came from is really missing the point. Sure the carbon in coal came from trees which took it out of the atmosphere in the carboniferous where the CO2 content was much higher. (and the temperature was on average as today). But there are other factors - the Sun was a bit weaker back then for one. No one is claiming that 800ppm (as in the carboniferous) is toxic. What the science says is that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more the planet will warm. And we have to relate to what that means for the current climate - and what the consequence of doing that over a 100-200 year period instead of over a 50.000 year period as it have happened for natural causes at other times (like under the PTEM) will have for our current way of living. > We have to take a much longer and more sophisticated view. I must admit, I find nothing sophisticated about the way you ask questions while totally missing the point about the problem. We know why the earth was warmer at many times in the deep geological past. ... trying to insinuate that that makes it ok for our current civilization to raise the temperature by 2-4 degree over 100 years on purpose (and not stopping there) is just ... well ... Can't find a polite word. But you can try again if you are truly interested in understanding the problem as described by science.
    1
  7.  @sirrathersplendid4825  I prefer to reflect on reality. I have no use for your hypotheticals
    1
  8.  @benmarr352  The short answer is that everything you just wrote is pure fantasy The longer answer (I'm now at a computer and not a phone) is that if you are, as you say, genuinely interested in discussion and not to offend you first have to realize a few things. It's meaningless to think a "debate" between two lay people on Youtube decides anything. I'm a climate scientist - and neither are you I presume. Good knowledge about the climate system comes from the scientific process - not from debates on Youtube. So what I can do is not to "settle" the issue for you and me here, but only refer to the science and encourage you to use your genuine interest to honestly go look it up from the actual scientists - and not search for excuses to vilify the whole subject. I'm tired of people finding excuses for not reflecting on the actual science. You should be steel-manning the science and trying to understand what the scientific argument is and why. Not just, say, pointing to some journalist having misunderstood it, or AOC being a socialist and saying the world will end in 12 years. That such people exist doesn't change a comma in the actual science or change it's validity. I also could care less about Al Gore or where he lives or how many money he has. I haven't even seen his movie ... (just to nap that in the bud). Also ... realize that there are stuff we're not certain about at the edge of every scientific theory - even the most established ones. But that doesn't mean that the core of the theory can't be solid. The core elements of the theory of anthropocentric global warming is about as solid as the theory of evolution. That the current main driver of the heating we're observing (and that we are in fact observing heating) is from the CO2 content in the atmosphere increasing and that that increase is man-made is just as solid as that the origin of the species are natural selection of random mutations. Again... That doesn't mean that we know "everything" - on either subject. We don't know "everything" on any scientific subject - if we did, science would be finished. Science is a process ... but a process constantly converging on an increasingly better picture of the world. Science is very rarely thrown on it's head and a theory totally rejected. Einsteins theories didn't prove Newton wrong ... they just showed that there was extremes where Newtons laws were not enough. As JBS Haldane said ... it would take something like "Rabbits in the precambrian" to prove evolution wrong. In the same way climate science contrarians have all their work ahead of them to turn 120+ years of Climate Science on it's head. Svante Arrhenius basically arrived at the correct conclusion wrt. CO2's effect in 1896 ... Fourier had discovered the Greenhouse effect in the 1820s - and yes - Climate Science is actually even older than the Theory of Evolution. So anecdotes and conspiracy theories are simply not going to cut it. If you are genuinely interested in understanding what science knows about CO2s role in the climate ... I would recommend this talk - from an actual climate scientist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
    1
  9.  @benmarr352  > Please share with the class what happens with temperature when CO2 concentrations go up. Clue. It is not a straight line. It does not curve upwards. The temperature has a logarithmic response to the rise in CO2 concentration. In other words, climate sensitivity is measure in degrees/doubling of CO2. I have a question for you then: Do you really think that fact (which has been known since Tyndall in the mid-1800) has escaped the climate scientists? Do you really think pointing that out provides some key insight which changes the science? PS: Maybe you should turn down the smart ass tone a bit if you want to come off a "genuinely interested".
    1
  10.  @benmarr352  Ok ... so you seem to have a problem with the physics of climate sensitivity ... short of encouraging you to enroll in a course in planetary atmospheric physics, I have to point out to you that not even contrarian atmospherics scientists dispute that physics give us a climate sensitivity of ~1.1C/doubling of CO2 - without taking feedback effects into account. Now... the magnitude and sign of those feedback are of course subject to some uncertainty, but we have several ways (computer models only being 1) to estimate what those feedback effects do. ... and everything have for some time pointed to ~3C/doubling of CO2. Saying that accepted science makes that impossible is just bad faith polemic and the way you formulated it a blatant strawman. I'm seriously starting to doubt whether I can trust your claim of being "genuinely interested". Listen ... none of this is held as a secret. If you were really interested there are plenty of sources which explains the science and you can find most of the papers online on google scholar. ... including btw. evaluation of the performance of climate models, which, if you had actually read them would reveal that the perception of their quality you promote is mostly akin to urban myths. Climate models have in fact been surprisingly accurate - both wrt. predictions and hindcasts.
    1
  11.  @benmarr352  you're talking nonsense. It's not me you have an argument with - it's the entirety of climate science. Aside from your wording being nonsense, you are effectually claiming that the entire field of climate science is deliberately lying to everyone - including it's students. For your argument to be consistent it would take a huge conspiracy theory. So ... if you really think that you are either 1) wiser than all the climate scientists on basic physics, or 2) have exposed them as an organized cult of liars ... I think you should present you "better science" in an actual scientific paper and subject it to review - that's how science works. If you can actually prove 120+ years of climate science wrong, there might even be a Nobel prize in it for you. Go ahead ... publicize your scientific results.
    1
  12.  @benmarr352  This just descending into prejudice filled absurdities. No, I'm not "relatively young", and no, I didn't take "gender studies". I'm not going to waste my time arguing conspiracy theories here ... For now I will refrain from muting you so you can post the link to your article when you publish your "correct science" as a real scientific article. ... please don't fill my feed with other noise, or I'll have to mute you.
    1
  13.  @benmarr352  Let me make this perfectly clear: You are making such drastic (and frankly outrageous and word-salad based claims) that you are not in fact having a debate with me, but your beef is with the entire field of climate science going 120+ years back. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So, I'm not refusing to engage ... I just find that the only meaningful way forward is that YOU actually participate in the scientific process and publish your results in the scientific literature. I'm awaiting your presentation of that work. ... if you are in fact right, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. Come back when you have a link to a peer-reviewed article of yours.
    1
  14.  @whattheactualfook976  I relate only to the science and the way people come up with excuses for denying it
    1
  15.  @johnholmes912  With the same kind of logic, ignoring every fact that matters, I could point out that "geologically speaking The earth has been an oxygen free lava hell for most of it's existence.
    1