Old Scientist
TED
comments
Comments by "Old Scientist" (@OldScientist) on "A Controversial Play — and What It Taught Me About the Psychology of Climate | David Finnigan | TED" video.
Since 1900 the global temperature has increased by 1.3°C. Despite that humanity has flourished. Life expectancy has more than doubled from 32 to 73 years. Literacy has quadrupled from 21% to 86%. Humans are seven times more productive ($2,241 to $15,212 GDP per capita, per annum). People are better fed, having ⅓ more calories every day (2,192kcal to 2,928kcal). Global extreme poverty rates have tumbled from 70% to less than 10% (<$1 a day). And death from weather events have collapsed by a factor 50 from 241 million down to 5 million even while the global population has increased by a factor of 5.
In a world that's 3°C warmer by the end of the century, it has been estimated that incomes will be between 1.9% (Tol, 2024) and 3.1% lower (Nordhaus) than the would otherwise have been. However the UN estimates that total incomes will have increased by 450% by 2100. If the effects of climate are included we will only be 440% or 435% richer! Oh my God, it's the end of the world!
There is no climate crisis. There is no evidence of a climate crisis.
Even if there is radical climate change (and that is a very, very big 'if') with the manifestation of numerous tipping points (including permafrost thaw, ocean hydrates dissociation, Arctic sea ice loss, rainforest dieback, polar ice sheet loss, AMOC slowdown, and Indian monsoon variability) the disruption to economic growth and well-being will be minimal. The world's economy will continue to grow making everyone much richer. By 2050 world mean consumption per capita should be $29,100 with tipping points or $29,300 without tipping points. Barely noticeable. Apart from it being approximately double what it is now. By 2100 world mean consumption per capita should be $71,000 with or without tipping points (Dietz et al, 2021).
This is the most fortunate time to be alive in the whole of history.
3
3
Or listen to the IPCC?
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
2
@christophorfaust2457 If those little girls and their families get richer, and that is what is going to happen, they won't have to haul water. They will, of course, just turn on a tap. And they won't have to chop down trees for firewood, they will just switch on the heating. If they are farmers, modern agricultural methods will allow them to produce more food from less land. They will have less of an impact on the environment, not more. Richer societies divert more resources to the preservation of the environment. It is poverty that degrades the local environment.
The little girls who now don't have to haul water, will go to school, and when they come home, they will be able to do their homework thanks to electric lighting. Their higher levels of education will lead to reduced inequality and a lowered birth rate.
What's your alternative? Vegan Marxism? 'Big Mother is watching you.' That will not solve your socioeconomic inequality. That communist experiment has been tried repeatedly and caused disaster and misery every time.
Unfortunately, there will always be inequality. It is an unpleasant fact of human nature, and you cannot change human nature. Nevertheless people will lift themselves out of poverty if given the right circumstances, and that is what is happening all over the world with the spread of low cost, plentiful energy, and cheap technology.
Your point about extinction is also a red herring. Extinction rates (1500-2009) peaked around 1900 at 50 per decade. Extinction rates have declined dramatically to around 4 to per decade in the 2000s. So the extinction rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no taxonomic families have become extinct in the last 500 years. In fact marine diversity at the taxonomic level of families is the highest it has ever been in the Earth's long history (see Sepkoski Curve). In a review of 16,009 species, most populations (85%) did not show significant trends in abundance, and those that did were balanced between winners (8%) and losers (7%) (Dornelas et al, 2019). There have been only 9 species of continental birds and mammals confirmed extinct since 1500 (Loehle, 2011). No global marine animals have become extinct in the past 50 years (McCauley et, 2015 using IUCN data).
You say you like data. I hope you like that data.
2
@christophorfaust2457 If those little girls and their families get richer, and that is what is going to happen, they won't have to haul water. They will, of course, just turn on a tap. And they won't have to chop down trees for firewood, they will just switch on the heating. If they are farmers, modern agricultural methods will allow them to produce more food from less land. They will have less of an impact on the environment, not more. Richer societies divert more resources to the preservation of the environment. It is poverty that degrades the local environment.
The little girls who now don't have to haul water, will go to school, and when they come home, they will be able to do their homework thanks to electric lighting. Their higher levels of education will lead to reduced inequality and a lowered birth rate.
What's your alternative? Vegan Marxism? 'Big Mother is watching you.' That will not solve your socioeconomic inequality. That communist experiment has been tried repeatedly and caused disaster and misery every time.
Unfortunately, there will always be inequality. It is an unpleasant fact of human nature, and you cannot change human nature. Nevertheless people will lift themselves out of poverty if given the right circumstances, and that is what is happening all over the world with the spread of low cost, plentiful energy, and cheap technology.
Your point about extinction is also a red herring. Extinction rates (1500-2009) peaked around 1900 at 50 per decade. Extinction rates have declined dramatically to around 4 to per decade in the 2000s. So the extinction rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no taxonomic families have become extinct in the last 500 years. In fact marine diversity at the taxonomic level of families is the highest it has ever been in the Earth's long history (see Sepkoski Curve). In a review of 16,009 species, most populations (85%) did not show significant trends in abundance, and those that did were balanced between winners (8%) and losers (7%) (Dornelas et al, 2019). There have been only 9 species of continental birds and mammals confirmed extinct since 1500 (Loehle, 2011). No global marine animals have become extinct in the past 50 years (McCauley et, 2015 using IUCN data).
You say you like data. I hope you like that data.
2
@christophorfaust2457 Your point about extinction is also a red herring. Extinction rates (1500-2009) peaked around 1900 at 50 per decade. Extinction rates have declined dramatically to around 4 to per decade in the 2000s. So the extinction rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years (IUCN), so from observations there are an average of slightly less than 2 species lost every year. Out of a known species total of over 2 million. That gives an annual percentage loss of less than 0.0001%. That's background extinction. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. Of course, extinction is a natural part of the evolution of life on this planet with the average lifespan of a species thought to be about 1 million years (cf 930,000). It is estimated that 99.9% of all plant and animal species that have existed have gone extinct. It should also be noted that no taxonomic families have become extinct in the last 500 years. In fact marine diversity at the taxonomic level of families is the highest it has ever been in the Earth's long history (see Sepkoski Curve). In a review of 16,009 species, most populations (85%) did not show significant trends in abundance, and those that did were balanced between winners (8%) and losers (7%) (Dornelas et al, 2019). There have been only 9 species of continental birds and mammals confirmed extinct since 1500 (Loehle, 2011). No global marine animals have become extinct in the past 50 years (McCauley et, 2015 using IUCN data).
You say you like data. I hope you like that data
2
There is no objective observational evidence that we are living in a global climate crisis.
The UN's IPCC AR6 WG1, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", page 1856, section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed:
Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions),
Aridity,
Avalanche (snow),
Average precipitation,
Average Wind Speed,
Coastal Flood,
Agricultural drought,
Hydrological drought,
Erosion of Coastlines,
Fire Weather (hot and windy),
Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods),
Frost,
Hail,
Heavy Rain,
Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms,
Landslides,
Marine Heatwaves,
Ocean Acidity,
Radiation at the Earth’s Surface,
River/Lake Floods,
Sand and Dust Storms,
Sea Level,
Severe Wind Storms,
Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets,
Antarctic Sea Ice,
Tropical Cyclones.
2
@christophorfaust2457
If those little girls and their families get richer, and that is what is going to happen, they won't have to haul water. They will, of course, just turn on a tap. And they won't have to chop down trees for firewood, they will just switch on the heating. If they are farmers, modern agricultural methods will allow them to produce more food from less land. They will have less of an impact on the environment, not more. Richer societies divert more resources to the preservation of the environment. It is poverty that degrades the local environment.
The little girls who now don't have to haul water, will go to school, and when they come home, they will be able to do their homework thanks to electric lighting. Their higher levels of education will lead to reduced inequality and a lowered birth rate.
What's your alternative? Vegan Marxism? 'Big Mother is watching you.' That will not solve your socioeconomic inequality. That communist experiment has been tried repeatedly and caused disaster and misery every time.
1
@christophorfaust2457 If those little girls and their families get richer, and that is what is going to happen, they won't have to haul water. They will, of course, just turn on a tap. And they won't have to chop down trees for firewood, they will just switch on the heating. If they are farmers, modern agricultural methods will allow them to produce more food from less land. They will have less of an impact on the environment, not more. Richer societies divert more resources to the preservation of the environment. It is poverty that degrades the local environment.
The little girls who now don't have to haul water, will go to school, and when they come home, they will be able to do their homework thanks to electric lighting. Their higher levels of education will lead to reduced inequality and a lowered birth rate.
What's your alternative? Vegan Marxism? 'Big Mother is watching you.' That will not solve your socioeconomic inequality. That communist experiment has been tried repeatedly and caused disaster and misery every time.
1
@christophorfaust2457 If those little girls and their families get richer, and that is what is going to happen, they won't have to haul water. They will, of course, just turn on a tap. And they won't have to chop down trees for firewood, they will just switch on the heating. If they are farmers, modern agricultural methods will allow them to produce more food from less land. They will have less of an impact on the environment, not more. Richer societies divert more resources to the preservation of the environment. It is poverty that degrades the local environment.
The little girls who now don't have to haul water, will go to school, and when they come home, they will be able to do their homework thanks to electric lighting. Their higher levels of education will lead to reduced inequality and a lowered birth rate.
What's your alternative? Vegan Marxism? 'Big Mother is watching you.' That will not solve your socioeconomic inequality. That communist experiment has been tried repeatedly and caused disaster and misery every time.
1
1