|
Post by pg13 on Oct 12, 2020 8:09:49 GMT
This is related and here's some rubbish from Extinction Rebellion recently: Hallam is part of Extinction Rebellion and his claim has NOTHING to support it. Nothing like this appears in the IPCC report either. As Paleontologist and mass extinction expert Doug Erwin said they're trying to scare people for their own ends. And it's already been demonstrated that this rubbish causes mental health issues for many people, especially children. Here's another bit of crap from Extinction Rebellion: “I think there is a danger of scaring people simply because we are not taking it seriously enough and people are feeling desperate to be heard on this.
“Unfortunately, alarmist language works which is why we are discussing it right now.”
Zion Lights, a spokeswoman for Extinction RebellionIn fact, research already posted here proves that alarmist crap absolutely does not help at all. It does not work! Logically, there is no real reason for rational minded people to support Extinction Rebellion and their antics or their rubbish. Exaggerated rubbish. Of course, they're also hypocrites as we've seen in recent days. I quoted Zion Lights above months ago. Update since then - she's left Extinction Rebellion for a few reasons. One was Roger Hallam's bonkers claim 6 billion people will die in the 21st century. Another was Extinction Rebellion's ridiculous stunts in London that pissed people off. Here's two articles she wrote for two newspapers explaining why: www.cityam.com/a-message-from-a-former-extinction-rebellion-activist-fellow-environmentalists-join-me-in-embracing-nuclear-power/www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8716403/XRs-ex-spokesperson-ZION-LIGHTS-reveals-changed-tack-future-energy.htmlShe now campaigns for nuclear energy as the solution to the climate crisis.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 12, 2020 8:29:02 GMT
Nuclear energy IMO is a part of the solution along with renewables. I see a combination of these two as an effective solution.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 12, 2020 8:46:19 GMT
Reading The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. www.bookdepository.com/Uninhabitable-Earth-David-Wallace-wells/9780525576709I have to say if you read this book and if it is remotely true Greta's alarmism is perfectly understandable. Tina Turner comes to mind (fittingly in a song from Mad Max): "We are the children, the last generation". By this it looks like we are the last generation to live in relative comfort and convenience. It will only go downhill from here. The book goes through scenarios about what happens if we can't stop the average warming of the planet at 2 degrees until 2100 (which would be the goal of the Paris agreement) and it increasingly looks like we won't be able to do that (also due to inaction). Latest predictions I saw are at 4 degrees (independent from this book) and that's already catastrophe. This book goes into details about what happens if the average temperature rises by 4 degrees, 6 degrees, 8 degrees (the latter it calls unlikely but it would mean an largely uninhabitable planet, so total mass extinction like catastrophe). 4 degrees however is the most likely scenario according to most predictions and that's pretty bad and catastrophic too. And it's not some remote possiblity but we are talking about a very rapid change, people who are born today will still be alive in 2100. This is an alarmist book, but I guess the goal is exactly to shake up people. The question is: do we have a reason to be alarmed? I am now going to study the topic further to see how warranted or unwarranted the alarmism is. Greta might be rough on the edges, but if this is true it's understandable. I just started with this book to shake myself up (after Attenborough's film made me interested in the topic again). When I finish this another book on my list is Merchants of Doubt which is criticism of those scientists who "sell doubt" about important subjects such as climate change. Those scientists always existed (eg. selling doubt about the effects of smoking, sugar etc. I have even seen coronavirus denying doctors - one such "merchant of doubt" in my country famously said "I could bathe in a tub of coronavirus and nothing would happen to me". Of course he never did though. LOL.) and apparently this book offers an analysis of their familiar tactics, which I'm interested in so that I can better spot them. www.bookdepository.com/Merchants-Doubt-Naomi-Oreskes/9781608193943This article by the author - nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html - has been criticised by scientists. Here's scientific criticism - climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-explain-what-new-york-magazine-article-on-the-uninhabitable-earth-gets-wrong-david-wallace-wells/Some examples: You're can read the rest. In other words, David Wallace-Wells doesn't stick to the limits of established science and focuses on the worst case scenarios. His article is a manipulative piece designed to scare people which scientists have proven worsens mental health unnecessarily and doesn't work. Indeed, David Wallace-Wells acknowledged he doesn't really expect every prediction in his book to come true. That's a clear sign he's gone beyond the scope of current scientific knowledge in order to sell a book full of hyperbole. Very much what multiple scientists are saying about his article. I'll give the last word to Alexis Berg, Associate Research Scholar, Princeton University: By all means, present the actual level of scientific research on climate change. But never, ever misrepresent the science by exaggerating it for theatrical alarmism. This will erode public trust in science. Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion, David Wallace-Wells and others all use manipulative alarmism. Another article criticising David Wallace-Wells for his 2017 article which became the book you're reading now: www.city-journal.org/html/truth-just-detail-15316.html"The truth is just a detail...". Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 12, 2020 8:49:03 GMT
Nuclear energy IMO is a part of the solution along with renewables. I see a combination of these two as an effective solution. I agree with that. Problem is a lot of people are moved by nuclear alarmism, usually without understanding why Chernobyl and Fukuoka happened (one was human error and one was the earthquake/tsunami combination).
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 12, 2020 9:13:58 GMT
Good article from Summer 2020: alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/summer-2020/michael-mann-on-climate-denial-and-doomScientist Michael Mann challenges climate change deniers AND climate doomsayers. In particular, Mann has a problem with people like David Wallace-Wells, Greta Thunberg and Michael Moore. He argues their alarmism leads to disengagement with climate change which is very damaging. Alarmism is unwarranted, counterproductive and on a shoogly peg......
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 12, 2020 10:20:14 GMT
I'm going to read multiple takes from multiple angles on climate change. I think it's better to first hand read these books AND then their criticism, than to just do a quick google search for their criticism to quickly and completely dismiss them without even reading them. (You can do that with almost anything.) I'm reading this, as well as I read more skeptical or less alarmist sources and I'm going to form my opinion then.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 12, 2020 10:32:40 GMT
I'm going to read multiple takes from multiple angles on climate change. I think it's better to first hand read these books AND then their criticism, than to just do a quick google search for their criticism to quickly and completely dismiss them without even reading them. (You can do that with almost anything.) I'm reading this, as well as I read more skeptical or less alarmist sources and I'm going to form my opinion then. Absolutely - why not? No harm in putting out there the extremely valid criticisms respected scientists have already noted about David Wallace-Wells. They did read his material to do so. Do let us know your views on this book once you're done. I actually have a free PDF download of The Uninhabitable Earth in my Google Drive. I don't tend to spend money on alarmist books.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 12, 2020 11:54:11 GMT
Interesting you mentioned Michael Mann and I looked at his Twitter and I see he just retweeted this. He sounds pretty alarmed here himself. He also retweeted this. And posted this.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 13, 2020 2:25:25 GMT
Mann also retweeted this. Whatever his criticism of Wallace-Wells's book is (I will read that in detail after I read the book) he doesn't paint a rosy picture of the situation we are in an we are heading towards either.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Oct 13, 2020 9:17:40 GMT
Mann also retweeted this. Whatever his criticism of Wallace-Wells's book is (I will read that in detail after I read the book) he doesn't paint a rosy picture of the situation we are in an we are heading towards either. Interesting, indeed. Here's what he said about David Wallace-Wells previously: From another tweet of his, Mann says he'll challenge anyone of whatever persuasion each time they state something erroneous. Both in favour of and against climate change science. Interesting how Mann sued Timothy Ball for defamation and Ball said Mann's hockey stick was fraudulent. The most eyebrow raising part of it is how Mann kept on delaying the case dragging it on for years. Witnesses for Ball died in the interval, Mann gave the court a lot of irrelevant information and refused to address the delay. According to the judge, it was a simple case of defamation that should have been resolved long ago. He found the inordinate delay inexcusable and that Ball could receive a fair trial in 2021. It's very peculiar Mann didn't deal with the case in good time which is the plaintiff's responsibility as the defendant's legal precedent showed. Here's the ruling: www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htmYou'd have thought Mann would want to get the case deal with much, much earlier instead of delaying it for no good reason. I gather he started an appeal in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 21, 2020 20:55:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 24, 2020 6:17:03 GMT
Greta is now bringing attention to the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU which has just been just passed by the European Parliament. This is the framework and the budget for subsidies that will determine agricultural policy in the EU for the next 7 years. The media is focused on on all type of silly things, from Trump's hair style to celebrities but this has hardly been reported which is a shame because apparently there is a big controversy around it. I only heard about it this week as well and only because an online news website here made a small piece about it - and only because Greta is campaigning against it. So kudos to her for bringing attention to this, although it seems it wasn't enough as most of the media still ignored it altogether, so I guess many people weren't even aware of the controversy.
So basically the criticism of the new CAP is that it does nothing for the emission and biodiversity goals declared in the European Green Deal or Paris Agreement. In other words, it looks like, just like China and the USA, the EU too only pays lip service to those goals but when it comes to action they don't do anything. So here are two articles Greta wrote about it:
I have to say her "how dare you" speech rubbed me the wrong way, but I am starting to be impressed with her.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 26, 2020 13:46:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 26, 2020 15:37:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 26, 2020 18:05:34 GMT
I must admit it's worrying the rise of the temperatures and melting of the glaciers in The Arctic. Seeing polar bears being nothing but skin and bones is quite terrifying and heartbreaking.
What I didn't understand from Greta is why she didn't sue/called out countries that emit greater quantities of methane and carbon dioxide such as USA, China or India.
|
|