The real climate declaration

[sun rise]

11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change

They listed six key issues that need to be addressed if humanity wants to prevent the most catastrophic scenarios.

These include replacing fossil fuels, cutting the emissions of climate pollutants such as methane and soot, eating less meat, restoring and protecting ecosystems, building a carbon-free economy and stabilizing population growth by investing into family-planning services and girls education.

 

[danieldemol]

11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change

They listed six key issues that need to be addressed if humanity wants to prevent the most catastrophic scenarios.

These include replacing fossil fuels, cutting the emissions of climate pollutants such as methane and soot, eating less meat, restoring and protecting ecosystems, building a carbon-free economy and stabilizing population growth by investing into family-planning services and girls education.

Deserves a winner and an informative rating but I had to choose

 

[Valjean]

With some interesting graphs:
Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Deserves a winner and an informative rating but I had to choose

I got your back.

 

[Stevicus]

11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change

They listed six key issues that need to be addressed if humanity wants to prevent the most catastrophic scenarios.

These include replacing fossil fuels, cutting the emissions of climate pollutants such as methane and soot, eating less meat, restoring and protecting ecosystems, building a carbon-free economy and stabilizing population growth by investing into family-planning services and girls education.

The article was interesting, particularly this part:

Phoebe Barnard, one of the lead authors of the report and the chief science and policy officer at the Conservation Biology Institute, a nonprofit science group, told CNN the report makes it clear "there's no more wiggle room" for policymakers.




US begins formal withdrawal from Paris climate accord

"Posterity will remember them badly for dismissing climate change as a serious threat to our civilization," she said.

Right next to the picture of Trump was the quote "Posterity will remember them badly for dismissing climate change as a serious threat to our civilization." I don't know if they did it on purpose or if it was just incidental, but I thought it was kind of funny.

I'm not sure how posterity will remember us, but a lot of things that have contributed to climate change were not necessarily things we did with ill or malicious intentions.

For example, it's understandable that people would rather use cars than horseback as their primary means of transportation. People chose better methods of heating and lighting their homes, which unfortunately utilize more fossil fuels and contribute to climate change. It's not that most people want to intentionally hurt the environment, but they've grown accustomed to and enjoy the benefits of living in an industrialized society.

We may be facing a kind of "technology trap" of sorts. But I think the general public tends to have the attitude that, even though technology brings about many problems, it's always managed to find solutions to those problems.

So, perhaps people might be hoping for or anticipating some kind of technical solution. Maybe someone might invent a machine or a process which could solve the climate change problem.

 

[Salvador]

I'm sick and tired of all this climate change fear mongering,

There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

There'd likely be beneficial impacts of global warming, like Antarctica become a habitable continent or Iceland becoming green land.

Even if climate change were to flood lots of low lying coastal areas, then people living in these flood prone areas would just simply need to move to higher ground.

 

[Brickjectivity]

11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change

They listed six key issues that need to be addressed if humanity wants to prevent the most catastrophic scenarios.

These include replacing fossil fuels, cutting the emissions of climate pollutants such as methane and soot, eating less meat, restoring and protecting ecosystems, building a carbon-free economy and stabilizing population growth by investing into family-planning services and girls education.

There must be balance. First of all, demands for action are getting old. 'Wolf' has been cried too many times. The information is confusing, and it doesn't matter if you say 11,000 Scientists or not. I remember when Scientists were warning us that we would all freeze. This was in National Geographic when I was a kid. The popular media has been wrong many, many times. We hear constantly warnings about things that never happen. Do you remember the Y2K bug scare? To a computer nerd it was not scary, but to many people it was a confusing and concerning piece of news. They took it seriously. We've been doing that repeatedly for climate change, too. As long as USA's two political parties have their wagons hitched to opposite claims about climate change, it will never be clear to the public what actually is true. Why? Its because they're both lying dogs that's why.

Climate Alarm: Failed Prognostications

GLOBAL WARMING FALSE ALARM: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations Assertion That Man-Made C02 Causes Global Warming.pdf Book by Ralph B Alexander 220 pages.

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do believe in climate change, but I believe more strongly that pollution is the greatest danger rather than CO2 production. CO2 is potentially bad, but pollution and a toxic environment is much more obvious.

 

[Valjean]

I'm sick and tired of all this climate change fear mongering,

There were 4000 ppm of atmospheric CO2 during the Cambrian explosion of life on Earth; today there is approximately 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, compared to approximately 200 ppm a couple of hundred years ago. (1) A doubling of atmospheric C02 has increased overall air temperatures by a mere 1 degree Celsius over the last few hundred years; this is hardly a need of grave concern. (2)) The environmentalist radicals need to stop their fear-mongering and hatred towards industrial green house gases.

(1) Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

(2) Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

There'd likely be beneficial impacts of global warming, like Antarctica become a habitable continent or Iceland becoming green land.

Even if climate change were to flood lots of low lying coastal areas, then people living in these flood prone areas would just simply need to move to higher ground.

Yes, there were times when the arctic regions were warm. Life can and has adjusted to climate change in the past, but it can't adjust to a fast change. Rather than the usual changes over thousands or tens of thousands of years, this current change is virtually instant.

You don't seem to grasp the impact of this warming. There's more to it than just sea rise. It's the beginning of a major extinction event.
You really need to read up on this subject before you begin pontificating about it.

 

[BSM1]

Sure would like to see this list of 11,000...

 

[Valjean]

There must be balance. First of all, demands for action are getting old. 'Wolf' has been cried too many times. The information is confusing, and it doesn't matter if you say 11,000 Scientists or not. I remember when Scientists were warning us that we would all freeze. This was in National Geographic when I was a kid. The popular media has been wrong many, many times. We hear constantly warnings about things that never happen. Do you remember the Y2K bug scare? To a computer nerd it was not scary, but to many people it was a confusing and concerning piece of news. They took it seriously. We've been doing that repeatedly for climate change, too. As long as USA's two political parties have their wagons hitched to opposite claims about climate change, it will never be clear to the public what actually is true. Why? Its because they're both lying dogs that's why.

The scientists were right about the freezing, as well, but it was a completely different phenomenon, with a different cause, which, thankfully hasn't yet come to pass.

Climate change isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, and it's not the politicians doing the analyses or making the predictions.
Apparently the whole thing is confusing to you, so you assume others aren't clear on it either.

Not all of us are so ill-informed. Some of us use reputable news sources, watch PBS, listen to NPR and read scientific magazines.
Where do you get your news?

Climate Alarm: Failed Prognostications

This is an industry screed, and, apparently an outdated one. It's reminiscent of the tobacco or lead industry's assurances of safety.

GLOBAL WARMING FALSE ALARM: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations Assertion That Man-Made C02 Causes Global Warming.pdf Book by Ralph B Alexander 220 pages.

You'll find outliers on any issue, some even believe their denials, but the overwhelming consensus of the experts in multiple relevant fields is that the crisis is real and accelerating. The fact is, the climate scientists raising the alarm often are wrong -- every time they reassess or plug in new data they find their predictions had been too conservative.
Ralph B. Alexander

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - Wikipedia

Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate? | John Abraham

Maybe you should reconsider some of the very visible phenomena this crisis has already wrought.

 

[Valjean]

I do believe in climate change, but I believe more strongly that pollution is the greatest danger rather than CO2 production. CO2 is potentially bad, but pollution and a toxic environment is much more obvious.

CO2?
How do you propose to stop the non man made methane pouring into the atmosphere from arctic warming?

 

[Brickjectivity]

How do you propose to stop the methane pouring into the atmosphere from arctic warming?

How do you propose to stop the methane pouring out of people's mouths? Climate Change is one of the major political planks of a US political party. That does not speak well for it. US political parties are notorious for supporting or opposing issues simply because the other side opposes or supports something. I refuse to be bullied into taking up a position over something that is confusing.

Institutions are no insulator against political crap. People lie -- even scientists and institutions. Have you looked lately at the universities and how they are bankrupting students? Ask them though if that is what they are doing. "Oh no we can barely find the funding to keep things running as it is." Corruption runs wild in higher ed. There's little or no oversight. They've given up all credibility. What keeps this from influencing the Scientists? While pushing for social change higher institutions simultaneously have been working against it. I've mentioned this before, but state universities are run like Ponzi schemes. Look at how they treat athletes. Look at how they treat their second class staff -- often outsourced. Its sickening, sickening. They have no --- no credibility. They say one thing and do another. Why wouldn't this extend to a politically charged subject such as climate change -- Al Gore's pet project?

 

[Valjean]

How do you propose to stop the methane pouring out of people's mouths? Climate Change is one of the major political planks of a US political party. That does not speak well for it. US political parties are notorious for supporting or opposing issues simply because the other side opposes or supports something. I refuse to be bullied into taking up a position over something that is confusing.

It's only grudgingly a plank. Politicians sought to sweep it under the rug for decades.
Politicians don't like controversial topics that might alienate corporate funders or potential voters.

Again, this is a scientific issue; discovered by scientists, researched by scientists and reported by scientists. Politicians only jumped on the bandwagon after it became mainstream news and could no longer be avoided.

Don't look to politicians for information on it. As Greta suggests, read the scientific literature.

Institutions are no insulator against political crap. People lie -- even scientists and institutions. Have you looked lately at the universities and how they are bankrupting students? Ask them though if that is what they are doing. "Oh no we can barely find the funding to keep things running as it is." Corruption runs wild in higher ed. There's little or no oversight. They've given up all credibility. What keeps this from influencing the Scientists? While pushing for social change higher institutions simultaneously have been working against it. I've mentioned this before, but state universities are run like Ponzi schemes. Look at how they treat athletes. Look at how they treat their second class staff -- often outsourced. Its sickening, sickening. They have no --- no credibility. They say one thing and do another. Why wouldn't this extend to a politically charged subject such as climate change -- Al Gore's pet project?

The universities are bankrupting the professors, too. They've followed the trend and become businesses dedicated to maximizing profits and minimizing expenses. Half the undergrad courses seem to be taught by teaching assistants.

Perhaps the administrators have no credibility, but the climate crisis alarm isn't coming from the administration, it's coming despite the administrators. The evidence is too robust to ignore.
Luckily there are still some stalwart professors who refuse to bow to administrative pressures to play down the controversy.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Maybe you should reconsider some of the very visible phenomena this crisis has already wrought.

Maybe so. Here's a seemingly independent group of researchers claiming to have a consensus on the subject:

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

 

[Salvador]

Yes, there were times when the arctic regions were warm. Life can and has adjusted to climate change in the past, but it can't adjust to a fast change. Rather than the usual changes over thousands or tens of thousands of years, this current change is virtually instant.

You don't seem to grasp the impact of this warming. There's more to it than just sea rise. It's the beginning of a major extinction event.
You really need to read up on this subject before you begin pontificating about it.

The human colonization of Mars, increasing living space, is the ultimate solution for getting rid of over-crowded places here on Earth as well as getting rid of the Earth's excess greenhouse gases.

There should be no worries about high levels of atmospheric CH4 and C02 due to industrialization or overpopulation, because these greenhouse gases could be sent away to Mars where they'd transform Mars into a warmer planet; this methane and carbon dioxide would help transform Mars into a way more comfortable place for sustaining life from Earth. Any excessive levels of these green house gases could simply be transported via the Space X interplanetary transport system from Earth to Mars.

The first step towards forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

In addition to CH4 (methane) and C02 (carbon dioxide), some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $500 billion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than some few thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

The forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere around Mars as well as on the surface of Mars ( terraforrming ) would create many high tech jobs, and save planet Earth by way of transferring away its harmful global warming green house gases to Mars where these gases would be beneficial as they'd contribute to forming a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparble to Earth's biosphere. This project ( terraforming ) to make Mars a better place for human colonization there should be dubbed the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars". I'd favor the "Green New Deal for Earth and Mars" instead of the Green New Deal that'd only be focused on Earth alone.

 

[Stevicus]

It's only grudgingly a plank. Politicians sought to sweep it under the rug for decades.
Politicians don't like controversial topics that might alienate corporate funders or potential voters.

Again, this is a scientific issue; discovered by scientists, researched by scientists and reported by scientists. Politicians only jumped on the bandwagon after it became mainstream news and could no longer be avoided.

It's a scientific issue, at least as far as addressing and identifying what the problem is. But when it comes to actual solutions, all they can really do is make suggestions and proposals. The politicians have to make the decisions as to what to do. I don't know if they actually jumped on the bandwagon or were reluctantly pushed.

I just wish we could get past a lot of the squabbling over what the problem is - or even that some people don't even think it's a problem.

The general public seems largely confused about the issue, but even for those who understand and believe in climate change, it's unlikely that they'd be willing to sacrifice that much. Not to mention up-and-coming nations in the developing world where the people want electronic gadgets and cars and all those things that have enhanced our lives in the West - and use fossil fuels.

So, yes, it's nice in theory for the scientists to get together and say "we should use less fossil fuels." I agree, but it's easier said than done. And "eat less meat"? People won't go along with that.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try, and I don't really want to come off as too cynical or defeatist here. But we're probably screwed one way or the other anyway. One reason I may not worry so much about climate change is that we'll probably go up in a nuclear inferno before climate change starts to really take its toll.

But at least the cockroaches will survive - and who knows? In a few million years, they may evolve into an intelligent, sentient lifeform - far more intelligent than humans. So, I do have high hopes for the planet's long-term future. I think the planet Earth will survive this, even if humans don't.

 

[Twilight Hue]

11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering' caused by climate change

They listed six key issues that need to be addressed if humanity wants to prevent the most catastrophic scenarios.

These include replacing fossil fuels, cutting the emissions of climate pollutants such as methane and soot, eating less meat, restoring and protecting ecosystems, building a carbon-free economy and stabilizing population growth by investing into family-planning services and girls education.

We're the kind of species from a collective standpoint that just has to let the disasters hit before reacting.

The problem is wolf was cried so many times that future warnings are just cliche.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But at least the cockroaches will survive - and who knows? In a few million years, they may evolve into an intelligent, sentient lifeform - far more intelligent than humans. So, I do have high hopes for the planet's long-term future. I think the planet Earth will survive this, even if humans don't.

I think humans ought to survive, and I don't think any other species can replace our unique view of the universe. Somebody ought to be here looking out at constellations. Roaches are neat, but they don't care about anything. They are little robots. Octopi have terrific eyes, but they lack the energy required to develop their minds. They'd have to ramp up their caloric intake, and how would they protect their brains. Ravens? They'd miss flying. They're be a very sad, solemn intelligent species. Sometimes I miss climbing trees, but at least I'm not a flightless bird. Dogs have no hands. Raccoons...maybe; but can you imagine a raccoon with a giant head? Yuck!

So back to climate change...

 

[Stevicus]

I think humans ought to survive, and I don't think any other species can replace our unique view of the universe. Somebody ought to be here looking out at constellations. Roaches are neat, but they don't care about anything. They are little robots. Octopi have terrific eyes, but they lack the energy required to develop their minds. They'd have to ramp up their caloric intake, and how would they protect their brains. Ravens? They'd miss flying. They're be a very sad, solemn intelligent species. Sometimes I miss climbing trees, but at least I'm not a flightless bird. Dogs have no hands. Raccoons...maybe; but can you imagine a raccoon with a giant head? Yuck!

So back to climate change...

Well, maybe Planet of the Apes gives a look at what Earth's future might be like.

I can just see Charlton Heston, pounding his fist in the sand while gazing at the Statue of Liberty.

"You finally really did it. You maniacs! You dismissed the threat of climate change! You used too much fossil fuels! You ate too much meat! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!"