This is yet another reminder that climate change is not a science / technology issue. Science has been settled, technology exists. It's a moral courage issue. Moral courage that our leaders lack. So we have to do it ourselves. There are two broad categories of actions one can take. 1) personal life-style changes 2) system change activism. We are at the point where anyone concerned about the climate change has to do both. Nobody is gonna do it for you.
The science of what?
That we have climate change pretty much "everybody" will agree on.
The science of climate solutions is not even close to being settled. I have a Master in Energy (BSc in Energy) with focus on renewable energy. But try to get a group of professors from different fields to get along to see what is the way forward, or the mix of what. Nuclear energy, geoengineering, hydrogen, fusion, batteries of all kind, destruction of nature to create pumped hydro storage, capturing CO2, wind, concentrated solar, solar PV, biodiesel (and from what), ethanol, gas, Algae, bore holes, solar thermal seasonal storage, biomass, ocean energy and the lists go on.
So when you say that the science is settled I think your looking at the simple part where we see the problem but still has a huge way in what the actual solution.
People who say that we should just do this or that are usually pretty much always out of the loop and rarely know the downside of the technologies. It's not that we have 10 000 thousands of professors in the world that are just stubborn egotist. We don't have obvious good solutions yet. We do for some places, Norway have so much hydro that it's ridiculous, other places have other things and worst part is that many don't have that good options.
Please show some humility to people who have worked on solutions for the last 100 years.
The sensible thing to do when the science that says that we need to stop producing CO2 as quickly as possible is clear but the solution space is not figured out quite so well is to set up a cap-and-trade system for emissions and adjust the cap to whatever the climate scientists think is reasonable for the warming goal we're trying to achieve. This has been known for a long time among economists; there even was a Nobel price for this.
There are also many steps that we can take right now that are completely uncontroversial. For example requiring proper insulation for all new buildings and starting a program to retrofit existing buildings.
Science can never be so arrogant. Most people probably know this but it's worth restating in a heated debate about the 'evidence': The null hypothesis exists for a reason; that is because we can not prove anything. We can only eliminate those theories which are demonstrably false.
As far as I know, there is no heated debate about the evidence among climate scientists, at least not on the points that matter for policy decisions. The debate only exists outside of expert circles.
You're describing the exact opposite of a scientific process.
And even if science reached nirvana just now (spoiler: it did not) the exact action to take is nowhere close to being an easy choice. We're in a prisoner's dilemma in which if you stop polluting I can take advantage of that, kill you economically and the climate goes to hell faster because you where out tree hugging and left me to do whatever I want with the planet.
Assuming an ideal free market in a real-world environment. Fortunately, though, we have regulation, which can solve this issue! (In theory. Of course, for this to work, we have to have countries sticking to the agreements they've made with other countries, e.g. the Paris Agreement.)
It feels like a chicken or egg problem. Individuals in general cannot easily make the life style changes without a broader infrastructure and system in place. Riding the bus or driving an electric vehicle cannot happen easily without an effective bus system or electric filling stations. Leaders cite low bus ridership or low electric vehicle purchases as reasons not to build or improve those systems.
Thr problem lies not with the leaders, at least not in the western world, people just need to stop voting for conspiracy theorists, it really is that simple.
It is poignant to see a Louisiana congressperson pushing for disinformation to be unmarked, especially climate change disinformation, since Louisiana is continually falling into the sea due to climate change. In some sense, they do it to themselves.
Edit: Downvoters, look at the satellite images [0] and tell me that Louisiana isn't drowning, falling into the sea. Tell me that Louisiana doesn't do this to itself with jungle primaries and fake maps. By deliberately ignoring the problem, they make it worse.
They fact checked "Humans are not causing a massive 6th extinction" as false.
So we are causing an extinction as big-ish as the last 5 and that's settled science? Not allowed to debate?
That's why you can't trust fact checkers.
And a big wow lie from the fact checkers, it implies he wants coal fired stoves.
“Our work has shown much higher cancer risk from coal-burning stoves compared to wood-burning stoves”
Noone anywhere is suggesting people go to coal fired stoves. What a lie, clearly he is talking electric stoves, which is know as fact would save hundreds of thousands of lives yearly if people went to. This is a huge push in the NGO's dealing with health.
"The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity."
It also has a lot of references. You can always debate scientific results, but for many topics you need to be an expert in the field and bring some serious data to support your opinions if you don't want to be laughed out of the room. Most "debates" don't feature that kind of argument.
Doing a quick literature review I'm not seeing much at all on the "Sixth Mass Extinction". There are mostly the same articles from wiki.
No one is doubting we are extincting species at a rate far beyond anything normal. This is nothing to do with a Sixth Mass Extinction though, that's many steps up.
What international bodies recognise it? Do we have any data on how many scientists agree?
Readit News
The science of what? That we have climate change pretty much "everybody" will agree on.
The science of climate solutions is not even close to being settled. I have a Master in Energy (BSc in Energy) with focus on renewable energy. But try to get a group of professors from different fields to get along to see what is the way forward, or the mix of what. Nuclear energy, geoengineering, hydrogen, fusion, batteries of all kind, destruction of nature to create pumped hydro storage, capturing CO2, wind, concentrated solar, solar PV, biodiesel (and from what), ethanol, gas, Algae, bore holes, solar thermal seasonal storage, biomass, ocean energy and the lists go on.
So when you say that the science is settled I think your looking at the simple part where we see the problem but still has a huge way in what the actual solution.
People who say that we should just do this or that are usually pretty much always out of the loop and rarely know the downside of the technologies. It's not that we have 10 000 thousands of professors in the world that are just stubborn egotist. We don't have obvious good solutions yet. We do for some places, Norway have so much hydro that it's ridiculous, other places have other things and worst part is that many don't have that good options.
Please show some humility to people who have worked on solutions for the last 100 years.
There are also many steps that we can take right now that are completely uncontroversial. For example requiring proper insulation for all new buildings and starting a program to retrofit existing buildings.
Science can never be so arrogant. Most people probably know this but it's worth restating in a heated debate about the 'evidence': The null hypothesis exists for a reason; that is because we can not prove anything. We can only eliminate those theories which are demonstrably false.
And even if science reached nirvana just now (spoiler: it did not) the exact action to take is nowhere close to being an easy choice. We're in a prisoner's dilemma in which if you stop polluting I can take advantage of that, kill you economically and the climate goes to hell faster because you where out tree hugging and left me to do whatever I want with the planet.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Is there a link to copy of what got censored by facebook?
It would be good to have access to original material being discussed.
But it is the same author. Maybe the “Daily Wire” piece was a rewriting of this?
Edit: Downvoters, look at the satellite images [0] and tell me that Louisiana isn't drowning, falling into the sea. Tell me that Louisiana doesn't do this to itself with jungle primaries and fake maps. By deliberately ignoring the problem, they make it worse.
[0] https://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/sea_level4_h1.jpg
So we are causing an extinction as big-ish as the last 5 and that's settled science? Not allowed to debate?
That's why you can't trust fact checkers.
And a big wow lie from the fact checkers, it implies he wants coal fired stoves.
“Our work has shown much higher cancer risk from coal-burning stoves compared to wood-burning stoves”
Noone anywhere is suggesting people go to coal fired stoves. What a lie, clearly he is talking electric stoves, which is know as fact would save hundreds of thousands of lives yearly if people went to. This is a huge push in the NGO's dealing with health.
Original article -
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Schel...
"The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
It also has a lot of references. You can always debate scientific results, but for many topics you need to be an expert in the field and bring some serious data to support your opinions if you don't want to be laughed out of the room. Most "debates" don't feature that kind of argument.
Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends...
Pretty pic with info on the first 5 - https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-11/file-20191111-17...
Doing a quick literature review I'm not seeing much at all on the "Sixth Mass Extinction". There are mostly the same articles from wiki.
No one is doubting we are extincting species at a rate far beyond anything normal. This is nothing to do with a Sixth Mass Extinction though, that's many steps up.
What international bodies recognise it? Do we have any data on how many scientists agree?