[late]

Breakthrough Institute

Big Oil starts things like this every year. Over time, the agenda gets obvious, and they crank up a new one...

[late]

[Godstud]

Big Oil starts things like this every year. Over time, the agenda gets obvious, and they crank up a new one...

Did you read it, or are you just having a temper tantrum? It's not dismissing climate change. In fact, it supports it, but shows the problems with using hyperbole in discussions about it, and that there is not one single "tipping point".

It's a nuanced argument, but I am sure you are a radical activist and don't want a reasonable and rational discussion.

Breakthrough is not funded by "Big Oil".

A funder:
The foundation for a thriving planet
A global platform for philanthropy to innovate and accelerate climate solutions that scale.
https://www.climateworks.org/
https://thebreakthrough.org/about/who-we-are/funders

[late]

Breakthrough is not funded by "Big Oil".

Thanks to Dark Money, you don't know that.

Having seen this literally a hundred times before, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.

In any case, color me unimpressed.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

Tipping points do exist.

The article cited makes the argument that there is no single tipping point that will cause climate change to speed up to a rate beyond what we can handle that is also more than what we are doing socially.

The author does accept that there are tipping points that will drastically increase the impacts of climate change.

The author then goes on to explain why scientific articles and studies must be read carefully.

This article is one of those that should be read carefully so that one does not think it is saying there are no tipping points.

[Godstud]

@late The author didn't say that, but of course, you don't know that because you never read it. It's a nuanced argument that doesn't go against what is being said by you, but of course you will, I suppose, read into it what you want to because you started off with a bias against it simply based on the fact that I presented it.

Yes, @Pants-of-dog It's all Big Oil unless it supports exactly what the radical activists say(even though they have also been shown to be funded by Big Oil- See Tar Sands protests). You and late both seem to be radical activists for which there is only one answer, or you are the enemy. Well you can both shove that stuff back where it belongs. most people don't sit where you two do, but most are afraid of the hassle you give, or can't be bothered to say anything about it. I don't care, so blather on with your "End of the World is Nigh", rhetoric, and lose people who would otherwise be allies to your cause, simply because of your belief that if they aren't with you, they are against you.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

I am not trying to recruit anyone to any cause.

I am pointing out that tipping points exist in climate, and the author of the cited article was defining “tipping point” in a very specific way.

[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog Words have meanings, even if you don't particularly like the meaning, or if it's inconvenient. You can't make vast societal change without support.

Tipping Point
the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place.

So, if we go by the definition, if the tipping point has been achieved, then what's the point of fighting climate change if it's already "too late"? That's the problem with the rhetoric being used.

Was the author WRONG, or is it simply a different way of looking at it?

[Steve_American]

@Godstud.

As I see the climate situation, we may have passed a tipping point, but this is not a reason to give up. The key word there is "may". However, it is a time to panic. We need drastic action now or for sure we will see a plus 4 deg, C world in this century or early in the next.
. . This year will be the hottest in the last 125K tears, and they will be hotter in the future, This is certain because like the water in a pan on a hot stove, it takes time for the water or our air to heat up to reach the temp where the energy in equals the energy out, so it stops heating.

AFAIK, if we take drastic enough actions now, we may be able to avoid the collapse of civilization. This is my goal.

I ask you why you don't treat the extinction of humanity the same way you treat the coming death of a loved one? If you father is ill and maybe dying you support taking expensive actions to extend his life for a few more years, and then later for just a few more months and then days. However, when it comes to all of humanity you reject the expensive treatment to save humanity, and at least to extend the time frame by many more years. For a person who will certainly die in 20 years (or much less) you are willing to spend a lot, but for humanity, including everyone you love, you deny the need to spend a lot to save humanity for many thousands of years, and at the very least to keep things going for many more years.

You seem to deny that drastic actions are needed now. In your admirable desire to avoid making the people give up, you also keep them from being willing to take the drastic actions needed/required. You are betting your life, literally, that you are right. This would be fine with me, if you were not also betting the life of every human along with yours.

A carbon tax is not what we need, we need rationing in the advanced nations. They are the main problem and the global south doesn't IMHO have the ability to impose ratioing in their nations. We in the US did that in WWII, we can do it now much better, because we have better tech.

We need to stop eating most animals, pigs and chickens are better than any ruminant because they burp out methane and pigs don't. We need to eat a lot less meat, though.

All money spent on fossil fuel projects will be wasted. There will be no return on those investments. Wasting money is fine with me as an MMTer. It is wasting the resources that I want to stop. So, stop almost all fossil fuel projects now. [As an MMTer, I know that all money wasted can be replaced with new money created out of thin air.]

Do i think that my plans will be adopted? Hell No! Does this mean we will all die before the world reaches the plus 4 deg. C increase? Frankly, yes. And you will be a tiny bit to blame. I will too, just much less than you, because we all will be to blame to some extent.
. . . The more drastic the actions we take, the longer we will put off the end of civilization or of humanity. And if we get lucky and are drastic enough we will save humanity for another 100K years. [Frankly, beyond 1000 years is not my problem.]
.

[Godstud]

However, it is a time to panic.

Panicking is the worst thing you can do in any situation. You need to find logical and realistic solutions, and not base things on an emotion such as fear(which is what panic is based on).

You seem to deny that drastic actions are needed now.

FALSE. I have never said anything of the sort. Stop making assumptions about what I say. I am quite clear about what I say and what I mean.

A carbon tax is not what we need, we need rationing in the advanced nations.

That's an extreme solution that will not be ratified by the general populace in a country where we have personal freedoms. Good luck selling that to any Capitalist, or American, aside from radical activists(a very tiny minority that most people think are a bit nuts).

They are the main problem and the global south doesn't IMHO have the ability to impose ratioing in their nations.

IMPOSE rationing? So never mind what the people want? Sounds pretty Fascist, to me. You won't sell that to any American, Steve.

We in the US did that in WWII, we can do it now much better, because we have better tech.

What you did in WW2 was a necessity recognized by everyone. Society worked, as a whole towards that. You have to get the same cultural and societal shift to do that, and fear-mongering isn't working.

Technology is not very advanced in the realms of Green technology, and the best non-renewable CLEAN technology(Nuclear power) is protested against, when it is infinitely safer than using other technologies, BECAUSE of past fear-mongering. Do you see how it can backfire?

Do i think that my plans will be adopted? Hell No! Does this mean we will all die before the world reaches the plus 4 deg. C increase? Frankly, yes. And you will be a tiny bit to blame. I will too, just much less than you, because we all will be to blame to some extent.

No. We won't die. We will suffer, but we will adapt. It's what we do, and fear-mongering isn't going to change minds, which is what you NEED to do.

Every human being will be to blame, regardless of who they are, because you are looking to lay blame, instead of looking for solutions.

I doubt your carbon footprint is smaller than mine, as I live in a developing country where our carbon footprint per capita(if this is even a method to date polluting...)is 25% of what it is in the USA. I hope to get all my energy from solar panels by next year, as I insulate my house and install solar panels. Remove the plank from your eye before complaining about the splinter in mine.

@Pants-of-dog says that he doesn't need allies, but what you propose can NEVER come to pass unless you actively seek to change people's minds, and not simply play on their fears. Fear can motivate, but often it doesn't.

[Steve_American]

Panicking is the worst thing you can do in any situation. You need to find logical and realistic solutions, and not base things on an emotion such as fear(which is what panic is based on).

1] FALSE [that drastic actions are needed now]. I have never said anything of the sort. Stop making assumptions about what I say. I am quite clear about what I say and what I mean.
That's an extreme solution that will not be ratified by the general populace in a country where we have personal freedoms. Good luck selling that to any Capitalist, or American, aside from radical activists(a very tiny minority that most people think are a bit nuts).

IMPOSE rationing? So never mind what the people want? Sounds pretty Fascist, to me. You won't sell that to any American, Steve.

What you did in WW2 was a necessity recognized by everyone. Society worked, as a whole towards that. You have to get the same cultural and societal shift to do that, and fear-mongering isn't working.

Technology is not very advanced in the realms of Green technology, and the best non-renewable CLEAN technology(Nuclear power) is protested against, when it is infinitely safer than using other technologies, BECAUSE of past fear-mongering. Do you see how it can backfire?

2] No. We won't die. We will suffer, but we will adapt. It's what we do, and fear-mongering isn't going to change minds, which is what you NEED to do.

Every human being will be to blame, regardless of who they are, because you are looking to lay blame, instead of looking for solutions.

I doubt your carbon footprint is smaller than mine, as I live in a developing country where our carbon footprint per capita(if this is even a method to date polluting...)is 25% of what it is in the USA. I hope to get all my energy from solar panels by next year, as I insulate my house and install solar panels. Remove the plank from your eye before complaining about the splinter in mine.

@Pants-of-dog says that he doesn't need allies, but what you propose can NEVER come to pass unless you actively seek to change people's minds, and not simply play on their fears. Fear can motivate, but often it doesn't.

1] OK, what are your drastic actions that you think are necessary, ignoring what is possible? List them. List also which ones you think are possible.

2] Here you are denying what the IPCC has told us. Yes, it is political, meaning it isn't allowed to scare us; so when it comes close to scaring us, we must believe it. The IPCC has told us that there are tipping points that may be tipped at 1.5 deg. C and almost certainly at 2 deg. C. It told us that things will keep getting hotter unless we take drastic actions by 2026. It told us that the heating is accelerating. [The 1 year temp increase for June 2023 compared to June 2022 was 0.18 deg, C. That is the same amount for a full decade just a few years ago. So, this is strong evidence that the rate of temp increase is now about 7 times to 19 times more than ir was a few years ago. It was 0.18 deg C; so 0.18 x 7 = 1.26 deg. C/decade; and time 10, this is 1.8 deg. C/decade. We are now at plus 1.2 deg.; 1.2+1.8= 3 deg. C by 2033, and remember the rate is accelerating, so this may be an understatement.]

Lurkers, I know there are a lot of you reading this. I write all this for your benefit. I think it is unlikely that Godstud will change his mind. He says he is for drastic actions now. Do you remember what his ideas are? I don't.
. 3212

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog Words have meanings, even if you don't particularly like the meaning, or if it's inconvenient. You can't make vast societal change without support.

Tipping Point
the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place.

Then note that this is not the same definition used by the author of the piece you cited.

Or more correctly, this is the correct definition that the author also acknowledges, as he debunks the notion that there is a single global all or nothing tipping point that will doom humanity.

So, if we go by the definition, if the tipping point has been achieved, then what's the point of fighting climate change if it's already "too late"? That's the problem with the rhetoric being used.

Was the author WRONG, or is it simply a different way of looking at it?

We do not go by that definition.

Again, there is no single tipping point beyond which it is too late. A tipping point is simply when the system gets unbalanced and when it finds a balance again, the system has a new balance.

Instead, there are many tipping points throughout the climate system. For sea level rise, it is the melting of polar ice sheets. Right now, they shrink in the summer and grow back again in the winter. Then we reach a tipping point where they melt into the ocean. The new equilibrium will simply have no polar ice sheets at all and the water will be in the ocean.

Will humans be unable to deal with a 100cm sea level rise? No, humans will survive, but it will be really problematic for millions of people.

[Godstud]

Then note that this is not the same definition used by the author of the piece you cited.

The definitions are all similar, and you are only arguing semantics.

Will humans be unable to deal with a 100cm sea level rise? No, humans will survive, but it will be really problematic for millions of people.

No one is denying that, FFS! That said, your method of convincing people to be more climate conscious is idiotic, if it's all based on fear-mongering and making unrealistic proposals, that have no chance to existing in free societies.

[Steve_American]

:roll: The definitions are all similar, and you are only arguing semantics.


No one is denying that, FFS! That said, your method of convincing people to be more climate conscious is idiotic, if it's all based on fear-mongering and making unrealistic proposals, that have no chance to existing in free societies.

Since you didn't provide any evidence, like the 2 definitions, why should anyone believe you over him?

Well, it certainly seems like the Repud Party is doing very well motivating voters to vote against their best economic interests by playing on their fears. Why do you think that continuing the failed plan of avoiding ginning up the fear is going to start working, when it hasn't worked for the last 20 years.

[Godstud]

You aren't interested in facts, but rhetoric, @Steve_American. I do not care if you do not believe the facts. They speak for themselves.

Fuck your American political parties... both of them! I am not American. I don't give a fuck about your stupid politics, so stop thinking that the world revolves around the USA. It does not! ACC is a worldwide problem, and I can at least acknowledge that.

No one is arguing that people don't fear the future. Everyone does, but you need to do more than just spread fear of something to create lasting change. What are the realistic and reasonable solutions? Rationing is not reasonable nor realistic in the USA and any 1st world country where freedom is valued. It is the antithesis of freedom. Any other ideas?

[Pants-of-dog]

:roll: The definitions are all similar, and you are only arguing semantics.

No one is denying that, FFS! That said, your method of convincing people to be more climate conscious is idiotic, if it's all based on fear-mongering and making unrealistic proposals, that have no chance to existing in free societies.

Again, no one is trying to convince anyone to any cause.

The fact is that tipping points exist.

[Steve_American]

You aren't interested in facts, but rhetoric, @Steve_American. I do not care if you do not believe the facts. They speak for themselves.

Fuck your American political parties... both of them! I am not American. I don't give a fuck about your stupid politics, so stop thinking that the world revolves around the USA. It does not! ACC is a worldwide problem, and I can at least acknowledge that.

No one is arguing that people don't fear the future. Everyone does, but you need to do more than just spread fear of something to create lasting change. What are the realistic and reasonable solutions? Rationing is not reasonable nor realistic in the USA and any 1st world country where freedom is valued. It is the antithesis of freedom. Any other ideas?

Lurkers (and there are a lot of you each day, 255 since the last time I looked) I asked Godstud to demonstrate his commitment to drastic changes to stop putting CO2 and CH4 into the air. Either reasonable ones or impossible ones. He, so far, has replied, but refused to do that.

I know that rationing is not politically possible now. I believe that it is the only way to save civilization if not all humanity. So, by the time it is politically possible it will be too late.

Godstud, you seem to think that only policies that don't reduce the freedom of the people in capitalist nations are politically possible, and so are reasonable". Those that are politically impossible are unreasonable. I ask you, do you really think that it is possible to get everyone to cut carbon burning by 50% by 2026 without reducing the freedom of everyone? IMHO, only drastic actions are going to be enough, and they will certainly reduce the freedom of almost everyone.

Lurkers, I provided strong evidence that the ave. temp of the world now increases in a year as much as it did in 10 years just a few years ago. I admit that it is based on just the temps in June 2023 and in 2022. So, that is not a lot of data points. So far, no one has disagreed or agreed with my facts and conclusion. This speed up of temp increases is terrifying.
.3781 views

[Godstud]

Lurkers (and there are a lot of you each day, 255 since the last time I looked) I asked Godstud to demonstrate his commitment to drastic changes to stop putting CO2 and CH4 into the air. Either reasonable ones or impossible ones. He, so far, has replied, but refused to do that.

No you have not. I don't know what the solutions are, but fear-mongering and telling people to panic are not solutions.

I know that rationing is not politically possible now. I believe that it is the only way to save civilization if not all humanity. So, by the time it is politically possible it will be too late.

That is exactly the "End of the world is nigh", sort of talk that is designed to shut down discussion, and to embrace panic and fear.

Godstud, you seem to think that only policies that don't reduce the freedom of the people in capitalist nations are politically possible, and so are reasonable". Those that are politically impossible are unreasonable. I ask you, do you really think that it is possible to get everyone to cut carbon burning by 50% by 2026 without reducing the freedom of everyone? IMHO, only drastic actions are going to be enough, and they will certainly reduce the freedom of almost everyone.

So far, most of the "solutions" have been to create more money for the rich elites, and not actually address the root problems. I do not think it is possible, to get people to cut down by 50% regardless of steps taken. I doubt that even you could do that on a personal scale, let alone a societal one.

Lurkers, I provided strong evidence that the ave. temp of the world now increases in a year as much as it did in 10 years just a few years ago. I admit that it is based on just the temps in June 2023 and in 2022. So, that is not a lot of data points. So far, no one has disagreed or agreed with my facts and conclusion. This speed up of temp increases is terrifying.
.3781 views

Appealing to an audience won't change reality. Tell me, what are the solutions. Give me some realistic ones that you can actually SELL to people, instead of trying to scare them into reacting. Fear is only a short-term motivator.

Carbon Taxes are lies. Use electricity from oil/coal plants to fuel your electric cars. It's good! Pay more for everything because you tax the food producers and shippers. The rich don't care.

[Steve_American]

No you have not. 1] I don't know what the solutions are, but fear-mongering and 5] telling people to panic are not solutions.
That is exactly the "End of the world is nigh", sort of talk that is designed to shut down discussion, and to embrace panic and fear.

2] So far, most of the "solutions" have been to create more money for the rich elites, and not actually address the root problems. I do not think it is possible, to get people to cut down by 50% regardless of steps taken. I doubt that even you could do that on a personal scale, let alone a societal one.

3] Appealing to an audience won't change reality. Tell me, what are the solutions. 4] Give me some realistic ones that you can actually SELL to people, instead of trying to scare them into reacting. Fear is only a short-term motivator.

Carbon Taxes are lies. Use electricity from oil/coal plants to fuel your electric cars. It's good! Pay more for everything because you tax the food producers and shippers. The rich don't care.

1] OK, you said that you have no idea what some solutions are. This is a start. If there are no solutions that the people in capitalist nations will accept, then we are doomed. Can't you see that.

2] Yes, this is true. IMO, this is because they were not intended to solve the problem. Thet did what they were intended to do, which was to make the rich richer.

3] Right reality is what it is. You can't be sure that your view of reality on there of the natural world is. You may think you can be sure, but you can't be sure. You and me are alike in this neither of us can be sure, as in totally sure and actually correct.

4] I told you my necessary policy. You think it can't be sold to the people. You are likely correct in that. Reality doesn't care what can be sold to the people. Reality will do what it does and it will ignore what we want, and don't work hard enough to do fast enough.

5] I say again climate scientists have been telling the people for 45 years since 1978. They have tried the approach that you are advocating, i.e. don't scare the people. Obviously, it didn't get the people on board with doing anything, way-back-when some small changes would have enough. IMHO, it is now necessary to try a new approach.

I assert that if people in 1946 could live on using half the energy we do now, then we can do it also. Just so you know, the population increased to less than 2.5 times more, but energy use has seen 3 doublings if it grew at a 3% rate. Three doublings is 8 times more. So, 2.5/8=31% which is less than 50%.
.4127 views, now 4223, now 4459, now 4528

[QatzelOk]

So I'm a bit confused by this thread. Its titled best President for the Eco-Apocalypse.

Eco-Apocalypse. NOT global warming apocalypse.

The earth's ecology is being screwed on many levels, and basing the entire discussion in this thread on human-caused climate change is not a good methodology.

Half the insects are gone. Most large mammals are cattle - the wild animals are all extinct or heading there. The ocean's are dying. There are islands of plastic in the Pacific ocean. Drugs and forever chemicals are in our drinking water.

The best president to oversee the final nail in the coffin of humanity and the earth's health... is either Biden or Trump: organized crime grifters who entertain the soon-to-be-extinct with distractions.

***

Don’t worry,...by the time the first billion people have died, human industrial civilisation will have completely collapsed, which will remove the source of anthropogenic global warming, thus solving the problem. This will happen long before the oceans ‘boil off’ and ‘bleed into space’.

So when mankind dies off, all the harm we have already done will disappear by God's hand? I didn't realize you had this much faith, Potemkin.

This sort of scientifically ignorant hysteria is not helpful. It just encourages climate change deniers to dismiss the entire thing as hysterical nonsense, when in fact there is a serious problem which needs to be addressed.

Climate-change deniers don't really need any encouragement. Esso, Hyundai, Total, and many other billion-dollar multinationals can provide them with all the encouragement they could ever need.

There’s nothing we can do to the Earth which it cannot recover from.

The last words of an abusive lover?

The Earth has seen off bigger bastards than we are, and has come through unscathed. No, the real threat of anthropogenic global warming is not to the Earth itself, which has survived far worse, but to the continuation of our own industrial civilisation. There could be a population crash, followed by a reversion to medieval social and economic conditions. This is generally undesirable, so we need to do something to avoid it.

I'm not sure if the "desirability" of a survival-related action is important. As a lifeguard, I rescued a dozen people who were drowning, and none of these rescue activities were "desirable." (a drowning man can kill you) They were necessary.