Climate Freaks

Published by

Clarissa

February 11, 2017

The climate debate seems to have nobody but freaks participate. Example:

The Summary of Policymakers in IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I said “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.” More relevant to attempts to control CO2 emissions, chapter 10 said “more than half of the observed increase in GMST {global mean surface temperature} from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in GHG {greenhouse gas} concentrations.”

This obsession with who caused it is nothing short of deranged. As if the corals won’t die and glaciers won’t melt as soon as you decide who or what’s to blame.

The house is on fire, and they stand there doing nothing except engage in a vapid discussion as to who started it.

Rate this:

15 responses to “Climate Freaks ”

E (The Third Glance)

February 11, 2017

In defense of my field and colleagues, we get told that if it isn’t human-caused, then there’s no reason to fight it, because it’s just the planet’s “natural variability”. So we work hard to show that the rising temperatures and global change is anthropogenic, because if we don’t, then no one in policy will do anything about it. And as scientists, we recognize that our own expertise is not in policy, but is in interpreting data. So we are a bit stuck in a lot of ways, because we can’t do anything except try to get as much data to show people who can do things as possible.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  February 11, 2017
  
  It makes no sense to complicate one’s own task. It’s hard enough to convince anybody to do anything as it is. Adding a second leg to the task and instead of convincing people of X trying to convince them first of Y and then of X adds complexity to the task.
  
  The result is what we are seeing.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. djiril
    
    February 11, 2017
    
    I don’t get this. If there was a chance that we didn’t cause it, that would change our response. If the climate was changing on it’s own with no influence from human activity, there would be no reason to change our behavior except to find ways to deal with climate change. If it is being caused by us, then we do need to change the behavior that is causing it.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      February 11, 2017
      
      Why, why should it change our response? The corals are dying. It’s a fact of objective reality. If it isn’t human activity that it’s causing it, so what? We still need to reduce emissions to compensate for whatever it is. How does it make sense to let the glaciers melt if the humans didn’t cause it? The melting is still a catastrophe.
      
      I say, let’s concentrate on reducing emissions first and assign blame after its done.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. djiril
        
        February 11, 2017
        
        But there are people arguing that emissions have no significant effect and reducing them won’t do anything.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        February 11, 2017
        
        Does anybody seriously think that wasting time on the debate about the percentage of human input with them will help eventually to convince them about emissions? Why complicate things when it’s already hard to make the argument about reducing emissions?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
      2. Z
        
        February 12, 2017
        
        The reason people won’t reduce emissions to save corals if corals are dying for some other reason is “God’s will,” although I do see your point.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
DWeird

February 11, 2017

“Emissions” and “human activity” are almost entirely the same thing in this specific context. From a cause-and-effect standpoint, if the thing isn’t causing the problem you’re trying to fix, there’s no reason to fiddle with it. This is why the science people spend so much time proving that it in fact is.

From a rhetoric perspective, yes, going, “We need to reduce human activity and I have proof” is probably not a winning strategy.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  February 11, 2017
  
  Not true. The heater being turned off doesn’t cause me to feel cold. The winter weather does that. But I still turn it on and feel warmer.
  
  The absence of medication isn’t making us sick. Yet we take medication when we get sick.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. paranoid
    
    February 11, 2017
    
    If the warming is caused by changes in the sun’s activity, how does it follow that cutting emissions will reduce the warming?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      February 11, 2017
      
      I never suggested we accept the idea that the climate change is caused by sun activity. I suggest we don’t waste time on rehashing these theories at all. Because for every one there will be a hundred more.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Z
        
        February 12, 2017
        
        No, not a hundred more. There’s a broad scientific conscensus on causes of global warming. These aren’t just random people imagining things or “theorizing” in that way
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        February 12, 2017
        
        These random people are the ones who vote and make climate change impossible to address on the level of policy.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Z
        
        February 12, 2017
        
        The ones who don’t believe in science, yes
        
        LikeLike
        
        Clarissa
        
        February 12, 2017
        
        Everybody who is smart enough to understand or at least accept science is already with us. Now it’s about convincing the rest. And they are the majority.
        
        LikeLike