A little light reading!

[rogue06]

If climate change is happening, that is, if the planet is heating up due to carbon emissions, it would seem that by now the momentum would be unstoppable.

The very same folks who declare they have no control over energy costs (then immediately take credit if the price drops a few cents) are the same ones who say they can "fix" the environment if only we gave them all our money.

[Mountain Man]

Those in Kentucky were certainly not the "elite". From my reading of that latest disaster that region is comparatively poor. However, think of all those wealthy individuals who have residences on the coastal regions of the US Eastern seaboard!
And what about the Hamptons or Manhattan? They are only islands!

Isn't it funny how we are warned about the dangers of rising sea levels while the elites are buying coastal mansions. Less for us, more for them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Indeed. Perhaps you should keep it in mind before bringing it up next time.

I made no mention of any specific topic or thread.

I wrote this:

Writes the person who despite being asked several times has yet to produce an iota of attested textual or historical evidence to support his delusional fancies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Isn't it funny how we are warned about the dangers of rising sea levels while the elites are buying coastal mansions. Less for us, more for them.

Your grand-children might able to watch those mansions disappearing under the water!

[Mountain Man]

Your grand-children might able to watch those mansions disappearing under the water!

Unlikely. There is no evidence that sea level rise will reach any where close to what alarmists are predicting.

[Machinist]

Your grand-children might able to watch those mansions disappearing under the water!

“Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice. ” - Will Durant

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

“Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice. ” - Will Durant

He has a point.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Unlikely. There is no evidence that sea level rise will reach any where close to what alarmists are predicting.

Then what are you moaning about?

[Mountain Man]

Then what are you moaning about?

Looks like another failure of reading comprehension on your part. What I'm "moaning" about is how we are being lied to and told that we need to reduce our quality of life in order to save the planet by rich elitists who have no intent of making any sacrifices themselves because they know that the effects of climate change are being greatly exaggerated.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Looks like another failure of reading comprehension on your part. What I'm "moaning" about is how we are being lied to and told that we need to reduce our quality of life in order to save the planet by rich elitists who have no intent of making any sacrifices themselves because they know that the effects of climate change are being greatly exaggerated.

As you do not accept the predictions for climate change you do not need to worry; You've "Got fuel to burn got roads to drive".

[Gondwanaland]

As I wrote in the OP I have not [as yet] read the entire book - it was only published three days ago and I am awaiting my copy. Not, I should add, from Amazon.

Well anyone can write anything on Amazon.

However, from what I have read [courtesy of Amazon] he is looking at three main areas. Firstly, putting the human impact into context within the earth's 4.6 billion year history. Secondly to home ["zero"] in on the current global heating of:

drought, mass migration, water wars and health issues, along with hard to predict 'stings-in-the tail' such as Gulf Stream collapse and methane "bombs"

Those are things that have always happened. Indeed, many civilizations in the Americas collapsed due to the same issues before Europeans outside of the Vikings ever set foot on either of the Americas. And likely played a role in the Bronze age 'collapse'. Those aren't new things. Those are just basic reality of changing climate.

His concluding section examines:

what we need to do now to minimise the impact of dangerous climate breakdown, and considers whether technology can save us. It also rams home the message that - even at this late stage - it remains vital that we cut emissions to the bone as soon as we possibly can.

I'd agree that technology will be needed to adapt. I don't believe we need 'saving', but we do need to adapt, just as humans have for millenia to changing pressures.

He also notes that the global political will to do that appears unlikely

Certainly, because no one is interested in bankrupting themselves to 'cut emissions to the bone'. And the politicians know that isn't a pill they'll get their constituents to swallow and will likely get them tossed out on their rear.

However, while he holds that we should attempt to implement that last option he also maintains that severe climate change is now inevitable and irreversible. In this he goes further than many of his colleagues who feel that a reduction in emissions could lower the more extreme impacts.

He also comments upon consensus among climatologists [as I quoted to @Machinist]:

It is also the case, research has revealed, that climate scientists - as a tribe - tend to gravitate towards a consensus viewpoint, rather than go out on a limb, and they are inclined to make forecasts that underplay the reality

A comment from a former BBC Environment Analyst at the front of the Kindle version, would appear to support that observation:

But the public does not like pessimism, so we environment journalists hint at future optimism.

Climate will always change, and we will always adapt. As to the quote about 'consensus', well, consensus is a lazy way of saying you won't consider you are wrong. And their forecasts underplaying the reality? Yeah that's not remotely true. As we've seen for decades, not only do the forecasts overstate and fearmonger (whilst reality has not lived up to those forecasts), but most of the models have trouble even retro-actively predicting the changes we know we've experienced, which means they're crap models. If your model can't even predict via its methods what we already know has happened because we have data on it, it isn't a model that can be trusted to give an accurate prediction of what is coming.

[Gondwanaland]

So, He thinks there's a conspiracy to underplay the severity of global warming?

That right there, given what we've seen on the overplaying of the severity, makes me doubt his credibility.

[Gondwanaland]

Something interesting that I have read lately that pertains to this thread is that the powers that be in the world of academia are proposing the Anthropocenic Epoch as a scientifically legitimate age of the Earth's geological timeline of epochs, or ages. There is much debate over actually adopting this view, as you could imagine. This age would date from the commencement of human impact on the planet. It's quite likely that the idea of this geological epoch will be in the curriculums of schools soon.

I don't know a whole lot about about science, or the atmosphere, but if it were up to me, that is, if I ruled the world, the first thing that would stop, as in, cease and desist immediately, would be the deforestations of rainforests. Period. There would no more. It would all halt today, this very minute. It would be a good first step I would think. I do think that it's a good idea to protect the planet, so long as it's truly protecting the planet and the planet's ecosystems.

All the plastic in the ocean bothers me too.

See now these are things that I actually care about. Climate change is not particularly a worry to me. Our destruction of rainforests and plastic pollution, however, are actual things of concern that we need to put in serious effort to stop and change.

[Gondwanaland]

Interestingly, there is a good deal more forested land in the U.S. now than there was a hundred years ago. Still, a fraction of what it was 400 years ago, but forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s with the tree planting efforts that were started in the 1950s really paying off.

Ther is, but not remotely of the quality that there was. Most of it is uniform replanting of one or two tree types (usually with an eye at cutting them down in the future). Most of these 'new' forests are artificial and lack biodiversity and similarly lack the habitats for animals that old growth forests provided. There are a rare few foresting companies that have made biodiversity and age a priority and will leave many trees in place while harvesting, but they are few and far between.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well anyone can write anything on Amazon.

I made it clear which were quotes from the available text and which was the comment by one reviewer.

Those are things that have always happened. Indeed, many civilizations in the Americas collapsed due to the same issues before Europeans outside of the Vikings ever set foot on either of the Americas. And likely played a role in the Bronze age 'collapse'. Those aren't new things. Those are just basic reality of changing climate.

The only difference being there were fewer humans involved and of course the results were not always particularly pleasant for those who were around.

I'd agree that technology will be needed to adapt. I don't believe we need 'saving', but we do need to adapt, just as humans have for millenia to changing pressures.

Recorded human history is around 7,000 years. That is not a particularly long period. Certainly we survived as species' for some time prior to that but I doubt many in the industrialised nations relish the thought of going back to hunter-gathering. Nor of course is the natural world in the same state today as it was [for example] 30,000 years ago and the present human population is somewhat larger than at that period.

Certainly, because no one is interested in bankrupting themselves to 'cut emissions to the bone'. And the politicians know that isn't a pill they'll get their constituents to swallow and will likely get them tossed out on their rear.

Then the industrialised nations carry on at the expense of millions of others?

Climate will always change, and we will always adapt.

That is a rather over-stated comment. We will "always" adapt? Furthermore technology is in the hands of a relative few. I doubt many here could build their own computer from scratch - and I do not refer to simply purchasing the constituent components.

As to the quote about 'consensus', well, consensus is a lazy way of saying you won't consider you are wrong.

I think the general tenor is to provide an optimistic commentary if certain policies are adopted.

And their forecasts underplaying the reality? Yeah that's not remotely true.

You think the forecasts are over-stated?

As we've seen for decades, not only do the forecasts overstate and fearmonger (whilst reality has not lived up to those forecasts),

That remains to be seen.

Our model can't even predict via its methods what we already know has happened because we have data on it, it isn't a model that can be trusted to give an accurate prediction of what is coming.

What climate change modelling have you been personally involved with?