More Than 11,000 Scientists From Around the World Declare a 'Climate Emergency' (theguardian.com) 395
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists. "We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency," it states. "To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems." There is no time to lose, the scientists say: "The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity."
The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating. Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing. A key aim of the warning is to set out a full range of "vital sign" indicators of the causes and effects of climate breakdown, rather than only carbon emissions and surface temperature rise. "A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events," said co-author Thomas Newsome, of the University of Sydney. Other "profoundly troubling signs from human activities" selected by the scientists include booming air passenger numbers and world GDP growth.
The scientists did identify some positive signs, including decreasing global birth rates, increasing solar and wind power and fossil fuel divestment, and a falling rate of destruction in the Amazon. They also listed a series of actions people can do to help the "climate crisis":
- Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
- Stabilize global population -- currently growing by 200,000 people a day -- using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
- End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
- Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
- Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating. Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing. A key aim of the warning is to set out a full range of "vital sign" indicators of the causes and effects of climate breakdown, rather than only carbon emissions and surface temperature rise. "A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events," said co-author Thomas Newsome, of the University of Sydney. Other "profoundly troubling signs from human activities" selected by the scientists include booming air passenger numbers and world GDP growth.
The scientists did identify some positive signs, including decreasing global birth rates, increasing solar and wind power and fossil fuel divestment, and a falling rate of destruction in the Amazon. They also listed a series of actions people can do to help the "climate crisis":
- Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
- Stabilize global population -- currently growing by 200,000 people a day -- using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
- End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
- Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
- Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
Even under communism the goal for the economy was growth. We can make a goal that negative externalities are accounted for, but convincing people to "not chase affluence" is dubious.
Re:no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Even under communism the goal for the economy was growth.
Ah yes, that fairytale of everlasting economic growth. It keeps amazing me how even highly schooled scientists, economists, or otherwise intelligent people can not see that:
At some point, humanity will have to find some equilibrium between its population, the resources that population uses, and the resources this planet has available. If we don't find such equilibrium ourselves, physics & nature combined will find it for us.
We can make a goal that negative externalities are accounted for, (..)
Sure, carbon taxes and similar measures. I'm all for it. But if history is any indication, humanity has a piss-poor record of applying such measures on a global scale. Never mind that this approach tends to rely on market forces, which may not be the best approach to begin with.
Increase (Score:5, Interesting)
You are assuming economic growth requires increasing use of materials and energy. Growth can also happen by using *less* energy and materials via increases in efficiency. Use less stuff and energy, get more profit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: no thanks (Score:2)
So you just have lying.
Wow.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody "believes" in everlasting growth. It is just that the system is set to work this way. Don't need to listen to podcast; just read any basic textbook of economy or live for more than 3 decades on Earth.
Not only the system relies on ever increasing growth but the rate of growth must also increase. Since this is impossible the system crashes regularly, taxpayers pay the bill, and then we are "safe" for a decade until it busts again...
In my view, economy is the worst cargo-cult pseudoscience BS on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Does GDP growth = better quality of life?
Perhaps to some extent when a country is developing, yes. But in developed nations? The US is the largest economy by GDP but doesn't have the best quality of life in the world.
Also your quality of life tends to go down somewhat when you find your house is underwater and even Ben Shapiro doesn't want to buy it.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't think of another place on earth that I'd rather live.....
We certainly don't have a shortage of people trying to come here....even illegally.....
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I'm quite sure we could put together a free shuttle service from the MX border that lets out on the CA border, no problem.
Let's see how the Canadians feel about that option...?
Think they'd go for it with open arms?
Re: (Score:3)
Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
Even under communism the goal for the economy was growth. We can make a goal that negative externalities are accounted for, but convincing people to "not chase affluence" is dubious.
Except that GDP not an effective measure of how an economy is doing [theguardian.com]. In fact it is often seriously misleading [boingboing.net], and "chasing affluence" is an illusion for most people.
The reality is that the neoliberal economics practiced over the last forty years in countries like the US and UK has created a system, where while the economy appears to be booming, most people are actually worse off [vice.com] in real terms. Since the last recession, the 1% have experienced double-digit growth in their incomes, while the income of the 99 [theguardian.com]
Re: no thanks (Score:2)
Your fingers appear to be in your ears.
We're hosed (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we're not (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, many people are not going to sacrifice to improve conditions
Nor should they.
Let's take a look at the differences between now and 20 years ago, and see what improvements have been made:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been saying for 10 years now asking us to crush our economy so the year 2100 or 2300 will be better would be stupider than asking people in 1900 to crush their economy, leaving us today with 1950s tech, if lucky, and a better environment.
Re: No, we're not (Score:2)
You failed science then?
Re:No, we're not (Score:5, Informative)
Notice how it's not a straight line. It curves
Now when that stops rising, the temperatures will still increase for about 40 or 50 years.
But there's no sign of it stopping rising. Quite the opposite. The rate of rise in increasing.
Re: (Score:3)
To meet the 50% reduction by 2030 goal, the US would need to replace existing fossil fuel energy use by installing 400 (+/- 50) 1GW nuclear power plants or their equivalent in renewables and storage. We installed 12GW of renewables in 2017, which is probably the equivalent of 6 1GW nuclear plants after taking capacity factor differences into account. We have 2-4 nuclear plants under construction; outside of that, don't expect any new US nucl
Yes we are fermi paradox solved (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Reducing pollution and CO2 output improves people's lives. They are not going to settle for living in squalor and filth while others enjoy their 9 MPG SUVs.
A more efficient house means less money spent on electricity. Renewable energy means energy independence and freedom. EVs mean clean air.
It's so bad in Delhi right now that people are being advised not to go outside. Schools are closed to protect children from the smog. Do you think adding more fossil cars is going to improve conditions for them?
Re: (Score:3)
Loving the nostalgia (Score:3, Funny)
Man, it's like the 80's all over again with the climate change impending doom predictions... can't wait until puffy jackets and pastel colors are back in style too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for some new grunge bands personally.
Lol. Funny because it's way too late. (Score:2)
Anyone under 40 is going to suffer horribly for an extended period unless they are wealthy. And maybe even then.
I look at the pathetic half measures, wishful thinking, rationalization, and denial and the only solace I can take is that most won't be able to die before it gets worse than "bad".
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone under 40 is going to suffer horribly for an extended period unless they are wealthy.
What kind of suffering are you predicting here? Extreme weather or something?
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
The folks living in the villages that are exploited for labor to make your shirts, though, they're screwed.
Which village in particular are talking about here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that droughts and floods are local phenomena right?
(Well except that one time. [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone under 40 is going to suffer horribly for an extended period unless they are wealthy.
What kind of suffering are you predicting here? Extreme weather or something?
The suffering of people in a command-and-control economy is the only real and accurate prediction. With a chaser of loss of freedom of speech, already pushed by politicians who want to hurt facebook legally because they won't censor political speech against them.
Re: Lol. Funny because it's way too late. (Score:2)
No try reading what you reply to troll.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
with over five million people are found in areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level
So.....less than 1% of the world's population?
And the sea level is projected to rise less than 1 meter. Why are you citing the number "10 meters?"
Re: (Score:3)
The do hate us (Score:2, Insightful)
"the urgent changes needed include ending population growth"
Of course. WE are the problem. You and me. Not them.
"A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events,"
Sure, not that the actual statistics gathered for decades means anything, it's about the latest storm, as if hurricanes and high winds are some newly exaggerated phenomenon... Seriousl
Counterproductive goals... (Score:2)
Re:Counterproductive goals... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't reduce population growth then eventually both the population and the GDP will drop precipitously. GDP growth is not sustainable forever, eventually the laws of physics say that it must stop. An increase in GDP means an increase in consumption. Even if 100% of that consumption is from renewable products (ie, food) the growth still won't be sustainable. We WILL end up with more people than can be fed if the growth continues indefinitely.
Re: Counterproductive goals... (Score:2)
^ has nothing worthwhile to add to human knowledge, yet seems to want attention.
Re: Counterproductive goals... (Score:2)
Way to totally miss the point, and demonstrate you failed science at school.
Protest Sign Caption (Score:2)
"Every Disaster Movie Begins With A Scientist Being Ignored" https://www.cbc.ca/news/techno... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Weather is not Climate (Score:2)
The world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.
And...
Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing.
Weather is not climate, and climate is not Weather.
Re:Weather is not Climate (Score:4, Informative)
The world's people face "untold suffering due to the climate crisis" unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.
And...
Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing.
Weather is not climate, and climate is not Weather.
Enough with the rationalizing and bullshit about weather and climate not being related. Yes you can easily ignore empirical evidence like the return of the blob [mongabay.com] and not consider the consequences to key weather systems, but the reality is quite different. The blob moves the jet stream north and causes Arctic air to blast down the flat interior of the North American continent. So assholes like the majority of mid western Republican supporters then claim that global warming is a hoax because their winter is suddenly colder than normal therefore Trump is genius and must be right.
In the mean time the fish populations of the North Pacific all the way up to the (Aleutic) Aleutian Islands are put under stress from radical ocean temperature change as California experiences extreme drought. But no we have an absolute moron in power who claims that removing brush is the solution to drought in California and idiots who cannot see the forest for the trees or understand that weather systems are climate dependent and can be changed radically in short periods of time to systems that will radically disrupt the ecology of entire systems. The Sahara Desert was once a verdant land and it changed radically but it happened over a long enough time frame for species to adapt and move.
The changes we are bringing about are dangerous only in the fact that we may not have adequate time to adapt and a huge human die off will be the result. Perhaps this is a natural process where humans as a dominant species only way to effectively limit human population is through our own actions destroying the environment. Some would say that war is the means by which to limit our population but history has proven this theory wrong time and time again. Hitler tried genocide, Stalin tried systematic starvation, as did Mao, the middle east is rife with a history of tyrants who preach genocide all of whom have failed to halt or limit the expansion of "undesirables", "untermensch" or today the Kurds in Turkey, or in China today the Uyghurs.
I give unchecked human caused climate change an edge in regard to finally limiting human growth. Because as the masses die off the rich will no longer have poor people to exploit or blame for their troubles. The rich will survive but their riches will become worthless without the poor to support them.
Eventually socially we will be forced to change our ways and turn away from an economy based upon mindless consumerism, then finally turn to a realistic one based upon the maintenance of the environment which in truth is the economy which sustains us. Adam and Eve were put on the earth in a garden to maintain it they only fucked it up when they decided to screw around too much and created a moron who chose to kill his brother. Strange as it seems there is some very interesting wisdom in this little fairy tale. We still have not comprehended the implications of why we exist and until we do as a species we are and will remain fucked.
And they only need (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
More than 11,000 scientists don't sign (Score:3)
In other news, the vast majority of people who other people claim are scientists don't sign the statement. News at 11.
Re: More than 11,000 scientists don't sign (Score:2)
Pure dumb.
Cognitive dissonance (Score:2)
The climate change community keeps telling us that we can green up without harming the economy. These guys list "Shift economic goals away from GDP growth" as a goal. So. Which is it?
I'm inclined to believe GDP growth is possible without harming the environment--witness the rise of renewable energy companies at the expense of coal. Therefor, I'm inclined to dismiss this press release as a load of crap. I may not be an economist or a climate scientist, but I did stay at a major chain motel that shall rem
Noted (Score:2)
In before "Ending population growth" is "racist" (Score:5, Insightful)
I am frankly amused "Educating women" is the dodge they used.
Elephant? What elephant?
Activists cant bring themselves to directly and openly say it and instead insist on lecturing countries with shrinking population about the over-population problem.
Countries with fertility rate UNDER 2.0 (shrinking population) : ...
USA, Canada, Russia, Spain, UK, France, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Germany, Brazil, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, China, Thailand, Hong Kong, Portugal, Poland, Greece,
TLDR: Central+East Asian and European/Western countries
Countries with fertility ABOVE 3.0: ...
Niger, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Angola, Uganda, Nigeria, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Rep of Congo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ethiopia, Yemen, Kenya, Zimbabwe,
TLDR: African and Middle-East countries
With this knowledge you can now make popcorn and enjoy watching activists desperately beating around the bush, ideologically conflicted, figuratively pulling oratorical dance moves that would make Cirque du Soleil jealous to not be associated with the people parading with Tiki torches and pointy ghost costumes.
At some point they will have to address the issue of various fanatical groups like Boko Haram that are expressly against "educating women" or any form of education for that matter other than what is fundamentally religiously-permitted.
But activists just keep passing the hot potato around.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone already saw this coming (Score:2)
Nuclear War (Score:2)
Nuclear War between Pakistan and India would solve the problem.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Seems sketchy... (Score:2)
Recent analysis of the data actually indicates that a full stop on eating meat wouldn't have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and there were a number of factors previous studies failed to account for. Why would scientists be advocating for this when it is a massive change that is unlikely to occur and there are other far more viable paths the resources could be spent on?
Here's how you get the list (Score:5, Informative)
Since so many people are like "Who are these scientists? Where's the list?" Here is how you get the list.
Go here: https://academic.oup.com/biosc... [oup.com]
Scroll to the bottom and download: supplemental zip file. Open it. The list is the "supplemental S1" PDF.
Yes, some of the scientists are climatologists and meteorologists. The vast majority of signatories are scientists whose field is tangentially impacted by climate change though: biologists, ecologists, marine biologists, botanists, bee scientists, etc. Yes, there are people on this list that some would question their credentials in commenting on the topic: psychologists, mathematicians, engineers, astronomers, etc. but a scan through the document shows these people aren't the majority.
I've already made up my mind (Score:2)
Don't confuse me with facts...
Re:Here's how you get the list (Score:5, Insightful)
What to say. Meteorologist, here. This being Slashdot, I will hang my hat on one of the saner posts.
I didn't sign this statement but would have in a heartbeat. My point in response to poster is that this is very much a multidisciplinary issue. The whole biosphere (you know, our source of food and habitat and life support systems) is in trouble now. That makes it also a biologist's and an agronomer's, and a forester's business. People are having trouble coping with the issue, that makes it a matter for social scientists, spiritual leaders and health practitioners. The climatology of weather and climate-related disasters is changing. That makes it a matter for disaster preparedness and response organizations. Truth needs to be spoken to power, that makes it everyone's business, but most especially those with direct access to powerful people. Communities need foresight and preparation. It doesn't have to be totally awful (yet). And no, I take no fucking joy in warning of impending disaster. I'd much rather we all did something about it and kept it from getting worse (it is already happening).
There is no scientific controversy. This is well-understood, 19th century physics. A simple 1-dimensional vertical model of the atmosphere gets 90% of the phenomenology right. The rest is figuring out the ghastly details. What controversy there is was manufactured, very successfully I might add, mostly by petrochemical interests. Congratulations, you psychopathic liars. Take your place on the podium, you handily beat the cigarette industry and the opiate pushers.
This is not about who is qualified to say that the climate crisis exists. It is proven and let's move on to solutions.
Is the cure worse than the disease? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the cost to humanity of making the "major transformations of human society" advocated by the statement?
Cheap energy has made life better for billions of people and has caused a dramatic reduction in global poverty. Changing that will have serious negative consequences. I don't think over a billion Chinese people are willing to go back to extreme poverty.
The scientific community seems to be in as deep denial about the cost of the transformations as the "denialists" are about climate change itself.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason these other scientists are on there is because the impact on agriculture and the biosphere is general is significant and its already starting to have an impact on humanity. You ask what the cost is to make these changes but not what the cost is to deal with failing farms, with the loss of pollinators, with the increase in severe weather and the damage that brings never mind the direct impact to the economy.
Plus the cost of providing solar and wind and geothermal power isn't really that high now,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What to say. Meteorologist, here.
You guys can't even predict tomorrow's weather...
This is well-understood, 19th century physics. A simple 1-dimensional vertical model of the atmosphere gets 90% of the phenomenology right.
WTF are you talking about, "19th century physics"? It's a non-linear chaotic system. If you think it's "well understood" then you have no idea what you're talking about.
This useless paper uses data from only the last 40 years, while trying to predict a timeline that is longer than that. The last 40 years conveniently starts during the cold snap of the 70s and ignores the heat wave of the 40s. It also ends in 2010 when global temperatures begin to drop agai
And the "climate change" cargo cult fscks up again (Score:3)
“11,000 scientists” climate emergency petition includes a bunch of fake names [wattsupwiththat.com]
So what's your solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
More affluent or prosperous communities have much lower birth rates. So if we find a way to lift as many people as possible out of poverty that will go a long way to curbing runaway population growth. The article mentions longer education for girls which by itself is obviously not enough but definitely in the right direction.
Of course your sneering scare quotes seem to be quite important to you so I guess you won't be on board with any of that. How ethical.
Re: (Score:2)
affluence, especially these days, comes with its own problems -- like lack of life balance, lack of life, and workaholic syndrome.
You mean affluence of some people and lack of life balance, lack of life, and workaholic syndrome of some other people working for them? Sure, but you don't have to go *that* far to stabilize populations.
Re:So what's your solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It all sounds very familiar, actually.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think what this is saying is that they will not consider birth control, training for birth control, morning after pills, or even increased sex education in schools, because any of that would result in an immediate and total shutdown by the US for fear of a backlash from religious voters.
The earth already has too many people to be sustainable, so either the birth rate drops or else we wait for the inevitable death rate to go up. It seems more moral to support reducing the birth rate.
Re: (Score:3)
The US is not even close to be the biggest offender in terms of "creating too much people", if anything,it is rapidly declining at it.
It's india and china that are "ramping the human production" are insane rates.
But good luck telling em to stop.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We won't find a way if fuckwits with money and power keep refusing to accept that there is a problem. We are not in the middle of the third generation because we are still stuck in the first generation of this problem, with people like the remaining Koch brother working to amass more money by polluting the
Re:Ah, "ethical" (Score:5, Insightful)
But don't you see? those with money and power don't have the problem. They are quite right, from their own perspective. You want to convince someone who's happy with their life, that they should give it all up because you're not happy with yours?
You're fantasizing if you think that's ever going to happen.
If your only solution is to get bigger stronger richer more powerful people than you to give up all that they have and give it to you, then you're the one with head in sand.
Think up another solution. You ain't gonna get that one.
On the other side of your message, don't use the word "evidence". It's a terrible word. It is absolutely possible to murder someone, and leave no evidence. It is also absolutely possible to find evidence of something that never happened. Evidence is suggestive, it need not be based in truth at all. Virtually every scientific study, based on evidence, is at some point refuted. Science is the search for truth, and therefore it is forever correcting itself.
So when you say "despite all evidence", well, that doesn't sway anything. There was evidence that fatty foods contributed to heart disease. Turns out, that's totally false. Just wait another fifty years, and evidence turns. Factor in the analysis of that evidence, and the translation of conclusions into real-world actions, and reality rarely-if-ever follows evidence directly, let alone predictable.
Not to mention the completely valid choice to do exactly what you said -- eat and populate and pollute and ruin the climate until humans perish. There are plenty of animals that destroy their own eco-system, and then move on. Some species even have 95% culling of their own civilization as a routine cycle. It's valid for me to choose a path that destroys us all. It's just not in your best interest.
You don't have a solution. You have a complaint. You're upset that others aren't being considerate of your feelings. I'm not sure why you think that they should be. I really don't know why you think that they would be. And I haven't the foggiest idea why you expect their actions to change.
Personally, my life is wonderful. The lives of my friends, my neighbours, my family are all great. My city is good too. Most of my country is fantastic. I'm sure there are lots of people who are upset about lots of things. They aren't my responsibility, and I don't have the means to help them even if they were.
No doubt the next generation will have problems to deal with. No doubt they'll deal with them just the same way that we dealt with the previous problems. You know what, we've done a great job basically solving almost every problem that existed when I was born towards the end of the '70s. Good bet that we've solved every problem that existed a century ago.
Like I said, five generations tends to solve every problem that lasts that long.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an example. As countries develop, there is a reduction in birthrates. Is it wrong to allow those countries to develop? Do you believe it'
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely not valid to ever force someone else, a stranger especially, to have or to not have children. It's that simple.
If your plan is to force someone's reproductive plans, you're simply going to fail. They can modify their own plans, sure.
As for your countries-develop-birthrates-drop logic, that's incredibly steeped in context. There's no saying that such statistics will hold across technological futures. There's every reason to believe that "developing countries" are a euphemism for "over-wo
Re: (Score:2)
It is absolutely not valid to ever force someone else, a stranger especially, to have or to not have children. It's that simple.
They may have had that idea, but nothing that explicitly said so. I wouldn't be one to put words in their mouth. As for me, from an ideological standpoint I believe forcibly reducing the birthrate could(not would) be a good idea. From a practical, real world, standpoint I do not. Less because I think it would be unethical to forcibly reduce the birthrate, and more because I know we're not capable of doing so in a fair and balanced way. Plus, those restrictions could cause unwanted side effects outside of go
Re: (Score:2)
But why not birth control like the post you are responding to suggested? Why are you rambling on about killing children?
Re: (Score:3)
First, it doesn't matter how you artificially manipulate birth rates. If you're changing people's behaviour without their pre-intended choice, then it's a zoo.
By that faulty logic schools are zoos and education is brainwashing. Those children didn't ask to be manipulated with knowledge and empowerment to make informed choices!
Back in the real world education works wonders for reducing the birth rate and has many other benefits such as improved quality of life and helping primarily women be more independent and active in the economy.
Re: Ah, "ethical" (Score:2)
Sociopath identified
Re: Ah, "ethical" (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, like the time Satan flooded the whole planet because some people pissed him off. Good times.
Oh, wait, no, that was the other guy, the one with the killer PR agency.
Re: (Score:2)
Their idea of ethical is completely upside down and backwards from what normal people would consider ethical.
You mean the way they're against antiabortionists and against anticontraceptionists?
A newsflash: "normal people" often suck big time.
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4, Insightful)
Science IS in fact governed by popular belief to a great extent, and it's certainly not beholden to jumping a series of hurdles some random on the internet chooses to set up.
It's like the scientists have said "driving cars into people will injure them" and the observation was the person exploded into a blood mist and you're saying, "well, you didn't predict THAT so clearly you don't know what you're talking about!".
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists weren't predicting a new ice age (well, technically we're still in the current one), the press was. Some reporter at (Tine/Newsweek, I forget which) learned about Milankovich Cycles, realized that we were due for a new period of glaciation, took some quotes from a few climatologists out of context, and slapped together a story. It was a slow news week without any interesting wars so the editor ran it. Unfortunately it attracted attention and got repeated. Within days scientists were debunking the claims, but of course that never makes it further forward than Page 5, so only the initial fictional story was remembered.
Re: (Score:3)
"You are so poorly uninformed that it is laughable."
So I'm so seriously informed that it's sensible?
Or did you mean I'm poorly uniformed, maybe because I didn't iron my shirt?
Re: (Score:2)
You're just wrong, and so often and on so many different topics I can't be bothered to reply at length. I just leave this to make sure you know I don't accept your tortured 'logic', but I will definitely let you have the last word if you want it.
Cusco covered the important difference between fact and your reality anyway.
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4, Insightful)
But then we moved to catalytic converters, flue scrubbers and better manure management.
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4, Informative)
> Science isn't governed by popular belief.
Max Planck would beg to differ: [wikiquote.org] Science advances one funeral at a time.
Specifically:
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it isn't. It is determined by research, and the validity of that research is determined by a peer review of your fellow scientists. So, what does it tell you if practically all of the people who research climate say it is a catastrophe?
Yep, it tells you that the people who, unlike you, are educated and qualified have looked at the data, extracted the meaning in it and are telling you what it is.
What you can do?
You can a) become as learned and agree or disagree in a scientific manner, b) hear and accept their argument on the basis of their literacy in the subject and c) Have no idea, but have an opinion.
You belong to the third group, and your opinion is absolutely worthless.
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:5, Informative)
Make a prediction and be right on the money.
Technically, they already did. [skepticalscience.com] But I'm sure you're one of those people to ignore all of those successful predictions...
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's bad politics, but show us definitive data. Make a prediction and be right on the money. Science isn't governed by popular belief. Scientists or otherwise.
If ten different doctors tell you you've got cancer and are going to die in less than a year, will your response be, "Tell me the exact day and time of my death, be right on the money or you're all wrong and I don't have it!"
(points to cat scan of tumor, again...)
Re: Science is not determined by consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
11,000 firefighters say your house is on fire. There are many indications this could be the case. Do you believe them, or scoff at them?
Let's try and put out the flames and argue whether we could have done nothing instead at a later date.
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it's bad politics, but show us definitive data.
Here's some global mean surface temperature data [berkeleyearth.org]. There's data from six different groups plotted there on the same axis, so you can see how much in agreement you end up.
Make a prediction and be right on the money.
Global mean surface temperatures have been right on the money for many decades.
... lots of periods of over 10 years that could be considered a hiatus, which the denialists focussed on when it happened as if it refuted the science the predicted it.
The first example is Hansen's 1988 model. [theguardian.com]
That famous Stott et al (2000) [semanticscholar.org] paper which extended one of the runs of HadCM2 forward to 2100 is bang on the nose. And also predicted the structure of the warming
Science isn't governed by popular belief. Scientists or otherwise.
When the scientific community reaches a consensus on a point, then that gets called "known" and can be put in textbooks. It absolutely is governed by popular belief of scientists.
Re: Science is not determined by consensus (Score:2, Insightful)
Sociopath confirmed.
Re: Science is not determined by consensus (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is blatantly stating that "humanity needs to be filled" and you're calling him a sociopath?
The greatest threat to mankind is not climate change. The greatest threat to mankind is a global death cult.
Re: Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4)
Wow political propaganda has truly broken you.
Re:Science is not determined by consensus (Score:4, Insightful)
Economic solutions do not work when the costs are 100% externalised. Why should I stop doing something which brings profit to me, and only hurts other people?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to give the warning even if the idiots ignore it.
Re: Yes, but. . . (Score:2)
Said no one ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists can use the methods and tools they use daily in their own field in other fields as well. Which means they are much, MUCH better equipped to form a fact-based opinion on something they don’t know much about than you are.
Re:"Scientists say..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny that , then when Geologists dispute the findings and conclusions of Archeologists early human findings and timings, eg. Egypt. Then they cry foul and say you dont know history.
I doubt a dark matter scientists will be much good on Climate change....
No matter the case, the biggest problem is China, followed by the Middle East selling all the much needed oil we burn daily, and the population problem of Africa exploding in people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have a point there. You just didn't think about it at all.
In regards to power/money/influence... you have poorly paid scientists on one sides, saying "we studied this, this is what's happening". On the other side, you have the largest industry on planet Earth(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue) saying "there's nothing to see here. Keep buying our products." So you're absolutely right. It is about money and pow
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the warming actually be good for colder regions?
It depends on what you mean by "good".
Russia and Canada will certainly benefit from permafrost opening up and becoming arable.
But they will suffer biodiversity loss. The collapse of the entire boreal forest system is predicted by modelling.
Aren't coastal cities the ones that are screwed?
Coastal cities, agricultural regions, underdeveloped nations, people near deserts, people who depend of coral reefs or ocean productivity.
Ecosystems too though.
Also, whats the deal with 'scientists' . Like who the hell are these guys?
Here's [silverchair-cdn.com] a .zip of the file that is their names, field, research institution and country.
What is their day job and who is paying them? Is it taxpayers? Is this federally funded research scientists? Or just people with degrees?
It looks like it va
Re:Doesn't global warming affect only certian area (Score:5, Informative)
How odd. A sample of the first three pages so far and it's mostly biologists, ecologists, geologists, a few environmentalists and astronomers.
These are all fields that contribute and research various areas related to climate change, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
"or a sociologist"
Ah, I'm responding to one of "those" people.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow 99% eh? That seems like most of the signatories. Why then, after reading the list do I see mostly scientists, PHD students, biologists, geologists, zoologists, physicists, neuroscientists, and so on? And that is only page one of a much larger document.
You do realize climate change covers not just one discipline but multiple, overlapping ones?
Dishonest is correct, but not in the way you thought...
Re: (Score:3)
"Scientists" seems to need to herd together and support all other "Scientists" against the ignorant masses.
Quite the opposite. Scientific review is a kind of fox and hounds blood sport where a crowd of your colleagues try to rip your work appart.
And while that's harrowing, it's not a bad thing. It means you take care that what you say is defensible before saying it.
Even if we're getting warmer -- and there is some debate about that --
There really isn't. Everyone tracking temperature is pretty much on the same page [woodfortrees.org].
might this not be moving towards a more ideal temperature than away from it?
The problem isn't choosing what an ideal temperature is. The problem is that our infrastructure and land use fits the climate when it was built / the use chosen. Chang