On 19/05/2021 20:47, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 18:55, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 17:09, Robin wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:57, GB wrote:
On 19/05/2021 16:18, Tim Streater wrote:

If the alternative is climate catastrophe, then I'm prepared to stop
occasionally.

How d'ye know that's the alternative?

Let's do a risk analysis:

Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
wrong, then you'll be suffering a little inconvenience
unnecessarily. That's not the end of the world.


Suppose all the scientists concerned about climate catastrophe are
right, but we refuse to suffer a little inconvenience. That is the
end of the world.


I don't feel that I need to know for certain that the climate
catastrophe hypothesis is correct. It's just not fair to future
generations to risk it.

Do you think the "end of the world" hyperbole helps? I am sorry to
say that to me it just signals someone who (consciously or not) has
bought into the hyperbolic non-science. And probably also thinks that
eating meat should be banned from 2025.


I couldn't resist the wording. Sorry about that!Â* Runaway climate
change would make life on earth extremely difficult, and that is one
of the possible outcomes. Clearly, the earth would continue to exist.

Can you point to any reliable source that predicts a /runaway/
greenhouse effect (as distinct from a tipping point effect)?Â* (FTAOD I
mean before the sun moves to its red giant phase.)

You are right. I hadn't realised how unlikely that scenario is.
Nevertheless, there are clearly some nasty tipping points.


Or a tipping point effect that would make life difficult (as distinct
from rather scarcer when it comes to large mammals among others)?

Clearly, if semi-arid regions become arid, that will lead to major
difficulties for a significant chunk of the world's population.




The point, though, is that people are complaining that they may not be
able to use their favourite picnic spot on long journeys, whilst
ignoring the idea that people in arid areas may effectively be without
water. Those too losses don't seem comparable to me.


Perhaps they are just using the loss of ability to travel as an example
of the way the scale and cost of the changes required to deliver "net
zero" with current technology continue to be kept from the vast majority
of the public.


"Continue to be kept from ..." - Are you suggesting a conspiracy, or
simply that many people haven't given this much though?