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.

It is not one of te possible outcomes. If the earths climate was that
unstable with respect to CO2 it would have gone runaway many times in
the past.

My BIL who is a Phd geologist, syas that is his one reason for utterly
rejecting climate change by CO2. 'If their premises were true, we
wouldn't have evolved be here now to have them'

The whole climate catastrophe scenario depends not on science. and CO2,
but on a proposition that there is positive feedback in the climate.

They needed to assume this in order that the moderate increase in CO2
would give the quite rapid rise in global temperatures for the
1980--2000 period *in the absence of any other causes*

Since then the climate has stubbornly refused to get significantly
warmer at all. And indeed this winter has seen it actually cool, overall.

It is patently clear that whilst for sure climate changes, something
other than CO2 is the dominant reason.

So climate change becomes something we cannot stop, because we simply do
not know what is causing it. That much the *real* science now tells us.

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.

Well both of them are just figments of your imagination, so I should
have a glass of hot milk and an aspirin and dream of fluffy bunnies





--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.