Climate discussion now seems to come from Yes, Prime Minister. (1986). We appear to be at stage 3.<p>I don't understand US politics.. Most UK voters, of both political sides, agree there is an issue, and want constructive solutions[0]. Some more US-like differences at the margins, and differences in urgency, but there appears to be a broad consensus among the public. Less so amongst politicians themselves.<p>Does political consensus no longer exist on any issues in the US any more? Is all science politicised?<p>Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage one we say nothing is going to happen."<p>Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it."<p>Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we <i>can</i> do."<p>Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now."<p>[0] <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-supports-uk-climate-leadership/" rel="nofollow">http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-suppo...</a>
I'm in my thirties. I don't have kids, but want them. I don't want to admit to them that I did nothing about global warming when it counted. The thing is that I don't know what I should do; it seems so big, so intractable.<p>Articles like these stir me to action, but what action? Where's the mass movement on this? Where's the group, the party, the leadership?
I still remember watching TV in early 90's and seeing clips from Hansen's 1988 senate testimony and hearing first time the "Now is the last time to act on climate change." from someone in TV.<p>Key numbers to get the point across.<p>* Starting mitigation in 2000 would have required mitigation rate 4%/year. (1.5 C goal)<p>* Starting mitigation in 2018 will require mitigation rate 18%/year. <i>18 percent!</i> (1.5 C goal). There is no realistic scenario where this can happen.<p>* Nine years from now complete halt of all manmade CO2 emissions is too late to prevent crossing 1.5C.<p>* Global fossil and cement CO2 emissions keep going up, not down: <a href="http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFuel_and_Cement_emissions_1990.png" rel="nofollow">http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFu...</a><p>* CO2 mitigation curve becomes steeper and steeper. <a href="http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigation_Curves_1.5C.png" rel="nofollow">http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigati...</a>
I've long been in the camp that we worry about climate change more than makes rational sense.<p>I'm not saying we should ignore it, but we often overstate. It's worth remembering that the effects on QoL will be completely eclipsed by technological progress within that period and that the timescales that GW happen over (50+ years) are long enough that most people will hardly ever notice it. Gradual relocation will be our primary means of fighting it. Other cities will be raised, like Chicago was in the 1850s.<p>FUD is not a genuine approach to invoke action - which has sadly been the main approach of many. We should remain reasoned.
Some constructive criticism: I think this document is written backwards and does not contain what CEO's are interested in. The disastrous effects should come first and preceding that should be forecasts of the effect on the bottom line (profits). The business implications of climate change are what might capture their attention. Market disruptions for example, trends in adoption of EV cars, growth in solar and wind, tech industry use of alternative energy, costs for pollution being added to government and other plans, current problems with changes in forests and their effects on industry, plans to deal with coastal changes. Changes in behavior from industry and government are more likely to sway them. They attempt to control those, but a list of existing trends that are outside their control could be persuasive.
They have hired scientists to confuse the issue, so they are not going to be swayed by a scientific argument. Leave that as an appendix for their subordinates to read.
It's unfortunate, but I think you have to speak their language.
Skimmed through this, but I can't make it all the way. It's so jarring and too depressing.<p>I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.
I invite everybody to watch this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY</a><p>A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.
After solving global warming, should we be more concerned by the approaching end of the current interglacial period? The next glacial period of the current Ice Age is going to be terrible for our stage of technology and civilization.<p>If we are serious about the current issues of climate change, and about potential asteroid impacts, why should we not also be planning for the mid- to long-term risk of the return to an Ice Age?
The problem with many discussions around global warming is not scientific, but cultural. Advocates of change often take a sanctimonious attitude toward anyone expressing the slightest doubt.<p>Have a look at the episodes of the Netflix series "Bill Nye Saves the World" on climate change. If you can watch without cringing, congratulations. I can't. Or take this interview Nye did with Tucker Carlsen:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo</a><p>Nye, and those who share his intolerant attitude toward justified skepticism do their cause more harm than good.<p><i>Every</i> hypothesis should be questioned. The more sweeping the claims, the more pointed the questioning should be. Science is not immune to groupthink. The problem is magnified when a scientific hypothesis takes on a political dimension.<p>Take this quote from the article:<p><i>Climate has always been changing, but humans are now the
principal drive for climate change, overwhelming natural climate variability.</i><p>I challenge any reader of the article to find a clear, logical, undeniable chain of evidence from hypothesis to the conclusion that humans are responsible for rising planet temperatures.