ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , environmental activists , Greta Thunberg

Reply
Old 14th January 2020, 10:04 AM   #841
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
The title of these threads is "Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?"

It was determined long ago that she is not "deeply disturbed"
It's also been determined that she's not a "brave campaigner".
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:06 AM   #842
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
What she has done, in less than a year, is:help to keep climate change consistently at the forefront of the news.
- repeat and repeat that governments should quickly take actions based on the recommendations of actual climate scientists.
Please give three examples of her citing a recommendation by actual climate scientists.

Normally I'd just ask for one example, but you said "repeat and repeat", so I figure three is a reasonable expectation.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:09 AM   #843
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
The title of these threads is "Greta Thunberg - brave campaigner or deeply disturbed?"

It was determined long ago that she is not "deeply disturbed" So the thread quickly became nit-picking by those who will not concede that she is in fact a brave campaigner. Seems she cannot be a brave campaigner because some of the things she has said and done may be a little inconsistent, and also because she has not personally come up with any new and profound ideas to halt climate change.

What she has done, in less than a year, is:

- help to keep climate change consistently at the forefront of the news.
- repeat and repeat that governments should quickly take actions based on the recommendations of actual climate scientists.
- draw sufficiently large crowds at rallies that some influential politicians have taken notice and promised action.
- engaged a large number of young people who would not normally turn out to listen to a 50 year old politician say the things they need to hear.
- not be put off by the powerful old men (ie Trump) who would treat her as a child and tell her to go back to doing childish things. Some of her responses to these critics have been quite wonderful, and much more mature that the critics own statements.

In summary, she is indeed a brave, and successful, campaigner who has achieved some, but nowhere near all, of her goals.

The world would be a much better place if there were many more Greta Thunbergs and many less of her petty critics.
"Success" depends on perspective, I think. For her age, she's done a lot and had some terrific experiences but if we take her seriously, then all the things she was afraid of are still going to happen regardless of anything she's done. It's not obvious to me that any of the difficulties have been made any easier by her actions.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:15 AM   #844
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,925
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Please give three examples of her citing a recommendation by actual climate scientists.

Normally I'd just ask for one example, but you said "repeat and repeat", so I figure three is a reasonable expectation.
I will give you one quote:

“I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” Thunberg told the US lawmakers. “I want you to unite behind the science and I want you to take real action.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-change-action

This one quote is sufficient because she has repeated this, or a very similar paraphrase, in almost every speech she has given.

In the future please refrain from asking me to provide examples of things have not claimed.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:27 AM   #845
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Please give three examples of her citing a recommendation by actual climate scientists.

Normally I'd just ask for one example, but you said "repeat and repeat", so I figure three is a reasonable expectation.
The nearest I have found so far is this:

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons."

That is a < 10 years of current global C02 release. What would have to happen for China to go to zero C02 inside of 10 years, let alone anywhere else? If that is really necessary, then the actual problem is getting people globally, to accept ahead of time that the end of Escape from LA is what needs to happen. The industrial world has to be switched off.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:27 AM   #846
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,925
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
"Success" depends on perspective, I think. For her age, she's done a lot and had some terrific experiences but if we take her seriously, then all the things she was afraid of are still going to happen regardless of anything she's done. It's not obvious to me that any of the difficulties have been made any easier by her actions.
Her age and experiences are not relevant. I agree that success depends on perspective. I did say "has achieved some, but nowhere near all, of her goals". The fact that some people do not take her seriously (largely because of her age and experiences) is exactly why her success is limited. Her success will ultimately be measured not in isolation, but with her voice combined with many other voices resulting in politicians and businesses making positive changes sooner and hopefully alleviating some of the more serious aspects of climate change. Anyone who is critical because her words have not caused a physical and noticeable slowing of climate change in the past year is either disingenuous or really stupid.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:35 AM   #847
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Her age and experiences are not relevant. I agree that success depends on perspective. I did say "has achieved some, but nowhere near all, of her goals". The fact that some people do not take her seriously (largely because of her age and experiences) is exactly why her success is limited. Her success will ultimately be measured not in isolation, but with her voice combined with many other voices resulting in politicians and businesses making positive changes sooner and hopefully alleviating some of the more serious aspects of climate change. Anyone who is critical because her words have not caused a physical and noticeable slowing of climate change in the past year is either disingenuous or really stupid.
The main people who don't take her seriously are her supporters. She is calling for the end of the modern world, famine, war and the centralisation of power with people who are willing to implement this. The severity of the emergency and the actions she says are necessary can mean nothing else. You are never going to hit her C02 targets in any other way. Anybody who is remotely concerned about whether Trump has said something offensive, or is in league with the Russians, or whether the 1% has too much money, gun crime, social justice.... anything, clearly doesn't actually take her seriously.

Lots of people pretend to take her seriously.

Last edited by shuttlt; 14th January 2020 at 10:37 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:43 AM   #848
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I will give you one quote:

“I don’t want you to listen to me, I want you to listen to the scientists,” Thunberg told the US lawmakers. “I want you to unite behind the science and I want you to take real action.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-change-action

This one quote is sufficient because she has repeated this, or a very similar paraphrase, in almost every speech she has given.

In the future please refrain from asking me to provide examples of things have not claimed.
My point is that she's pretty consistent about deferring to the scientists in a vague, hand-wavy way that absolves her of any responsibility to say scientifically sound things.

And she's pretty consistent about making policy demands that don't actually relate to any specific recommendation by any actual climate scientists.

Look at her recent Guardian piece, cited upthread. She demands a complete and immediate cessation of fossil-fuel-related activity. She doesn't say "listen to the scientists." She doesn't cite a policy recommendation from climate scientists and say "do what these guys are telling you to do". The piece is literally her saying "listen to me and do what I'm telling you." Full stop.

I'd find her "listen to the scientists" more credible if she practiced what she preached, and if she demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the science in her own statements. The reality is that most of her statements seem to be designed to avoid any scientific evaluation.

Do you have any examples at all of her ever saying, "this is a science-based policy proposal from actual climate scientists; let's follow their recommendations"? Or is it really all just hand-wavy appeals to "listen to the science" followed by "listen to me say non-scientific stuff, and do what I say!"
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 10:47 AM   #849
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,925
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My point is that she's pretty consistent about deferring to the scientists in a vague, hand-wavy way that absolves her of any responsibility to say scientifically sound things.

And she's pretty consistent about making policy demands that don't actually relate to any specific recommendation by any actual climate scientists.

Look at her recent Guardian piece, cited upthread. She demands a complete and immediate cessation of fossil-fuel-related activity. She doesn't say "listen to the scientists." She doesn't cite a policy recommendation from climate scientists and say "do what these guys are telling you to do". The piece is literally her saying "listen to me and do what I'm telling you." Full stop.

I'd find her "listen to the scientists" more credible if she practiced what she preached, and if she demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the science in her own statements. The reality is that most of her statements seem to be designed to avoid any scientific evaluation.

Do you have any examples at all of her ever saying, "this is a science-based policy proposal from actual climate scientists; let's follow their recommendations"? Or is it really all just hand-wavy appeals to "listen to the science" followed by "listen to me say non-scientific stuff, and do what I say!"
Yes, your point is different than my point. Yet you keep asking me to provide examples of your point. I will not waste my time.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 11:04 AM   #850
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Yes, your point is different than my point. Yet you keep asking me to provide examples of your point. I will not waste my time.
Why is it a waste of time?

I think examples of Greta Thunberg citing actual policy recommendations from actual climate scientists, and saying "do what these scientists are telling you to do" would be about the most worthwhile possible use of your Greta-related time.

Do you mean that it would be a waste of time to look for such examples? Your point seems to be that no such examples exist.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 11:25 AM   #851
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Anyone who is critical because her words have not caused a physical and noticeable slowing of climate change in the past year is either disingenuous or really stupid.
I had a think about this. I disagree. The key problem is that the public aren't prepared for what would be necessary to hit any of the targets Greta quotes. Look at France when fuel prices went up a little. Greta brushes the implications of what she is saying, knowingly or unknowingly, under the carpet. She is wasting time and reinforcing the belief that what she is demanding doesn't involve putting some new Pol Pot in charge of the One World Government, and sending us all back to Year Zero. By giving people a way to feel like they are doing something, without actually doing anything she is making things worse rather than better.

Last edited by shuttlt; 14th January 2020 at 11:28 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 12:36 PM   #852
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I had a think about this. I disagree. The key problem is that the public aren't prepared for what would be necessary to hit any of the targets Greta quotes. Look at France when fuel prices went up a little. Greta brushes the implications of what she is saying, knowingly or unknowingly, under the carpet. She is wasting time and reinforcing the belief that what she is demanding doesn't involve putting some new Pol Pot in charge of the One World Government, and sending us all back to Year Zero. By giving people a way to feel like they are doing something, without actually doing anything she is making things worse rather than better.
I think it plays right into the hands of the elites. They invite her to speak at COP25 and Davos, it makes them look good. But of course after she's done speaking they're still going to go back into their smoke filled rooms behind closed doors and perpetuate the same policies as ever.

At a packed luncheon sponsored by Salesforce on Thursday (Jan. 24), invited guests heard from a panel that included the primatologist Jane Goodall and musicians Bono and Will.i.am. But it was Thunberg, seated at a table near the front, who got the last word. Salesforce founder and co-CEO Marc Benioff had come down from the stage and offered her the microphone to give the delegates a young person’s view.

https://qz.com/1533904/greta-thunber...limate-change/
Do you think any of those Davos delegates give a flying fig what Will.i.am and Bono have to say? What Greta has to say? I don't.

Do you think Marc Benioff is nodding to himself, thinking, "mm hmmm, I'm going to divest all my oil-related interests immediately"? Do you think any of the other delegates are thinking that? I don't.

Maybe that will change in fifteen to twenty years. The Greta-thusiastic schoolkids who are cutting class on Fridays to protest will grow up. They'll become captains of industry and prominent politicians. They'll wield enough power and influence to supplant the old guard and take action on the policies Greta demands. In the mean time, it costs the old guard nothing to give her a platform and let her rant.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 12:58 PM   #853
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The nearest I have found so far is this:

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons."

That is a < 10 years of current global C02 release. What would have to happen for China to go to zero C02 inside of 10 years, let alone anywhere else? If that is really necessary, then the actual problem is getting people globally, to accept ahead of time that the end of Escape from LA is what needs to happen. The industrial world has to be switched off.
The 1.5 Deg C number comes from the an IPCC special report in 2018 , which is in turn comes from a review of current peer reviewed literature. So it is already an example of her citing a recommendation by actual climate scientists.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:13 PM   #854
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My point is that she's pretty consistent about deferring to the scientists in a vague, hand-wavy way that absolves her of any responsibility to say scientifically sound things.
What part do you find “vague” because it seems to me this reflects more on your ignorance of the subject than anything questionable about the statement in question.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:13 PM   #855
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The 1.5 Deg C number comes from the an IPCC special report in 2018 , which is in turn comes from a review of current peer reviewed literature. So it is already an example of her citing a recommendation by actual climate scientists.
I know and I agree that the numbers she is using come from climate scientists. That was what drew me to it as it seemed to be one of the few times she was specific. The mind boggles at what would be required to hit the particular set of numbers she picks.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:20 PM   #856
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Maybe that will change in fifteen to twenty years. The Greta-thusiastic schoolkids who are cutting class on Fridays to protest will grow up. They'll become captains of industry and prominent politicians. They'll wield enough power and influence to supplant the old guard and take action on the policies Greta demands. In the mean time, it costs the old guard nothing to give her a platform and let her rant.
In 15-20 years we will be a mile past the point of no return if Greta is correct.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:22 PM   #857
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The 1.5 Deg C number comes from the an IPCC special report in 2018 , which is in turn comes from a review of current peer reviewed literature. So it is already an example of her citing a recommendation by actual climate scientists.
She's good at citing the occasional scientific fact.

She sucks major ass at citing any scientific policy recommendations.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:33 PM   #858
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
What part do you find “vague” because it seems to me this reflects more on your ignorance of the subject than anything questionable about the statement in question.
Here's a recent example:
"We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels.

We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now."
This is scientifically vague. She makes no attempt at all to explain which scientists are saying this should be done, or what their scientific reasoning is for saying this should be done.

Here is another example:
“I am not traveling like this because I want everyone to do so,” said Thunberg [talking about traveling by sailboat]. “I’m doing this to sort of send the message that it is impossible to live sustainable today, and that needs to change. It needs to become much easier.”
There's no science there. There's no science underpinning the claim that it's impossible to live sustainably if you can't arrange transoceanic sailboat rides at your convenience. There's no science supporting the claim that this is a problem that needs to be solved on a mass scale. It certainly doesn't display much nuance.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:38 PM   #859
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
She's good at citing the occasional scientific fact.

She sucks major ass at citing any scientific policy recommendations.
My view is changing on this, and I'm not sure this is a fair characterisation. She takes a climate model prediction and comes up with some fairly obvious logical demands based on it - like everybody needs to immediately stop using fossil fuels. She may be being too unwilling to take a risk on the climate, but that isn't something that there is a scientifically correct answer to, surely? The only thing she seems to me to be lacking is any clarity about the consequences of taking the medicine that she believes is necessary. That's where I think she is going wrong. Maybe she does say somewhere that we need a climate dictatorship to force everybody back to the stone age for a bit?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:46 PM   #860
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
If you take Greta literally, and seriously, she is saying that there are climate models that say to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, we need to keep the total C02 output of the world over this century down to what we will pump out at current rates in the next 8-9 years. She quite rightly takes the view that to hit that, we basically need to stop producing C02 now. If you take her literally about it being impossible to live sustainably in the modern world, then you have the beginnings of her talking about what she thinks needs to happen. The modern world needs to go.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:49 PM   #861
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
My view is changing on this, and I'm not sure this is a fair characterisation. She takes a climate model prediction and comes up with some fairly obvious logical demands based on it - like everybody needs to immediately stop using fossil fuels. She may be being too unwilling to take a risk on the climate, but that isn't something that there is a scientifically correct answer to, surely? The only thing she seems to me to be lacking is any clarity about the consequences of taking the medicine that she believes is necessary. That's where I think she is going wrong. Maybe she does say somewhere that we need a climate dictatorship to force everybody back to the stone age for a bit?
Fair enough. I'm a little stricter in my assessment, though.

I agree that her demands follow from the scientific facts. But they are not scientific demands. They are political demands.

I believe that science cannot answer questions of should. But that is where Greta spends all of her time: "We should do this." So it makes sense that most of what she says is vague about the science. What doesn't make sense is to claim that Greta is making nuanced and accurate scientific arguments. She's not making scientific arguments at all. (And she's definitely not making nuanced arguments.)

So, okay, she focuses on the "should". She doesn't support her "shoulds" by appealing to policy recommendations from climate scientists, because there probably aren't any.

But she also doesn't do the next best and most obvious thing: Cite an accurate and nuanced scientific assessment of the impact of her policy demands, or a scientific argument that the trade-offs inherent in her demands are optimal for achieving the policy goals she's demanding.

She says "listen to the scientists!" But there aren't any scientists telling us to immediately cut off all oil-related activity. Just activists like Greta. There's probably plenty of scientists who could tell us all about the economic, medical, and sociological impact of the changes she's demanding, but she isn't citing any of those.

Probably most of those scientists would tell us that her policies, if enacted, would cause a lot of death and suffering. Maybe she'd prefer if we don't listen to them?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:50 PM   #862
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I know and I agree that the numbers she is using come from climate scientists. That was what drew me to it as it seemed to be one of the few times she was specific. The mind boggles at what would be required to hit the particular set of numbers she picks.
Again though, she isn’t picking the numbers, she’s taking them from the IPCC AR5 (2014 )special report (2019). When AR6 is out she will probably us the numbers from it instead.

WRT CO2 emissions holding at 1.5 deg C may not take as much as you think. In the short term ocean uptake of CO2 is tied to atmospheric concentrations, as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rise so does ocean uptake of CO2. Currently the oceans and other carbon sinks are absorbing ~20 billion tonnes of the 35-40 billion tonnes of Carbon humans emits each year. To stop atmospheric CO2 from climbing we don’t need to get to zero, we just need to match ocean uptake.

This is only a stopgap only though. Ocean acidification would progress until that number came down a lot more, but at lease we would not hit any tipping points and we’d have a little time to deal with the remaining emissions.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 01:51 PM   #863
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,925
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
If you take Greta literally, and seriously, she is saying that there are climate models that say to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, we need to keep the total C02 output of the world over this century down to what we will pump out at current rates in the next 8-9 years. She quite rightly takes the view that to hit that, we basically need to stop producing C02 now. If you take her literally about it being impossible to live sustainably in the modern world, then you have the beginnings of her talking about what she thinks needs to happen. The modern world needs to go.
In a nutshell. Either it goes on our terms with harsh but necessary decisions made, or it goes on its own with humans left to do nothing but pick up the pieces. The planet will still be here and there will still be ample life. Whether that life includes any or many humans will be known within the lifetimes of many alive today.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:00 PM   #864
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Here's a recent example:
Who, other than you, has said that part is science? She’s calling for action to keep climate change within the 1.5 deg. If you want to question her representation of the science, you need to show us this 1.5 deg number isn’t supported by current science. Do you have ANY evidence for this?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:04 PM   #865
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Who, other than you, has said that part is science? She’s calling for action to keep climate change within the 1.5 deg. If you want to question her representation of the science, you need to show us this 1.5 deg number isn’t supported by current science. Do you have ANY evidence for this?
You misunderstand.

I'm not disputing the science of her "if we do this, then that will happen".

I'm disputing the science of her "we should do this".
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:05 PM   #866
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
If you take Greta literally, and seriously, she is saying that there are climate models that say to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, we need to keep the total C02 output of the world over this century down to what we will pump out at current rates in the next 8-9 years. She quite rightly takes the view that to hit that, we basically need to stop producing C02 now.
This is your mistake not hers. Notice that nowhere in any of those statements does she say CO2 emissions need to come down to zero. At every point where “how much to reduce CO2 emissions” is relevant, she references the need to keep warming below 1.5 Deg C, which again is a well accepted number in current science.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:07 PM   #867
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
she references the need to keep warming below 1.5 Deg
Where does she reference the scientific basis for this need?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:16 PM   #868
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You misunderstand.

I'm not disputing the science of her "if we do this, then that will happen".

I'm disputing the science of her "we should do this".
What exactly is your rational for disputing the conclusions of then IPCC special report which says we should keep warming below 1.5 deg C?

Again she is not just pulling this recommendation out of nowhere, it's the best current representation of what the scientists who study the question think we should do.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:24 PM   #869
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
What exactly is your rational for disputing the conclusions of then IPCC special report which says we should keep warming below 1.5 deg C?

Again she is not just pulling this recommendation out of nowhere, it's the best current representation of what the scientists who study the question think we should do.
I admit that I am ignorant of that report. Do you have a link to it? I'm especially interested in the part of the report where the scientists make their recommendation. If you happen to know the section or page number, that would be greatly appreciated.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:29 PM   #870
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 18,036
There has been some "glitch" on facebook which showed the identities of people maintaining some prominent channels, among them Greta's. Her channel is maintained by her father and some guy from India. Reacts Ms Thunberg:

Originally Posted by Greta Thunberg
Some people have been asking who manages this page. First of all, since last spring I only use Facebook to repost what I write on my Twitter and Instagram accounts.
Since I have chosen not to be on Facebook personally ( I tried early on but decided it wasn’t for me) I use my father Svantes account to repost content, because you need an account to moderate a Facebook page. The rest that is shared on Facebook is reposted from Twitter and Instagram by the guy who founded the Greta Thunberg Facebook page long before I knew it existed. His name is Adarsh Prathap and he lives in India. Since a lot of people thought it was my official page in the beginning I asked if I could co-manage it and he said yes.
All texts posted on my Facebook page has of course been written by me, just like everything else.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:29 PM   #871
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,925
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I admit that I am ignorant of that report. Do you have a link to it? I'm especially interested in the part of the report where the scientists make their recommendation. If you happen to know the section or page number, that would be greatly appreciated.
If you google climate science 1.5 degrees you will get an entire page of references to those scientific reports. Much easier for you to do some research that have all the links posted here.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:30 PM   #872
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This is your mistake not hers. Notice that nowhere in any of those statements does she say CO2 emissions need to come down to zero. At every point where “how much to reduce CO2 emissions” is relevant, she references the need to keep warming below 1.5 Deg C, which again is a well accepted number in current science.
There is no need to be pissy. She talks about the need for all governments etc... to divest from fossil fuels immediately and that next year etc is no good. There are other numbers like 2 degrees C as well. They are just numbers scientists have picked to give policy makers a menu to choose from. There are then different amounts of CO2 that give different odds of hitting these marks. I don't think we disagree on this.

In her UN speech, she says "The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control."
OK, so cutting it by 50% is no good to her.

She also says "To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons."
That is the global carbon budget, isn't it? What does not exceeding this 350 gigatons (less now presumably) mean practically?

{EDIT}
I see I am wrong and the IPCC do indeed recommend 1.5C, they just disagree with Greta about how much CO2 we should cut to get there.

Last edited by shuttlt; 14th January 2020 at 02:39 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:36 PM   #873
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
In the IPCC report (https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/), they say:

"The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air."

This is what Greta is arguing against in her quote about "the popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years", isn't it?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:40 PM   #874
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
If you google climate science 1.5 degrees you will get an entire page of references to those scientific reports. Much easier for you to do some research that have all the links posted here.
Just asking for the one link. Do you have it?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2020, 02:41 PM   #875
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,858
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Just asking for the one link. Do you have it?
https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/
Rather, this is a better link:
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Last edited by shuttlt; 14th January 2020 at 03:01 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 10:51 AM   #876
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
They are just numbers scientists have picked to give policy makers a menu to choose from. There are then different amounts of CO2 that give different odds of hitting these marks. I don't think we disagree on this.
“Odds” may be a little misleading. There is a definitive number for each emissions scenario, however uncertainty in the model and system means there are error bands above and below. RCP 2.6 is not guaranteed to keep warming below 1.5 Deg C, but should keep it below 2.0 Deg C.

AR5 suggests aiming for 2.0 Deg C (RCP2.6), while the 2018 Special report suggests 1.5 Deg C is a safer target. The Special report also says that while some countries ARE on pace to hit the targets required to keep warming below 2.0 Deg C, more aggressive goals are required to keep warming under 1.5 Deg C but AFAIK there isn’t a formal RCP for hitting 1.5 Deg C as of yet.

__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 11:03 AM   #877
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Thanks for that.

If I'm reading the Summary for Policy Makers correctly, the IPCC is not making a scientific recommendation for 1.5 degrees. Rather, they were given a target of 1.5 degrees and asked to report on how to meet that target and what the various tradeoffs would be.

Good scientific "if/then" stuff, but no scientific "should" beyond "if you want to keep it to 1.5 degrees, then you should probably do these things and be prepared for these results."

Steve, is there a passage in this report or some other IPCC report where the scientists actually make a scientific claim that we should prefer 1.5 degrees over some other temperature target?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 11:07 AM   #878
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
In the IPCC report (https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summa...y-governments/), they say:

"The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air."

This is what Greta is arguing against in her quote about "the popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years", isn't it?
Possibly some confusion relating to airborne fraction. Her numbers look right for total atmospheric increase in CO2, but because ~half of that ends up being absorbed by the oceans and other Carbon sinks actual emissions can be higher, but only for a while.

(Ocean acidification due to rising CO2 levels is emerging as a key feature in several and potentially all of the major mass extinction events in the earth’s history. To stop ocean acidification we need to stop emitting CO2, but if we keep warming below 2.0 deg C at least we won’t hit any tipping points that release more CO2 so we’d still be in control of our fate.)
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 11:13 AM   #879
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,983
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Possibly some confusion relating to airborne fraction. Her numbers look right for total atmospheric increase in CO2, but because ~half of that ends up being absorbed by the oceans and other Carbon sinks actual emissions can be higher, but only for a while.

(Ocean acidification due to rising CO2 levels is emerging as a key feature in several and potentially all of the major mass extinction events in the earth’s history. To stop ocean acidification we need to stop emitting CO2, but if we keep warming below 2.0 deg C at least we won’t hit any tipping points that release more CO2 so we’d still be in control of our fate.)
It's interesting that you're providing nuance where Greta did not, in a conversation about whether Greta's demands embody nuanced understanding of the science. Especially since her demands indicate possible confusion about the science.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 11:38 AM   #880
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,494
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thanks for that.

If I'm reading the Summary for Policy Makers correctly, the IPCC is not making a scientific recommendation for 1.5 degrees. Rather, they were given a target of 1.5 degrees and asked to report on how to meet that target and what the various tradeoffs would be.
The history of why 1.5 Deg C is being investigated is outlined in the FAQ for SR15. Regardless of why it’s investigated, SR details the scientific basis for targeting 1.5 Deg C, meaning there IS scientific basis for it. FYI my own opinion is that 2.0 Deg C is a more suitable target and I believe there is a scientific basis for that as well.

Science, being what it is, always has a range of viewpoints and it’s important to understand what is and is not within the accepted range. Since SR15, 1.5 IS within the accepted range, so Greta referencing it is perfectly valid. OTOH you would be hard pressed to find scientific support for targets above 2.0 Deg C for reason’s I’ve previously outlines.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.