Hype and hysteria are what the media does these days.
Can you pull the op Ed piece up from the paywall?
I can’t say I’ve noticed too many folk (representatives of the general public as a whole) who’re “paralysed” by acknowledging the reality of climate change. Mind you, it is The Telegraph…
I obviously spend too much time out in the Real World instead of hours searching the internet for denialism/conspiracy theory sites or talking heads who can be quoted as supporting them.
Hey people it’s not “the media.” I also blame The Science Industry. All I hear from “Science” the past 25 years is gloom, doom catastrophe. When you hear an alternate outcome it is shouted down as “Skeptic!” Heretic! Anti-Science!" When the media hypes this stuff there is never ever an immediate reaction from The Science Industry to correct the record sending the media types off sheepishly with heads bowed. No. Just more yabba jabba about “data” which never sees to show what they keep claiming it shows. but they leave that part out. Apparently, they are OK with it.
For most economic sectors the impact of Climate Change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers. Changes in populations, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socio-economic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services, that is large relative to the impact of climate change.
IPCC statement 2014 — End Quote
They are lying and always have been. It’s politics, economics, power grabs, and probably more that I haven’t thought of. The same things that always drive things. Just know that and keep living a happy life.
Ignore the yellow Start your Subscription request, the article is there to read.
When I meet a Climate Alarmist I just dismiss them as religious zealot zombies. A productive conversation is more productive. I guess that’s why they are called productive.
The vast majority of climate change scientists agree that human activity is the main cause of our current rapid acceleration of climate change.
The question is, will spending significant resources to mitigate climate change do more damage to mankind if they are wrong OR will not spending significant resources to mitigate climate change do more damage to mankind if they are correct.
Flat Earthers agreed that the earth was flat but the earth didn’t get the message.
The obvious solution is to reduce the number of humans.
In 1980, global population was roughly 4 billion. Today it’s 8 billion. If we were still in the 4 billion range, would we have a climate change crisis?
The difference is the climate scientists have data, and the deniers have “sun spots!”
Not only are folks lined up to do a lot more but the same folks who were dead set on there is nothing wrong are now whining how often to we need to hear it? We get it.
We need to throw enormous amounts of money at this. But not equal to the US military budget for childish behavior. Like blowing up things is our old goal in life.
And when I meet a Climate Denialist I just shake my head, sigh, cry a bit and realize members of a cult can’t be reasoned with.
The simple answer to you question is “Yes”!
I’m pretty sure that is because science news is reported by the ‘media’.
Why do you think that?
To me, roughly half the population means roughly half the consumption of resources and production of waste.
So, fewer pollutants used to produce our needs and less waste product.
Given the efficiencies we have gained with technology since 1980, I would imagine that the reduction would actually be greater than simply 50%. So why would the man-made portion of climate change remain high?
I guess at some level you imply that even if we reduced our consumption and waste by 50%, we still wouldn’t affect the climate change. That sort of goal is pretty unrealistic.
Not to worry though, mother nature will cure the issue.
and the believers have “heaven and hell!”
How true. Incredible that we both believe the same thing!
Of this there is no doubt!
And I think this because we would still be producing an abundance of CO2 - the only difference would be how much more time we would have and whether we would have made changes. We would still have the cult members jibber-jabbering and nothing to be done. Vested interests are still vested interests!
The only difference is: I would be happy to change my mind if someone could provide the science to show the professionals are wrong. It doesn’t seem like anything would change your mind.
Greenhouse gas emissions are what matter, not population. You can cook up all kinds of scenarios about population and technology and lifestyle and estimate greenhouse gas emissions. That’s what the various IPCC standard scenarios do.
Regardless of how we get there, if we reduce our emissions by half, we slow the rate of warming by half.