IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report

Post by yaps8 » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 12:45 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #41

rotw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, I got myself air conditioning in a country famous for skiing. AC units are massive drivers of climate change. Honestly, this is a vile and selfish attitude.

> Honestly, this is a vile and selfish attitude. I don‘t care about your assessment. You are free to live in humility, poverty, extreme heat, whatever - if you think it will make you a superior human being. I prefer having bearable temperatures where I live, sleep and have visitors, without having to beg and wait for the whole world to stop burning fossil fuels, eating meat etc.

Post by bjourne » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 12:54 PM UTC

logancg wrote: post #29

madaxe_again wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to adjust for the fact that most of what climate scientists publish is already conservative. Get them talking one-to-one and their predictions for the next decades are dire. Me, I take a pessimistic view - I don’t think you have to have a large percentage change in, say, crop production, or storm damage rebuilding costs, for economies to feel the effect - prices rise, labour is diverted from growth to m…

I'm curious: if you think so much about climate change and its effects, and even plan your actions and location around it, have you considered directing your energy to combatting climate change with your skills on a systemic level? (For example, building sustainability companies, being part of climate activism, earning-to-donate?) I'm in a similar spot but optimistic about systemic action.

Post by antientropic » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:12 PM UTC

tumetab1 wrote: post #7

Weird quotes from the article: > In this case, there are 86 lead authors from 39 countries, of which 39% are female. > These researchers, who are unpaid, have reviewed the available scientific literature on the feasibility, impacts and costs of staying under 1.5C. > "If one can imagine the governments holding the hands of the scientists, this means you don't know how science works!"

Post by rayiner » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:28 PM UTC

Sol- wrote: post #11

I guess governments will just skip the prevention step when they realize their own inaction made that impossible and just try to find ways to adapt to the inevitable changes instead. There's pretty much no way, purely for political/human reasons, that keeping the temperatures below 2 or even 3 degrees seems feasible at that point, so humanity will just have to deal with it and adapt over the next century. Shame about…

Post by CalRobert » Mon, Oct 01, 2018, 1:58 PM UTC

logancg wrote: post #29

madaxe_again wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also have to adjust for the fact that most of what climate scientists publish is already conservative. Get them talking one-to-one and their predictions for the next decades are dire. Me, I take a pessimistic view - I don’t think you have to have a large percentage change in, say, crop production, or storm damage rebuilding costs, for economies to feel the effect - prices rise, labour is diverted from growth to m…

I'm curious: if you think so much about climate change and its effects, and even plan your actions and location around it, have you considered directing your energy to combatting climate change with your skills on a systemic level? (For example, building sustainability companies, being part of climate activism, earning-to-donate?) I'm in a similar spot but optimistic about systemic action.