Haven't we had multiple tipping points already? It really feels weird how the tipping point is always very soon(tm).
It is a tradition by now
Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
41–50 of 50 posts
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#42Public link to paper: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1... But how do we make politicians aware of the seriousness?
> But how do we make politicians aware of the seriousness? Don't you think they ought to be very much aware by now? And probably they are, but are either unwilling or unable to affect true change. Unwilling because it is insufficiently in their own interest, and unable because those unwilling and their friends wield too much power. Making things move very, very slowly, at a glacial pace.
why jump to the main course when can run through decades of elections getting campaign funding arguing each side. If any problem is solved then they would have to re-canvas their population to see what other polarizing topic to use
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#43What makes this group of scientists and their warning more legitimate than these previous “imminent tipping points” https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca...
Josh, why would you post such a fundamentally dishonest blogpost?
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
When has the scientific community really been crying wolf on environmental matters, on a large scale? It can certainly feel like it has, with warnings about climate change and other ecological issues getting near-constant and having more and more visibility over the last couple of decades. But that's not really the scientific community calling wolf unless they were wrong. That's just people getting jaded. That doesn'…
>When has the scientific community really been crying wolf on environmental matters, on a large scale? Obviously I meant the scientific community in general. What is special about the "environmental matters", that make the community around it resistant to various politicisation or frauds?
I was assuming it would be about environmental questions based on the context, but that may have been a poor assumption on my part.
Nothing of course makes environmental research immune to problems.
The question then becomes the same about the scientific community in general. When and about what has it been crying wolf?
You mention fraud, but is it really as prevalent a problem in academic research as it might seem from the headlines? Fraud or other instances of gross misconduct deservedly make the headlines but all the research staff toiling away and trying to do their best don't. (The occasional sexy enough result does, but those are few and far between.) From what little I've seen of academic research, the people in there haven't seemed to be dishonest or intending to defraud. I'm sure outright fraud does happen, but is it really such a widespread problem that it counts as the entire community becoming suspect?
Questionable methodology is of course a problem, and probably a much more widespread one, although it's probably not any worse than what people generally base their opinions and views on.
I really still fail to see how the scientific community has cried wolf. I can easily see how it would seem and feel like it has, but that would be more due to poor journalism and reporting than due to the actions of most of the community itself.
Of course I may be grossly underestimating the prevalence of scientific misconduct, but this has been my impression.
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When has the scientific community really been crying wolf on environmental matters, on a large scale? Obviously I meant the scientific community in general. What is special about the "environmental matters", that make the community around it resistant to various politicisation or frauds?
I was assuming it would be about environmental questions based on the context, but that may have been a poor assumption on my part. Nothing of course makes environmental research immune to problems. The question then becomes the same about the scientific community in general. When and about what has it been crying wolf? You mention fraud, but is it really as prevalent a problem in academic research as it might seem f…
> When and about what has it been crying wolf?
I can give you instances, but that would not be very efficient. Because you can then be apologetic of the examples I provide..
The real question is "can the scientific community be made to have a consensus based on politics rather than science?". I think the answer is a resounding "YES", simply because it is made up of human beings who are not less susceptible to ways of coercion, than the human beings in actual politics or other fields that we can agree that corruption exists.
>From what little I've seen of academic research, the people in there haven't seemed to be dishonest or intending to defraud.
Politicians at a high level being corrupt does not imply, or require, that every government official is corrupt. So I am not sure why you mention it.
> but is it really such a widespread problem that it counts as the entire community becoming suspect?
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-hea...
This is not a justification or proof (as I said earlier, it would not be a very efficient use of my time), but something you can start with if you are genuinely interested and if you really have no idea how bad things are in this regard (Jeez, i wonder how can that be the case!)
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#46What makes this group of scientists and their warning more legitimate than these previous “imminent tipping points” https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-poca...
Those predictions are only "failed" because they were too soon.
We're good at seeing the signs of things to come, but we're bad at predicting the when.
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be suspicious abount anything published by "one of the Conservative think tanks funded to overturn the environmentalism of the 1960s, central to promoting climate change denial"[1]. The article is also clearly written in bad faith, with their so-called "counter-arguments" being a case of selectively choosing the information that supports their agenda and discarding everything else. Having said that: that arti…
No, more of an existence proof - the fact that people have been saying similar things since at least the 60’s should make us at least consider the possibility that the reason for the current warnings are similar to the reason for the previous warnings. Sure, maybe all those other warnings were in good faith and happened to be wrong, while the current warnings are also in good faith and might turn out to be correct. B…
Lomborg is not a climate scientist! Besides that he's been funded by the oil industry.
No one agrees with him besides industry people.
Don't post disinformation.
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#48Haven't we had multiple tipping points already? It really feels weird how the tipping point is always very soon(tm).
weird how no one wants to mention china either
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#49Public link to paper: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1... But how do we make politicians aware of the seriousness?
Thanks for the question (which should be on the top, instead of the climate change deniers). Politicians are chosen by the citizens. So the question could be rephrased to “how do we make a big portion of the world aware of the seriousness?”. A web search for “how to convince your opponent” gives some great suggestions: ———————————————————— How to Convince Someone Ask them to share their thoughts. Match their type of…
Such engagement would be better than how I've generally been treated as an opponent of climate change alarmism. Historically the arguments boil down to, emotional appeals like this story. Buy now or lose the opportunity forever! We are reaching an inflection point! This is a story angle I've seen dozens of times at this point and none of the dire predictions have ever come to pass. The other major one is "you're not qualified to have an opinion on the topic".
There are numerous pieces on how various branches of science have a very broken peer review process. The academic incentives are perverse, publish or perish, and peer review is a low budget method that has lots of issues that crop in.
My main issue is, is modern science reliable enough to make such predictions? All meta science material I've seen says no, they are not. So my preference would be, fix the system so it stops producing sensationalistic garbage and then we can talk about what might need to change about fundamental economic underpinnings.
Re: Thousands of scientists warn climate tipping points ‘imminent’
#50So, what item, that mr. Johnny Average uses daily, will now be banned (or made more expensive, by having to use barely "recyclable" materials), while nothing will be done about huge industries, and other countries that pollute a lot more? We,ve forbidden plastic bags and replaced them with reusable bags, which contain more plastic, or with cotton ones, tha thave to be reused 20.000times, to make it worth it, compared…
Open up city zoning laws so "local" food actually effing mean local and not within 8h truck shipping distance.
Lots of city dead space, roof tops, useless alley ways that can be turned into gardens that provide simple food source