Ignoring climate change will yield 'untold suffering,' panel of 14,000 scientists warns

Stevicus said:

Greenland ice melting on Tuesday could cover Florida in 2 inches of water - CNN

Click to expand...

Good. It will match the name Greenland.

Valjean said:

Huh? Why is meat a necessity? As long as you get the necessary nutrients, your metabolism doesn't care where they come from.
If you want to make the maximum possible impact on the climate emergency, consider having fewer children -- or none. In addition to not adding lifetimes of carbon to the atmosphere, you'll have more money, more job prospects, free time, and all round flexibility.

In the end, though, it might all be futile. The momentum we've created is just too much. A freight train can't stop on a dime.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, it's all been argued to death. The answers are in the archives. Plenty of threads.

Heyo said:

Nope.
That is not the task for scientists, it is one for activists and politicians. I expect scientists to unemotionally present the data and their conclusions in a scientific way. I trust science because it doesn't take sides in politics.

Click to expand...

But scientists, per se, have political opinions just like the rest of us, and an individual scientist would be remiss in not pointing out a clear and present danger.

Twilight Hue said:

Good. It will match the name Greenland.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping you're being facetious.

Valjean said:

But scientists, per se, have political opinions just like the rest of us, and an individual scientist would be remiss in not pointing out a clear and present danger.

Click to expand...

Off course, a scientist can have a personal opinion but s/he should be very clear about that. I.e. when s/he partakes in activism, s/he should state that s/he does so in her/his function as a private citizen, not in the function as a scientist.

Science a human choice.

Natural always existed.

Who tells a scientist they are wrong and own all causes? A natural everyday human does.

If we have to give ourselves a title to claim status and meaning to argue. It was spirituality.

Heyo said:

Off course, a scientist can have a personal opinion but s/he should be very clear about that. I.e. when s/he partakes in activism, s/he should state that s/he does so in her/his function as a private citizen, not in the function as a scientist.

Click to expand...

But what if her scientific knowledge is what informs her insight into a potential hazard?
Wouldn't climate scientists, physicians, historians, engineers, epidemiologists, ecologists, &al. have a duty to alert the public to potential threats?

Heyo said:

Nope.
That is not the task for scientists, it is one for activists and politicians. I expect scientists to unemotionally present the data and their conclusions in a scientific way. I trust science because it doesn't take sides in politics.

Click to expand...

It isn't about emotion, it's about conveying the magnitude of the crisis accurately.

The problem is their presentation of the facts tends to downplay the severity of the situation more times than that.

If they're going to use adjectives they should use the right adjectives.

If a doctor is talking to a patient with a potentially terminal condition, I'm not saying he should jump up from his desk and start yanking on his hair screaming, "oh my God!! oh my God!! you're going to die!!!!", He should say, "you have a potentially terminal condition", not something like, "You might want to consider making a few lifestyle changes'.

Quagmire said:

It isn't about emotion, it's about conveying the magnitude of the crisis accurately.

The problem is their presentation of the facts tends to downplay the severity of the situation more times than that.

If they're going to use adjectives they should use the right adjectives.

If a doctor is talking to a patient with a potentially terminal condition, I'm not saying he should jump up from his desk and start yanking on his hair screaming, "oh my God!! oh my God!! you're going to die!!!!", He should say, "you have a potentially terminal condition", not something like, "You might want to consider making a few lifestyle changes'.

Click to expand...

I think we have a potentially terminal condition and should make a few lifestyle changes.

Valjean said:

But what if her scientific knowledge is what informs her insight into a potential hazard?

Click to expand...

Then she is an especially well informed private citizen.

Wouldn't climate scientists, physicians, historians, engineers, epidemiologists, ecologists, &al. have a duty to alert the public to potential threats?

Click to expand...

Yes, and they do that by publishing papers. With that their duties as scientists are met. Some might feel an additional duty as citizens and also give TV interviews etc.

Valjean said:

But scientists, per se, have political opinions just like the rest of us, and an individual scientist would be remiss in not pointing out a clear and present danger.

Click to expand...

I follow a scientists paycheck.

I do enjoy the opinions and findings of those independent fellows. The ones who are not swayed one direction or other.

Quagmire said:

It isn't about emotion, it's about conveying the magnitude of the crisis accurately.

The problem is their presentation of the facts tends to downplay the severity of the situation more times than that.

If they're going to use adjectives they should use the right adjectives.

If a doctor is talking to a patient with a potentially terminal condition, I'm not saying he should jump up from his desk and start yanking on his hair screaming, "oh my God!! oh my God!! you're going to die!!!!", He should say, "you have a potentially terminal condition", not something like, "You might want to consider making a few lifestyle changes'.

Click to expand...

Dude, some of them have been doing just that, and the denialists respond by calling them "alarmists" and "chicken littles".

Don't assume the remaining holdouts on global warming are just waiting for more data and for it to be presented in the proper manner. Denialism is typically about things other than the science or messaging.

Now, if that more technically-oriented presentation from Bill Nye isn't alarmist enough for you, try this (warning, curse words)....

My husband made a poignant comment. Scientists as science should support one only answers as a united expression of humans. Quantified as science.

Human aware intelligence is observed naturally first. Without using False dichotomy.

If science argues against science the status incorrect is science itself.

History told us science changed the earth's pressure in space. So changed its nuclear fusion.

Sion.

Sion was the ancient status of fighting holy wars.

Science the nuclear was determined the occult in the past.

The warnings owned a stated non science practice agreed by humans in the past.

Greed for trade owns invention.

Life owns the natural earth stable status to exist.

Was in fact a holy teaching.

Father our human memories recorded poignant.

Heavens gods gases own recorded image transmitted images and voice. Of all life. His science can portray acute ideals of dinosaurs. Alive. Behaviours. Appearance. Even suggesting bringing it back into life.

Dinosaurs as images seen in cloud images just like Jesus man.

Proof science satanism wrong. Theorists.

Father mother first consciousness of humans as human died. Our memories.

First humans died satanism fallout historic archaeology evidence machine parts snap frozen inside stone mass. Earth tilt twisted.

Died in recorded human combustion UFO irradiation. Wood carbon content burning bush. UFO came forward out of atmosphere womb accumulator into burning gases. Natural lights beginnings.

Natural light the only light constant. Light time shifting in. Voided. Yet light remains constant.

Thought light dark switch in head chemical on off lied.

S witch. Science old terms about wood trees. Wood burnt us. Earths carbon atmosphere amassing first. Trees unable to reoxygenate water.

Science inherits equals answer to mans formula equation. Attacked natural light natural mass by UFO. Carbon activated burning in heavens humans burnt to death sacrificed by cross of wood.

A science human teaching.

Natural spiritual human versus occult. Science. Science proven wrong. Natural human correct.

New old science after ice age hears recorded satanic human AI advice. How to. Taught by man records. Pyramid science.

Reason dusts react goes backwards into destruction. How life ended. Satanic memory about first life.

Origin human parents deceased died radiation constant. Our bio cell.blood bone living tissue survives about 100 years died by irradiation causes.

Human baby claim into adult life recording affected satanic by irradiation claimed I came back from dead. Wrong. Created by human sex not by any human Scientific thesis.

First scientists not rich or elite. Trade gave wealth.

First church for human healing. Built by poor humans. Poor humans served humanity. The rich in society built church were called hypocrites as they had funded science.

Poor humans always served their family in spiritual needs funded by the elite. Some of who are patrons of honesty and care. Some others not.

A fact in human life and human history. Small groups who make incorrect choices for everyone else.

Based only on a thesis and not about natural presence first.

Reason lightning in atmosphere for instance. Could be from old science causes as an effect. Not even considered.

Reason spatial pressures had changed why science said they had abominated space surrounding earth.

Heyo said:

Nope.
That is not the task for scientists, it is one for activists and politicians. I expect scientists to unemotionally present the data and their conclusions in a scientific way. I trust science because it doesn't take sides in politics.

Click to expand...

Why should scientists not take sides in politics when their science says so?

If we acknowledge that science produces a reasonably accurate model of reality, then they should be able to make reasonably accurate predictions about possible courses of action.

Would you be content if health experts refused to give recommendations about how to manage a global pandemic, or if climate scientists refused to lay out possible plans to slow down climate change and combat its worst effects on the environment? I would think not - but that is precisely scientists taking sides in politics, and they are doing so based on their own scientific knowledge.

Kooky said:

Why should scientists not take sides in politics when their science says so?

If we acknowledge that science produces a reasonably accurate model of reality, then they should be able to make reasonably accurate predictions about possible courses of action.

Click to expand...

They do. And they publish their data and conclusions. They advise policy makers, if hired for that task. They are available for questions by publishers and communicators. All within their duties as scientists (as long as they keep to the facts).

Heyo said:

They do. And they publish their data and conclusions. They advise policy makers, if hired for that task. They are available for questions by publishers and communicators. All within their duties as scientists (as long as they keep to the facts).

Click to expand...

Indeed! Which is why I would consider it not only unrealistic but also counterproductive for scientists to not voice their opinions on issues that are close to their field of research.

Stevicus said:

I'm surprised they didn't include anything about population control, which I would think is the most significant factor.

Click to expand...

That's because population control is ultimately a red herring. It is not the number of people who are the defining factor in climate change, but the lifestyle of a fraction of these people, which is what created our civilization's global rat tail of polluting, CO2 producing industries, resource extraction operations, and energy and transportation systems.

Humanity's environmental impact would be, arguably, a lot more manageable if the populations of its major developed industrial powers simply vanished off the face of Earth.