UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in ‘great peril’

[ImmortalFlame]

To all those who preach the truth and certainties of science with so much enthusiasm - read this article

Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows | Daily Mail Online

He said:
"The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’."
and
"Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity."

Borrowing the quotes of one scientist from a staunchly anti-global warming newspaper (owned by a man with a vested interest in making sure green energy legislation does not get passed) does absolutely nothing against the overwhelming consensus of opinion held by the vast majority of scientists around the world in multiple fields.

This is not an argument.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes.

Even so we are living in the best times ever, there are a lot of trends to betterment reversing.
We had a trend of more countries becoming (more) democratic - which is already stalling and might reverse.
We had a trend of people becoming more intelligent (Flynn effect) - which is reversing.
We had a trend of the environment been taken care of. Acid rain, ozone killers, lead, polluted rivers, etc. have been tackled in the last 50 years but it seems global warming is not going to be.
We had a trend of unification. The EU lost a member for the first time recently and Poland and Hungary are doing their best to get kicked out.
Until recently ever fewer people had to suffer from hunger or malnutrition. That trend has been reversed.
Life expectancy is shrinking in some regions for the first time since over a hundred years.

As I said we still have it good but if we take that for granted, we might lose the good life.

I think what strikes me about all of this is that none of what's happening is all that new or should be any great surprise. We knew about overpopulation, pollution, global warming, and other environmental threats 50+ years ago. We knew about the scarcity of energy supplies. Unfortunately, instead of heeding the warnings and acting more responsibly, Americans chose to act extremely irresponsibly when they voted for Reagan and went into a cocaine-fueled mode of "Don't Worry Be Happy."

That was about the same time that "Nimbys" and "Yuppies" came on the scene - the true authors of our demise. They were (and many still are) excessive consumers, shopaholics, selfish, narcissistic, materialistic, image-conscious, reckless types whose only meaningful goal in life has been to keep up with the Kardashians. They're the kind of people who take a 3-minute airplane ride to avoid traffic, all the while crowing about how we need to "save the planet."

 

[Five Solas]

Borrowing the quotes of one scientist from a staunchly anti-global warming newspaper (owned by a man with a vested interest in making sure green energy legislation does not get passed) does absolutely nothing against the overwhelming consensus of opinion held by the vast majority of scientists around the world in multiple fields.

This is not an argument.

You did not read the article, did you??? What a pity.

Borrowing the quotes of one scientist from a staunchly anti-global warming newspaper (owned by a man with a vested interest in making sure green energy legislation does not get passed) does absolutely nothing against the overwhelming consensus of opinion held by the vast majority of scientists around the world in multiple fields.

This is not an argument.

Anyway, I made no argument. I presented the view of a highly respected scientist - Professor Michael Kelly- who is a member of the most prestigious science fellowship globally i.e. Fellows of the Royal Society.

Your reaction is exactly what he is warning about. He demands meaningful debate.

When science stop questioning and debate it is not science anymore - it becomes propaganda and dogma.

a staunchly anti-global warming newspaper

You do not even know the newspaper???? I would not call The Daily Mail unscientific nor conservative.
You are clearly out to pick a mindless fight.
Think before you say things like this.

 

[Yerda]

To all those who preach the truth and certainties of science with so much enthusiasm - read this article

Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows | Daily Mail Online

He said:
"The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’."
and
"Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity."

Even though it is the Daily Mail I clicked it. That's a courtesy I woudn't normally extend.

I wouldn't say that he's wrong. Nobody should hide uncertainty - it's a major component of science and every statistical analysis comes with measures of uncertainty. The climate is a complex system and it is therefore difficult to predict global average temps, sea levels and acidification etc. The model are rather robust however. Even the ones from the early 80s are worryingly accurate.

So could the scientific community be wrong about climate change? Of course. Should we expect that it is? Nope.

As an aside, this same Michael Kelly was part of the review of the CRU East Anglia that found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."

Which I put here with the note that once the "climate skeptics" move from uncertainty they usually take up "malpractice" as the reason that the global scientific community keeps finding the same things: the world is warming primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When science stop questioning and debate it is not science anymore - it becomes propaganda and dogma..

Not "science" .. human beings.

It is very clear to the majority of us, that the science behind climate change is very strong indeed.
The planet is finite, and it doesn't take much to realise that a privileged few using vast amounts of energy in their daily lives, is going to affect the planet & other people.

..people who can't afford to run central heating or air-conditioning .. can't afford to run a car .. can't afford to buy lots of luxury goods etc.

There will always be people who say that "there is no need to clean your teeth", or no need to worry about what goes on in a neighbouring state.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You did not read the article, did you??? What a pity.


Anyway, I made no argument. I presented the view of a highly respected scientist - Professor Michael Kelly- who is a member of the most prestigious science fellowship globally i.e. Fellows of the Royal Society.

Your reaction is exactly what he is warning about. He demands meaningful debate.

When science stop questioning and debate it is not science anymore - it becomes propaganda and dogma.

Ah, yes, of course. You had no intention whatsoever of presenting a particular position when you quoted a single scientist as if it means anything. No argument whatsoever. I mean, if I wanted to, I could easily find a scientist saying that we shouldn't all agree with the consensus that the earth is round, and that any consensus on the issue being established just makes it "propaganda".

Nope. Science doesn't work like that. When a consensus is formed in science - particularly a consensus that was not pre-formed but had to be fought for against tremendous religious, economic and political opposition - it's because the science supports it. If your only argument against the science is "this one scientist says we shouldn't believe something just because it's consensus", then you don't really have an argument.

You do not even know the newspaper???? I would not call The Daily Mail unscientific nor conservative.
You are clearly out to pick a mindless fight.
Think before you say things like this.

The Daily Mail is well known as a far-right, anti-climate change newspaper with a history of misquoting and lying in order to push a far-right agenda.

If you didn't already know that, you have no business even trying to quote any newspaper as a source.

 

[Heyo]

You did not read the article, did you??? What a pity.

It's the Daily Fail, what did you expect? Pro tip: if it's an article worth reading, it has a link to the original study - which should be worth more reading. If the study was published in a respected peer reviewed periodical, use that link in your post and you won't read complaints about biased sources.

Anyway, I made no argument. I presented the view of a highly respected scientist - Professor Michael Kelly- who is a member of the most prestigious science fellowship globally i.e. Fellows of the Royal Society.

Your reaction is exactly what he is warning about. He demands meaningful debate.

He sits in a boat with a hole in the hull. If he wants to debate whether it is better to fix the hole with wood or just hemp and tar, he shouldn't stand in the way of the people who are pumping.
Iow, there was time enough for general debate. Calling for debate now is only an excuse for not acting.

 

[metis]

In other news, Henny Penny warned that the sky is falling and a little boy cried "Wolf!"

You've made it clear that you're far more into children's stories than science.

Climate change - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

This is a sweeping statement.
Scripture is inerrant but that has nothing to do with the relationship between Christianity and modern science.

Biblical inerrancy is a relatively modern phenomenon that only dates back about two centuries. There simply is no evidence whatsoever that it is inerrant, and as a matter of fact it's illogical even on the surface, such as how could one know it was inerrant unless they were inerrant themselves? Myself, I fell just short of being inerrant.

To claim that Christianity ignores or dismisses basic scientific evidence because Scripture is inerrant is a false and malicious statement.

I left the church I grew up in because they refused to believe in the basic concept of evolution [amongst some other problems], and there are still denominations today that still take that non-scientific and illogical position.

Material objects change over time, so there's no mystery that our universe, planet, and life on it are still evolving.

 

[F1fan]

No, it would be true democracy, if all people would decide everything about their own life and only about their own life.

Well that might work on Giligan's Island. It might work in a nation of really mature and well disciplined people, but in a nation of 330 million with widely diverse desires, and many not very disiplined, that sort of wild west mentality won't work. You will find in your scenario that there is more crime, because there will be more people using force and violence to steal. The reason the USA, and any other large nation, has any sort of law and order is because there is a tiered system of law and authority.

If you are really for democracy why not demand more access to voting in the USA? Shouldn't people in minority areas of the USA have as much access to voting as middle class white people?

Funny thing is that you sound authoritarian and totalitarian more than Trump.

Really? Explain what you mean.

And thanks for admitting Trump is authoritarian. I take it you do not support him.

 

[icehorse]

That you think the math would be simple shows you really don't know what you're talking about. There are so many assumptions it would be a pointless exercise. Besides which "hypotheses non fingo."

Your "claim" was that alarms about global warming are not to be taken seriously. Given the overwhelming evidence supporting the phenomenon of global warming, your claim falls into the category of "extraordinary".

As our departed friend Carl Sagan said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So bring us your evidence that when the ice on top of Greenland melts, it won't cause catastrophic sea level rises. As for the "so many assumptions", sure, climate science is very complex. But calculating the volume of ice on top of Greenland is - in the domain of complex science - relatively easy. And calculating how much the seas will rise if that volume of ice is poured into them is also relatively easy.

It's naysayer attitudes like yours that are keeping us from doing what needs to be done to avoid calamity. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[metis]

Your "claim" was that alarms about global warming are not to be taken seriously. Given the overwhelming evidence supporting the phenomenon of global warming, your claim falls into the category of "extraordinary".

As our departed friend Carl Sagan said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So bring us your evidence that when the ice on top of Greenland melts, it won't cause catastrophic sea level rises. As for the "so many assumptions", sure, climate science is very complex. But calculating the volume of ice on top of Greenland is - in the domain of complex science - relatively easy. And calculating how much the seas will rise if that volume of ice is poured into them is also relatively easy.

It's naysayer attitudes like yours that are keeping us from doing what needs to be done to avoid calamity. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As we've seen so many times here, some are much more into right-wing politics than actual evidence-based science.

 

[F1fan]

Yes.

Even so we are living in the best times ever, there are a lot of trends to betterment reversing.
We had a trend of more countries becoming (more) democratic - which is already stalling and might reverse.
We had a trend of people becoming more intelligent (Flynn effect) - which is reversing.
We had a trend of the environment been taken care of. Acid rain, ozone killers, lead, polluted rivers, etc. have been tackled in the last 50 years but it seems global warming is not going to be.
We had a trend of unification. The EU lost a member for the first time recently and Poland and Hungary are doing their best to get kicked out.
Until recently ever fewer people had to suffer from hunger or malnutrition. That trend has been reversed.
Life expectancy is shrinking in some regions for the first time since over a hundred years.

As I said we still have it good but if we take that for granted, we might lose the good life.

I think the financial cost will also be a growing problem. As there are more environmental disasters insurers will have to pay out, and more and more. So companies need to make profit, so will push those costs onto customers. And as we know when one company in a competitve market can raise prices, others will as well. This is already happening with inflation. The people need these products, so they have to pay. No home insurance, the mortgage company will charge you for theirs at an inflated price.

The marginalized will crack eventually, and then who takes care oif them as their lives collapse?

More greed and selfishness will result is "I don't want my tax dollars paying for them". More tribalism, less unity. MAGA is certainly a selfish and divisive tribe, so the effects will ripple through our society as more hardship occurs.

 

[Shaul]

You might as well believe cigarettes aren't bad for you.

More like believing in global cooling,

You've made it clear that you're far more into children's stories than science.

Climate change - Wikipedia

Nonsense. Whereas you think the head of an organization of bureaucrats has no ulterior motive while asking for "more".

 

[Shaul]

Your "claim" was that alarms about global warming are not to be taken seriously. Given the overwhelming evidence supporting the phenomenon of global warming, your claim falls into the category of "extraordinary".

As our departed friend Carl Sagan said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So bring us your evidence that when the ice on top of Greenland melts, it won't cause catastrophic sea level rises. As for the "so many assumptions", sure, climate science is very complex. But calculating the volume of ice on top of Greenland is - in the domain of complex science - relatively easy. And calculating how much the seas will rise if that volume of ice is poured into them is also relatively easy.

It's naysayer attitudes like yours that are keeping us from doing what needs to be done to avoid calamity. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, my claim is that this particular guy has ulterior motives and would use "useful idiots" to grow his power. There is nothing in what I have written that shows I deny climate change. Don't fight straw men.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More like believing in global cooling,

So, twisting science and following the bad studies to justify over prescribing Prozac amd Cymbalta.

 

[SkepticThinker]

More like believing in global cooling,

Nonsense. Whereas you think the head of an organization of bureaucrats has no ulterior motive while asking for "more".

Ah, decades-old PRATT "arguments" are still being bandied about, I see.

In the 70s, they said there'd be an Ice Age

 

[Twilight Hue]

Upon reflection, surely any sane person must conclude that unless we undergo a seismic change in outlook, values and behaviour, and quickly…we’re ****ed.

Only if China takes over.

 

[Heyo]

I think the financial cost will also be a growing problem. As there are more environmental disasters insurers will have to pay out, and more and more. So companies need to make profit, so will push those costs onto customers. And as we know when one company in a competitve market can raise prices, others will as well. This is already happening with inflation. The people need these products, so they have to pay. No home insurance, the mortgage company will charge you for theirs at an inflated price.

The marginalized will crack eventually, and then who takes care oif them as their lives collapse?

More greed and selfishness will result is "I don't want my tax dollars paying for them". More tribalism, less unity. MAGA is certainly a selfish and divisive tribe, so the effects will ripple through our society as more hardship occurs.

Yep, so more greed is the result and cause of climate change.
It is a Tragedy of the Commons situation. The "common" here being the CO2 level.

 

[1213]

...You will find in your scenario that there is more crime, because there will be more people using force and violence to steal...

I don't believe that.

...Really? Explain what you mean.

And thanks for admitting Trump is authoritarian. I take it you do not support him.

I don't think Trump is authoritarian, because he doesn't act like one. Reason why I think you are more authoritarian than Trump is that you said: "Look at your religious belief, you really think it is true and real, don't you? I'll bet you believe it has authority over everyone even if they aren't your stripe of Christian, am I wrong? Gods and authoritarian leaders are the problem, not solutions. As it is the world problems seem to be coming from right wing politics, with greed, indifference to suffering, science denial, authoritarian leadership like putin and Trump and Erdogan and Le pen, etc". To me that sounds that you think you have the right way of thinking and everyone should think like you.