Attenborough - we've past the point of no return on trying to avoid climate change

[Eddy Edson]

But noone has mentioned the elephant in the room:

Bums on seats

25 Years ago I wrote my dissertation about Sustainable Development.
At the time the human population was heading towards 5.5 Billion People. It was hoped that the human population might level off as resources are limited.
There are no easy solutions; here we are 25 years later with an extra 2 Billion people: to clothe and house and feed.

I sometimes sit and watch the population count, it never goes down, only ever upwards. I provide a screenshot or you can follow the link
View attachment 16332

World Population Clock: 8.2 Billion People (LIVE, 2024) - Worldometer

How many people are there in the world? World population has reached 8 billion on November 15, 2022 according to the United Nations. World population live counter with data sheets, graphs, maps, and census data regarding the current, historical, and future world population figures, estimates...

www.worldometers.info

I guess the rate of increase is slowing, FWIW.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Eddy,

Truth is not decided by consensus, particulalry when these "scientists" are not independant but rely on funding for their work.

The graph that @Bruce Stephens found does match the rise in global temp around same time CFC's became popular in the 1980's and CFC's are known to cause global warming.

It does seem a reasonable observation.

Really, the arrogance is both breathtaking and hilarious. You evidently have no scientific qualifications or desire to put any work into understanding the arguments, yet you dismiss the whole body of climate scentists and accuse them of corruption, because you've found an old debunked piece of speculation from a non-climate expert which you think looks nifty.

 

[Amity Island]

Really, the arrogance is both breathtaking and hilarious. You evidently have no scientific qualifications or desire to put any work into understanding the arguments, yet you dismiss the whole body of climate scentists and accuse them of corruption, because you've found an old debunked piece of speculation from a non-climate expert which you think looks nifty.

Eddy,

Arrogance/Hilarious? You have evidently misread what I have said. Please read what I've said, rather than what you think I've said.

I've not said the Co2 scientists are wrong. Have I? Have I?

For your benefit, all I said was this.

Consensus does not = truth. THAT IS A FACT. 9 out of 10 people can agree and be wrong and the remaining 1 person can be right. Ask anyone convicted of a crime they were innocent of. If many people agreeing makes it true, then where would that place conspiracy theories?

I've not said Co2 isn't the cause of global warming, have I? have I?

I'm only suggesting there may be other reasons, as any good scientist would also appreciate. Look at all the evidence rather than forming one conclusion and sticking to it, no matter what.

Again, I am not saying that Co2 is not the cause. I am not saying Co2 is not the cause. I'm just trying to keep all possibilites open for discussion.

Keeping an open mind is not arrogance nor is it hilarious.

 

[Amity Island]

You evidently have no scientific qualifications.

Eddy,

Same for this belief about having no scientific qualifications.

Since when do you need to be a doctor to know someone is ill?

Just because someone doesn't have any training or qualifications in a particular field doesn't mean they can't form a valid opinion. I'm sure some of the greatest discoveries and inventions ever made were by those without any training or qualifications or "scientific qualifications". I'd go as far as saying having "training" or "qualifications" can actually lower the chances of finding something out. If you are "trained" then you are fixed to the beliefs that they instill. It's often the untrained eye that spots the obvious or unknown.

We are all allowed to think.

 

[mikeyB]

Eddy,

Same for this belief about having no scientific qualifications.

Since when do you need to be a doctor to know someone is ill?
We are all allowed to think.

I became a doctor not because I wanted to say people were ill, which as you intimate, any fool can do that. I became a doctor to stop folk being ill, which does need rather a lot of education and knowledge.

And yes, we are all allowed to think. But in any discussion where there are differing views, you don’t just have to think, you have to look at all the evidence, judge the weight of that evidence, and form an opinion on the value of that evidence. You do need an education to be able to do that, in this case a scientific education. And the climate scientists are largely as one in considering that rising CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Also, it perfectly reasonable to say that you haven’t said that CO 2 isn’t the cause of global warming, and that you are merely presenting alternate opinions. However, you don’t pass any opinion on those alternate opinions, because you can’t outthink climate scientists. Nor can I, of course. I concede their expertise.

On the subject of the source of that CO2, the graph of the increase follows almost exactly the popularity of carbonated drinks, Coke, Pepsi, 7–Up and so forth. Open a can and hear that hiss of carbon dioxide escaping, and in the burps after drinking it. The evidence is irrefutable.

 

[Amity Island]

I became a doctor not because I wanted to say people were ill, which as you intimate, any fool can do that. I became a doctor to stop folk being ill, which does need rather a lot of education and knowledge.

And yes, we are all allowed to think. But in any discussion where there are differing views, you don’t just have to think, you have to look at all the evidence, judge the weight of that evidence, and form an opinion on the value of that evidence. You do need an education to be able to do that, in this case a scientific education. And the climate scientists are largely as one in considering that rising CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Also, it perfectly reasonable to say that you haven’t said that CO 2 isn’t the cause of global warming, and that you are merely presenting alternate opinions. However, you don’t pass any opinion on those alternate opinions, because you can’t outthink climate scientists. Nor can I, of course. I concede their expertise.

On the subject of the source of that CO2, the graph of the increase follows almost exactly the popularity of carbonated drinks, Coke, Pepsi, 7–Up and so forth. Open a can and hear that hiss of carbon dioxide escaping, and in the burps after drinking it. The evidence is irrefutable.

Mikey B,

Yet you say Attenborough is wrong on saying "we've passed the tipping point" on climate change, but you say you concede to "their" expertise.

On the evidence, how long were we told fat was bad for us? Then 20 years later, it's just animal fats that are bad for us. I still remeber it, in the 80's it was all "low fat" foods in the supermarkets, then the scientific consensus changed not long ago saying dairy fats are good for you. Dietry fat is essential to live.

Scientific opinions can blow with the wind, depending on what evidence they have at hand.

I was replying to @Eddy Edson reply to me about my arrogance and hilarious response. I am not arrogant and having an opinion is not hilarious. I've got no opinion on the matter of global warming (as I keep saying), because I just don't have sufficient time, evidence or experience to form a reliable opinion. The only opinion i have is what @Docb said was saying, there is always more to something, there are unknowns, there is more evidence out there if you look for it, keep an open mind as things are rarely straight forward cut and dry.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I'd go as far as saying having "training" or "qualifications" can actually lower the chances of finding something out.

I'd bet the opposite in general. Sure, sometimes experts are wrong and the outside non-expert sees something they're missing. But most often that's not the case.

 

[Amity Island]

I'd bet the opposite in general. Sure, sometimes experts are wrong and the outside non-expert sees something they're missing. But most often that's not the case.

I'd certainly hope so. But I stand by my point how experts can, even with consensus be wrong.

 

[mikeyB]

Inka,

Would you be able to translate that into something easy to understand?

Regarding funding, I mean a lot of scientists rely on financial contributions from certain institutions and businesses who have a particular view on things. Meaning, scientists tend to find the results they need to secure financial support and Eddy was saying that because many scientsts agree on something, that must make it true.

So do the views of the contrary opinion on climate change. Follow the money, it's fascinating.

By the way, David Attenborough isn't a climate scientist. He has a degree in Natural Sciences, specialising in Geology and Zoology. Dare I say the majority of climate scientists do not agree with him - yet?

 

[Inka]

I'd certainly hope so. But I stand by my point how experts can, even with consensus be wrong.

Yes, sometimes, but I don’t think there have been any other theories about climate change that have held up to scrutiny. Did you read the Guardian article I linked to? I think it was a good examination of why the cosmic rays hypothesis was wrong.

I don’t see any contradiction in what Attenborough said. He’s basically saying we can’t stop climate change happening now because it’s already been set in motion, but we can limit the amount and try to keep warming to as low a figure as we can.

The trouble is that because these changes happen over a period of time, some people find it hard to conceive there’s a problem. The future could be catastrophic - yet you see people on Twitter burbling away about not giving up their car/meat/flights as though the consequences of global warming are trivial. One question I saw specifically asked if people would not eat meat if that was what was necessary to stop this, and so many of the replies were utterly facile. Until people ‘get it’, we have little hope.

 

[Docb]

I will repeat my comment from above....

Let us not forget that both the earth's atmosphere and human reactions to it are complicated and chaotic systems and ascribing wholesale effects to single variables is fraught with difficulty. Both the amateurs and a lot of the professionals tend to forget this.

Note, I did not say all the professionals but I did imply all the amateurs. As far as I know there are no professional climate scientists contributing to this discussion.

Amateurs getting to the bottom of things just does not happen in real life and it certainly will not happen with climate science where the bottom is a very long way down and very, very murky. I am reminded of the quote attributed to Issac Newton (he really was a scientist):-

"If I can see further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants"

He did not rely on the Twitterati for inspiration.

 

[Docb]

And I would add, as the drop you know gets bigger, the ocean gets deeper.

Spent most of my life in the Nuclear Industry and so got used to everybody and their father shouting their opinions about the industry that I knew very well. Fundamentally, most of them had something useful to say but it always came from a narrow view point. Picking off arguments to support whatever narrow view they had. What characterised the vast majority was that they had never been into a nuclear plant, had no real idea of how they worked and knew little about the energy industry.

I see the same in most of the climate change experts, including to some extent I am afraid, national treasure, Sir David Attenborough. Only too happy to climb on an aeroplane to go somewhere nice to complain about people getting on aeroplanes to go somewhere nice.

 

[Inka]

@Benny G The rate of population growth is declining though. What you’ve linked to there (the response to Attenborough) is part of the general problem. Changing the way we live is something that many find hard to do because of social and/or cultural issues. Sorting out the vast problem of the use of Earth to make life less damaging to the planet and more equitable for everyone is a bigger problem than just climate change.

World hunger. the missing millions of women, unfair distribution of wealth and resources - all human issues that we’re nowhere near sorting. So the idea that people might go without things for the sake of the planet is hard to envisage on any large scale, and that’s what’s depressing about it. It wouldn’t matter if we knew everything, made a great plan, saw a better future, if few people went along with it.

 

[Amity Island]

A good example of how those in charge of health and climate, which effects us all, know so little.