I agree. I just wish I could be around 50M years from now when the cockroach-descendent paleontologists marvel at the weird biped fossils and wonder if they could ever have been sophisticated enough to have had a civilisation.
We are not ruining the earth in any way. We are merely making it inhospitable to vertebrates and some other life forms.
Honestly I can't see how it will be. I think we will get incredible technologies that cut resource usage. But we have already done this several times now and every time we make something more efficient we just consume more. We have made car engines massively more efficient but the gains were entirely lost to bigger cars and driving longer distances.
There are billions of people living almost primitive lives just waiting to consume as much as we do driving everywhere and buying new iphones every year. We are about to make things cheaper and more efficient and give them access to this consumption.
Despite all of this advancement, resource usage and emissions has never once gone backwards or even slowed down its increase.
That will I think have some impact. But I feel like even the current population can not be sustained. Let alone when undeveloped countries become developed and start consuming more.
There is a bigger problem. Those who scrutinize climate change are punished by the society even though we need legit scientists and people that debunk overarching claims. You could accept CC arguments but still be a critic of some of the insane claims going on today.
It's like the early COVID days. Can't criticize. Can't speak against the mob. Can't do science without scrutiny.
> Climate catastrophy arguments needs more scrutiny.
Right, so your sources for this is a few Twitter posts. Let's take a look.
The first one is a supposed quote from Al Gore, but he never said that. Even if he did, Al Gore getting something wrong would hardly disprove anything about climate science.
> Those who scrutinize climate change are punished by the society
You're parroting untrue claims. How about some self-awareness?
I didn’t spend more time looking for more and I’m not interested in defending myself.
The main general point still stands. All I’m asking for is some scrutiny. By the time information reaches from scientists to reporters and policy makers, there is a lot of malaise and omission of inconvenient truths.
We need more checks and balances. Climate alarmicism is getting out of control. It's become a religion. Scientists that want to report inconvenient results are terrified.
> I didn’t spend more time looking for more and I’m not interested in defending myself.
You just want to throw out accusations without evidence and you're complaining about "climate alarmicism" not getting enough scrutiny?
> Scientists that want to report inconvenient results are terrified.
This is an oft-repeated claim by people engaged in climate denialism, but it's a lie. A conspiracy theory without evidence. Where are all these terrified scientists? Who has been sanctioned for presenting contrary views?
A friend of mine was a climate sceptic. He started a PhD looking at glaciers and ice cores. He was expecting to experience some friction pushing back against the climate orthodoxy, but after looking through the data he changed his mind. He realised our models of the climate were consistent with the evidence.
Consider: if your "terrified scientists" theory was incorrect, and actually scientists did believe that the standard models are correct, wouldn't that state of affairs look identical to what is actually occurring today?
I think CC movement is 70% legit and 30% bullshit. The public is mostly deluded on either side, those that support it and those who oppose it.
I am also not a climate skeptic. I just think that we need more scrutiny. The push back I get from people is insane like the strawman you've conjured up.
No, climate alarmism is not out of control. It is barely loud enough to hear. Did it even get mentioned at G7?
The inconvenient truth is that far too little is happening, and doing enough would be overwhelmingly cheaper. Quibbling has outsize impact interfering with action.
The big issue is that counter arguments to climate change typically tend to be used as a justification for inaction, as flawed as that reasoning is. We're already at well over three decades of climate inaction.
How do you innovate out of basic thermodynamics? We could stop emitting every single atom of CO2 right now and still suffer from some significant consequences. There is no solution that doesn't involve "wasting" energy (and since we live in a capitalist world, money) on capturing CO2
Bill Gates's books has a great account of what it will take to get us out of this mess - and I agree, it is a huge mess - and Carbon capture is likely to be a small part of the solution.
