By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse” of civilisation

EnricoPallazzo said:
GoOnKid said:

Based on the replies you and others give in this thread I want to make a quick summary of your thoughts (I don't want to single you out on this entirely but your post is just a great hook, please don't be mad at me).

How it really is:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) Governments declare rules and regulations to help face the dangers
C) Industries adapt, new technologies arise, efficiency is increased, less resources are used
D) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

How it appears to you:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

You may not always see the consequences but technology is always on the verge of becoming more efficient and less resource consuming, and this process is propelled by the science behind it. Nowadays researchers try to push biodegradable packaging solutions for example to stop wasting our oceans. Power generation from fossil fuels become exchanged against natural resources like wind, water and the sun. Car manufactores work on car engines with electrical or hydrogen cells to stop polluting the air. The change is happening, my friend. We still have a long road ahead of us, however, and the more people are behin this change, the easier it will be for everyone.

Once humanity has solved the climate problem, there will always be people who close their eyes and ears about all the small changes and milestones that were reached on the journey. Those people will still say that scientiests were always wrong. But that is simply because humanity listens to them.

EDIT: Also, science evolves over time. It may appear like scientists contradict each other and change their opinions every now and then but that is because the situations change all the time as well. Scientific researches are constantly challenged and debated against because that is how the process of science just works.

The approach of "scientists were wrong if we do as they say and the end doesnt come"is for really stupid people, which unfortunately there is a lot around.

As for myself, growing up in the 80's I remember all the problem with the ozone layer and all the efforts that were made to avoid using certain types of gases that we knew at that time were harmful and it seems to me today the layer is almost rebuilt. Although I never studied the subject to understand how much of those efforts were relevant for the layer to rebuilt itself, for me it's a clear sign the scientists were correct and we did right in follow their instructions.

But today, with social media and other stuff, and a MUCH MORE corrupt and one sided media, it's more difficult to make an assessment on climate change. Also stop using certain types of deodorants as much easier than in a few years cease to use fossil fuels completely as expert Greta wants.

In the end, I could maybe summarize like this:

If you want to make people change and accept your ideas, you need to understand that you need to keep clean, never lie, never hide data, learn how to rebuke their rebuttals, never nick pick. You need to keep the high ground all the time and never try to cause division, separating people into groups like "the deniers", and on top of that, make your cause a scientific cause and not an escuse to insert OTHER political objectives into the discussion.

Yes, the ozone layer is a very good ecample. We adapted and therefore allowed it to heal. This shows that we indeed can make a change if we want to.

I agree that social media is terrible and that so many bullshit is circling around it. It is very hard to tell apart what is genuine and what is malicious anymore. Also, as everyone can share an opinion, a lot of dumb and silly opinions are treated just equally like professional researches. I am not a fan of this progression, but then again we can't just cut it off since that would be considered as censoring and oppression. Tough topic.

Greta might also be a topic for another thread, I guess. Even if you may not like her and if her ideas are very drastic, I don't think she is lying, honestly. Let's just leave it at that, shall we.

That last paragraph implies that science lies to us. I can maybe see some few scientists who might have shady intentions, since there will always be bad eggs in every basket, but generally speaking science can only describe, not dictate. I think you're rather talking about politicians, right? Many politicians tend to only accept science if it backs their ideas. I hope that someday the general level of education rises high enough so that more people can see through such schemes. But who am I kidding, huh. That is even more unrealistc than coming unharmed out of this ecological crisis.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Around the Network

Just like with COVID-19, the general public seems to be unable to grasp the concept of exponential growth or/and positive feedback loop. And because they don't understand something, in their minds, it must be BS. I guess ignorance is bliss.



All I can tell you from the small part of the world where I move daily is that my deep well which is used for 25 years to water the garden doesn't have water in it for some weeks now. First time it ever happened. I can also tell you that many trees in the wood I'm often biking/walking have died the last two years because they don't like the climate.

Maybe there are people on this planet who really have 0 change around them but there are enough who have already and I don't expect this to get better the next 20 years just because "it's a hoax"



GoOnKid said:
VAMatt said:

I don't disagree with your underlying point.  Clearly, the earth can heal itself.   The impact that humans have on the long term health of the earth is less clear, but certainly it is something.  Those facts aren't at issue here.

The issue is that we have been told repeatedly that we'll be fucked by year X if Y doesn't happen.  Y never happens, and year X always comes and goes, and we're never fucked.  So, "climate scientists" (a commonly used term that we could spend a whole thread discussing) as a group lack credibility. 

They're wrong every time.  They cry wolf, but no wolves ever show up.  So, fewer and fewer people pay attention to each successive cry.  Frankly, to the extent that "climate science" is an important field (and I believe it is pretty important), they owe it to humanity to stop constantly making wildly inaccurate claims. Only then will we be able to actually hear them if there truly is something that needs prompt attention.

Based on the replies you and others give in this thread I want to make a quick summary of your thoughts (I don't want to single you out on this entirely but your post is just a great hook, please don't be mad at me).

How it really is:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) Governments declare rules and regulations to help face the dangers
C) Industries adapt, new technologies arise, efficiency is increased, less resources are used
D) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

How it appears to you:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

You may not always see the consequences but technology is always on the verge of becoming more efficient and less resource consuming, and this process is propelled by the science behind it. Nowadays researchers try to push biodegradable packaging solutions for example to stop wasting our oceans. Power generation from fossil fuels become exchanged against natural resources like wind, water and the sun. Car manufactores work on car engines with electrical or hydrogen cells to stop polluting the air. The change is happening, my friend. We still have a long road ahead of us, however, and the more people are behin this change, the easier it will be for everyone.

Once humanity has solved the climate problem, there will always be people who close their eyes and ears about all the small changes and milestones that were reached on the journey. Those people will still say that scientiests were always wrong. But that is simply because humanity listens to them.

EDIT: Also, science evolves over time. It may appear like scientists contradict each other and change their opinions every now and then but that is because the situations change all the time as well. Scientific researches are constantly challenged and debated against because that is how the process of science just works.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we never do nearly as much as the scientists claim we need to do.  Yet, the doom doesn't come.  That's the fundamental problem with this whole "climate emergency" stuff.  Scientists announce if we don't do X by year Y, we'll see problem Z.  Humans institute 1/4 of X by year Y+5, but problem Z never occurs.  It's classic alarmism, and it is directly harmful to the environment because it kills the credibility of science around the subject.  



VAMatt said:
GoOnKid said:

Based on the replies you and others give in this thread I want to make a quick summary of your thoughts (I don't want to single you out on this entirely but your post is just a great hook, please don't be mad at me).

How it really is:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) Governments declare rules and regulations to help face the dangers
C) Industries adapt, new technologies arise, efficiency is increased, less resources are used
D) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

How it appears to you:

A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong

You may not always see the consequences but technology is always on the verge of becoming more efficient and less resource consuming, and this process is propelled by the science behind it. Nowadays researchers try to push biodegradable packaging solutions for example to stop wasting our oceans. Power generation from fossil fuels become exchanged against natural resources like wind, water and the sun. Car manufactores work on car engines with electrical or hydrogen cells to stop polluting the air. The change is happening, my friend. We still have a long road ahead of us, however, and the more people are behin this change, the easier it will be for everyone.

Once humanity has solved the climate problem, there will always be people who close their eyes and ears about all the small changes and milestones that were reached on the journey. Those people will still say that scientiests were always wrong. But that is simply because humanity listens to them.

EDIT: Also, science evolves over time. It may appear like scientists contradict each other and change their opinions every now and then but that is because the situations change all the time as well. Scientific researches are constantly challenged and debated against because that is how the process of science just works.

The problem with this line of thinking is that we never do nearly as much as the scientists claim we need to do.  Yet, the doom doesn't come.  That's the fundamental problem with this whole "climate emergency" stuff.  Scientists announce if we don't do X by year Y, we'll see problem Z.  Humans institute 1/4 of X by year Y+5, but problem Z never occurs.  It's classic alarmism, and it is directly harmful to the environment because it kills the credibility of science around the subject.  

Scientists said that tides will rise, coasts will be flooded, islands will disappear, people will be forced to move if we don't change. There will be many more natural disasters like tornados and floods, former green places will be deserted and arid, millions of plants and animals will be extinct.These are the problems Z you mentioned.

We can already see all of these problems Z today. If we don't change, it will just get worse from this point on. This is what the OP is all about - the damage is already done. Now we look at how to keep the damage as low as possible.

However, we can't just turn everything upside down just with the snap of a finger, we need a lot of time to adapt to this change, therefore the European Union decided to reduce the CO2 exhaustion by 95% by the year 2050. Why so long? Because there are millions of jobs and lives attached to the current situation. Circumstances, infratsructures, industries and mentalities need time to change and the people must slowly learn to deal with these new situations. This just takes time.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Around the Network
GoOnKid said:
VAMatt said:

The problem with this line of thinking is that we never do nearly as much as the scientists claim we need to do.  Yet, the doom doesn't come.  That's the fundamental problem with this whole "climate emergency" stuff.  Scientists announce if we don't do X by year Y, we'll see problem Z.  Humans institute 1/4 of X by year Y+5, but problem Z never occurs.  It's classic alarmism, and it is directly harmful to the environment because it kills the credibility of science around the subject.  

Scientists said that tides will rise, coasts will be flooded, islands will disappear, people will be forced to move if we don't change. There will be many more natural disasters like tornados and floods, former green places will be deserted and arid, millions of plants and animals will be extinct.These are the problems Z you mentioned.

We can already see all of these problems Z today. If we don't change, it will just get worse from this point on. This is what the OP is all about - the damage is already done. Now we look at how to keep the damage as low as possible.

However, we can't just turn everything upside down just with the snap of a finger, we need a lot of time to adapt to this change, therefore the European Union decided to reduce the CO2 exhaustion by 95% by the year 2050. Why so long? Because there are millions of jobs and lives attached to the current situation. Circumstances, infratsructures, industries and mentalities need time to change and the people must slowly learn to deal with these new situations. This just takes time.

Do you honestly believe that scientists, in the long term, have been reasonably accurate in their predictions of what would happen with respect to the environment?  If so, you need to take a step back and look with a critical eye at the last couple decades of this stuff.  There's not really anything to debate here.  The facts show that most of the public proclamations made by scientists in this area have been incorrect.  That's just the way it is.  

It does seem that there is important environmental work to be done, and there probably are real possible problems.  But, scientists constantly running to the nearest microphone and telling everyone how bad it will be end up making the problems worse because people stop listening to the scientists.  Like experts in every field, they have an obligation to humanity to present accurate information.  As it stands now, they seem to be working against the environment, albeit indirectly.



Bonzinga said:
Sounds like a good video game..

https://store.steampowered.com/app/80200/Fate_of_the_World/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_World

And just to tell you, the game is hard af. The first scenario is easy enough (developing Africa), but the following ones will make you reload more often than in a Souls game. Really shows you how hard the struggle is to keep climate change within acceptable margins.

For a lighter and easier version (but with more micromanaging): http://virtual-playground.co.uk/products/eco/eco.htm



VAMatt said:
GoOnKid said:

Scientists said that tides will rise, coasts will be flooded, islands will disappear, people will be forced to move if we don't change. There will be many more natural disasters like tornados and floods, former green places will be deserted and arid, millions of plants and animals will be extinct.These are the problems Z you mentioned.

We can already see all of these problems Z today. If we don't change, it will just get worse from this point on. This is what the OP is all about - the damage is already done. Now we look at how to keep the damage as low as possible.

However, we can't just turn everything upside down just with the snap of a finger, we need a lot of time to adapt to this change, therefore the European Union decided to reduce the CO2 exhaustion by 95% by the year 2050. Why so long? Because there are millions of jobs and lives attached to the current situation. Circumstances, infratsructures, industries and mentalities need time to change and the people must slowly learn to deal with these new situations. This just takes time.

Do you honestly believe that scientists, in the long term, have been reasonably accurate in their predictions of what would happen with respect to the environment?  If so, you need to take a step back and look with a critical eye at the last couple decades of this stuff.  There's not really anything to debate here.  The facts show that most of the public proclamations made by scientists in this area have been incorrect.  That's just the way it is.  

It does seem that there is important environmental work to be done, and there probably are real possible problems.  But, scientists constantly running to the nearest microphone and telling everyone how bad it will be end up making the problems worse because people stop listening to the scientists.  Like experts in every field, they have an obligation to humanity to present accurate information.  As it stands now, they seem to be working against the environment, albeit indirectly.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

There you are wrong, it doesn't take long to search it up, instead you made claims without backing it up (and still called it a fact :/), that misinformation hurts the environment and our chances to survive not the science, get real please 



VAMatt said:
GoOnKid said:

Scientists said that tides will rise, coasts will be flooded, islands will disappear, people will be forced to move if we don't change. There will be many more natural disasters like tornados and floods, former green places will be deserted and arid, millions of plants and animals will be extinct.These are the problems Z you mentioned.

We can already see all of these problems Z today. If we don't change, it will just get worse from this point on. This is what the OP is all about - the damage is already done. Now we look at how to keep the damage as low as possible.

However, we can't just turn everything upside down just with the snap of a finger, we need a lot of time to adapt to this change, therefore the European Union decided to reduce the CO2 exhaustion by 95% by the year 2050. Why so long? Because there are millions of jobs and lives attached to the current situation. Circumstances, infratsructures, industries and mentalities need time to change and the people must slowly learn to deal with these new situations. This just takes time.

Do you honestly believe that scientists, in the long term, have been reasonably accurate in their predictions of what would happen with respect to the environment?  If so, you need to take a step back and look with a critical eye at the last couple decades of this stuff.  There's not really anything to debate here.  The facts show that most of the public proclamations made by scientists in this area have been incorrect.  That's just the way it is.  

It does seem that there is important environmental work to be done, and there probably are real possible problems.  But, scientists constantly running to the nearest microphone and telling everyone how bad it will be end up making the problems worse because people stop listening to the scientists.  Like experts in every field, they have an obligation to humanity to present accurate information.  As it stands now, they seem to be working against the environment, albeit indirectly.

I already told you how science works in my first reply. At this point we're only going to repeat ourselves.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

EnricoPallazzo said:
Marth said:

The sun is currently very generous to us but it doesen't matter. We caused this shitshow ourselves.

Why was it stable from 1940 to 1980?

That was due to our energy production at the time. The sun did only effect this by about 0.01%

At the time (until the 1970's), most of the electric energy production was made rather inefficiently from very dirty coal. As a result they spewed tons of aerosols into the skies every year, especially sulfur. At the ground, these can affect our lungs and make serious diseases and cause cancer and was a major source of acidic rain and the yellowish, hard to breathe smog around cities with them, but high up in the air, they can reflect sunlight before it gets to heat up the atmosphere.

Once these got slowly phased out for other power plants (cleaner coal, petrol, natural gas and nuclear) during the 50's through 70's, the amount of aerosols in the higher atmosphere dropped down and with them their reflective power.

This is the reason why geoengineering is a thing btw, trying to replicate the effect by shooting aerosols high up above our weather systems exactly for this reflective effect. Volcanoes do it by themselves if they are strong enough, but that's too rare an occasion (last big one with a VEI of 6 or more was the Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991) to bank upon that.

It has a drawback, too. At the time, there were very few measuring stations in third world countries. But in those, the heating were mostly not interrupted since unlike with volcanoes who throw the aerosols very high and many more of them, the effect from coal power plants and other particle producing processes is mostly local or regional, not global. As a result any solar radiation management would need to be a concerted global effort to really work as intended.