It's hardly surprising, when many activists now are actually "activismists". What does that mean? Have a look at this article out in The TransAtlantic…
While I appreciate your well intentioned efforts at clarifying what the science says about many of the assertions that Roger and others have made I believe that you are too trusting of mainstream climate science and its spectacular failures in understanding and assessing the impacts of temperature increases.
This peer reviewed paper - see below - by eminent climate scientists concludes that the loss of summer sea ice will increase radiative forcing equivalent to several decades of emissions. Clearly, that is an existential calamity that must be avoided, but can only be avoided if climate action in the form of drastic emission reductions, large scale CDR, and direct albedo enhancement occur on an emergency basis.
You were also critical of the 3 to 4 year trope but you do not say that this formulation has been articulated on numerous occasions by none other than Sir David King, the head of the Cambridge center for Climate repair. I often quote him indicating that what we do in the next three or four years will determine the future of the planet and humanity for the next 10,000 years. Therefore, I don’t think it’s at all an exaggeration to focus on the need for revolutionary action in the coming handful of years.
Finally, I draw your attention to a really remarkable and I think largely accurate article that describes the psychological and other origins of the scientific community’s unwillingness or inability to be truthful. See the bottom link.
Hi, thanks for the article! Totally agree that we do not need to make it look worse than it is, and that the climate movement should do its best to accurately communicate what scientists say, but I also disagree with your view that 3°C would be more likely than e.g. 4°C. As far as I know, most countries are either not reaching their emission reduction targets or worse: not even reducing emissions yet. So I see little chances to stay below 3°C (not even talking about 2°C or 1.5°C) unless civil society increases pressure on governments.
A more scientific source: I guess you will not find anything inaccurate in what Scientist Rebellion scientists say, and they rather talk about 4°C? https://scientistrebellion.com/science/
Small extract from their webpage:
"We are on course for 4°C of heating. “A 4°C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to go beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems and has a high probability of not being stable” – Prof Kevin Anderson; “[at 4°C] it’s difficult to see how we could accommodate eight billion people or maybe even half of that" -
It's hardly surprising, when many activists now are actually "activismists". What does that mean? Have a look at this article out in The TransAtlantic…
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/activistism
While I appreciate your well intentioned efforts at clarifying what the science says about many of the assertions that Roger and others have made I believe that you are too trusting of mainstream climate science and its spectacular failures in understanding and assessing the impacts of temperature increases.
This peer reviewed paper - see below - by eminent climate scientists concludes that the loss of summer sea ice will increase radiative forcing equivalent to several decades of emissions. Clearly, that is an existential calamity that must be avoided, but can only be avoided if climate action in the form of drastic emission reductions, large scale CDR, and direct albedo enhancement occur on an emergency basis.
You were also critical of the 3 to 4 year trope but you do not say that this formulation has been articulated on numerous occasions by none other than Sir David King, the head of the Cambridge center for Climate repair. I often quote him indicating that what we do in the next three or four years will determine the future of the planet and humanity for the next 10,000 years. Therefore, I don’t think it’s at all an exaggeration to focus on the need for revolutionary action in the coming handful of years.
Finally, I draw your attention to a really remarkable and I think largely accurate article that describes the psychological and other origins of the scientific community’s unwillingness or inability to be truthful. See the bottom link.
http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2019.pdf
https://medium.com/@JacksonDamian/faster-than-expected-9675203cf8ac
Hi, thanks for the article! Totally agree that we do not need to make it look worse than it is, and that the climate movement should do its best to accurately communicate what scientists say, but I also disagree with your view that 3°C would be more likely than e.g. 4°C. As far as I know, most countries are either not reaching their emission reduction targets or worse: not even reducing emissions yet. So I see little chances to stay below 3°C (not even talking about 2°C or 1.5°C) unless civil society increases pressure on governments.
A more scientific source: I guess you will not find anything inaccurate in what Scientist Rebellion scientists say, and they rather talk about 4°C? https://scientistrebellion.com/science/
Small extract from their webpage:
"We are on course for 4°C of heating. “A 4°C future is incompatible with an organised global community, is likely to go beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems and has a high probability of not being stable” – Prof Kevin Anderson; “[at 4°C] it’s difficult to see how we could accommodate eight billion people or maybe even half of that" -
Prof. Johan Rockstrom.