Isn't it weird how justified people who are sure they are right right feel to label almost anyone else as idiots?
Read me out here and get some good ideas for a campaign: There are literally 1000s of good reasons for people who aren't scientists to be sceptical, feel free to start with the 1400 or 1600 private jets that landed in Davos to discuss CO2 and AGW.
If someone is serious about this that would be a mighty good place to start, not because the emissions from 1500 planes matter but because they show, loud and clear, that those who claim to care really doesn't care at all
> feel free to start with the 1400 or 1600 private jets that landed in Davos to discuss CO2 and AGW
That's a really stupid reason why be skeptical. First of all, these people are mostly the governing elites, not scientists (actually all of them, I don't think there is a climate scientist with a private jet). If anything, the fact they are discussing it means it exists!
But OK, maybe you believe there is a conspiracy of those 1000 private planes owners going on, whatever that is. This is still not a reason to distrust scientists, just like existence of huge profits of pharmaceutical companies is not a reason to a priori distrust modern medicine. In fact, it may as well be a symptom of the thing being true.
First of all, these people
are mostly the governing
elites, not scientists...
It's still evidence of massive hypocrisy by many of those who claim to care very much.
Note: not blaming the scientists here, just saying that if someone wants to help people believe then they should probably start here by education the politicians about hypocrisy and the importance of being a good example.
But OK, maybe you believe
there is a conspiracy of
those 1000 private planes
owners going on, whatever
that is.
I don't claim there is a conspiracy, I show evidence that a lot of people who claim to care in practice do not.
Another "reality check": how many of these rich warming enthusiasts are buying property in Canada, or 6m (or whatever implausible sea level rise they claim to expect) above current ports? How many are selling their nice beach houses?
> Why you make your argument not taking into account the actual science?
Why make this about me?
Personally I really don't get AGW but I very much want to reduce oil consumption which I feel we should anyway, I reuse and recycle quite a bit etc.
> Why I have to listen to some "wealthy warmings" and not real scientists?
Still there is a massive problem where anyone who cares enough to read the news but doesn't have time or possibility to read the reports will see massive support from celebrities who then go on to travel by private jet to climate conferences. This does something to people.
Why is it that everyone feel they are doing the environment a service by downvoting and patronizing everyone that asks, telling that we are all either stupid or shills.
Trying to help you guys with a massive perception problem here and this is what I get back.
I'm not anti AGW. I cannot say I am convinced myself although I work in renewables(need to find and sit down with the numbers some day I fear, none of the AGW proponents seem to care about sharing those though although many care to rubber stamp and label.) But just because I am not convinced myself I hope that doesn't prevent me from pointing out obvious problems that is seen by anyone but that nobody in the party seems to care about?
Of course, when these "rich warming enthusiasts" do that, they will be blamed for supporting the cause so that their properties in Canada can have higher value.
Is that guy a wealthy warming enthusiast? Has he sold his beach properties? The tweet seems to be about something else.
EDIT: are you a GWB apologist? It's difficult to believe that Daesh would have arisen without the Lesser Bush's misadventures in Iraq. In fact, if there had been two degrees cooling since 2003 and everything else had gone the same, it seems a pretty good bet that Daesh would still be with us.
No, the point was, when the s* (like drought) hits the fan, the refugees will be the ones trying to get properties in Canada. Rich people with money savings can do that anytime; they're no better than other humans, also discount the future pretty aggressively.
Discounting is rational behavior. No one lives forever. However, the predictions we hear seem pretty certain about events of the next few decades. Plenty of people will live that long. If they're certain, why don't they act like it?
How is attributing any particular human calamity to the climate different than attributing any particular storm to the climate? Pinker has argued persuasively that war and similar disasters have decreased significantly over recent periods. In that context one might think that the fortunes of Syrian refugees have more to do with politics and the media than with the climate. After all there were millions of refugees from violence within Africa during any decade of the twentieth century. They just weren't wealthy enough to make it to Europe. And in relative terms they were still fewer than refugees in earlier times, say 250 or 1000 years ago. How many fewer refugees would there have to be, for the changing climate to be credited for the decrease, rather than blamed for journalists' coverage of refugees?
First of all, wealthy people typically have multiple properties, in different places. So it's not like they are going to be homeless if they lose their villa in Florida. Second, they probably already risk hurricanes and tsunamis. Third, the predicted sea level rise is about 1 meter (if we don't count the land ice, which is unpredictable), so you can probably deal with that on one house (but much harder on city or nation scale). In short - if you're rich, you're still better off than others in case of global catastrophe, so there is little you can make in preparations. But I am an expert in habits of wealthy people, this is just a guess.
I agree with Steve Pinker, but if you actually read the book, it's not without caveats. Regarding attribution, we can somewhat attribute the drought to climate change (because we know from models that there is expected to be more of it) and so the conflict; it's not the sole cause, but it's a factor. I have no doubts there are going to be more mass migrations due to climate change.
Read me out here and get some good ideas for a campaign: There are literally 1000s of good reasons for people who aren't scientists to be sceptical, feel free to start with the 1400 or 1600 private jets that landed in Davos to discuss CO2 and AGW.
If someone is serious about this that would be a mighty good place to start, not because the emissions from 1500 planes matter but because they show, loud and clear, that those who claim to care really doesn't care at all