it's hard to imagine we're being "saved" when a mass extinction event is underway, severe climate is wrecking cities and agriculture, and it only keeps getting worse.
Possible. But Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif., said the same thing. Probably a talking point. Yep, same here as far as charging whatever they can except we don't have any maximum price that I know of. As I said the debate was never about any credible scientists arguing over whether the human race can survive the climate changes. In the U.S. the cost varies by state. Average is about 16.07¢ per kWh, North Dakota is the lowest rate at 11.69¢ per kWh, Hawaii is 42.27¢ per kWh as of last March. Yours seems to be around 33 U.S. cents. In my state typical cost is 10.11 to 22.62 cents per kWh. Notice that the highest cost in the U.S. is for Hawaii, which is an island like the U.K. with little natural resources, it has to import them. Hawaii generates power with oil and coal which it has to buy. My monthly energy costs don't matter as my house, etc. may vary from yours. Yes humans are adaptable and will survive as a species, the problem is that many individuals will not.
What's that old expression the pioneers used to say? Never say Never!. The world will always be here, or at least until the Sun goes nova. People will adapt to change as they always have up till now. If we don't then we deserve to die out, but I don't think that will happen, even if the world gets more than 5 degrees hotter than it is now. 1000 years ago Greenland got its name because the Southern half of it had no ice and was farmable, and many Danes moved from Denmark (which owns it) to the new land and successfully farmed the land for several hundred years. However, by the year 1200 the climate was cooling down, and Greenland began to become less and less hospitable. I think the last of the Greenland farmers left before the year 1300 or thereabouts. Since then Greenland has slowly been buried under a lot of ice, but now it's beginning to thaw slightly and over the next hundred years or so it may reach the kind of temperatures it enjoyed back at the turn of the first millenium. So I don't think we have to worry too much about climate change. The Romans and ancient Greeks lived in a far hotter climate than anyone alive has ever encountered, yet those civilisations flourished, and there was no shortage of food either, because when the temperature heats up due to CO2, there is more plant growth, and it grows much more quickly. So harvests increase and people don't go hungry. That's my understanding of the world anyway, and I won't be here in 100 years so for me it won't matter at all. As for my children, I don't think any of them will suffer from chronic heatstroke either, despite living in Southern England. If it gets hotter they can always move further North, but I doubt that will happen. Call me an optimist if you like but that's my opinion and it won't change.
True, but misleading. The Roman Climatic Optimum (250 BCE-40 C.E.). The warming during this period was not primarily a result in increased atmospheric CO2, but more likely the result of solar activity. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that time were actually much lower than they are today. But our present warming trends are "unequivocally driven by human influence and is occurring on a much faster timescale than many past natural climate shifts..."Fact Check: although it is warming, was the not periods in earths ... https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf; Not necessarily. Don't plants do better in environments with very high CO2? And the downsides is "warmer global temperatures, resulting in more extreme weather events, with negative consequences for crop production.Crops and rising atmospheric CO2: friends or foes? - PMC Today’s rising sea levels are primarily driven by melting ice caps and thermal expansion due to global warming, which are occurring at unprecedented rates. I suspect the same about the propaganda put out by the fossil fuel industry. So you think the great majority of climate change scientists who warn us against climate change have been bought off, or have stock in wind and solar. Oh,oh. There goes science! The human race survived after the plagues and famines that followed the halcyon Roman Warm era you told us about. The climate changed and so did society: plagues, famines, barbarian invasions, the Dark Ages, etc. How Climate Change and Plague Helped Bring Down the Roman Empire How climate change and disease helped the fall of Rome | Aeon Ideas The Roman Empire's Worst Plagues Were Linked to Climate Change I doubt that any criticism of China would make it onto "the Chinese internet". I've been to China and could hardly breathe. Progress!
As previously noted, more CO2 isn't necessarily a good thing for plants. Don't plants do better in environments with very high CO2? And the downsides is "warmer global temperatures, resulting in more extreme weather events, with negative consequences for crop production.Crops and rising atmospheric CO2: friends or foes? - PMC I think the politicians are likely to do us in first--at least those of us who live in the USA!
One. For more nuanced views, see: Will climate change drive humans extinct or destroy civilization? https://climatecontroljournal.com/would-global-warming-lead-to-the-extinction-of.html Could climate change make humans go extinct? Will climate change cause humans to go extinct? Navigating the Climate Crisis: Will Humanity Go Extinct? Navigating the Climate Crisis: Will Humanity Go Extinct? https://climatecontroljournal.com/would-climate-change-cause-humanity-to-go-extinct.html Climate Change Extinction Risk - UConn Today https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp4461 Extinction of the human species: What could cause it and how likely is it to occur? Will humans go extinct within 100 years?
Keep in mind, he was 95 years old, so was entitled to some pessimism. (He's since become extinct himself).
So it seems we may have arrived at a point where no one denies that the climate is getting hotter, correct me if I'm wrong; but some of us don't care as they will not be much affected and anyone who has to endure starvation, flooding, violent storms, forced migrations, heat related disease, etc....don't matter. Am I wrong?
Well we’re going to have an Ice Age 50,000 - 100,000 years from now. All of the Earth’s species will suffer. And you don’t even care.
Furthermore, since you have firmly established that we are NOT going to go extinct from the current “climate crisis”, we should start preparing now for the next Ice Age, which we are overdue for, and which COULD make us go extinct. Therefore, we should continue our use of Fossil Fuels in the present in order to keep the planet warm and gain an edge on the coming Ice Age. Checkmate.
You're sure of that, are you? It's a pretty safe prediction, since none of us nor our great, great, great, great grandchildren will be around to see it! Will it be caused by human activity? (Answer: probably not.) What, if anything , can we do about it? And here's the catch:"However, human activities — especially greenhouse gas emissions — have disrupted this cycle, making it unlikely that we’ll see another glaciation anytime soon." The Next Ice Age Is 10,000 Years Away, Or Is It? Next ice age would hit Earth in 11,000 years if it weren't for climate change, scientists say The next ice age is coming in 10,000 years — unless climate change prevents it Another ice age looms, but climate change creates chaos, analysis says Wait for it: "Global warming is just great, cuz it's saving us from another ice age in 10,000 to 100,000 years, maybe!" CCSr002
It’s pretty selfish to not think of future generations and our species’ survival. All you seem to care about is your own immediate gratification and not the long term trajectory. We’ve established that Global Warming won’t cause our extinction and so it’s best to start preparing now for the Ice Age.
Sure, go for it. I guess you caught me on semantics. Never say never. I'm sure you can find those with a science degree who question almost any accepted scientific consensus. Otherwise we wouldn't need a consensus. I should have said that there is no consensus among credible climatologists, or those who study climate dynamics, paleoclimatology, climate modeling, etc. I wasn't thinking of virology. By saying, "NO credible scientist has ever said that global warming will lead to human extinction." I left myself open to any type of scientist saying that global warming will lead to human extinction. Could be a pharmacologist, physicist, astronomer, ornithologist, entomologist, computational scientist, etc. all credible in their own fields. Thank you for pointing out my error, I'll try to be more precise in the future.
Who said I don't care and what does that have to do with my observation? Do you care about those who may have to endure starvation, flooding, violent storms, forced migrations, heat related disease, etc. related to global warming?