How correlated are the climate views of the parent and child correlated in the West? (I’m also sceptical the real reason isn’t economic insecurity.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1
Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls.
Note how dishonest the scientists are. Their abstract starts by saying "Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations" before getting to the part just quoted where they admit their data says the islands are getting bigger.
This kind of brazen dishonesty is pervasive throughout modern academic science. It's not just the "lab leaks are impossible" crowd, you see it in many fields. Data tables don't match summaries which don't match abstracts which don't match IPCC reports which don't press releases which don't match TV news. Here, climatologists used picturesque Pacific islands to motivate major social changes without even bothering to measure whether their claims were true or not up until very recently. And when they did, and discovered the claims were not true, this fact was promptly buried and given no coverage. The misinformation gets repeated - which isn't your fault. After all, how were you to know?
The climate is clearly changing and it is really causing massive disruptions and costing trillions of dollars. The evidence is overwhelming and it is impossible to ignore at this point. This little gotcha doesn't change that or matter at all.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/....
We didn't overbuild in the florida keys because that isn't even possible. But the government is buying out people because it isn't viable anymore.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-c...
Solar output has been decreasing as global temperatures increase.
Over 20 years ago scientists weren't just predicting temperature increase, but also making a wild prediction that global temperatures would not revert back to the mean and would increase well beyond our temperatures. That has happened.
You can't be sure at all that global warming is false based on the available information. If you are wrong and we do nothing humanity will cook.
I don't personally want a leopard to eat my face. I don't spend my whole life doing climate research. The people who do say this is happening, and they were right 20 years ago predicting the global temps would increase over our previous max.
The people saying global warming wasn't going to happen were wrong. They are heavily funded by the people releasing all the greenhouse gasses. They lack credibility and they have a worse track record.
"The climate is clearly changing and it is really causing massive disruptions and costing trillions of dollars"
...to which coastlines? Los Angeles? Hawaii? Miami? Thailand? Barcelona? Marseille? Which?
https://www.elr.info/sites/default/files/article/2020/06/50....
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/08/us/pacific-islands-climate-ch...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.0028...
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/three-islands-disappear...
https://spccfpstore1.blob.core.windows.net/digitallibrary-do...
Although there is erosion near Tebunginako village centre, there is an accreting area north of the village centre where trees are systematically being planted to reclaim the accreted area. This situation implies the natural northward migration of a sand bulge along the beach
The article presents this as a narrative about climate change because that creates clicks, but it's misinformation. The fact that most of the Tuvalu islands have grown over the past 40 years shows that climate change is not sinking the Pacific Islands, even if some very small ones do disappear or move due to natural forces.
From a quick look, your other links aren't more reliable unfortunately. These sorts of islands are prone to erosion and movement of the coastline, which would occur regardless of whether humanity was here or not.
Also, even if that were to be true which I doubt, so what? They were supposed to sink beneath the waters as they rapidly rise due to melting polar ice. That was the doom scenario that was used to motivate people, but it hasn't happened. In a rational world that should cause us to toss out the other predictions made by such "experts", not try to retcon what was said to fit whatever actually happens. Especially because a change like "maybe a beach migrates northward a bit in some islands, others grow a bit, others shrink a bit" is nowhere near important enough to make disruptive changes to the lives of everyone on the planet.
The falsification of these claims is therefore no mere "factoid" or "little gotcha". It means all the people and institutions who made these claims were wrong and wrong whilst asserting 100% confidence in what they were saying. It is not just a falsification of a scientific hypothesis but the falsification of their self-proclaimed expertise too.
Now think about how many other "gotchas" are lurking out there in the science. Because for sure this isn't the only one.
In reality there is no evidence for "massive disruptions costing trillions of dollars". None. Zero. It's a fiction that's been made up out of whole cloth and now way too many people just can't let it go.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/300596791/climate-crisis-v...
Hawaii and other tropical paradises do ship in a massive amount of products they consume, with most of their actual industry being tourism. There are problems with global warming but I wouldn’t rank this as #1
Is that all you think climate change does? Make the whole planet uniformly a degree or two warmer?
It changes climates in a variety of ways, commonly making wet areas dryer, dry areas wetter, and producing larger temperature variations.
Here in Florida, the last two years have been some of the worst due to frosts in the winter. These cold snaps are largely driven by the breakdown of the polar wind currents.
> underwater houses whilst you're at it.
Miami here in Florida recently had to dedicate billions of dollars to installing new water pumps because of the increase in flooding in the last decade. The problem is worsening every year for South Florida: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-c...
[0] https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/06/uah-global-temperature-...
[0]https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/polar-vortex-sudden-stratos...
https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/products-services/data/precipi...
https://climate.miami.edu/the-complex-climate/flooding-event...
https://psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/1858.png
Also, do you really find that study credible? "tide-induced events increased by more than 400%" in one single year? Sea level rise is a slow and steady process, but these guys are claiming it tripled in the span of a single year. That hasn't been reported anywhere else.
> Also, do you really find that study credible?
I just looked for a local study. In either case, South Florida just this year had "once in 100 year" floods. At this point I would need studies to prove climate change isn't a key driver.
In that particular city and beach, you can see that tides went down between 2000-2005, then remained more or less stable until 2015, then went up a bit and stabilized at a new level. CO2 levels meanwhile go up very steadily. This data clearly doesn't indicate something CO2 driven given the various trends including declines that have happened within the time since the gauge opened in 1995. These look like natural changes, which are expected because especially when zoomed into these tiny differences everything is always changing.
In either case, South Florida just this year had "once in 100 year" floods
If they happen every 100 years then why is human CO2 emissions to blame? Even climatologists don't claim there was much CO2 impact in 1920 or 1820.
Humanity has to cope with these little things called ethics, morality, and empathy. While it may be the definition of evolutionary "unfitness" in the scientific sense, the ability to exercise foresight, to predict the suffering coming from one's behavior, being averse to bringing a life into the world without having a reasonable answer to the issues you can reasonably forsee, and having the will to act on said understanding are all socially desirable traits that also fly in the face of natural selection.
In a conflict over livability and finite resources unrestrained growth is a losing game for everyone, guaranteed. The only variable is when.
[0] Perception is everything: It's very very easy to ignore the uncomfortable bits of history, no matter how important the lesson
- empowerment requires not having a family!
- climate needs you not to have children!
- anti-bigotry means supporting bigotry against your own kids!
Incredibly destructive to society… and why our demographics are collapsing. The mechanism in which their ideals are twisted into harming themselves (or their families) speaks to the modern incarnation of evil.
There are many pathologies that pose as “doing good things” — and I think it’s interesting that you didn’t respond to my particular examples, but a strawman.
They aren't.
Source?
It seems to me that kids tend to rebel against their parents beliefs whatever they are. Conservative parents end up with liberal kids and vice versa.
That's just how kids are. How many teenagers do you know who say "Yeah, my parents are right about almost everything!"
Me, I like to think that obsessive natalism will result in the Moties from "The Mote in God's Eye."
I'm less worried about that, because I grew up in that subculture - my parents were early adopters, before the label had been coined - and the extreme religious belief doesn't really stick. So far as I am aware, none of the kids in my cohort have followed in our parents' footsteps. Many of us abandoned religion entirely, and those who kept with it have found more conventional expressions; none of us have gone on to raise enormous families of our own.
It makes sense, when you consider why people are drawn to join extreme religious movements in the first place; of course the kids they raise are going to have a very different experience and perspective on life, and will go looking for what they need in a different direction.
That's not at all obvious. Children are expensive to have and raise, both in money and time. That gives those without children an advantage when it comes to accumulating power and wealth and influence. That might be enough to counter the influence of the parents, especially if kids continue to be heavily influenced by social media.
Kurzgesagt has a great video that touches on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw