2479411230

> that an earthquake would happen in 25 years and 50 years later not so much as the tiniest tremor ever occurring.

First, we are already seeing early effects of climate change https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135852

Second, is your argument that "if climate change was going to be very bad, it would've happened by now?" I'm not aware (tho please correct me if I'm wrong!) of analyses saying that sea levels should have significantly risen by 2023, or the more catastrophic effects that models are currently showing.

> There is no scientific “consensus” that there is a climate “crisis”. Just a small minority of loud fear mongers with political motivation.

The data doesn't support that it's a minority of scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climat... dives into the data, but surveys of scientists (who have published in peer-reviewed journals) consistently show that over 97% of scientists believe in human-caused global warming (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views...).

I also want to push back on the "political motivation" portion. As the OP notes, scientists have been warning about climate change for decades. Carl Sagan testified before congress about it in 1985. This is older than the current left-right political divide in America. George Bush gave a speech in 2001 in which he says that we need to stop emitting greenhouse gases to stop climate change https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/20...

> There are literally hundreds of other pressing issues that are real crises that deserve attention way before climate.

I agree that we should be combating other issues, too!

> but study after study comes out showing they don’t stop spread

I'm curious to hear what studies you were thinking of. FWIW, N95 filter material has been repeatedly seen to block viral particles.

In the Cochrane review [1] they found

> relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusion

That is, studies which took a random group of people and said "please wear a mask, so we can see if you catch less $DISEASE," weren't effective...because people wouldn't wear the mask. This is, I think, a useful result--but it doesn't mean that wearing a mask doesn't stop disease from spreading; it means that telling people to wear a mask doesn't work so well.

[1]: https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-s...

edit:

> it was dubious as hell when they first pushed it

But why? Why was it dubious that respiratory protection would be effective against a respiratory virus?

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I guess I phrased my question poorly.

> there were SOME scientists concerned about global cooling in the 1960's and 1970's

I get that the existence of the letter implies that people were thinking that way. My question was more, what do you see as the implication of the fact that some people were thinking this way. That is, how does this play into the discussion of the article.

I don't think this is accurate. Increased CO2 can lead to increased flora--though not enough to offset the negative effects of additional CO2 in the first place.

Yes, it will lead to increased flora.

> Increased temperatures can lengthen growing seasons, higher carbon dioxide concentrations can enhance plant growth, and in some areas rainfall and the availability of water resources can increase as a result of climate change.

See https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/6766014682496426...

However, as that document goes into, the benefit from the extra flora won't be enough to offset the negative impacts of increased CO2.

> predicted we’d all be dead by now

I don't think that's what people were predicting.

If I'm understanding your argument correctly, it's that people have been worrying/predicting issues with the climate for a while, but everything is currently fine?

If that's a correct understanding (and apologies if it's not), then here's my argument:

If someone told you that "50 years from now, there's going to be an earthquake in this exact spot; here's the data to back me up," it'd be kind of silly to say 25 years later "there's no earthquake. I don't see what all the fuss was about."

I'm a bit confused. What's the implication of this?

> People assume you're stupid if ask questions like this, and you get the equivalent of someone speaking louder and slower when they realize someone doesn't speak english.

I'd genuinely tried to answer the question. If this came across this way, I'd love some feedback so I can not come across this way in the future.

> Can we explore this issue from a not-panicked perspective?

I think we tried doing that. See, for example, Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 [1].

I _wish_ that fossil fuels could be on your list. I think a main reason why nothing is being done is that oil is big business! Oil companies have toppled a democratically elected government because that government was cutting into their oil profits [2]. Moving away from fossil fuels would cut into oil's bottom line, so they paid lots of money to discredit and oppose climate change research for decades [3].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp-WiNXH6hI [2]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bp-and-iran-the-forgotten-histo... [3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382

I think this is a very good question! IIRC when the effects of greenhouse gasses were discussed in the late 1800s, some people thought that it might be a positive thing, and might make the planet more comfortable to live on.

I think "Climate Change" as a term doesn't really strike at the heart of the issue. The issue is not that 'any change is bad,' but rather that the climate is changing (1) in a way that will negatively impact people, and (2) because of _our_ greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many negative impacts, but here's one major one: farmers grow certain foods because their farms experience certain climates. If your farm gets too hot, or too little rain, or too much rain, then your crops won't grow. The world bank has a report analyzing this particular issue in depth: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/6766014682496426...

If you're interested, there are many more reports, from different sources, analyzing the varied effects that climate change will have on humanity.