
World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency - Jan 2020 - godelmachine
https://fermatslibrary.com/s/world-scientists-warning-of-a-climate-emergency
======
SamPatt
There are many great scientists in this field and we should take heed of their
warnings.

But this isn't an example of that happening. This is activism dressed up as
science.

Their use of charts is a textbook example of how to mislead.

[https://twitter.com/SamuelPatt/status/1191787079820365830?s=...](https://twitter.com/SamuelPatt/status/1191787079820365830?s=19)

------
perfunctory
Perhaps the most encouraging graph is "total institutional assets divested".
Although I'm not sure "encouraging" is the right word at this point.

------
busymom0
Their letter refers to the first world climate conference of 1979. However,
the letter which was written by the scientists back then to President Nixon
(which led to the climate conference) said the opposite - that we were
approaching an ice age:

[https://i.imgur.com/X0DSNU1.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/X0DSNU1.jpg)

So I find it disturbing that they don’t mention that in this letter even
though they claim they have been researching greenhouses gases causing warming
since then.

~~~
imtringued
CO2 research is much older than 1979 or even 1956.

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x)

The first paragraph:

"CHAMBERLIN (1897, 1898, 1899) presented in detail the geological implications
of the carbon dioxide theory. As a result of these early articles, during that
eriod the carbon dioxide explanation of climatic change. In recent years the
carbon dioxide theory has had relatively few adherents. Most authors have
dismissed this theory with a remark similar to the following quotation from C.
E. P. BROOKS (1951): the carbon dioxide theory was “abandoned when it was
found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO, is also absorbed by
water vapor.” This often quoted conclusion is based on early, approximate
calculations of the radiation flux in the atmosphere. The results of more
accurate calculations of the radiation flux have recently become available.
Thus it seems worthwhile to reappraise the CO2, theory of climatic change."

Climate change is treated the same way it is today. People refuse to believe
it, waste time doing nothing and then the pressure to ignore the problem grows
with every single year fueling a vicious cycle.

~~~
goatinaboat
_People refuse to believe it,_

The essence of the scientific method is testable predictions. When it keeps
not happening, the perfectly rational - in fact _scientific_ \- response is to
discount it. If you want to blame anyone blame the scientists who overegged
the pudding once too often.

The ice age, acid rain, holes in the ozone layer etc etc were all presented by
scientists as imminent existential threats, yet none of them materialised as
such. Obviously “doom fatigue” has set in amongst the general population.

~~~
kls
You are correct the essence of science is repeatable predictions. Sadly I
don't think the majority demographic of HN was around to see all the other
fear mongering that happened in decades past, so they just down-vote and move
on, not thinking about what science actually entails. All of those real
environmental issues where dealt with, in measured response and we survived.
If we had listened to the extremists agendas we would have all started living
in mud huts instead of taking lead out of gas and banning CFC's. There are
real environmental disasters happening like the reef's dyeing near
agricultural runoff and deforestation due to industrialization. These real
issues get drowned out by this incessant fear mongering that cannot make an
accurate prediction, because they try to conscript every disaster as being
related to AGW, then the predictions go south when they try to support their
claims. Fixing CO2 is not going to save the reefs, getting rid of nitrogen and
phosphorus runoff from agricultural farming will. We know this for a fact, we
have repeatable test that prove it conclusively. Fixing CO2 will not stop
deforestation, the increase in CO2 has actually lead to a greener earth,
controls on logging, returning to sane preventative burning policies and
limiting growth into forest areas will.

~~~
goatinaboat
_I don 't think the majority demographic of HN was around to see all the other
fear mongering that happened in decades past_

I suspect you’re correct. I remember when I was a child the children in my
village were not allowed to play outside for a while because our parents had
seen or read scare stories about acid rain and thought we would be burned by
it! But I don’t believe there was a single case in Wales of a child being
dissolved... and it rains here every day!

~~~
kls
This piece is far short of a scientific paper, it has all the tells from
proclaiming a vegan diet as healthy to advocating for population controls.
This is not science it is an agenda paper. I mean what in the world does full
gender equality have to do with the climate. I have no idea but it's in the
papers conclusion as a must do to contain climate change. And why is a
scientific climate piece advocating for social and economic justice.

~~~
rayiner
Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been
hijacked by leftist radicals. Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much
ink talking about universal healthcare, housing security, and labor unions?

Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept. Basic economics
recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead to market failure.
But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes,
leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Because environmentalism is either in the process of, or has already been
> hijacked by leftist radicals.

Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center-
rather than radical-) left.

> Why does the Green New Deal Bill spend so much ink talking about universal
> healthcare, housing security, and labor unions?

Because, as the name suggests, it is intended as a New Deal that is also
Green. Sure, it's a left-of-center proposal. But where, if environmentalism
isn't inherently left, is the equally strongly advocated proposal from the
right?

The left isn't hijacking environmentalism, they are just the only group
showing up for it.

> Basic economics recognizes that externalized costs like pollution can lead
> to market failure.

Basic conventional economics does recognize that, but that center-right isn't
interested in much policy action based on that, and farther right factions
reject conventional empirical economics for openly ideological schools that
hold that markets can't fail they can only be failed.

> Environmentalism is not an inherently leftist concept

It's inherently inconsistent with the capitalist doctrine that is universal in
the center-right to right. It's not fundamentally incompatible with some of
the not-exactly-capitalist economic views of the far right, I guess, but it
has other conflicts with most of them.

> But instead of trying to build a coalition to push things like carbon taxes

Left environmentalists would try harder to build a compromise coalition with
other environmentalists around solutions that weren't specifically tied to
other left-wing agenda items if, you know, any other environmentalists were
showing up.

> leftists have co-opted the movement to peddle socialism.

Nah, it's using socialism to overcome the working classes natural resistance
to policies whose broad outcomes they would prefer, but who know that without
some guardrails the capitalist class is going to assure that the working class
pays all the (gross) costs and more. That is, it's using socialism to peddle
environmentalism, not the other way around.

~~~
goatinaboat
_Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center-
rather than radical-) left._

This absolutely is not true. Who is, by a massive margin, the top polluting
nation right now? Communist China. The Soviets did plenty of environmental
damage also. Meanwhile the Western capitalist countries are all on a downward
trend for emissions.

The “rapid industrialisation at any cost” approach is an essential hallmark of
socialism, always has been. Human lives are of no importance to it, let alone
plants or animals.

~~~
dragonwriter
> > Environmentalism has always been a cause of the (mostly, as now, center-
> rather than radical-) left.

> This absolutely is not true.

Yes, it's true.

> Who is, by a massive margin, the top polluting nation right now?

Per capita? The top three (and they are very close to each other, with a
decent gap to number 4) are Saudi Arabia, Australia, and the US.

> Communist China

Sure, the PRC is high in aggregate for the same reason that, say, Qatar is low
in aggregate. (OTOH, Qatar is pretty high per capita.)

Also, even if the ROC was as bad as, say, the US, I don't think anyone has
ever described the ROC as center-left.

> The “rapid industrialisation at any cost” approach is an essential hallmark
> of socialism

No, it's a hallmark of underdeveloped countries seeking to escape or protect
against foreign domination, whether there governments are communist, right-
wing nationalist, or anything else.

It's also a hallmark of unrestrained _capitalism_ ; the downward trend in
Western mixed economies is a result of center-left environmentalist interest
restraining capitalism.

------
Bantros
Yawn

~~~
youareostriches
imminent human suffering, isn’t it so passé? when’s the next javascript
framework?

~~~
Bantros
Keep telling yourself that

~~~
youareostriches
tell us the future, oh mighty oracle, whose sight is beyond the limits of
science and reason, so that we may be enlightened.

