Since you seem open to thinking critically about the effects of both climate change and green policy, I’d recommend Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair,” if you haven’t read it already. It follows the trajectory of the malthusian anti-human movement over the last 225 years, culminating in today’s problem of climate change alarmism.
Global climate Change is a real thing, albeit with consequences and timelines that are wildly exaggerated by the alarmist movement, and simply throwing insane amounts of money at renewables is not going to solve the problems that arise.
PS: your post (and mine) are going to end up hidden from view in no time at all. Unfortunately even in HN there is a hive mind that censors discussion of trade offs :(
Are climate scientists alarmists?
I assume you mean who represents them, as it isn’t an organization I’m naming. A generation ago Al Gore would have been the figurehead of the alarmist movement. Now it is Greta Thunberg and green policy makers like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
> Are climate scientists alarmists?
Some are, usually when they back predictions outside their specialty or make the mistake of applying scientific nodes of thought to (geo)engineering problems and unsurprisingly come up short.
Most are more reserved in how they present themselves and/or understand that our prediction capability is still quite limited and the non-specialist public doesn’t understand the nuances of qualified statements about future outcomes.
Unfortunately evo-activists have cherry picked data, neglecting to mention that global climate has been historically much warmer than now, that rising levels of fixed nitrogen thanks to artificial fertilizer is causing increase of the biome which sequesters carbon in biomass. Some facts presented are outright wrong: rising temperatures means higher atmospheric water capacity and therefore more precipitation, not drought, and fewer numbers of storms (albeit greater in magnitude). Deaths due to changing climate have consistently fallen year over year for as long as such things were measured.
The alarmist narrative is that basically that civilization will fall apart in the next 10-15 years, there will be mass die offs, and the world will be reduced to some sort of Mad Max / Waterworld post-apocalyptic anarchy. It’s bunk, just as the same imminent doom predictions were over the last 40 years. Climate change is real, but nothing even close to that order of magnitude will happen in the next 100 years. And a 100 years is more than enough time to have a sensibly paced transition to nuclear base power supplementing fluctuating renewables, and to develop geoengineering technologies to effectively manage both regional and global climate change. It’s somewhere on the scale closer to Y2K bug, not nuclear holocaust.
But this climate change alarmism is causing our kids to develop acute anxiety and depression disorders, as Greta Thunberg has, which are totally misplaced, and I pity those kids and feel anger towards the adults in their lives that are doing psychological damage. The alarmism is also driving policy recommendations that would bring about global recession on a scale not seen since the Great Depression. If millennials think boomers gave them the short stick, wait until their children see what lack of opportunities they have from our misguided climate change policies.
Edit: Lol, posted and within seconds a negative score. This is always what happens when you attempt to have a reasonable discussion about scientific facts and engineering trade-offs in climate change rather than an alarmist circle-jerk. I don’t know why I bother. Why do we let such important scientific topics become politicized?
No that's no that's not the narrative. The narrative is that we have about eight years of emissions left if we want a coin toss chance of staying below 1.5°. The narrative is that we finally need to start listening to the IPCC instead of pretending that we have another fifty years of business as usual left.
In 1988, New York was going to be underwater by 2000. Etc. It is crazy to look back at the endless series of predictions - all of them very alarming and all of them, it turns out, completely wrong.
It is also worth remembering that in the 1970s the huge, science-based headline was that we were sliding into an ice age. The 1930s and 1940s had been particularly hot, and by the 1970s the decline in average temps had everyone worried. Newspapers ate it up. Like they are now. The predictions were alarming.
The scientific consensus is not what is being stated in alarmist messaging. And the IPCC estimates assume no attempt is made to manage climate change, even things which will be done anyway like building new dams and waterway bypasses to handle greater precipitation events and put water to productive use.
Those same Malthusian arguments made on the supposition of zero human ingenuity have been shouted in earnest alarm for the past two centuries. And every time they have been wrong. This time is no different.