1.5C of warming is too hot for the world: study

Just an attempt to drum up fear..

Since you have been completely unable to disprove the points made in the report that would still be an invalid claim.

That's just your personal opinion.

This is very rational proposition, if you are unable to refute it then the only logical step is to accept this is the most obvious purpose of giving proper warnings based on scientific data.

Do you have any scientific arguments to prove the conclusions of the report are wrong? or that the warnings made do not lead to people being informed? without those arguments calling them personal opinions is obviously wrong.

Too small a sample to provoke any panic

Exactly.

Just an attempt to drum up fear..

The objective is to inform and let people take proper actions to prepare and hopefully even to reduce the negative consequences of the human activity dependent climate change.

That's just your personal opinion.

Definitely speculative and an unscientific approach

Yet you have been completely unable to disprove any of the findings of the report, just make baseless claims that the experts that produced it are wrong based on nothing but your own supposed authority, no evidence.

Too small a sample to provoke any panic.

The objective is to inform and let people take proper actions to prepare and hopefully even to reduce the negative consequences of the human activity dependent climate change.

And again no, the number of experts that publish a scientific report has absolutely no relevance to their importance, it could be published by 5, 50 or 500 and the scientific importance would be the same. Specially when it is congruent with the scientific consensus and not contradicted except by nameless people that never offer any evidence to support that claim.

More importantly those 50 recognized experts are in full consensus with the rest of the scientific community of the world.

Too small a sample to provoke any panic.

We can see the scientists are getting a little "out there".

Definitely speculative and an unscientific approach.

100% of scientists who don't want to get fired are all in consensus on the apocalyptic climate change predictions. It is NOT to be questioned.

This should be obvious.

How can something incorrect be obvious?

We can see the scientists are getting a little "out there".

No we can't, you have not demonstrated any of their conclusions as invalid, they remain correct.

 have been instructed before that just because you say something it doesn't mean it is a fact.

Which is irrelevant, the scientific consensus on climate change is clear, nobody has to say it is, the simple fact you tried and failed to bring any source that contradicts the content of this article, even when directly being told this would be necessary for your point to apply, clearly shows this is the case.

Else you could have just brought a reference contradicting the conclusions, not being able to do that is a much more clear proof there is no such thing.

How true. It is especially clear that 50 "researchers" is insignificant in the world of science.

This should be obvious.

Rockstrom is among the originators of the concept of "planetary boundaries" -- red lines that must not be crossed.

We can see the scientists are getting a little "out there".

Stay in your lane dude.

More importantly those 50 recognized experts are in full consensus with the rest of the scientific community of the world. 

You have been instructed before that just because you say something it doesn't mean it is a fact.

How true. It is especially clear that 50 "researchers" is insignificant in the world of science.

That makes absolutely no sense, 1 scientist can be enough to produce important changes, and that is because the findings are the ones that are important, not the number of people that report those findings.

More importantly those 50 recognized experts are in full consensus with the rest of the scientific community of the world. Your claim that they have been contradicted by scientific institutions has not been supported by any reference yet. That would make them 50 (+the scientific community) vs 0.

a consortium of 50 researchers warn.

Fear mongering by a small sample.

How true. It is especially clear that 50 "researchers" is insignificant in the world of science.

Fear mongering by a small sample.

You have not argued scientifically about what would be a significative sample, the authors clearly justified the statistical importance of their study. Also, you have not been able to refute any of their conclusions, so mischaracterizing valid and appropiate warnings as fear mongering is just your personal antiscientific bias.

Scientists of the world who have come to different conclusions.

Yet you have not been able to provide even one single recognized institutions of science of a related field that have expressed a conclusions that contradicts what this report found. That would mean there is a clear consensus about this, even if you personally do not want to accept it.

a consortium of 50 researchers warn.

Fear mongering by a small sample.

Do you have any source that can refute the conclusions of the scientists around the world that coincide in predicting extremely serious consequences from the climate change?

Scientists of the world who have come to different conclusions.

Is the world getting warmer? Sure. Is it apocalyptic and worthy of everyone running around with their hair on fire all the time?

Absolutely not.

Do you have any source that can refute the conclusions of the scientists around the world that coincide in predicting extremely serious consequences from the climate change?

If not then it is simply much more likely they are the ones in the right, not nameless people on the internet that just claim they are all wrong and things will be fine without any evidence.

Crock pots connected to.solar grids, people will not have to cut down trees for fuels and will come too tasty meal after a day of hard work

Biggest greenhouse gases producers are farming and cattle. Should we stop feeding ourselves, condemning is too death for the sake of the planet? For sure not.

But one thing places like US could do, is too reduce meal portions at restaurants and grocery shopping stores like Costco. Unless you've got a family of five or more, chances are you don't need "restaurants portions" groceries.

Another thing, A/C's at homes running 365/24/7. No way we can produce the amount of energy needed for every house having that A/C blasting all year without nuclear energy.

Scientists recently found a road 15 feet under the Mediterranean off the coast of Croatia.

If we and all other living things made it though a warming event that brought a 3-meter seal level rise, I think we'll be good if the temperature goes up another degree or two, and if the sea level rises another few inches.

Is the world getting warmer? Sure. Is it apocalyptic and worthy of everyone running around with their hair on fire all the time?

Absolutely not.

Yes, the monthly figure is still positive (above "average", the base period decided to be 1991-2020), but the trend is a clear decline.

Any recognized institution of science that supports this claim? every scientific authority in the world contradict this claim. Obviously you are not arguing that all the scientists are wrong about this, right?

It is now seven years since the global lower atmosphere temperature, as measured by UAH, peaked in 2016.

Yes, the monthly figure is still positive (above "average", the base period decided to be 1991-2020), but the trend is a clear decline.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/April/202304_Bar.png

Just spouting out terms like "science institutions" is the classic appeal to authority fallacy.

It's like someone saying "the experts" or "the journals" but not providing validating certification for any of those.

So, it is also hearsay.

The journal in question is "Nature". The specific study which this article refers to can be accessed here in its entirety:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8

The names of all the authors are contained therein, and clicking on them you will be able to get their institutional affiliation, their qualifications, and their lists of previous publications.

No hearsay whatsoever.

Just spouting out terms like "science institutions" is the classic appeal to authority fallacy.

The affiliations are there for anybody to see, and obviously being actual, recognized institutions of science contradicts your invalid argument, they surely are institutions of science and they vouch for the reputations and expertise of the authors.

Examples include

Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

etc. etc.

I know this completely destroys your false argument but this means the appeal to authority is perfectly valid.

It's like someone saying "the experts" or "the journals" but not providing validating certification for any of those.

It would be the opposite of that, since the reference has been already provided and you have not refuted the qualifications of the authors or the institutions that confirm their expertise, you just repeatedly claim they are not, without making any argument for this to be the case.

Agreed.

False alert.

Since you have been completely unable to refute the conclusions from the report your claim that this is a false alert lacks any basis.

Science institutions are vouching for the authors of the paper (including not only the scientific journal but also the institutions in which they are affiliated, there is not "personal opinion" involved. That is perfectly valid proof of their expertise.

Just spouting out terms like "science institutions" is the classic appeal to authority fallacy.

It's like someone saying "the experts" or "the journals" but not providing validating certification for any of those.

So, it is also hearsay.

eat locally produced food to lower shipments from other side of globe.

this may be good step for a start.

this may have a huge impact since ocean vessels are great air polluters.

Science institutions are vouching for the authors of the paper (including not only the scientific journal but also the institutions in which they are affiliated, there is not "personal opinion" involved. That is perfectly valid proof of their expertise.

The global food production system is in danger - ironic, in that it is a major cause of climate change and environmental destruction.

For one, the journal Editors and the peer reviewers who reviewed the study obviously recognized them as experts, or at least that the study's results were plausible.

Because you can not provide proof that the people you claim to be experts are actually experts beyond your personal opinion that means you accept factually they are not experts.

So, how can anyone be recognized as an "expert" then, if you don't recognize others recognition? This is a pretty strange basis to object to a study's results.

Because you can not provide proof that the people you claim to be experts are actually experts beyond your personal opinion that means you accept factually they are not experts.

Why quote something just to ignore the part that disproves your argument, you are still trying to argue recognized experts are not such, even when a scientific journal and the institutions listed on the affiliations clearly say they do.

Because you can not provide proof that the people you claim to be experts are actually experts beyond your personal opinion that means you accept factually they are not experts.

There is an obvious fallacy in that thinking--a journal says someone is an expert so that makes the person an expert.

Why quote something just to ignore the part that disproves your argument, you are still trying to argue recognized experts are not such, even when a scientific journal and the institutions listed on the affiliations clearly say they do.

That's not how it world in the actual world of science.

That is exactly how it works, institutions take very seriously how individuals can list them in their affiliations because that means they are being recognized by those institutions. The same applies for scientific journals (at least for those indexed) accepting to publish a report means they vouch for the expertise of the authors.

The journal that published their study, the institutions that employ the authors say they are experts in this field

There is an obvious fallacy in that thinking--a journal says someone is an expert so that makes the person an expert.

That's not how it world in the actual world of science.

Who said they are experts? Do you have a verifiable source appointing them as experts? Otherwise this means it is purely your opinion--based on hearsay!

No, you still have not understood the concept of hearsay (or use the term wrong on purpose).

The journal that published their study, the institutions that employ the authors say they are experts in this field

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8

The Affiliation secction clearly list the institutions that give credentials to all the authors, just saying they are all fictitious is not an argument, it is being in denial of something clearly proved scientifically by recognized experts.

Do you have any evidence to support your non-substantiated claim?

The authors are the ones making this claim in their scientific report, and they present a lot of evidence that you have not even tried to refute. They have a much more valid appeal to authority (specially because of that evidence) than a nameless person just claiming they are not experts and they are all wrong.

They experts explicitly contradict this baseless claim you make in their report.

Who said they are experts? Do you have a verifiable source appointing them as experts? Otherwise this means it is purely your opinion--based on hearsay!

What evidence do you have to claim they are wrong and everything will be fine instead? science denialism is not an argument, it is an excuse to pretend something the experts have proved is not true just because you don't want to accept it.

Do you have any evidence to support your non-substantiated claim? Or are you still repeating the same hearsay?

Everything will be fine.

They experts explicitly contradict this baseless claim you make in their report.

Some 200 million people in poorer regions will be exposed to unliveable heat, and half a billion will face the destructive ravages of rising seas even if the world meets the more optimistic Paris target of a 1.5C cap, they reported in a major study.

What evidence do you have to claim they are wrong and everything will be fine instead? science denialism is not an argument, it is an excuse to pretend something the experts have proved is not true just because you don't want to accept it.

Everything will be fine.

Let's now worry about achieving the 1.5 degree target. It doesn't seem possible therefore I propose that we focus on living the good life instead one filled with anxiety, guilt and worry. Say no to fighting climate change, live life instead.

No worries. We'll just get another planet.