Here
and
Now

opinions

2019: The year the world woke up to the climate emergency

19 Comments
By Laure FILLON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments
Login to comment

The world woke up? The Whole World? What about that orange man in the White House?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

This is funny... Been "woke" for over 30 years and the rest of the world is just now catching up? Laughable. If it weren't pathetic.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Lets face it - it’s too late. There is no way to cut 45% of life giving CO2 emissions in 10 years. Greta is right - we have stolen her future. Greta herself has given up and is doing it all for show to give her child followers hope to face their grim future. Greta decided to fly her solar sail boat captain from Europe so she could sail back home without expending the CO2 her captain did to keep up the appearance.

I hope the worlds youth are inspired to live the last 10 years of the planets existence to their fullest. They can do so by committing to a zero CO2 emissions existence like Greta (at least like she pretends). The future is bleak but the next 10 years of zero emissions can be glorious.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I am open minded. I used to believe. In the past couple of years I sought out to educate myself on the issue. I read, watched, listened objectively and with an open mind to an array of scientists and researchers who have researched, investigated, measured, hypothesized and dedicated decades to the study of climate. I encourage everyone to invest a little time to self-educate on the science of climate.

Nils-Axel Mörner - Sea-level expert. Former member of the IPCC

Patrick Moore - Founder of Greenpeace

Tony Heller - An excellent fact-checker

Lord Monckton - Aggregator of scientific information on climate science

Richard Lindzen - Atmospheric physicist at MIT

Freeman Dyson - Nobel-Prize winning physicist

William Happer - Princeton University professor of physics

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@zenzen: Thank you so much for those links to information. I am forever astonished by the ferocity of those supporting the doomsday global warming point of view. They flat out refuse to even consider any alternative perspectives of the issue. That to me is the biggest weakness in their arguments for the coming man made global warming. All change is bad and if we do what the “experts” say we can save the world. They never bother to note that change is necessary for evolution and that many times change can be a net positive. They just cannot fathom that possibility and insist that average global temperatures must not change too much too fast. None of them ever say what the ideal average temperature should be then insist it cannot change too much.

The climate changes - it always does. Colder temperatures are estimated to be five times more lethal than warmer temperatures. There are literally millions of people in China, India, and in other formerly destitute places on the planet that have been lifted out of poverty by the modern economy. The only way to meet the 2030 doomsday deadline is to stop these people from living lives other than in desperate poverty. It’s crazy. Let the poor live fulfilling lives and adapt to the changing climate like we always do.

The Warmism cult is nothing more than an effort to manipulate and control the lives of people on a scale never before attempted in human history. It is terrifying in its Orwellian scope and authoritarianism.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

The Warmism cult is nothing more than an effort to manipulate and control the lives of people on a scale never before attempted in human history. 

Why is this view generally limited to the political right wing/libertarians of particular countries?

It does sound a bit cultish. It’s almost like they are reading from a hymn sheet. ‘Globalist’ is on the line.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

They flat out refuse to even consider any alternative perspectives of the issue.

This isn't true and is just BS repeated by people who have never read the scientific literature on this. Every alternative explanation for current climate change has been explored to death and determined to be a dead end. The reason real scientists don't waste their time with every alternative explanation is the same reason they don't waste their time exploring the question of whether the Earth is flat or not.

All change is bad

No, all change is not bad nor does anyone say that. Bad changes are bad, good changes are good. Currently we are seeing bad changes, so they call them bad. Nothing sinister there.

They never bother to note that change is necessary for evolution and that many times change can be a net positive.

Oh yes, by all means, changes that involve melting Antarctic ice sheet raising sea levels above the height of most cities, and droughts and wildfires and god knows what else in other parts of the world are definitely to be welcomed for their positive contributions.

None of them ever say what the ideal average temperature should be

This is just a lie on your part. The ideal would be to keep it where it is now, and at worst no more than 1.5 degrees warmer than the pre industrial average.

The climate changes - it always does.

I had no idea, I guess that means any change no matter how fast or how extreme is good? I have a lot of trouble seeing any logic in what you are stating here.

Colder temperatures are estimated to be five times more lethal than warmer temperatures.

And cities under water are estimated to be a lot more than five times more lethal than those on dry land.

There are literally millions of people in China, India, and in other formerly destitute places on the planet that have been lifted out of poverty by the modern economy.

And nobody in charge is seriously suggesting those countries can't continue to develop as modern economies. They just have to burn less coal as they do so. Technological innovations in the past decade have made this actually possible.

Let the poor live fulfilling lives and adapt to the changing climate like we always do.

"Like we always do"???? Since the dawn of human civilization we have never had to adapt to a climate changing like we are facing now. We've obliterated all previous records by far already and the real challenge hasn't even begun.

The Warmism cult is nothing more than an effort to manipulate and control the lives of people on a scale never before attempted in human history. It is terrifying in its Orwellian scope and authoritarianism.

No no. Calling people members of a "cult" just for believing in real science is what is Orwellian here.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Every alternative explanation for current climate change has been explored to death and determined to be a dead end.

What are some of these alternative explanations which have been determined to be a dead end?

Is it the Sun and its cycles? Or the albedo effect on the Earths surface? How about ocean currents, or CO2 being naturally absorbed and released by the ocean depending on global sea temperatures? (ie; heat from the Sun.) What about cosmic particles constantly bombarding the Earth's atmosphere forming extra or less cloud cover depending on the amount of dust coming in, which in turn depends on the strength of the solar wind? Have these been "explored to death and determined to be a dead end"? These all have very real effects on the climate, but none as much as the sun. Despite the spin the debate is not over and there is no consensus in the extremely difficult, multi-disciplinary area of climate science.

Oh yes, by all means, changes that involve melting Antarctic ice sheet raising sea levels above the height of most cities

Please link to sources which show that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting to the extent that it will "raise sea levels above the height of most cities." What a load of fear-mongering crap. Please show data, satellite pics and other evidence which proves that the overall percentage of ice in Antarctica has shrunk in recent years. From what I've seen there has been record ice coverage there. (Record coverage = satellite evidence going back to the 1970s)

It sounds like you're confusing melting with calving. Calving, or the breaking off of ice from ice shelves is entirely natural and has been going on since Antarctica has been covered in ice. The reason large chunks of ice break off is not because of "melting", it's because there is TOO MUCH ice and these ice sheets have grown to where they're no longer stable as they float on the surrounding ocean.

As for the Arctic, it's true that it has been losing ice on average in the spring/summer months. But that's not unusual, it's cyclical. There are plenty of accounts from the last century where ice coverage on the Arctic Ocean was low. For example, there are pics online of submarines surfacing at the Nth Pole in summer in the late 1950s. Furthermore, some of the melting is due to the albedo effect where soot from fires in Siberia and elsewhere exacerbates the melting. Nothing to do with CO2 and 'climate change'. It's pollution and don't confuse the two. The global sea level has changed very little over the past century - see "Nils-Axel Mörner - Sea-level expert. Former member of the IPCC", as mentioned above.

We've obliterated all previous records by far already and the real challenge hasn't even begun.

How far back do these records go? Do they include the Medieval warming period and other warm periods before that when temperatures were as warm or warmer than today? Please back up your assertions with facts rather than peddle gloom and doom scenarios and propaganda designed to ultimately control humanity under the yoke of neo-communism/marxism.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

@zenzen: Thank you so much for those links to information.

You're welcome.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Is it the Sun and its cycles? Or the albedo effect on the Earths surface? How about ocean currents, or CO2 being naturally absorbed and released by the ocean depending on global sea temperatures? (ie; heat from the Sun.) What about cosmic particles constantly bombarding the Earth's atmosphere forming extra or less cloud cover depending on the amount of dust coming in, which in turn depends on the strength of the solar wind? Have these been "explored to death and determined to be a dead end"?

Yes they have. These things do have effects, but they aren't capable of explaining, alone or collectively, the current warming.

These all have very real effects on the climate, but none as much as the sun.

Yup. And that is accounted for.

Despite the spin the debate is not over and there is no consensus in the extremely difficult, multi-disciplinary area of climate science.

Yup, its difficult and yup, its got a ton of variables. But there is consensus on the basics, the debate is about the details on the fringes.

Please link to sources which show that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting to the extent that it will "raise sea levels above the height of most cities."

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-antarctica-ice-sheets-seas-meters.html

"If we continue to follow our current emissions trajectory, the median (66% probability) global sea level reached by the end of the century will be 1.2 meters higher than now, with two meters a plausible upper limit (5% probability). But of course climate change doesn't magically stop after the year 2100."

Granted that might not flood "most cities", but its going to displace a lot of people nonetheless. This isn't the only study that has reached similar conclusions and I know of none which state that the Antarctic isn't going to lose a lot of ice.

For example, there are pics online of submarines surfacing at the Nth Pole in summer in the late 1950s.

That is just anecdotal evidence, not useful. There will be zero summer ice at all for the first time in just a few years. That was not the case in the late 1950s or any time in recorded history.

Furthermore, some of the melting is due to the albedo effect where soot from fires in Siberia and elsewhere exacerbates the melting. Nothing to do with CO2 and 'climate change'.

Yes, "some" of it is due to soot and other causes unrelated to atmospheric CO2. Logically that does not in itself preclude "most" of it being due to CO2 levels, given all the evidence we have that that is the case.

It's pollution and don't confuse the two.

Not confusing the two.

The global sea level has changed very little over the past century - see "Nils-Axel Mörner - Sea-level expert. Former member of the IPCC", as mentioned above.

Yup, its what will happen to the sea level in the next century rather than what happened to it over the last century that has everyone (not just those of us wishing to see humanity under the hoke of neo-communism/Marxism) concerned.

How far back do these records go?

"Records" only go back to the nineteenth century. But through ice cores and other sources they can measure these things going back tens of thousands of years.

Please back up your assertions with facts rather than peddle gloom and doom scenarios and propaganda designed to ultimately control humanity under the yoke of neo-communism/marxism.

Give me a break, you haven't cited a peer reviewed source either.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Is it the Sun and its cycles? Or the albedo effect on the Earths surface? ... etc

These things do have effects, but they aren't capable of explaining, alone or collectively, the current warming.

How do you know that? You're saying the sun combined with other natural phenomena isn't capable of explaining any recent warming and that it must be CO2? So if I inject CO2 gas between the panes of my double glazed windows my house will become warmer? Please explain how a trace gas measured in ppm can warm the planet to the degree you are asserting.

You mentioned ice cores and records in your comment. If you look at those in relation to CO2 levels you will see that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round. In other words higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are an effect of higher temperatures, not a cause. The reason is that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean and it can take a very long time for it to be released from its depths. It is eventually released through warming sea temperatures brought about by ... The Sun.

But there is consensus on the basics, the debate is about the details on the fringes.

There is never a consensus. Science is not based on consensus. See zenzen's post above for just a few eminent scientists who have not been bought and who would disagree that CO2 is detrimental to the planet. There are many more.

Re Antarctica;

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-antarctica-ice-sheets-seas-meters.html

"If we continue to follow our current emissions trajectory, the median (66% probability) global sea level reached by the end of the century will be 1.2 meters higher than now, with two meters a plausible upper limit (5% probability). But of course climate change doesn't magically stop after the year 2100."

Sounds urgent with an important sounding url. But I noticed phys.org had taken the story from an online rag called The Conversation (link under the article's scary headline). Not very credible and hardly scientific but a good example of how people are deceived. They even mentioned Greta Thunberg and her worrisome plea that the CO2 budget would be gone in 8 and a 1/2 years. From Wikipedia;

Phys.org is a science, research and technology news aggregator where much of the content is republished directly from press releases and news agencies-in a practice known as churnalism.

A couple of links with ice core information showing the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Full of leading statements and non-science, preaching to the choir really, plus some strange English, ("spurned on by Greta Thunberg", sic), but I managed to wade through the whole article.

I am not sure this is the right way to go about it, as it creates enemies out of potential allies, but the more effort we can make as a race, the better it will be for us long-term.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How do you know that? You're saying the sun combined with other natural phenomena isn't capable of explaining any recent warming and that it must be CO2?

Because the actual scientists who study this and have spent decades of research on this say so and have the best evidence available to back it up. I have read their explanations for why natural phenomena cannot alone explain the current warming and find them more convincing than any arguments put forward for those explamations.

So if I inject CO2 gas between the panes of my double glazed windows my house will become warmer? Please explain how a trace gas measured in ppm can warm the planet to the degree you are asserting.

If you don’t even understand the science behind it, how can anybody take what you say on the subject seriously? If you want to disprove something you have to understand it first.

There is never a consensus.

Sure there is, otherwise we’d still be wasting time debating whether the world was flat.

Sounds urgent with an important sounding url. But I noticed phys.org had taken the story from an online rag called The Conversation (link under the article's scary headline).

Er...no. The research referenced in the link I gave was originally published in Nature, literally one of the most well known academic, peer reviewed journals in the world. The original is here but uses a lot of jargon so I linked to the other one because it is easier for lay people to read.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1619-z

If you look at those in relation to CO2 levels you will see that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round. In other words higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are an effect of higher temperatures, not a cause. 

You are seriously misrepresenting what the New Scientist article you link to actually says. To quote it:

The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

They are just saying that temperature increases at the end of previous ice ages were not caused by CO2. They also clearly state that subsequent warming WAS caused by CO2, and they even explicitly reject the exact argument you are citing them as support for:

Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect

Is this really the best you can do? This is the reason I get so frustrated debating with deniers, you never actually read anything beyond the headline to make sure what you are saying is accurate.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is food for thought. The comments are brilliant !

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/letter-woke-teenager-climate-change

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is food for thought. 

Enjoyable read. Those who seem so intent on saving the world are never interested in making the sacrifices they believe everyone else - especially the poor and impoverished - would have to make for things to be the way they want them to. Greta’s solar showboating was found to be a fraud.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Those who seem so intent on saving the world are never interested in making the sacrifices they believe everyone else - especially the poor and impoverished - would have to make for things to be the way they want them to

its easy to criticize the irrationality of teenagers but also kind of pointless. You do realize that the best science available shows that the poor and impoverished are by far going to be the most negatively impacted by the effects of climate change?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Should read "2019: The year climate bs finally got some cut through".

After all, they've been trying long enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You do realize that the best science available shows that the poor and impoverished are by far going to be the most negatively impacted by the effects of climate change?

Look at it from the perspective of poor people in China and India who have seen literally hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens lifted out of poverty in the last 20 years. Their intention is not to remain poor and at the mercy of nature either. Artificially changing the economy and slashing CO2 will raise the cost of energy and upset their opportunities to move upward in life. Socialism doesn’t work - that’s why at least economically China has moved towards a mercantilist form of capitalism.

The human condition is much better off with a continuation of the current upward trend in living standards globally. The Left is working hard to prevent the poor from joining them in achieving an affluent standard of living.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Look at it from the perspective of poor people in China and India who have seen literally hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens lifted out of poverty in the last 20 years. Their intention is not to remain poor and at the mercy of nature either.

Yup, but its erroneous to state that this will all come to a screeching halt if they shift from coal to cleaner sources of energy.

Artificially changing the economy and slashing CO2 will raise the cost of energy and upset their opportunities to move upward in life.

What do you mean "artificially"? Market economies aren't part of nature, they are man made institutions. No market that exists on Earth does so without exogenous ground rules "artificially" imposed on them.

As to the cost of energy, sources with low or zero CO2 emissions are already cheaper than coal so on its face your argument is not supported by the actual facts. These countries will be much better off in the long run economically if they invest in such power sources rather than ones that will be obsolete in a decade.

Socialism doesn’t work - that’s why at least economically China has moved towards a mercantilist form of capitalism.

Socialism implies the state ownership of the means of production. Nobody (at least nobody with decision making power, teenage protestors aside) is seriously proposing that as a way of reducing our reliance on CO2 producing sources of energy. I get that the teenagers seem to be scaring you with this socialist stuff, but they aren't actually in charge of anything.

The human condition is much better off with a continuation of the current upward trend in living standards globally.

Totally agree. And the best way to ensure that this continues is if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot by foisting the costs of climate change onto future generations. There is a huge bill that is going to come due in the near future if we continue to just dump this stuff in the atmosphere and that is a much bigger threat to future prosperity than the costs of transitioning our energy sources now is going to be. The vast majority of economists who have studied this agree with that conclusion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites