Sick of being lectured about the climate crisis

[Soulesssummer]

I try my best to leave as little carbon footprint as possible.
Married with no kids and annual dual fuel bills are under£700
1 small car, holiday overseas once every 5 years.
So why do those wealthy families with 3,4, 5 plus kids who drive SUV tanks and holiday every year multiple times.,who consume £300 plus in energy bills monthly, have the audacity and blatant cheek to lecture others on the climate crisis.

It's like they have only just twigged their excessive greed and consumption just might now mean your kids futures are ruined.
It's making me so angry.

Aren't you coming on here to lecture those with kids though!😏

No, it definitely would not be "easy" to prove if we were "wrong about anthropogenic climate change" - this is indicative of a poor understanding of the complexities of both the physical science issues and the socio-political context.
Part of the problem is that most GHGs have both anthropogenic and natural sources - disentangling anthropogenic from natural causes is complicated - and has not yet been definitively achieved. This scientific problem is compounded by the current socio-political context that privileges manmade causes of climate change (hence the UNFCCC redefinition that I referred to previously) - there is more incentive for research to focus exclusively on anthropogenic emissions (principally CO2) than other drivers. There is a danger that the interpretation of results is skewed simply because it has been predetermined that the science is already 'settled'.
More importantly than how you disprove manmade climate change, is the question of how you actually prove the current meta-theory. We seem to have ditched previously accepted high standards for testing theories through empirical deductive reasoning. Many of the predictions that were made within the 'manmade climate change' theory have not proved to be correct - think back to dates being announced for physical indicators of the climate change catastrophe unfolding (when this all first became a political football) - Himalayan glaciers should have melted by now, snow at certain latitudes should be a distant memory. Failed predictions have been swept under the carpet and 'global warming' morphed into 'climate change' - a context has been created within which every single example of wild weather, anywhere around the globe is reported in real time as yet another example proving manmade climate change is happening...but with no real need to explain why they are not simply weather events caused by natural background climatic variability. Real time media pronouncements about scientific certainty that they can be ascribed definitively to man made causes are simply not credible. Insufficient is known about the relative contributions of natural and manmade climate forcing agents for this to be the case.
Something that I find of particular interest is the prevalence of recent weather related to what has been labelled as 'stuck' atmospheric patterns caused by an overly meridional jet stream. Funnily enough, this was a weather pattern predicted by certain climate sceptics (who prefer the label 'climate realists') who see natural climate cycles linked to cycles in solar activity (and cosmic rays etc). The standard computerised general circulation climate models failed to predict this jet stream phenomenon - but are now being hastily reprogrammed to include this outcome, so that this too can be pinned on anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Hence, a scientific paradigm has been created in which there is no mechanism for disproving manmade climate change - every possible weather outcome is seen as further validation of the meta-theory...and if the models did not predict it, they are simply recalibrated! Neat...feel free to buy into that narrative if it makes you feel as though you are going to save the planet...personally, I think it needs to face rather more rigorous scrutiny.
In answer to your second concern, it is not a zero sum game. Renewables require huge amounts of resources, including the mining and associated pollution of minerals such as lithium for batteries. The energy is diffuse - taking up massive amounts of land...it will require a massive investment in terms of new infrastructure. Lack of plentiful energy impoverishes the poor within wealthy countries and holds back the development of huge parts of the globe. Poorer economies tend to care less about protecting their natural environments and resources as they struggle to survive.
It is not economically feasible for most countries to transition quickly away from fossil fuels - that is why, globally, man made emissions are increasing. It is more sensible to transition gradually, in a steady, planned way. Ultimately, extreme weather events will continue to impact (particularly with the greater concentrations of urban development in floodplains, coastal regions etc) - our ability to cope with such events will be compromised if we have significantly weakened our economies in the rush for 'net zero'.
This is a long post, but I am only scratching the surface of this issue...propaganda headlines might make the solutions seem simple to you...but, I really do beg to differ!

Thanks @Calistano - it is nice to know that somebody is taking the time to read them (I was beginning to feel as though I was shouting into the void!). It is a topic that I have had an interest in for quite a few years now - and I am someone who started out as a passionate 'believer' in the global warming narrative. I remain a passionate environmentalist - but I am prepared to entertain alternative scientific narratives, which I think leads to more robust science (or at least would do if there was a sociopolitical context that permitted proper scrutiny). Unfortunately, the current preoccupation with CO2 reductions as the 'be all and the end all' for measuring positive environmental outcomes risks critical environmental concerns being overlooked.

I’m appreciating your posts @Bogwood, finding them very thought provoking.

One thing I find myself rejecting recently is this assumption that I must believe XYZ because I’m told to, when in most cases there’s a polar opposite extreme view, and a more balanced middle road approach, that doesn’t demand that one does not ask any questions, as tends to happen in the polarised fields of thought/science at either end of the spectrum.

You are demonstratably wrong on several points.

Firstly, I have already acknowledged that I don't agree with alarmism. Any prediction comes with with an error range. Second, as I have already mentioned, the trajectories have changed significantly over the past decade due to renewables uptake. I can't link to articles right now, but I will do so later.

Even when it was current, the predictions of Al Gore etc were badly overstated. However, I have some sympathy for this. At that time, fossil fuel companies made up a significant portion of the world's biggest companies. The sheer financial and political power that stood to lose from emissions reduction was staggering.

What I don't agree with is this massive leap from "there is an issue with this part of the model" to "the whole model is wrong". We still use Newtonian physics in most circumstances, even though relativity proved it wrong decades ago. Newtonian physics are just more practical in most circumstances.

Why would you say that is it more expensive for poor countries to use renewable energy? Perhaps that was true 10 years ago, but renewable power is now cheaper than fossil fuel power. In many places, it's cheaper to shut down an existing coal plant and build renewable, than it is to keep using the coal plant. Yes, I have papers for these too.

You seem to think that these transitions are being driven by a political narrative. They aren't. Political leadership is lagging behind financial drive. We are transitioning to renewable energy mostly because it makes financial sense. GDP has decoupled from carbon emissions - you no longer need to emit carbon in order to achieve financial growth. Yes, I have a source for that.

Finally, you talk about pollution. Do you know how many people die each year from pollution from fossil fuel power plants and car exhaust?

Regarding "it would be easy to disprove " - show me the peer reviewed equivalent of Christy's book. Show me the paper that's titled something like "Implications of the validity of the tuning of climate prediction models". Don't pretend that politics would prevent that: journals thrive on that sort of thing.

So NASA, in the US, under Trump, and at the and the same time, the CSIRO, in Australia under a very pro-coal government, were toeing the same party line because it was in their financial interests? Please explain how that works?

I agree as someone with kids I am aware all my childless friends are doing more than any of us with kids so I try and keep my mouth shut and mind my own business.

Yes we have a family member who demands to know why we are not voting in the Greens at the next election, but next email boasts off about offspring jetting here and there from multiple family owned properties.

I guess if your family business makes donations to climate change activists and activities then you have done your bit.... ?

The wealthiest people contribute most to climate change, and the poorest feel the effects the most.

To clarify, the wealthiest cause the most climate change. It's hardest on the poorest - ie, if fresh vegetable prices go up by 50% due to a drought, a wealthy person is barely going to notice, but it can be really hard for a poorer person.

Agreed

@kitsuneghost your post is ignorant and uninformed

We all need to be lectured about it!

The point of the thread was that it's often the people doing the lecturing who have the biggest footprints.

The scientific community does invite scrutiny. A paper that authentically challenged the key concepts of anthropogenic climate change would be huge. A really good one might get published in something like Nature. Really disproving anthropogenic climate change might get you on track for a nobel prize.

I don't think anyone really does think thata CO2 is the "be all and end all" of environmental outcomes. However, the sheer financial and political clout that big oil has required a greata deal of push back. In the early '00s, for instance, the top 10 biggest companies in the world included Exxon Mobil, BP, and GE. In 2011, the top 10 included Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Petrobas, BHP, and PetroChina. And you are concerned about pro-renewable bias?

Pathetic.

You can see the awful impact of climate change almost everywhere.

And you think people should be quiet about it so you can continue to live in denial?

It's not about ignoring it, it's about not wanting to be lectured and certainly not by people with larger carbon footprints

You can see the awful impact of climate change almost everywhere.

Can you?

Give examples.

From these threads part of it is that it's also about what's actually causing the climate effects and what's driving the climate that is part of the issue as debated earlier on this thread. Rather than just oil and carbon is bad etc

@LameBorzoi I am now at a loss to know how to answer you - because it would probably have to involve rehashing an awful lot of what I have said throughout this thread - and I simply do not have the time or the energy - for what is clearly not being interpreted as intended!
There is a fundamental difference between Newtonian physical laws and General Circulation Models that attempt to simulate and predict climatic patterns. The former are useful in applying ,mechanics to real world systems; the latter are built using a complex combination of accepted physical laws and a fudge of approximations. Thus far, with respect to the estimate for the relatively small average global temperature increase since the end of the Little Ice Age, we have no definitive evidence that there has been climate change for which man made GHG emissions are the primary driver. The crisis only exists in a virtual form - in extrapolations made by the models, which have been shown to be incapable of adequately describing climate change. You suggest that the models' inaccuracy is not significant enough to matter - but when we are dealing with such small actual temperature increases, simulations being wrong by a magnitude of two or three times certainly is hugely relevant. We have absolutely no real world evidence for impending global catastrophe - the models are the source of that evidence. When the public is relentlessly told that the science is settled, as justification for huge socio-economic restructuring, it is told an untruth.

If renewable energy, at its current stage of technology and resource availability, is the panacea you present it as being, then we won't have a problem transitioning - and it should help lift less developed nations out of fuel poverty.
I think you are deluded - renewable energy is simply too diffuse and always requires (other than nuclear - maybe that is what you're referring to!) fossil fuel backup. Germany is really struggling to meet its renewable ambitions - and you certainly cannot accuse that country of having lacked political ambition (I think you actually suggested at one point that politics was lagging behind the finances, with respect to renewable!).
I am not advocating for fossil fuels to the exclusion of renewables - but it would be silly to ditch the former before we are ready to transition to the latter. I am intrigued by your suggestion that renewables are already capable of providing a complete alternative now - but if you are right, then we are on the cusp of a wonderful golden age of plentiful, cheap and clean energy - fantastic!

I don't know why you think it would be possible to refute the "key concepts of anthropogenic climate change" with a single paper - that is as ludicrously silly (for the reasons I gave upthread) as imagining that you could prove it in a single paper. If the latter has not been convincingly done, then why should you demand its opposite? And, presumably, by anthropogenic climate change, you mean this to connote the idea that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the principal driver of climate change - because, as I have repeatedly pointed out, very few people who fall into the sceptical camp dispute the fact that humans (or greenhouse gases) influence climate. The argument is about the degree to which climate is driven by man made, as opposed to natural causes. The fact that this is not seen as relevant risks too little scientific research being devoted to natural climatic forcing agents. As many have noted, it is not the steady increase in sea levels (that have been rising since the last glacial period) that we need to be prepared for - it is the one off storm surges, tidal waves and hurricane-induced flood events that cause catastrophes. Such phenomena always have and always will be a risk - they require forward planning and geographically-targeted resilience, not lower global atmospheric CO2 levels.
By the way, I don't know what book of Christy's you are referring to - I am not aware that I referenced any book written by him! But if he has written one, please let me have the details - I am sure that it would make for an interesting read!

Me too. The biggest problem is the ever expanding world population. Nobody seems to be too bothered abou that.

Because that's a tiny dot on increasing climate change. See the posters points above yours much more detailed

Thank you for taking the time to read them!

I completely agree with your sentiments - alarm bells should start ringing as soon as issues become overly polarised.

Academics have been forced out of institutions - made intellectual pariahs for daring to question the standard narrative. School children are presented with a skewed impression of scientific certainty - climate change has taken on the form of a religious belief system. I have made my children aware that they should never voice any of my opinions or doubts within an educational or (for the older ones) professional setting. The current sociopolitical context does not permit any level of dissent without there being a personal cost (from negative judgements being made about an individual's politics to exam results/careers being jeopardised, or even bank accounts closed!).

We live in dangerously oppressive times - cloaked in a mantle of moral superiority, liberalism and freedom of speech/thought!

Academics have been forced out of institutions - made intellectual pariahs for daring to question the standard narrative. School children are presented with a skewed impression of scientific certainty

This could easily apply to another current politicised issue.
What a strange world we live in!

@HolyShitDrJones - indeed! There really does seem to be a universal playbook being adhered to with respect to so many ostensibly disparate aspects of our global capitalist (or as I now prefer to call it 'crapitalist) system...embrace the glorious freedom to conform and signal your associated virtue!