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.

Urg, you are mashing a whole lot of different concepts together again.

Scientific models / debate, political policy, and the press / social media circus are very different things. Yes, they cross over, but don't mistake them for each other.

The entire body of science isn't "settled" no. Nothing is, even relativity. However, there are key parts of climate modelling that are as about robust as you get. That includes the fact that human generated carbon emissions is causing rapid climate change that is causing increasing issues, and problems will continue to escalate unless we reduce carbon emissions.

I wish someone would look at all of the evidence and present a balanced view. There is so little we know about the dynamics between our own ecosystem and the universe. Is ALL of the climate change really us? Many people like to say so. I think we do have an impact, but until someone presenting the "facts' presents both sides of the argument I just zone out. I think many people do. It's counter productive.

As I say to many people. I do my bit for climate change by being poor and not being at afford much travel or many goods. I grown my own veg too. Rich people really have no right to lecture other poor people on climate change. They are the main offenders. It doesn't stop me doing what I can, but I won't take lectures from them.

Well yes, I definitely agree that leaders and big consumers need to lead change.

The problem is that this issue is so complicated, human brains can't really understand it completely. The best understanding that we get is via mathematics, and well, understandably, most people aren't so keen on that.

People try to break it down into language- friendly concepts, but the problem with that is if you stick to the key ideas, you lose the detail. If you explain the detail, some people tend to take it and run with it, and lose sight of the big picture.

With regards to your specific question : not all climate change is caused by us. It changes a lot on its own, slowly, over time. However, we are definitely causing some changes. Life will adapt to these eventually, but fast climate change can be problematic for people, especially when it affects things like growing crops. The good news is that things are looking a lot better than they were 10 years ago, because renewable energy has been adopted much faster than was expected.

I generally support the transition to the green economy but I get bored of being constantly lectured by the BBC.

I wish they would start lecturing people on how bad foreign holidays are for the envrionment, but they are too cowardly to do that.

Just oblique sniping all the time in prepping everyone for their bills rising massively to pay for the green agenda.

You are wrong! The models are not robust - they might be as robust as they can be, given the constraints caused by massive gaps in knowledge - but they have been systematically overestimating the warming...feeding the alarmism. Unfortunately, they give a false impression of empiricism - implying that a range of outcomes are more certain than they actually are...thereby justifying potentially damaging rapid economic restructuring.
Have you read Dr Judith Curry's very recent publication? It helps to tie together the current range of scientific knowledge on climate change and addresses the deficiencies in the models - you might like it @Shiftingparadigm..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Uncertainty-Risk-Environment-Sustainability/dp/1839989254/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2OQV4N2PVWBZG&keywords=judith+curry+climate+uncertainty+and+risk&qid=1691406618&sprefix=judith+curry%2Caps%2C475&sr=8-1.
@Shiftingparadigm - there are huge doubts about whether changing human behaviour will actually impact significantly on climate patterns - the science has been dangerously simplified for the purpose of public messaging and the masses will always be vulnerable to propaganda. How much attention has, for example, been given to the possible climatic impact of last year's Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption (ejecting enough water vapour into the stratosphere to potentially cause noticeable spikes in temperature over the next few years)? How much thought is given by mainstream media to the possibility that a large proportion of Antarctica's ice melt could be due to underwater volcanic extrusions? Why is there not more honesty about the fact that the rate of wildfires in places like Canada and the US are low compared to historic norms - and that when they do occur, they are more likely to be exacerbated by land mismanagement than by increased CO2 levels? There is no desire to dilute the intensity of the messaging with consideration of alternative and more nuanced discussions - and that will have consequences for the way in which we manage risk as a global society and build-in resilience to cope with significant climatic events in the future.

I think there isn't enough on this. People need to be shocked into action, there isn't a 2nd planet for us to move to.

Not robust? Great, find me an actual systematic review published in an actual peer reviewed journal that challenges the key concepts, then. Vanity publications don't count.

Yes, the IPCC has over estimated climate change. The reason for this is completely unexpected and unprecedented shift to renewable energy. It's not a models issue.

The concern about Hunga Tonga was the effects from that in addition to man made effects. It's not an alternative explanation!

Also, North American fires: climate change strengthens the ENSO Pacific weather system. In El Nino mode, this causes hot, dry weather, and cold, wet weather (in certain regions) in La Nina mode. It switched to La Nina in early 2020 and stayed that way for several years. It's only just switched back to El Nino.

This system also affects Australian weather systems. It was a major contributor to the 2019/2020 fires. La Nina then arrived, so there had been record flooding in south east Australia since.

How about you produce some evidence - because, as yet, you have not pointed me to a single credible source (all you have linked to was a dodgy Guardian report, with no traceable citations)! Where is the evidence that the models have overestimated temperature because of renewables - against a backdrop of increased global fossil fuel use? As for ENSO - I know all about that...I am incredulous that you believe that there is scientific evidence that has definitively proved the causal link that you highlight - what would the physical mechanism be for that then?
It strikes me that your responses highlight everything that is dangerously wrong about the current situation - an unshakeable belief system that will bend all evidence to the desired narrative...rather than a sensible, measured recognition that we do not yet have an adequate understanding of all of the variables (and, crucially, the complex ways that they interact).

Climate change - I can pull original.articles of you like, but the NASA summary is good:https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Here's a nice introduction to ENSO: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/el-nino/

NASA and the accuracy of climate models:https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Then your energy company is ripping you off. Our single glazed Victorian semi is less than 200 a month...

@LameBorzoi - there is a fundamental difference between a consensus of scientists and scientific consensus.

You are linking through to NASA public information designed to reinforce the standard messaging. It conflates complex issues in an overly simplistic way. I note that the study supposedly confirming model accuracy references temperature anomalies, rather than actual temperatures. As I highlighted upthread (and you didn't respond to) - the variation in model output is greater than the temperature increase that they are attempting to explain - the degree of model bias means that they do not have the resolution to deal with the levels of temperature change since we have emerged from the Little Ice Age...(https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012MS000154)

The collection of statements from various scientific organisations give a pretty crude overview of the messaging - eg, top of the pile, the statement from AAAS about the old '97% of scientists agree..."...meaningless with respect to the the issue of how much warming is being caused by anthropogenic activity, versus natural variability. It is interesting to note the power with which politics has impacted scientific study when considering the subtle changes in defining climate change - eg the UNFCCC altering the working definition of climate change to only focus on manmade causes, excluding all other variables (which are then left languishing under the umbrella term of 'climate variability'!).

I don't need you to link through to any more of the standard script for this socio-political paradigm...that was my starting point and I am continuously bombarded by it through every form of media these days. The interesting stuff lies in being able to understand where the gaps in the knowledge lie...the crucial bits that remain unsettled...

That's a bog standard article on model tuning! Getting "model breaker" from that is a massive leap of faith.

You seem to think that there seems to be some conspiracy that scientific organisations on multiple different continents are in on. Why would this be the case?

Yes, the gaps are interesting. However, we can't afford to ignore predictions just because we would prefer them not to be true.

You've still not provided anything from any reputable source that might challenge the idea that the summary that an organisation such as NASA gives isn't a reasonable translation of our best estimates.

There are plenty of eminent scientists who are challenging various key aspects of the narrative. I have read enough to have serious doubts about any headline that shouts catastrophe and implies that there is a direct link between extreme climatic projections and causes that are predominantly anthropogenic - that position is simply not based on any consensus of the actual science.

Of course establishment bodies will toe the party line! You have not presented any evidence that has altered my understanding of the situation - you are just demonstrating how socio-political paradigms work. Actually, it is probably disingenuous of me to request any evidence...because that is also part of the problem. It suggests that a single piece of evidence could be sufficient to verify what is, in essence, a meta-theory. I suppose that is why I have been keen to point you in the direction of academics who have actually gone to the painstaking effort of trying to assess the general body of scientific evidence . Thinking that a single piece of evidence could ever prove or disprove anthropogenic GHGs being the principal driver of climate change would show a complete lack of understanding of the complexities of the climatic system.
As I said earlier, I really do recommend that you look at the very recent publication by Dr Judith Curry ('Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response'), which does an excellent job of tying together the current extent of the scientific knowledge - areas of agreement, disagreement and levels of certainty. A review of the book by Michael Kelly (Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge) certainly suggests that it provides an intellectually robust assessment:
"With climate models running too hot by a factor of 2 for 30 years, with everything that used to be called a weather event now a portent of climate change, and with billions being invested against this as opposed to other more pressing world needs, Judith A. Curry provides us with a much-needed and convincing rethink."

We have an entire galaxy to conquer, we just need better technology to achieve it.

I’m dubious that humanity will ever colonize a planet outside of our solar system and, even if that does happen, it is likely many centuries away and would probably involve moving a tiny fraction of the Earth’s population.

Personally I'm not sure how it will.

Thanks for the links and books @Bogwood, guess this is next "current thing" now people have become bored with Ukraine. Wtf are peoples objections to YouTube links by the way? I have seen so many more interesting and informative debates/presentations on there than TV.

I also agree with the Attenborough annoyance, dickhead who has lived a full life of luxury, doing sad voice at poors, fuck the fuck off massive hypocrite.

Money.

If we were wrong about anthropogenic climate change, it would be easy to disprove. One good article that met a standard of proof, would do it.

You still haven't explained the harms of switching to renewables? It's now cheaper to produce energy with renewables than it is to produce it with fossil fuel.

I have no doubts about climate change happening, but I do also get tired of the constant refrain from people like public broadcasters. In part I suspect it's because I've been worn down by them lecturing me constantly on other things as well. And in a way that just seems incredibly smug. It's like you have to turn away to protect your ability to function.

I also get frustrated because there seem to be these sacred cows which I know are complete bs and will not fix things. Like electric cars, or carbon trading, or outsourcing production to other countries that don't give a shit about their statistics. The tendency for certain political parties to make a big deal about certain policies, and then when about serious issues that will need to be sorted - like how do we manage an economy where we deliberately shrink productivity. they just hand wave it away - it makes me really crazy. My conclusion is they don't actually care, it's all performative.