Good grief, is Trump going to destroy the climate?

[Junglebell]

Just been scrolling and came across this.

https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1854482837350555810

Is Trump for real? Surely someone needs to tell him that every scientist agrees that manmade CO2 controls the climate/

"As I have explained upthread - I am not denying climate change"

Oh come on - be honest.

You've spent the entire day repeatedly posting comments suggesting that there is no meaningful consensus that climate change is a significant & looming threat, and that agencies like NASA who say otherwise have just got the science wrong.

You've used A LOT of words but this is the sum of your opinion.

@StuffandFluff so why are the models so accurate?

Okay,@izimbra and@Daftasabroom I will do my best to make my position clear to both of you at the same time - as I have already spent more than enough of my time on this thread and it is now the beginning of a busy working week and professional drudgery calls! However, I should have known that we would end up going around in circles, as this happens every time - we are in the midst of a powerful paradigm and I understand that many people find it incredibly difficult to step outside of the imposed framework to calmly assess the situation. But I do find it a sorry state of affairs that the public in general has been misinformed to the extent that they think that climate science is such a comprehensively understood discipline that the physical mechanisms of a changing climate are comprehensively understood and can be accurately modelled. This is simply not the case and it is to the detriment of scientific progress that discussions in this area have been as good as cancelled and we are expected to adopt the mainstream belief system with religious fervour!

"Climate change" is a term that has been used within the mainstream lexicon in a way that confuses the science of a changing climate. So, when you refer to "climate change", do you mean the same thing as me? If you are adopting the definition used by the United Nation (Framework Convention on Climate Change), then probably not - as this definition pointedly excludes all reference to the contribution that natural causes make to changing the climate.
This confusion of meaning permeates the entire narrative of climate change.
For clarity - I am not denying that the climate changes.
I am not denying that anthropogenic CO2 (and other 'greenhouse gases') make some contribution.
I do believe that the climate has always changed - regardless of human activity.
I do believe that human activity over the past hundred years has influenced climate to a greater extent than human activity preceding this.
I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that human activity over the past hundred years is responsible for a level of climate change that warrants the extreme and rapid remodelling of our societies/economic activity that is currently being enacted. I believe that there is a great risk that, with no rapid change in the direction of travel, this will cause more harm to global humanity than it will prevent (with respect to whatever negative impacts may arise from the human-induced element of climate change).
I think that rational perspective is needed - we are talking about a calculated global temperature anomaly over a 120 year period that amounts to a rise of 1.1oC - which averages out at 0.09oC per decade. There is no way that the scientific community has currently reached any consensus on what proportion of this recent change is underpinned by natural causes and which proportion is underpinned by human-induced causes. And that point is critical and tends to be lost in the constant noise that surrounds the climate change narrative. This is where what I have referred to as the political and media-driven "hype" and "propaganda" comes into play. The mainstream appear to be quite happy to let the public think that the science underpinning the human-induced contribution to climate is the primary driver of change. This masks massive gaps in our collective knowledge about the natural causes of climate change - and, as the IPCC's original and mandate was and only concerned with the human-induced element of climate change (with the adoption of an 'a priori' position that this was the most significant cause), this has skewed the direction of its scientific endeavours in a completely (I would argue recklessly) unscientific way. It has been extremely challenging for scientists who have been operating in potentially crucial research areas, to highlight what could be significant natural drivers of climate change (eg Svensmark's work on the influence of cosmic rays and clouds) and the overall funding (amounting to billions of dollars) has been largely devoted to understanding the human-induced role in climate change.
Computer models are only as good as the input data and as long as disproportionate resources are devoted to the role that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (with a special focus on CO2) that input data is going to be ridiculously incomplete. Computer simulations are constantly having to be "tuned" to make it appear that they fit the observed reality. And key aspects of that "observed reality" are in turn highly questionable - however, it results in huge scope for error. When you refer to the accuracy of the modelled computer predictions, are you aware that the IPCC assessment results are an amalgamation of often wildly differing projections - an 'ensemble' derived from a large number of different models from across the global scientific community. This constitutes the CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) and it is an objective reality that the 'clean' results that you might see in certain smoothed out graphs (for public consumption) actually represent a fudge averaged from wildly differing output simulations that agree neither with each other or reality. So, whilst you have argued that the underlying "physics" is well understood and should give us confidence in the modelled results, if this was all that needed to be understood about the climate, then we would not need to present averages of all the different model outputs - they would all match. The differences from run to run and between different models convey that the science is far from exact. The variation between these different model outputs, when they attempt to simulate average surface temperatures on a global scale, amounts to around 3oC - which is x3 the observed temperature increase of the past century! Perhaps this is why the IPCC often chooses to highlight averaged temperature anomalies, rather than actual predicted temperature changes - to mask the huge gaps in knowledge that underpin the differences in model outputs! In addition, it is the case that the spread of the later CMIP ensemble is greater than the earlier ones - implying that uncertainty is increasing (as they attempt to model at finer grid scales) rather than decreasing! This makes tuning the models to observations even trickier and nods once again to the inherent complexity of the system.

And I see your agenda - because you are simply parroting everything that your quick Google searches direct you to!
Firstly, try listening to what Koonin is actually saying and why not actually read his book - which was grossly misrepresented in the Scientific American review that you refer to (but which, strangely, despite being firmly debunked - as I will outline below - still retains its prime Google search position - funny that!).
Secondly, you are cherry-picking to fit your political narrative. Science should not be political. Scientists should be free to advise and work with whichever politicians they choose - the objective science should not be impacted. So, you make a point that Koonin worked with the Trump administration - but you neglect to say that he served as the Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under President Obama. He has more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy and climate science. He was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech (where he also served as vice-president and provost). He is currently a university professor at New York University.
With respect to the highly dodgy Scientific American review that attempted to discredit his work - his rebuttal of this and other key misrepresentations can be found here https://steven-koonin.medium.com/
I strongly recommend you look at the debate between him and one of the listed authors of that Scientific American review (Andrew Dessler) -
It is shocking, Dessler actually begins by trying to deny having anything to do with the paper - until Koonin shows him a slide of the paper! Clearly, Dessler cannot stand by the false accusations made in the paper. If you do not have the time to watch the whole video, skip to the end (about 1:25) - it sums it up nicely and you can judge for yourself how genuinely annoyed Koonin is (he is clearly no political stooge!) - because he is genuinely aggrieved by how his work is falsely represented - he does get an apology from Dessler and he resoundingly wins the debate! But that Scientific American article continues to do its work - look how quickly you cited it and how unquestioningly you accepted its veracity!

@StuffandFluff ,

I have read your long post and also watched large chunks of the video that you posted. Both are interesting but you are conflating a lot of issues.

Yes, we have always had natural climate change but, in general the cycles are long and there is time to adapt. And, in addition, we just can’t do much about them. So 1,000 years ago, if large swathes of a continent were flooded and people emigrated or died, no one would have seen it as a big deal. Now, if Bangladesh becomes largely submerged, that would be a huge global issue.

And your averaging of climate change over 120 years is disingenuous at best. The most compelling evidence has arrived in the last quarter century, based on increased population, increased energy use per person, and the acceleration of warming via positive feedback loops (the albedo effect being the most important).

Of course models are back tested and tweaked and they are horrendously complex and won’t all agree, but they broadly do and I showed with a link earlier that most predict reasonably well. And they are getting better all the time. Computing power is still broadly increasing by Moore’s law and it is this that is the critical factor.

Where I have more sympathy with your (and Koonin’s) perspective is that the ways we are currently tackling it are by the costs being overwhelmingly borne by those who can least afford it, both individually and geographically. And a lot of ‘green’ technology isn’t nearly as green or worthy as it looks (solar panels for one).

Our best current bet is uranium fission and we should invest heavily in that. Fusion isn’t much talked about but a crucial landmark was passed last year where in an experiment, more energy was emitted than input. A real global effort to get fusion could solve the issue once and for all.

@Newbutoldfather I completely agree with your appraisal - very nicely put. Yes, the averaging over 120 years smooths the data ridiculously (but I only use that metric because the associated simplistic temperature anomaly graphs are the most often used visual props). And I do appreciate the fact that climatic change, with respect to natural, background drivers, operates on many timescales (from multidecadal to millennia...).
Ultimately, whichever aspect we choose to attempt to discuss on a platform like this, the subject will be ridiculously constrained and lack the necessary nuance to do it justice. My position is simply that it should not be so difficult for the complexities and gaps in knowledge to be openly recognised and discussed - without risking being shut down by silly squeals of "climate denier"...(the equivalent in the past would have been "Burn the witch/heretic!").
Absolutely, those who can least afford to take measures will suffer most - but I would contest that our entire UK economy risks being plunged into the abyss if we do not take a more rational approach to energy security.

We won't have an economy if we don't have a stable climate. Global climate is incredibly important to British success due to the massive amount we import into our country. Our clean water is also thanks to our stable climate, if we lose the stability of our climate then our clean water is at stake.
Sadly our politicians are corrupt but if we all do nothing then as a human race we are not allowing future generations a chance. The economy will be the least of their worries.

Globally, the UK is doing absolutely nothing for climate change. We are simply shipping the problem off elsewhere. Other countries are not playing their part. So there is nothing we can do, no difference we can make…and the idea we’re making any difference is rubbish.

I’m all for preventing litter, stopping pollutants entering our waterways, using less plastic and organic farming etc. But I see no value in Net Zero as it’s a con. We are still using gas, still polluting etc, we’re just getting another country to do that for us. There is no benefit in that and we are all getting poorer for it.
It’s a lie we are being sold at great expense, to line the pocket of business and politicians.

I agree we are shipping out our problems and funding wars on top of that (can't be good for climate change) and then people are rebelling against refugees into the country which I think is so sad.
Do you not think that renewable energy is a good way to go though? Or helping Pacific island states get the help they need?
(Genuinely interested in your opinion - I know a lot of people who post just want an argument).

Of course we need to explore renewables. We’d be silly not to.

But for me it’s the pace.

We live in a country that has seen significant stagnation over the past 20 years. Pay has decreased. The welfare state has increased. Services are stretched. Many people have assets, but very little disposable income.
For example, my family do set aside some money each month to pay for vacation time, but for the most part we live month to month. We’re always waiting for pay day.

Trying to get to Net Zero by 2030, when it is going to have little global effect, is a luxury that many of us who are already stretched by high energy prices and interest rates cannot afford and are scared of.

There is no reason not to just slow down, to change and adapt over time to keep bills as low as possible, but politicians want to do it quickly at whatever cost, so they can claim to be the first. We don’t have the technology or infrastructure for this to be a smooth and effective transition. So the working class suffer.

When you see people ploughing ahead, throwing billions of pounds of tax payers money at Net Zero and abroad, or on refugees coming to the UK, what do you do? You vote for whoever is going to stop it. Because most of us feel poor, and resentful. The fact other people are poorer is neither here nor there, when you’re living with financial stress yourself.

My parents are quite keen about Net Zero and everything lovely. I suppose it’s easier when you have no mortgage and a beautiful home that’s been in the family for the last 40 years that you inherited, but intend to sell, so you can live comfortably through yours 60’s and onward. When you don’t have to work and slog your guts out everyday, just to watch your bank account be emptied by bills on day 1.

I genuinely believe there is a lack of consideration of the burden on the tax payer and the people who have been struggling and who continue to struggle. That’s why Net Zero is also seen as a middle class policy.

Right now, we need a few years of being a bit selfish and allowing working class people to build their savings back up; building the economy; focusing on reducing poverty here in the UK, not by adding to the welfare bill, but by encouraging work, entrepreneurship and skills development. Something we have decided to neglect to our detriment. We are a rich country…but only relatively. We are not currently a healthy, happy, prosperous nation…and if you feel happy, healthy and prosperous then consider yourself particularly fortunate because you are not the majority.

Thank you for your response. I think it's interesting to hear about other people's situations and thoughts on life, particularly climate change.I do feel feel happy and healthy - maybe not always prosperous but I'd love to live in a country where others do as well.
I hope you dont mind my asking but do you live in England?

You’re very welcome. Quite often we get drawn into arguments, where we abandon our logical thinking and say things simply to score points instead. Well, I know I can be like that.

I live in Wales. In 2010, I did feel happy and prosperous and each year, with every promotion, I felt a little better off. How can things have gone so wrong, well the mortgage interest rates have squashed us. My husband is a middle leader in the public sector, where people rely on him, but we’ve started to think about how much we could save by him taking time off work sick, due to the Diesel he wouldn’t have to buy for his commute. That’s ridiculous isn’t it. I also work full time, so surely we should feel the benefit of two full time working people with only one son.

That’s why people like myself want the country to put the working people first for a change. We want our troubles to be heard. And this is why Donald Trump has just been elected in the USA. The Democrats just weren’t listening.

Anyway, I’m sure you’ve better things to do.

Have a lovely day and take care!

@Llhaaf if 2030 is too challenging, what time scale do you think we should be aiming for to get to net zero?

I propose we see what the rest of the world does.

Edited to add that I don’t mean Norway. I’m talking about the big players that make an actual difference, China and the USA.

Anything we do before that is pointless, so we may as well go at the same pace as those countries.

Should we not have our own policy? You're claiming that net zero 2030 is too soon but it's impossible to make a sensible argument if you don't have an alternative.

@Llhaaf why should we wait for the USA and China?

I hear people saying that someone needs to lead the way forward. Sadly, our country is not a leader. We think we are; we were 30 years ago. We’re not now.

None of the big polluting countries is going to look at the UK and say ‘bravo - we need to reach Net Zero sooner too!’. Particularly when they see a useless government with no control or ideas; a stagnated economy; a disillusioned electorate; a humongous welfare state; a country en-route to socialism and ridiculously high energy costs for both business and consumer.

What difference will we make on our own?
The problem is global is it not?
So whilst we are making ourselves poor, the other countries are making themselves richer.
And the climate hasn’t been saved, because the only ones who can make a difference aren’t interested.

What difference will we make on our own?

Every improvement is important. Developing the skills, the technology and the infrastructure to mitigate climate change will take time. The sooner we start this journey the better placed we will be to cope with climate change and to deliver net zero. Making many small changes will be much less disruptive than having to make massive changes in the near future. A stitch in time and all that.

The problem is global is it not?

Absolutely, China is installing massive amounts of renewables, india are rapidly developing. The USA has the Inflation Reduction Act.

So whilst we are making ourselves poor, the other countries are making themselves richer.

Is this the case? It may feel like it. You'd need show some pretty good evidence to convince me that investment does long term damage.

And the climate hasn’t been saved, because the only ones who can make a difference aren’t interested.

Massive non sequitur.

I don’t believe you I’m afraid.

The USA has a new incoming government who wants to “drill baby drill”.
China is building more coal powered stations and remains the world’s biggest consumer of coal.
We in the UK are doing nothing but trying to set an example.

All I know is I have £500 in my bank account to last me until the end of December, I can’t put the heating on enough to stop me getting nose bleeds from the cold air, and people are banging on that I need to invest in an electric vehicle and a heat pump 😂 It’s just hilarious. I’m not poor. DH and I are both in full time work, we have a good home and are fortunate. I just need a break from this climate crap and a chance to save up my earnings without levy’s and taxes on everything. And it looks like these feelings are pretty common in the UK.

None of what you say about climate change makes any sense. It's also based on one massive falsehood.

You’re making the same mistake as the government, you’re not listening. You’re telling people that the climate crisis is the single most important and immediate issue and that’s all that matters. Because if we don’t sort the climate crisis, nothing else will matter. And that we’re all in it together, us, the US, China…and even if we’re not, what WE do, can make the difference.

Well, I think you’re wrong.

1. 2030 is too ambitious
2. It will cost a lot in the short term
3. The squeezed middle are unlikely to receive the same subsidies that lower income families get, to help them with the transition
4. This is unfair and breeds resentment
5. There is a greater risk of people rejecting the climate crisis altogether; losing jobs in fossil fuel industries with not time to retrain sufficiently, leading to greater poverty

What is fair is that we go slower. 2030, is going to make Absolute Zero difference. Why not extend that, take our time, allow people to retrain, work on the economy and help people reach a point where they can actually achieve net zero easily?
If we don’t do it by 2030, will the planet burst into flames? No. In fact, China and the US won’t decarbonise by then, so I ask you again, what is the point in us bearing this burden?

@Llhaaf You’re telling people that the climate crisis is the single most important and immediate issue and that’s all that matters

I've not said anything of the sort at any time whatsoever. Please quote me if you think otherwise.

P.S. it's not 2030 it's 2050, even China who you seem very angry with, have set a deadline of 2060. 2030 is 5 years away 2050 is 25 years away.

Thank you, you too 😊

Ok, I apologise. I must have misunderstood your argument.

35 years, 2060 seems like an appropriate amount of time, I agree.