??? Every one of those fields and more make highly important contributions to climate science. They are not ignored. However, suggesting that the scientists in each of those fields are experts on climate is nonsense. They are experts in their own fields. What you are proposing is like asking climatologists for their conclusions about dark matter, or dinosaurs, or the Millennium Prize problems, etc.
Folks can likely agree to many things that aren't either true, or ethical. Clearly, there are many who have invested lots of efforts into believing in lies... but the statement that we know the earth is warming due to human activity clearly isn't one of these things we actually know. You can believe in it all you want. Perhaps that suffices because you have no other beliefs, but we don't judge. You seem reconciled with your choice to believe a thing that cannot be proven. So, your faith tells you that you must prosthelytize to make sure that you aren't the only believer. Why? I'd ask if you could actually tell the difference of a tenth or so of a degree, but given how sensitive you come off, I'd say, sure you do. And aren't you the most sensitive of snowflakes.. brava....
You obviously don't have to be a scientist to have an opinion or even a firm grasp of the science. Some people are self educated. But certainly their contributions to these sciences give them a great understanding of the science of climate. Also, the ability to detect bullxxxx.
Look up Green New Deal. Totalitarian government control of your lives to achieve this Green New Deal.
I agree with some of what she says. There are process issues. I've read her proposals for mechanisms that would allow better airing of contrarian or radical results in science - mechanisms that address the problem that publishing performs an important gate keeping function, but can diminish exposure of studies that obtain contrarian or surprising results. There ARE ways around this, as there are websites where scientists add their work prior to review - since being turned down by publishers can be a career hit. These sites do actually get used - making her concern a little overly emphasized. I also agree with her many statements about how we need to be working to become more resilient wrt climate change, since Earth IS warming. She points to water, where we see increasing scarcity while we have no international law on rivers crossing borders - on amount or pollution. So, places like Iraq, Bangladesh, and countries in South America are getting less water as well as having the water they get polluted by agricultural waste/fertilizer compounds upstream where they have no legal influence. However, suggesting this single person is the voice of "real" climatology obvious and abject nonsense. Also, noted that she is getting plenty of attention for being a contrarian. So, the notion that the only way to get attention is to join some gigantic world wide conspiracy is clearly NONSENSE. In fact, the rewards of science go to those who are right and who upset the apple cart - not to those who verify results. We know Einstein, because Einstein blew away physics. We know Darwin, because he blew away ideas on where species come from. If someone wants to be known for climatology, all they have to do is blow away current Climate Change theory. THAT would be the prize - not confirming some BS. Besides, a world wide conspiracy in climate science would be IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD.
What's your point? If we were like dinosaurs we would just move to where there is food, water and the right amount of warmth, and if we couldn't, we would just die. Humans do NOT accept the dinosaur model. We require people to stay in their own country, we require LOCAL agriculture because nations that can't feed themselves fail, we require a stable world market to sustain our standard of living along with national defense adequate to maintain that open world market, etc., etc.
Clearly, YOU are the snowflake concerned about what YOU feel. I would encourage you to look to actual measurement and consider Earth, rather than the current temperature in front of your computer screen.
You really have a narrow view of humanity as well as a myopic view of the future and the exponential advancements we'll make in one hundred, five hundred, one thousand years from now.
Absolutely! All humans have the capability of having an opinion. In fact, it doesn't even require education or pertinent information!! I don't agree that being a paleontologist gives a "great understanding" of what is driving climate change today. I note that the list had "computer scientist" in it, and that isn't even a field of science - it's engineering. Etc. That post (and yours) depends on attempts to deprecate a whole field of science in favor of suggesting that it's trivial enough for anyone to do it - so why listen to experts in the field? It makes as much sense as noting that anyone can learn the basics of how a virus works, or take a course in biochem, so why would you EVER consult a doctor?
I'm open to hearing ideas! I'd ask that they be somewhat constrained - as in, happening on Earth, applying to a significant majority of the human population facing the problem in question, etc.
The last 200 years in technological advancements will be dwarfed by the next 50 years or less. Fossil fuels will be a thing of the past faster than you think without primitive windmills and solar panels . Fuel will be so abundant, it will be free.
Oh yes, for 50 years it's been made clear that non-fossil fuel will be so abundant it will be essentially free. I remember WPPSS (pronounced Woops), as I lived in OR in the '60's. The claim was that we didn't even have to worry about home insulation anymore, because all that fission power would so swamp our needs that it would be dirt cheap to heat uninsulated homes with nuclear power. Then, it went bankrupt in the '70's. As a northwest resident, I've had WPPSS charges on my power bill, to pay off stupendous debt, ever since!! And, fusion has ALWAYS been 5 to 10 years away AT MOST!! We've made some advances in agriculture. Dwarf wheat was big - it bailed out India the last time there was a national agricultural crisis there. But, the thing is you have to look for solutions that will work in areas where there will be changes in available water, for example. Nobody outside of America cares if America can grow more food. The threat will come when more countries like Somalia and Syria (with its multi-year drought) show up on the national security map. What happens if India or Bangladesh or China have food problems due to agricultural changes? There are countries in South America that have serious water issues today.
The world is covered in 70% water. Again, the technological advances in desalination in just the last 20 are remarkable. Bangladesh? Where they have annual monsoon seasons? Short sighted
Do you know of desalination plants that have addressed needs the size of agriculture? I know Israel has built some plants in West Bank, where they want to require the indigenous population to buy the expensive water from their plants while Israelis who have stolen land there co-opt the rights to natural water. Obviously, that's cause for war.
I'm not going to be baited into derailing the thread with anti-Zionist blather except to say Israel wouldn't have posession of that land if they weren't attacked. I think the Saudis have the most advanced desalination technology to my knowledge but I can't find the video I recently saw about it. Here's one about Israel desalination.
"usual range"? We do not live in the "usual range". For most of Earth's history, there was no ice on Earth. We do not live in a climatically optimum time period. Human beings would benefit from atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 1600ppm and global temperatures 9-11 degrees higher than they are now.
It is! I read that just the other day. You're right. That's not good. The optimum conditions for human beings are much warmer, globally, than they are now (9-11 degrees) with atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 1600ppm.
The benefits, to humanity, of a global climate 9-11 degrees F. warmer then it is now, with atmospheric CO2 at 1600ppm, would easily outweigh the inconveniences of the same.
A glacier is NOT the entire ice sheet https://www.livescience.com/64546-greenland-ice-sheet-melting-faster.html
