Doomsday predictions are a dream for climate deniers

[walkingman]

I was reading this long article in the Guardian and am not sure what to think? It is by Hannah Ritchie, a 30ish climate scientist, who seems to have cred and to be honest it was good to read an optimistic article about climate change. It goes into great detail about how technology is making a difference in our fight to slow down climate change and statistically how we are indeed doing a pretty good job.

Any thoughts?

I thought most of us were going to die from the climate crisis. I was wrong

In an extract from her book Not the End of the World, data scientist Hannah Ritchie explains how her work taught her that there are more reasons for hope than despair about climate change – and why a truly sustainable world is in reach.
"At this point I should make one thing clear: none of this means climate change is not happening"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/02/hannah-ritchie-not-the-end-of-the-world-interview

[Brenda]

1. I don't really care what climate deniers (liars or idiots) dream.

Ritchie may be smart and genuine but maybe also naive. No one is predicting immediate death for all, they're predicting the cold harsh facts about what the world is going to look like in a decade or so. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. And their track record has been underestimating events and timelines.

She is extremely overly optimistic if she really thinks some kind of new technology is going to be discovered and used to reverse this course in the next decade or so.

Sorry if I sound like a Doomsday person, but frankly there is very little chance humans can fix this problem at this point.

[walkingman]

2. That has been my thought for quite a while based on my knowledge

as a layman so I was actually excited to hear some good news. I hope she is right.

Another good article related is -

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/02/hannah-ritchie-not-the-end-of-the-world-extract-climate-crisis

[Brenda]

3. I used to work with glaciologists many moons ago.

The trajectory of climate devastation has not changed except for the worse. I don't see what good news of substance she is talking about. She seems to be using statistics to say things aren't really that bad because they were worse in the past. In fact, some of the things she mentions like child mortality are going in the wrong direction in the richest nation on Earth.

It's nice to be nice and hopeful and make people feel good but the facts are that the extreme wealth and power of the fossil fuel companies and other corporations that are entrenched in all governments on this planet have stopped us from responding to this existential threat in a way that could give us a hopeful outcome.

The window is closing fast and simply saying we have these alternatives to change things is not enough. A small percentage of people becoming vegan, riding bicycles, going off the grid and only having one child is not enough. Maybe if hundreds of millions of people or even a billion did all of that it would work out.

But is that really going to happen? Look at the LBN right here at DU. Is there one story about this situation on the front page? Look at TV and other mass media, even the weather channel and let me know if it sounds like there is an emergency and we should all be moving quickly towards those goals.

I don't think it will be good news.

[walkingman]

4. I live just outside of Austin. We have lived here for over 35 years.

When we were transferred here we averaged 24 days over 100°, now 35 years later we average 90-100 days over 100°. It is not fit for man or beast.

I live in the country and have Longhorn steers to keep my Ag exemption. For those that live in the city in a box they worry more about the AC and power in Texas staying on and if the weather is good for the weekend. Climate Change is not top of their concerns or many view it as a "act of god" so just accept it. Add to that the fact that Texas employed hundreds of thousands in the fossil fuel industry so their ideology is tied directly to their jobs.
I do hear several young people in college fighting for their future but in many case once they are employed that seems to diminish.

I too am very skeptical, in fact just judging from the last 3 decades alone, I see nothing but retorhic from our elected officals. I admit we are making progress but nothing that will be significant enough to change the situation. We are much more concerned with issues that directly affect our contemporary lives and unless technology can actually affect this tragetary the future we more than likely are in for a rough ride.

Sorry for the long post but I think this issue should be our primary focus along with geopolitical issues.

[Brenda]

5. You hit on one point that explains a lot.

Climate Change is not top of their concerns or many view it as a "act of god" so just accept it.

It's not top of their concerns because they are mostly kept in the dark by the billionaires invested in FF's. If you watch American TV (or any websites that promote the same advertising/media news) you would think all is well, in fact everyone sings and dances and eats fast food, takes hundreds of drugs and lives life shopping for new things in a Fantasyland.

The other point, "act of god" is what I think drives the deeply religious people to refuse to believe the scientists. They actually want to be raptured into heaven, poor delusional beings.

[Martin68]

11. Brenda, I completely agree. Children being born today are going to grow up in a very different world than the one

we grew up in. I don’t believe we are headed for extinction, but a breakdown of civilization as we know it is a strong possibility given the effects climate change will have on cities and agriculture, and the creation of hundreds of millions of climate refugees as heavily populated area become uninhabitable due to sea level rise, changing weather patterns, and a scarcity of food and water.

[hatrack]

6. Hannah Ritchie is a data scientist. Nothing wrong with that, but she's not a climatologist, or a glaciologist . . .

Last edited Fri Jan 5, 2024, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Or an oceanographer, or an atmospheric physicist, or an atmospheric chemist, or a botanist or a fisheries scientist, or any other field that intersects directly with the planet's climate. If she'd spent her career out in the field with people like Jason Box or Konrad Steffen or Lonnie Thompson or Terry Hughes, I dare say she'd be singing a different tune.

Also, the core focus of those of us worried about climate collapsed is very much on the near- and medium-term future, and she's citing child mortality figures from the past 200 years as grounds for optimism? She then comes up with this:

"But the realisation I came to was that we have the opportunity to improve both of these things at the same time: we can continue human progress while addressing our environmental problems." "Progress" defined as what? Gross domestic product? Smart phone download speed? Stock market gains? Wage growth? Vaccination rates? Diabetes rates? Electric grid stability?

Beyond that, the idea that we're "addressing" environmental problems is laughable. There are microplastics in our blood, in fetuses, at the top of Mount Everest and at the bottom of the Challenger Deep. What natural habitats and wildlife biomass that remain are outweighed by multiple orders of magnitude by humans, our livestock and our waste streams. And every week, every month, every year, atmospheric CO2 content continues to grow, along with all other GHGs

But hey, children live longer than they did when Andrew Jackson was president, so yay us.

[Brenda]

7. Exactly.

Wow, you mentioned Lonnie. Do you know him? I used to work at IPS where he and his wife worked for decades. Knowing those scientists personally makes me even angrier when I hear the crap about "gold digging scientists lying to get more grant money." Lonnie is literally a hero who put his life at risk by continuing to climb mountains of ice to retrieve ice cores until he had to have a heart transplant.

I've got an excellent interview with him I would like to post here. I tried to get permission from the organization that published it but no answer. I'll try again.

[hatrack]

8. My introduction was the book "Thin Ice", which was fascinating . . .

Can't say I know him, alas!

[Brenda]

9. Ah. The Institute for Polar Studies

which is now called Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center had so many interesting scientists of many disciplines working all over the world. I was there back in the 1980's and they were doing research on Alaskan permafrost as well as early Antarctic core work to name a couple.

Lonnie is from WVA and began his education hoping to go into Geology and work for oil companies! His research led him to a different path, thankfully.

[NNadir]

10. For a data scientist she certainly seems blissfully unaware of the numbers.

The Guardian is slightly a cut above the "but her emails" mainstream media, but in this case the article rather supports my oft stated half serious contention that one cannot get a degree in journalism if one has passed a science course with a grade of C or better.

[Martin68]

12. You make an interesting point. Scientific thinking and journalism just don't get along very well. Ambiguity and

complexity are not welcome in the media, where the competition for short attention spans is paramount.