Its not a bigger threat than de-industrializing those regions to lower their carbon footprint. Its not like those places are going to become uninhabitable. If they can't grow crops anymore, they can still make things to sell to buy food from places that are openned up to farming as a result of having become warmer. A few of them migrating to farm is not a threat. Unless, of course, we make industry so expensive with carbon restrictions that they can't make anything... THEN yes, their mass-migration will become a threat.
That is just pure BS. It's as profoundly stupid as saying that the known issues with our model of physics means that our physics "paradigm" has collapsed. So, let's throw out physics!
Let's stop right there. Once you come up with something that ridiculous an untruthful, further discussion is pointless.
Ah yes, instead of challenging a point, just edit it out and make excuses. ...you don't come here to debate, do you
Sorry, but AGW paradigm =/= climate science. In the matter of climate sensitivity the AGW paradigm has obviously failed, and as Thomas Kuhn observed, this presages the rise of a new paradigm.
You're the one claiming those concerned about climate are attempting to "deindustrialize". After that, you have zero credibility - no matter WHAT you say.
That's not the way science works. If someone has stronger ideas, they have to stand up to the challenge presented by the numerous disciplines that comprise climate science. And, that has not happened. Maybe what you MEANT to say is that there is opportunity in climatology.
I made no such claim. I do believe that will be the result if we arent careful, but I dont believe very many people want that.
Actually, it's exactly the way science works. “Paradigms are not corrigible by normal science at all. Instead, as we have already seen, normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises. And these are terminated, not by deliberation and interpretation, but by a relatively sudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch. Scientists then often speak of the "scales falling from the eyes" or of the "lightning flash" that "inundates" a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution. On other occasions the relevant information comes in sleep. No ordinary sense of the term 'interpretation' fits these flashes of intuition through which a new paradigm is born. Though such intuitions depend upon the experience, both anomalous and congruent, gained with the old paradigm, they are not logically or piecemeal linked to particular items of that experience as an interpretation would be. Instead, they gather up large portions of that experience and transform them to the rather different bundle of experience that will thereafter be linked piecemeal to the new paradigm but not to the old.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
You raised that as if it were a solution to climate change that someone might suggest. But, NOBODY is suggesting that kind of BS. In fact, the Paris direction is that individual countries decide what they will do, and there aren't even any penalties for not doing what they promise. Are you suggesting there are countries that will decide to "deindustrialize"? What did you mean to imply by bringing up "deindustrilize"?
But, that doesn't counter anything I said. If there is to be a revolution, there needs to be a new idea that proves itself to be superior. That's exactly what happened with Einstein's revolution. Physics continued as best it could until such time as Einstein's ideas were proven to be superior. If someone proposes a new direction concerning CO2 and its relation to the warming that is taking place, that idea has to prove itself.
The revolution is here. Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF) Nir Shaviv: Forbes censored an interview with me
So, what critical thinking did she focus the students on? The summary doesn't invite any questions, it merely states her (learned) opinions.
Did you read her full post? 5 minutes Posted on July 11, 2021 by curryja | 588 comments by Judith Curry How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes? Continue reading →
Do you even have a CLUE who the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" is??? What your cites prove is that you are DESPERATE in your search for ANYONE opposed to climatology. Svensmark DOES believe greenhouse gas emissions are a significant factor. He just believes his theory that cosmic rays play an even larger part in this. I'd point out that solar radiation has been at a minimum, yet Earth's temperature has been rising. A return to normal solar radiation activity would, given Svensmark being anywhere close to correct, surely exacerbate an already bad situation, with the solar activity aspect being the portion over which we have zero ability to affect.
You keep posting about that!!! Do you really think that the kind of mistakes made in organizing this event are unusual??? Using that event as the basis for ANY argument is just plain idiotic - or 100% political.
The GWPF provides a platform for non-consensus researchers. Both Svensmark and Shaviv acknowledge a role for human-caused warming, but they credit about half of 20th century warming to solar influence. As a result, climate sensitivity is quite low. Earth is cooling.
I was answering another poster. The "event" is of no importance whatsoever, and has nothing to do with Curry's point or mine.
False. They look for anything useful in promoting their POLITICAL objectives. Earth is warming. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The politicization of "consensus" climate science created the imperative to establish platforms like GWPF for dissident researchers. As for global temperature, we have entered a period of cooling. The HadCRUT4 Global Temperature Dataset Now Unveils A Cooling Trend For The Last 7.5 Years By Kenneth Richard on 19. July 2021 Share this... Since the last day of 2001 CO2 has risen from 372 to 419 ppm. However, there have been two cooling periods of 12 years (2002-2014) and 7.5 years (2014-2021), separated by a 1.5-year El Niño-induced warming event (2015-2016). Temperature changes that proceed in step- or event-like fashion do not seem to correlate well with linearly-rising CO2 concentrations. HadCRUT4 temperature data (made available for public use by WoodForTrees.org) now presents a slight cooling trend since the first few months of 2014. Image Source: WoodForTrees.org . . .
I see lots of opinion, strawman and supposition but precious little science Meanwhile there are all those pesky IPCC reports which I am pretty sure did not take 5 minutes to write
Which, even if it is correct, and since it is from a blog I doubt it, it only gives one simple and oversimplified view And let us not forget cherry picked data
I did read it. The question is not a critical thinking question, and her comments amounted to her opinions.
