Why do we battle climate change

Some of the information from the recent IPCC Special Report 15 is telling.

FAQ 5.1: What are the connections between sustainable development and limiting global warming to 1.5°C?

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include targets for eradicating poverty; ensuring health, energy and food security; reducing inequality; protecting ecosystems; pursuing sustainable cities and economies; and a goal for climate action (SDG13).

FAQ 5.2: What are the pathways to achieving poverty reduction and reducing inequalities while reaching the 1.5°C world?

Issues of equity and fairness have long been central to climate change and sustainable development.​

The scientists do themselves a great disservice, IMO, by pushing these non-scientific arguments. But they don't seem reticent at all about -- in fact most are unabashed and unapologetic.

As one former top climate change person at the UN, Christiana Figueres, said, "..... we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model [capitalism] that has been reigning for at least 150 years...........

 

That sustainable development also refers to issues over global equity isn't non-scientific. Its a fact.

 

These are not "scientists" they are paid activists. Climate Change Global Warming El Nino, is pseudo science.

 

There must be big money in Fake Science.
Otherwise there wouldn't be so much of it.

 

Many of us have cautioned against this, and find the supporters and faithful are still too scared of the impending doom to care that they are underwriting the destruction of the success we enjoy today. The UN are, afterall, greedy, power hungry rubes. Most members are used to simply being able to dictate to their populations they oppress. And suddenly, the UN is full of these tyrants, and we're surprised that they have discussed plans to effectively attack the fabric that precludes them from global dominion? Cause that's exactly what this conversation is actually about.

 

What I meant was that it has nothing to do with the science of climate change, so why are the scientists even talking about it -- in a scientific report?

 

There is.

 

But why wouldn't they refer to facts? We know that unsustainability has been generated through resource exploitation (typically to the detriment of the local populations). We also know that climate change effects are skewed against the very areas where there is resource exploitation. Scientists should refer to the facts and you can't refer to sustainability without reference to equity.

 

Yep.

"Although those in office invariably deny it, the notion that access is available at a price is a well-founded reality of Washington. Memorably, President Nixon was caught on tape remarking that $250,000 should be the minimum donation for an ambassadorship. The Clinton White House offered major donors coffees with the president or sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom. More recently, Republicans in Congress have raised questions about whether Democratic donors who invested in the ***solar energy company Solyndra*** and other troubled firms influenced the administration’s support of those businesses, pointing to White House visits and other official contacts."
NEW YORK TIMES, White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In, By MIKE McINTIRE and MICHAEL LUO, April 14, 2012. (*** mine)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/u...or-big-donors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all?src=tp

 

Why do we battle climate change

To make ourselves feel better about what we have done and what our kids will need to deal with.

 

Hint: Fake Science is not going to win any battles against climate change.

 

Sometimes conspiracy theories are actually dangerous. The one claiming that global warming is "fake science" is one of them. It's like claiming a killer asteroid headed our way is fake.

 

Man made global warming is just a scientific theory that many scientists dispute.

The replication crisis and Fake Science are real and well documented.

"Because when studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test.

Medicine, epidemiology, population science and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them.

"Across biomedical science and beyond, scientists do not get trained sufficiently on statistics and on methodology," Ioannidis said."

AFP, Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns, By Ivan Couronne, July 5, 2018.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-t...es-most-wrong-researcher-warns-164336076.html

 

The crackpot ideologues are beginning to make their transition from irrational denial to unconditional surrender.

The global scientific consensus is overwhelming.

Despite strident insistence by the ideologues, no, you endlessly can't poop into the heavens with impunity.

It has consequences, and you incur responsibility for doing so.

 

Uh, your link is about food.

For f**k's sake.

 

Why do you keep trying to equate Psychology to hard science?

 

No mention whatsoever concerning anthropogenic climate change.

The scientific data is overwhelming and irrefutable.

 

The full title of the report is "Global Warming of 1.5 °C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °.

In other words, the premise is that the global temp is now 1.5°C hotter now than it was in 1760. If all we know is that the temperature of the globe is about 14°C (that means, "14°C plus or minus 1/2°C), and nobody knows what the temperature was in 1760, how do we know the temp increased 1.5°C?

 

What you see is the politicization of science

 

Why do you keep trying to equate climate change science to hard science.

 

Climate science IS Hard Science....even if you do not believe or understand it.

 

LOL! This is actually what it is about The "Replication Crisis". You should read it!

"Because when studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test.Medicine, epidemiology, population science and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them. "Across biomedical science and beyond, scientists do not get trained sufficiently on statistics and on methodology,"
AFP, Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns, By Ivan Couronne, July 5, 2018.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-t...es-most-wrong-researcher-warns-164336076.html

 

How do you kn ow it os not Fake Science when Fake Science is so common?

 

Nonsense, a Father of Climate Change, Stephen Schneider won an award for urging scientists to hide their doubts -
fudge their data. How can you trust any of them?