No video :(

Avoiding Climate Breakdown - PART 1

Подписаться 552

50% 1

A presentation on the climate crisis by Graham Parkes.
The Earth System is moving toward a new state that will be extremely inhospitable for human existence - and the major motive force is our burning of fossil fuels. The situation is dire, but governments and leaders are unwilling or unable to change direction. How can we fix this insane situation? We consider first the nature and causes of our climate predicament, and then three immediate obstructions to resolving it, and how we can get around these.
// BOOK //
'How to Think about the Climate Crisis: A Philosophical Guide to Saner Ways of Living'
// WEBSITE //
grahamparkes.net/
Many thanks to Helen Parkes for videography and editing, and to Bernhard Zorzi for optimising the sound.
CHAPTERS:
00:00 Introduction
02:50 The Current Situation with the Climate
08:58 The Rich Libertarians' War of Ideas
13:03 'Mad Professor' Outburst: Ideological War!
14:24 Obstruction 1: The Fossil Fuel Industries
21:11 Obstruction 2: The Religious Right
24:41 Obstruction 3: The Titans of Big Tech
27:29 Conclusion: Fight the Power!
#climatechange #philosophy #grahamparkes

Опубликовано:

18 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 7

@glenrastel9526 Год назад

Thank you for dancing philosophy, I love your measured approach, it is both soothing and emboldening. Bon courage!

@OldScientist Год назад

There is nothing much to avoid. Globally the ACE index (accumulated cyclone energy) 1980-2021 shows no increasing trend. Global Hurricane Landfalls 1970-2021 (updated from Weinkle et al, 2012) shows no trend. Satellite data since 1980 shows a slight downward global trend for total hurricaine numbers with 2021 being a record low year. The IPCC reports in AR6, chapter 11, "The total global frequency of TC [tropical cyclone] formation will decrease or remain unchanged with increasing global warming (medium confidence)." Multidecadal variability in Atlantic hurricaines is most probably related to the AMO (Vecchi et al, 2021). NOAA data 1851-2021 shows no trend in number of hurricaine landfalls with the record high being 1886. What the data from NOAA SPC shows about tornados: EF1-EF5 (1954-2022) no trend; EF3-EF5 (most destructive) (1954-2022) 50% decline. No EF5s in US since 2013 (a record absence). The Global Land Precipitation Anomaly from AR5 will disappoint with deviations from the average increasing by 0.2% per decade, but if you look at the actual data, it's just very variable over the decades. Drought appears to be decreasing globally (Watts et al, 2018) measured by SPI 1901-2017. For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%--from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 in per year during the 2010s. Data on disaster deaths come from (EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels,Belgium. ) Globally 2000-2019 there was a large decrease in cold-related deaths and a moderate increase in heat-related deaths (Zhao, 2021, Lancet). However, coldwaves are over 9 times more likely to kill than heatwaves, so the overall result is very beneficial. What else? Oh, deserts like the Sahara have shrunk considerably and the Earth has greened by 15% or more in a human lifetime (NASA). On extinction the rate is very low: 900 known lost species for 2.1 million known species in 500 years. At that frequency it will take over 930,000 years to reach 80% extinction of species experienced at the K-T boundary that saw the extinction of the dinosaurs. There is no climate crisis.

@ryokan9120 Год назад

I'm not disputing or disagreeing with what you're saying, but if what you're saying is true, why is it that the vast majority of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming?

@OldScientist Год назад

@@ryokan9120 I'm one of them. Human activities add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

@ryokan9120 Год назад

@@OldScientist Hi, I suppose what I should have said was the vast majority of climate scientists believe there is a climate crisis (or so that's what the media are telling us) but in your comment, you stated there is no climate crisis. So that's why people like me get confused and we don't know what to believe. Also, I've noticed the people who preach about the climate emergency tend to be the people who regularly fly around the world, whilst telling the rest of us that we're terrible people and perhaps that's turned me into a skeptic (though not a denier).

@OldScientist Год назад

@@ryokan9120 The world's leading climate scientists are given that title by cynical politicians. Also they do not essentially write the final version of the IPCC reports that get such a big splash in the media. It is reverse engineered. The summary for policymakers is thrashed out by a very large group of politicos. Line by line. Remember, these are not scientists, but government lackies. Then they go back to information the scientists gave them and change it. The scientific statements must conform to the political ones, not the other way around. Then abracadabra you've got yourself a climate emergency. Please be aware that the IPCC's (Scenario A) modelled predictions are junk. Back in 1990 they predicted a warming of 0.30-0.34°C per decade. Of course we've only had 0.13°C per decade, which is well below the IPCC's lower bound of 0.20°. IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario was founded on the assumption that CO2 emissions would increase by 10-20% by 2025. The truth, however, is that global CO2 emissions are not 20% above their 1990 level but 60% above it! But there is still no crisis just an unexciting set of observations. All the climate models run too hot, 100% of them. The attribution of all warming to human activity by the IPCC is junk science as well. Take AR5: that says all observed warming (0.66°C) since 1950 is due solely to combined anthropogenic forcing (Fig. 10.5, IPCC core writing team, page 6). This relies upon modelling, or rather multi-modelling. In fact when you lift the curtain it relies on 15 models (Fig. 10.4, page 882). These models are all over the place. The models' results are not consistent with the assumption that there is a clear connection between GHGs and warming. GISS-EH-2 is particularly 'not well constrained' as the terminology goes. "Scaling factors" then have to be applied so things fit with the HadCRUT dataset. Some of the scaling factors are even negative!!! So many scientists/politicians may have reached a consensus, but the science on which that has been built shows no such agreement.