You are not one of the preachers.Pemba wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:58 amHavre wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:08 pmTongue-in-cheek I guess. Slightly humorous.
I find it interesting how seemingly the "science" differs with actual behaviour. We have our "priests" on here as we find them elsewhere as well, but how many are actually willing to sacrifice material goods for that belief? Some clearly do, but I would argue the "masses" are only doing so very superficially.
In Norway almost all of our electricity is hydropower. So I guess after we have ruined our rivers etc. they are "renewable". So unlike if you are buying an electric car in Poland you are actually running on somewhat clean energy here (if you are not assuming we could sell that energy abroad if we didn't use electric cars). On top of that Norway is one of the richest countries in the world (ironically mainly due to oil and gas). Meaning most Norwegians could easily "sacrifice" some material goods and still be far better off than most people on this planet. So are we? Electric cars are heavily subsidized and whenever some benefit is taken away there is an outcry among our local "priests" fearing that people will then stop buying them. Why? Do we not believe in "science"?
Yes, I completely agree with this. The very large majority of people seem to be selfish or weak. We should all ask ourselves "Am I doing enough ?" In my case (though I hope I'm not seen as a preacher) I freely admit I'm not.. I think this doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion. But other opinions should be respected off course.
I do not mind people having an opinion of course. I do not mind people disagreeing with me - or deferring to some authority for their opinion (in the end we all do for almost anything). But I do find the "arrogance" seen among those that are so certain Co2-emissions will lead to some sort of disaster quite scary. Especially since many will just refer to x no. of scientists thinks so - so therefore you are a fool not to agree with "me".
Being able to convince me of something isn't necessarily a goal - or anything to strive for, but if you can't argue your case with your own words (obviously by all means use references) then it is just like Catholics some hundred years ago - not wanting to translate the Bible from latin so that the "masses" could actually try to interpret the text themselves. I will tell you how it is - and you will accept this truth based on me telling you.
On the point of disagreement. I would encourage more people to try to explore how we should deal with things. I personally do not wish for the world to "end" due to too high Co2-emissions. In that sense I should be an easy target - because I would be inclined to agree with people that argue for lowering Co2-emissions. Now I might be completely wrong, but I do not see anyone (I am sure are some that I am unaware of - which is one of the reasons why I write in threads like this - in case someone refers me to a good source for "new" information) going about this in a rational and balanced way. One question would be; could we live on this planet even if it became 3 degrees warmer? Or another can we lower the temperature of the atmosphere without reducing Co2-emissions? Especially the latter would then quickly lead us in to a discussion about the cost it has, especially for currently poor countries, to reduce Co2-emissions.Pemba wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:38 amThat would be a scientific debate and I'm really not qualified or probably able to quantify what the likelihood of AGW is. I believe it because the majority of scientists appear to think it is so. And as you say, the cost of doing nothing seems to be so high that even a likelihood of 50% or even less makes it worth "acting". But that doesn't invalidate some of Matteo's, Havre's and other comments.SimonP wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:35 pmExcept its not actually a question anymore. It is almost certain that 50% of the observed warming is anthropogenic in cause. It is highly likely that more than 100% of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Temperatures will rise 1 - 3°C by the end of the century depending upon future greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of doing nothing has been shown in numerous studies to exceed the cost/opportunity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is why every country in the world signed the Paris Agreement, which requires every country to meet individual target goals.
For me this comes down to a much bigger question - when do we transfer responsibility to "experts"? If you look around we rarely do so unchecked. One could argue a jury at least partially goes against just leaving things to experts. The jury would have to in the end evaluate if the DNA evidence is strong enough to get someone found guilty or not. Why should you leave that to "normal" people? Probably a better example would be politics. Currently we got a plumber, someone that worked as a secretary for a charitable organization 30 years ago or something and someone educated for 2 years within hotel hospitality and who worked at a hotel in his late teens early twenties almost 30 years ago being the three key people taking decisions on Covid-19 in Norway. Why? They are certainly not the "scientists"/"experts" we are here talking about. Have the Norwegian society gone so wrong? Probably not as I guess you would find many similar stories around the world among top politicians. Not saying scientists and experts are pointless, but isn't there a tendency to refer to those kind of people whenever we find someone we agree with? And that we tend not to listen to scientists and experts that we do not agree with? If we can't be knowledgeable enough to evaluate the subject matter - how can we be knowledgeable enough to evaluate which scientist or expert to "believe" in? I don't know, but it might mean that not everyone that disagree with "you" on climate change might not be fools just because there are x no. of scientists apparently meaning something - I'm not even sure what they agree on?