Lying in the 2nd degree
Burning Hope: Global warming means increased temperatures in the world’s atmosphere.
Temperatures rose at about one degree over the LAST 140 years.
Temperatures are due to rise another degree or more over the NEXT 100 years.
Crops will fail as temperatures rise. This makes food more difficult to get.
More poor people will starve to death 100 years from now.
More people will die because of floods from seas and rivers.
More people will die because of heat related deaths like malaria.
Will the death toll be thousands, millions or billions?
You will find it hard to get a clear straight answer from any of the websites that specialise on global warming and climate change.
You will have to read hundreds of pages before a website can be found to even mention a frightening death toll of billions.
Even the highly recommended site. www.joboneforhumanity will talk fact after fact for pages and then mention in a line or two that 70% of the population might die out.
For every 1000 sentences dedicated to facts about climate change there is just ONE sentence explaining the added death toll for the human race. This my own rough estimate.
So it is very likely, people in general, never realize the danger of global warming. Because they are not reminded of the likely outcome of human deaths.
So why would the majority of the world really change when websites hardly act any different than all the newspapers and television programs?
Websites give us lots of information and facts; but is there focus to the threat of extinction for the Human Race?
I visited the Extinction Rebellion website and could not find where the total human death toll is.
I realize that if we do let billions die this must have spiritual consequences.
Those consequences in the very least are wrapped up in relations to our understanding and behaviour.
Our collective mind of billions of people has forged deep mental images about righteousness, morality, God, angels, Heaven, prays. We are forged upon emotions and thoughts that evolved generation upon generation upon those things.
It is impossible to throw those qualities away and just accept Mankind’s fate.
But what does a human really think about global warming and the consequences?
What really is the narrative in the media and on websites? Just a string of facts that although amazing are utterly boring too technical too often, and with no focus that connects to how we are hard wired.
Why should people really deeply emotionally care about climate change? When the dangers are just a list after list about hot weather, floods, fires, and declining species.
Crop failures are presented as mere percentage drops from what they are now, we are told about increased fires and air pollution and thousands dying. There is not much spiritual reflection upon these things. Because there has always been crop failures fires and air pollution deaths. We have acclimatised to such vague news.
Millions die each year from malnutrition, illnesses, and other causes like car driving or cigarette smoking or alcohol or obesity. I have never sat reflecting worrying about these things daily. Have you?
Why should I really care when I read that the sea level is going to rise and coastal places will be flooded? Somewhere in my brain I just acclimatise and rationalise that people will have to move inland.
It is driving me crazy having to read website content on climate change and I can’t get to the basic and single most important fact: How many in billions are likely to die and when?
Because if the figure is billions like half the human race I will be deeply concerned. I can assure you I am not deeply concerned that 250,000 will die each year from climate change as stated by WHO (World Health Organisation). Are you? Is society?
Throughout what I present here I leave the evidence trail from over 50 sites so that you might copy paste the address into your web browser box. Or just click on. Anything in red writing is from other websites where should you wish further you can read all sorts of amazing facts albeit a bit boring on those sites. Hope you find something here you don’t find elsewhere.
Climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 thousand additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050.
Do we care much about this fact?
I don’t believe we do care much.
If we did care we would probably hold national reactions as we have to Coronavirus.
So I do not buy into climate change rhetoric and the recent more dedicated reactions from the media which have only just emerged the last couple of years.
Meanwhile the climate change facts have been there for the media to comment upon for decades. Certainly the Stern report in 2006 made it crystal clear what dangers lie ahead.
Warming of 2C could leave 15-40% species facing extinction.
Do we care to this sort of fact bearing statementing? Who cares for insects? And plants? Or animals that aren’t cats and dogs?
Men talk football and worry if their team can go down. They do not sit at home or in pubs digressing about pollution or the problems of 250,000 people who will die each year from climate alterations in the future.
The news doesn’t cover these things frequently.
Many in Africa have to live hoping they will get enough food to eat each day so they don’t discuss climate. Or the ecological food chain unless it concerns rice.
And if the climate experts really cared for the message for the human race they would have produced websites that state: billions of humans will get wiped out at a particular date in the future like 100 years from now.
Something that would raise attention levels and create a reaction. “Oh gosh the human race is going down!”
“Don’t worry they will surely come back up again in 10, 000 years.”
Let us see what Stern said a few years later in 2009.
If global temperatures rise by the predicted 4C to 7C by 2100: Agriculture would be destroyed and life would be impossible over much of the planet.
Most web sites bore us to death with fact building. Stuff that is easily forgotten.
And what a load of rubbish it is (worse than plastic in the oceans) their mishmash concepts about the tipping point all too often technically brilliantly written but without any focus upon stark reality.
Here you can read the stark reality and I quote:
When we cross this carbon 425-450ppm “last chance” climate cliff, in addition to leading us rapidly into mass extinction 70 – 90% in as little as the next 30 to 50 years, the consequences we will experience will also be irreversible for centuries to thousands of years.
That paragraph makes emotional sense. I liven up. I don’t like it. I know this worries me it is a serious threat to my spirituality. It is too big a figure to bare. And my mind wants to know why this fact that is arguably right is not being openly discussed.
At the academic levels they argue over models and are reluctant to commit emotionally.
“Oh golly can I say that? What will my peers say?”
“Ask Google.” Say the younger lot.
Then there are the fake-fact brigade. Not really fake facts but facts held in misleading contexts. The Extinction Rebellion leader and founder Roger Hallam said; 6 billion humans will die around the years 2100.
This for me is unlikely to be true because I cannot recall the Stern report being that figure for that date. And I personally expect those predictions to be somewhat similar to today’s predictions.
You can read how a team of experts attack Extinction Rebellion’s Roger Hallam. They make a point that food production will go down due to climate change but that it will be compensated by technology and other skills to regain the losses. (A theory not mentioned on other sites that discuss crop yields. It offers some hope).:
There is no analysis of likely climate damage that has been published in the quality peer-reviewed literature that would indicate that there is any substantial likelihood that climate change could cause the starvation of 6 billion people by the end of this century.
However later there is some caution, and I quote:
I unfortunately don’t see how the possibility of six billion deaths can be ruled out with confidence.
They do not quote a figure for what is likely. Is it a 50% chance six billion die? Yet again no one is committing to key precise information we emotionally need. Something definite something clear.
If you really want people to cut through the drone of: you must recycle you must save the planet. You have got to tell people what the death toll is in the future.
Because it is the future understood that guides our actions now. We can only save the planet’s future if we know when that future is. And what exactly we mean by saving?
What a bunch of crops? Animals? Ocean levels? Try reading any of the websites I list and see how far you get. Then tell someone exactly what the message is and in relation to what exactly.
You certainly won’t say billions of humans will die by 2100. And if you do you have to wonder how much you have to read to come to that conclusion.
I mean can you realistically come to that conclusion? Let us go to the Rebellion gang –
We are facing an unprecedented global emergency. Life on Earth is in crisis: scientists agree we have entered a period of abrupt climate breakdown, and we are in the midst of a mass extinction of our own making.
They then invite you to listen to a technical talk of 35 minutes where the relaxed clear speaker does not mention death toll only that we might become extinct.
She did though in relation to tipping points and disaster: 20 to 1. Or said in percentages: 5%.
Apparently: We have no chance to reach targets in relation to Paris Climate Agreement.
And the so called dreaded 2 degrees temperature limit is going to be reached. One in twenty chance we can avoid it. So not much hope there.
You can view this fact at the 14th minute of her talking: “5% 1%” at: https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/
Which means temperatures will continue to rise onwards over decades.
She talks of many things as a list of complaints, observations and reasons. The ice melting situation is one observation and how this stops a lot of sunlight from leaving the Earth thus increasing temperatures.
I wonder if anyone has tested how many people understand that the human population in the future is under threat of extinction?
Do people care for the ice? Or the trees? Or understand these two things are important to stop increasing temperatures?
It is all very well assuming that in general people do care about climate change but to what degree? I know we care about fashion and food. How much attention do we really give to climate?
I don’t know those answers. But I can tell you ice matters.
Glaciers’ white surfaces reflect the sun’s rays, helping to keep our current climate mild. When glaciers melt, darker exposed surfaces absorb and release heat, raising temperatures. Our way of life is based on climate as we know it.
Greenhouse-gas emissions are indirectly causing future deaths by multiple mechanisms.
The carbon budget for 2°C will indirectly cause roughly 1 billion future premature deaths spread over one to two centuries. At last someone ready to commit a big number.
One future premature death is caused every time roughly 1,000 tonnes of carbon are burned.
The idea of future people is a hard one to grasp understood like here above. We have not passed through time worrying beyond our children and grandchildren.
And we have not had to adjust our lifestyles for them. And how does a brain react to such an incredible concept: that defines morality in carbon burnt equals future deaths equals bad morals equals a poor conscience?
It does not react to such thoughts and observations. A brain can hardly get beyond its own personal habits of diet smoking drinking exercise and fear of Coronavirus.
“Oh my God she just breathed on me!”
“Yes mate she wants a kiss. We use-to do that in the pre Coronavirus era.”
“Oh, I just smoked a cigarette and killed a hamster in the year 2200!”
I mean where do you draw the line?
You can be certain that we have a duty to our grandchildren. Which takes us to 2100.
To conceive beyond then is living a lie. People cannot diet to keep their own waistlines down. How will they renege on the buying of international objects? And only use public transport? Or bikes?
The systems needed are not in a place like electric cars and wind energy. So we have to turn to discipline. HA HA. Good luck with that one.
“Turn up the central heating.”
“No, put on a jumper and an extra pair of socks.”
Could you half your miles travel? Could you half the goods you purchase? Does this make enough of a difference?
An American produces ten times more carbon than a Brazilian.
Not everyone in the world has to cut down. It would seem.
And so I say the only driver to actually cause a collective of people to change is the understanding of moral objection: Billions will die.
All have failed so far. And will continue to do so at the alarming rate where your chances of success are like picking one marble from a bag of twenty.
No, I am sorry but for me the United Nations and the European Union are to blame beyond any other group on Earth. Then you can blame individual countries in the West like USA, and beyond to China and Russia. And continue adding to that list as international trade expands.
Around 22% of global CO2 emissions stem from the production of goods that are, ultimately, consumed in a different country.
China is the largest net exporter of CO2 by far.
The US is the largest net CO2 importer.
How many warning documents were submitted to the United Nations about CO2 emissions from 1970 onwards? They and the EU were both warned over decades.
I will return to them later. They both encouraged world trade and still do. International trade uses a lot of energy in transportation creating carbon emissions.
The Exxon oil company understood the science of CO2 and spent millions to promote misinformation.
They knew that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today.
1. China: 10.8 million metric tons
2. United States: 5.1 million metric tons
3. European Union: 3.5 million metric tons
4. India: 2.5 million metric tons
5. Russia: 1.8 million metric tons
6. Japan: 1.3 million metric tons
7. South Korea: 0.67 metric tons
8. Iran: 0.67 million metric tons
9. Saudi Arabia: 0.64 million metric tons
10. Canada: 0.61 million metric tons.
Those 10 countries account for approximately 70 percent of the world’s emissions. Only India are meeting climate goals needed to prevent 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels would be catastrophic, but even 1.5 degrees could make Earth inhospitable to human life and the planet is already halfway there.
We understand that the oceans can take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
When the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the temperature of the Earth rises.
This in turn would contribute to a warming of the oceans. Warm oceans are less able to absorb CO2 than cold ones, so as the temperature rises, the oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere, which in turn causes the temperature to rise again. This process is called feedback.
Most high-income nations have set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets in their commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement.
Achieving these targets will require significant investments in low-carbon technologies.
2°C rise in temperature catastrophic for India, say scientists.
Environmental scientists say they had underestimated the impact that the current 1.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature could make, but a rise of 2 degrees is “catastrophic”.
It gets grimmer. The world could sustain the current temperature levels for only about 12 years more: even half a degree rise beyond this period would spell devastation—droughts, floods, extreme heat and famine.
So the 2 degrees is really where our focus is regardless of when it is in the future.
When I read this Indian website I noted how it does not mention that the 2 degrees cannot be avoided. It continues with hope and warning. Which like many media voices and websites is totally misleading.
Held in the correct context we will hit 2 degrees warmer climate and receive the outcomes. I don’t believe in talking in far fetched 20 to 1 shot contexts. Which is our chance of success to stop us meeting the 2 degree limit.
We just as well state it will reach 2 degrees. This is how we would talk if talking about the weather or the chances of success in most situations.
If you bet 1 pound at a bookmakers for a twenty return would you really be expecting to win?
It is not a situation conceived as likely to happen.
This is a great website explaining all sorts of simple truths that are argued against by a lot of people. I like this one where people including conspiracy theorists like David Icke blame the sun.
The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they blame everyone apart from themselves.
Over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the Earth’s tilt and orbit around the sun varies in predictable cycles.
The way these cycles interact with each other cause gradual increases or decreases in the energy from the sun reaching the Earth.
That change in energy can gradually — over thousands of years — ease the Earth into and out of ice age cycles.
The NASA graph below shows how temperatures have risen (red line) whilst the heat from the Sun has gone down. (yellow line).
The below graph shows, that dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels coincides with the rapid warming.
Myth 2 is that carbon cannot affect climate because it is just 0.04 of the chemical make up of the atmosphere, but the graph clearly shows that as carbon goes up so do temperatures.
It is a remarkable line of matching data. Especially when we consider that only 0.0016 of carbon dioxide is added by humans.
Composition of air
According to NASA, the gases in Earth’s atmosphere include:
Nitrogen — 78 percent
Oxygen — 21 percent
Argon — 0.93 percent
Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapour.
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions.
The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6GT additional load on this balance.
Another interesting suggestion is that because plants and trees consume carbon dioxide our carbon helps grow them, thus must be good for the planet in some way. However the tests show a different picture.
New study undercuts favourite climate myth ‘more CO2 is good for plants’.
The Stanford scientists set up 132 plots of flowers and grass in California and introduced varying levels of carbon dioxide, temperature, water, and nitrogen.
The scientists conducted the experiments over 16 growing seasons between 1998 and 2014. They found that only higher nitrogen levels resulted in higher plant productivity, while higher temperatures caused it to decline.
Another study published in Nature Climate Change last week concluded that higher temperatures will cause wheat production to decline.
By 2090, as many as 2 billion people globally will be breathing air above the WHO “safe” level.
It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today.
The discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation.
Most people talk as if Miami and Bangladesh still have a chance of surviving; most of the scientists I spoke with assume we’ll lose them within the century, even if we stop burning fossil fuel in the next decade.
This last point above is interesting because it pinpoints how easy it is to present information in different contexts.
Please note that one group of scientists probably based upon the same data and information present a positive case whilst others point to doom about Miami and Bangladesh.
The way around it is to always ask whoever it is what are the chances held as probable outcomes represented as odds. In other words what are the chances of their opinion happening or not happening.
It has been made clear that the 2 degrees limit will occur; to a 95% certainty. This is like saying the chance of avoiding 2 degrees is like trying to pick a white marble hidden in a bag with 19 blue marbles.
But note again there are all sorts of if buts and maybes in climate change so it allows for all types of predictions about outcomes. A bit like if I ask you how many games will Liverpool win next year?
You will have a range of likely possibilities. And this type of range applies to climate experts.
Therefore they can argue from different standpoints. What I like about the IPCC report is that it has been analysed and defined in mathematical chances.
What I don’t like is the chance of success that we avoid 2 degrees: only 5%. Just as a bookmaker will tell you that is a 20 to 1 chance. You may as well be at the Grand National trying to pick the winner.
If someone is barking on about any prediction you can always ask them: What are the chances of what you are saying being true?
Applied to me you might ask what price a billion people get wiped off the Earth by 2120 a hundred years from now?
I don’t know is the answer but searching through 30 websites so far I have yet to find the answer understood and explained in mathematical likelihoods like % chances of it happening.
Your chances of arriving at the truth squarely and fairly via the internet to find a simple honest mathematical answer to how many will die in 100 years time is less than 1% likelihood.
There isn’t much of a narrative focused upon human lives. If there was it would be continually repeated that at certain years or certain temperatures certain amounts of people die. And then develop as a discussion about likelihood.
Instead we get lots of focus upon increased wild fires increased hurricanes increased floods.
Climate discussions presented to the public could focus or at least conclude upon the likeliest total figure for death. But they don’t.
They talk about the host of damages in various orders and technical descriptions or referrals.
Am I ready to care about crops insects fish trees animals fires and whatever else they go on about? Yes if I am interested about climate changes and what it means, but do not then assume my sensibilities are hardwired that I sit in deep reflection about the ocean levels rising centimetres.
And when figures on websites are given they brandish numbers like quarter a million a year will die of climate change. Which is not that many people really considering the fuss about climate change. How many die of flu each year?
Over fifty thousand die of flu you will read.
So why should I care about 250,000 a year?
Answer: I should not. Because millions die from hunger.
How many people die of hunger every day?
The FAO estimates that as many as 25,000 people lose their lives every day as a result of hunger. That adds up to roughly 9.1 million people who die of starvation each year.
Now that hurts and there is no media fuss.
So why would we care about 250 thousand people a year in the future? When every ten days now the same amount die from starvation.
The only reason to care about global warming is the end product of events. Will the food chain be destroyed? Will the shortage of food escalate? And kill billions?
Because if not then there is nothing to really care about. Unless you have a passion for clean air, insects, fish, sea levels, ice sheets and plant life.
I mean we have had a lifetime to care for millions of people that starve to death but did we care enough we save them?
No. If we did care we would have saved them. What is our excuse as a collective?
I mean why doesn’t Google send them all a bag of rice a day? From the tax they did not pay that amounts to?
Google moved €19.9bn ($22.7bn) through a Dutch shell company to Bermuda in 2017, as part of an arrangement that allows it to reduce its foreign tax bill, according to documents filed at the Dutch chamber of commerce.
This understood in context means the likes of Google kill more people than Global warming currently does.
Or ever will do for the next four decades.
Money Google stole via tax should have gone to feeding people who starve. All 90 million of them for the last decade.
Some people reading this might say, why would Google give their money away?
Well, because they used every crooked loophole to keep billions. They never once thought to save human lives.
And if you have billions anyway why be so greedy and disregarding to human life?
Plus we gave them the money by using their search system. You might expect some morality.
If you are twenty years of age or younger reading this be certain you will follow the same dumb route as your parents.
You will follow the United Nations and the world governments and their world wide policies and influencers.
You will follow directly or indirectly the European Union and its rules and influencers that promote world trade at cost of the environment.
You will let Google and other companies cheat billions and kill humans by none of them having the decency to gift the starving with that money.
You will follow ruthless dangerous people with their own greedy agenda and all you will do is blame some weak conspiracy theory about world order and not face the truth like your parents.
A truth that is simply that your parents never really had any control in the world apart from when they voted every 4 years.
And what did the media do during these decades? Did they tell your parents about global warming? Or about tax cheats in billions?
For one article written about tax or climate there was a million other distraction articles written about all sorts of subjects.
So why would such a low level media interest in climate ever change your mum or dad from just leading their own lives?
It means they just led their lives and let leaders lead.
I tell you children reading this: do your own inquiry: it will prove that the UN and EU promoted trade and knew about CO2 dangers for decades.
They are the head of the killing bunch they are the threat to billions who will die because of billion dollar tax cheaters and global warming.
Be absolutely clear: the billions saved in in the Google accounts along with other super rich companies should have fed the starving.
What if a super company like Google had spent all its money it cheated via tax evasion educating the people about global warming?
It would have made a big difference.
Do you think the 2 degrees that will occur by 2100 would have?
No is the answer because people 2 decades ago would have started to adjust and insisted Governments invest in green energy at the expense of the economy. Instead, led by the UN and EU think tanks, Governments persisted in expanding global trade and a whole modern day ethos built around successful trade.
Meanwhile the media and the scientific community never emotionally connected with the public about climate change. The whole idea was parked up whilst big international trade proceeded to impact upon environment and the air we breath.
Ignore ignore ignore information is their collective mantra. Challenge challenge challenge in law courts. Defend our right to manufacture, and mine a countries natural resources.
Export export export because that’s a growing market.
Advertise into the minds’ of the people the way to go is to: spend spend spend.
In short; the business world advertises products and ideas for people to invest their time and money into.
They defend their quarter their market position with expert analysis of how to minimise tax and increase the chances of market-forces-survival.
At the top end of this process is a ruthless money making cultural machine like Google like Amazon and the list goes onto the so called top 10% who create half of all CO2 emissions.
Here a point is made about one way how to predict a high carbon output: wealth.
And worse the second point tells us: it won’t solve climate change if we do change!
Wealthy people — even those who self-identify as green — consume more and more….of household appliances, meat consumption, car use, and vacation travel.
These are the emissions connected to your personal choices. But just by living in any wealthy, developed country and enjoying its shared resources and infrastructure, you are responsible for a certain baseline level of its shared emissions as well.
Even if every American could get their lifestyle emissions down somewhere close to that baseline, it still wouldn’t be nearly enough to solve climate change.
Human activities have caused the Earth’s average temperature to increase by more than 0.75°C over the last 100 years.
Scientists have tracked not only the changes in the temperature of the air and oceans, but other indicators such as the melting of the polar ice caps and the increase of world-wide sea levels.
We’re heading for 2.9°C to 3.4°C of warming. By this point, many dangerous tipping points could be crossed, leading to rainforest die-back, deadly heatwaves, and significant sea-level rise.
Half of all insect and plant species are projected to disappear from more than half of the area they currently inhabiit potentially causing widespread ecosystem collapse and threatening organised human civilisation itself. This I pay attention to.
Tackling climate breakdown is perhaps the tallest order humanity has ever faced, and there is no simple solution. The only way forward is accepting that we must fundamentally change the way we live our lives. It won’t be an easy transition, but there is no alternative if we are to preserve the well-being of humans, wildlife, and ecosystems. The coming year is vital, and there’s too much at stake not to act now. Dramatic.
At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming.
Global warming timeline
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. A Big claim made a lifetime ago.
Conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort. The UN and EU would have had this knowledge.
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the next century.
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming.
Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.
Second IPCC report detects “signature” of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century. Note here the evidence that the UN themselves declared.
2019 News of disasters (tropical cyclones, wildfires, etc.) and intensified scientific warnings raise concern, especially among younger people, and spur public demonstrations and civil disobedience. Why only now?
Mean global temperature is 14.8°C, the warmest in tens of thousands of years. They knew that fact decades ago.
Level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 415 ppm, the highest in millions of years. And is forever increasing year by year.
It is obvious that all this knowledge OVER 50 YEARS would have been known to the UN and EU whilst they pushed for world wide trade which constitutes a making of CO2 from travel of ships lorries and all cargo vehicles at national and international levels.
These the people who are forever reading papers on dangers imminent to the people of the Earth. These the people who try to forward our thinking in new modern sophisticated ways. Whilst all the time totally undermined by their very idea to build stable economies based upon international trade.
The Discovery of Global Warming January 2020
From the 1950s onward global programs involved thousands of experts.
Research pointed to the possibility of global warming, it raised scientific questions that could only be addressed through international cooperative studies, and policy questions that required international negotiations.
In the 1980s, international conferences and new types of scientific groups began to shape the agendas of governments to a degree that had little precedent in other areas of world politics. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in 2005, was a small first attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But by 2010 it was clear that the world’s nations would not do enough to avoid dangerous climate change.
And there you have it: “nations would not do enough to avoid dangerous climate change”.
For more than 20 years the IPCC process has managed to assimilate the rapidly expanding scientific literature about climate change, and summarise it for those that need to know: Most countries.
The interest shown in the IPCC reports illustrates how important these Assessments have been in trying to keep track of and understand what the science tells us.
And the unique if long winded IPCC process – open, transparent, and involving as many relevant parties as possible – is why its work is respected.
Some may disagree with parts of the IPCC assessment, but at least they will see, laid out for them in clear and formal language exactly how the scientists writing the assessments arrived at their conclusions. I can’t see how a fairer, more comprehensive, or more credible alternative could be designed.
You see the UN climate group called the IPCC came all too late. What is the point of a protective system that acts too late? Especially when the future of the Human Race is at stake.
It is as pathetic as the European Union that late on has come to the aid of the world on CO2 and curbs on billion dollar tax dodgers.
Their collective all too late behaviour has allowed the knock on effect that billions stolen from the Human Race via tax: is money that could have fed the starving. And educated the world’s people about climate change.
A global super-rich elite had at least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010, according to a major study.
The figure is equivalent to the size of the US and Japanese economies combined.
A trillion is a thousand billion.
A more recent view is
The aggregate costs of such practices are enormous. According to the IMF, governments lose at least $500bn a year as a result of corporate tax shifting. It is estimated that some 40% of overseas profits made by US multinationals are transferred to tax havens.
In 2018, 60 of the 500 largest companies – including Amazon, Netflix, and General Motors – paid no US tax, despite reporting joint profits (on a global basis) of some $80bn. These trends are having a devastating impact on national tax revenues and undermining the public’s sense of fairness.
What are the 4 main purposes of the UN?
Maintaining worldwide peace and security.
Developing relations among nations.
Fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian international problems.
The UN’s dedication to speeches and announcements is deep, but its ability to enforce them is limited. Founded in 1942, (1945) the UN’s objectives are still relevant today: global peace, (that’s nice of them) friendship (really?) between member states, development and human rights protection. (Yes we could have done with being protected from the UN).
It is the largest, most familiar, most internationally represented and most powerful intergovernmental organization in the world. And all that power helped lead Mankind into a dark dingy CO2 corner.
I quote here what the UN does.
Helps countries reduce hunger, disease, and illiteracy
Promotes economic development and sustainable development.
The U.N. is not a government and has no right to make binding laws. Instead, it uses the power of persuasion. (here’s a bunch of flowers if you buy goods from the other side of the Earth)
In relation to global warming they waited until it was too late.
It is too weak willed to cause any sort of robust change. It is a collection of government officials analysing Reports and voting on them to form a policy. Worse: a suggestion or debate! Then lunch over a bottle of wine.
This next bit is just a Report that shows that the UN are involved in trade. It will promote trade forever and ever. You get a taste of the type of organisation they are in their formality.
THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCTAD) Review of institutional and programme issues
Held within this document amongst many parts is parts dedicated to 2 organisational heads
International Trade Center ITC
International Trade Organization ITO
43. The General Assembly has reaffirmed UNCTAD’s role as the most appropriate focal point, within the United Nations proper, for the integrated treatment of development and interrelated issues in the areas of trade, finance, technology, investment, services and sustainable development.
This implies in the first instance that UNCTAD is particularly suited to deal with global policy issues which are multifaceted and involve mutual linkages, such as trade, technology, investment and finance and which are of interest to all its Member States.
These people in these organisations or so called departments clearly head ideas about trade whilst ignoring global warming threats from CO2 emissions otherwise you would limit trade to sustainable distances and practises.
There will be examples of liberties taken at the expense of the environment. Someone reading this will have good examples. Please send to me. With your own opinions added. Note also they deal in sustainable development. Key evidence should be found lurking around that department. Which go on to prove contradictory action.
45. UNCTAD is also playing a key role in undertaking technical cooperation activities in the area of international trade.
Climate change is the disruption in the long-term seasonal weather patterns. It’s caused by global warming. The average temperature has risen around 1 degree Celsius, or 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit, since 1880.
That’s faster than at any other time in the Earth’s history.
Global warming will continue even if no more greenhouse gases were emitted starting tomorrow. The temperature is reacting to the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted.
To stop the effects of climate change, these gases must be absorbed from the atmosphere and put back into the ground.
Since 1850, the United States has contributed 8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s a third of total greenhouse gases. One country a third!
The United States is one of the world’s richest countries. As a result, a recent study found that the planet’s wealthiest 1 billion people emit 60% of greenhouse gases.
The poorest 3 billion produce only 5%.
That’s why you’ll hear people say income inequality causes climate change. Spend Spend Spend.
If nothing is done, temperatures will rise by 4 C. Global GDP would decline by more than 30% from 2010 levels. That’s worse than the Great Depression, where global trade fell 25%. The only difference is that it would be permanent. Imagine how bad it will be now that we have Coronavirus.
Whatever way global warming is understood be it financial human or ecological cost the human race must prepare itself for a hit to its way of life.
It must reflect and learn that following politicians is going to be proven to be a costly mistake where I suspect up to 4 billion people will die.
Let us do a calculation as to the likeliest death toll and when this will be.
OK so this next website takes us near to what is a mathematical odds stipulated scenario of doom and gloom except like all the other websites I have encountered it falls short of the prediction standard shown as odds.
It does though match many of my own sentiments. In that maybe people will liven up in relation to warming if they realize the risks to the human race.
The argument that climate change will kill us all.
The expected effects of climate change, according to organizations like the IPCC and the World Bank are fairly terrifying.
They suggest the planet’s climate will change fast enough to cause widespread droughts and famines, the spread of insect-borne diseases the displacement of populations, and a worsening of severe poverty.
But here’s one thing they don’t predict: mass civilizational collapse.
Our argument is in essence that on the present path, including the commitments in Paris, warming will be three degrees. Spratt told me. “If you include climate cycle feedbacks, which are not included in the IPCC analysis, it’ll be effectively higher.” Then he gets to the controversial bit: “Three degrees may end our civilization.”
That highlights our impending problem that at 3 degrees and climbing things start to get very serious.
One important thing here is that “suicide,” “catastrophic,” and “end of civilization” are all non technical terms, and people may have very different things in mind when they use them — especially if we’re looking at interviews rather than at papers. This is fair comment.
Don’t forget we all have different views again what we think those terms mean when we read them.
So it isn’t clear. It means lots of people have lots of defined views. And this is what has held back climate understanding amongst people. What was needed was a vast advertising campaign structured by the UN and EU to educate the people to the exact problem. In specific terms like how many billions of people can die if we get this wrong.
But the UN and EU have a continual pushing for successful world trade. And their counter push to save the world from coal has come all too late.
The proof being we are in a mess and reaction to that mess is failing because in part they reacted too late and never really took it upon themselves to get the dangers understood by billions of people.
Now what we are left with is that the billions who do not understand global warming dangers are probably going to equal the death toll of billions who will starve and overheat to death in the future.
It is like one ticket of ignorance served up by the UN and EU over decades amounts to one death in the future. That future is starting now. Already people are dying in storms and floods and water and food shortages connected to climate change.
Climate change won’t kill us all. That matters. Yet it’s one of the biggest challenges ahead of us, and the results of our failure to act will be devastating. You see even here he reminds us climate change won’t kill us all. And I know he means well but again it sends the signal: Oh well we will be alright. When the signal needed to be decades ago: We are in a lot of danger.
Where it ends much depends upon financial institutions and government ideas of how to pay for green energy. Unless paid for, it cannot be developed quickly enough. The mechanics of tax, finance and investment need a shake up.
Fossil fuel investments continue to dwarf investments into renewable energy. In 2013, renewable energy received investments of less than USD 260 billion, which represented only 16% of the USD 1.6 trillion in total energy sector investments.
First, we’re still moving in the wrong direction. Global carbon emissions aren’t falling fast enough. In fact, they aren’t falling at all; they were up 1.7 percent in 2018.
The world needs to accelerate efficiency and electrification rates by about 10 times.
As of 2017, fossil fuels were still providing about 80 percent of humanity’s energy, which is roughly what they’ve been providing for decades.
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 10, 2019
As many as five billion people, particularly in Africa and South Asia, are likely to face shortages of food and clean water in the coming decades as nature declines.
“I hope no one is shocked that billions of people could be impacted by 2050,” says Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer a landscape ecologist at Stanford University.
What does she mean by COULD? That is the problem not mathematically defining it we cannot balance it.
So there you have it educated experts expounding to the world view on the internet to the media and they do not put a percentage likelihood to what they are saying. Other than to say likely or could.
And they wonder at misinformation and complain at fake news. But this is really all about DIFFERENT news. Different views and ways of saying stuff.
This type of reporting often confuses the world intellect about climate consequences. I have trawled 50 sites.
Each of the last three decades has been the hottest on record – it’s also making unusual weather more likely: droughts in some places, floods in others; higher average temperatures and more frequent extreme heatwaves.
Again referring to the IPCC report: if we literally stop producing any carbon emissions next year, then it is likely that the global mean surface temperature will continue to rise about another 0.5°C, to a total of around 1.5°C.
Sea levels will rise. Weather patterns will change, causing unseasonal droughts and floods, affecting ecosystems and crop growth.
It is likely that heat waves and fires, drought and starvation, and new disease vectors will kill many people.
Migration, and wars over newly scarce resources, could kill people as well.
But the question I think is worth asking is: how devastating? How many people will die? Brilliant! But look how lame it is framed… ‘I think it is worth asking’.
The World Health Organisation, working off IPCC resources, suggests that between 2030 and 2050, there will be around 250,000 excess deaths per year. Not a lot considering other death rates.
For comparison, diabetes directly causes about 1.6 million deaths a year, according to the WHO.
Obesity kills about 2.8 million.
Road traffic accidents kill about 1.25 million. Smoking, eight million.
Claiming that [climate change] will kill billions, or destroy our lives utterly, is not quoting “the science” any more than it would be to say it’s a Chinese hoax. So this presenter of the truth is really saying: not that many people will die when compared to smokers. And that any dramatic claim: about a threat to billions of human lives as I and others would frame it is fake news. A concept constructed without science.
This contains a warning.
Earlier this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a chilling report that has sent most people (with the notable exception of the current president of the United States) into a deep funk.
In it, some 90 climate scientists from 40 countries conclude that if humans don’t take immediate, collective action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040, the consequences will effectively be baked into the natural systems of the planet. With so much heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere, there will be, in effect, no turning back.
There is no prediction about billions dying or when or if.
And worse it does not mention that 1.5 degrees increase is only a 1% chance to be met.
So in short I will just say this: I cannot find what the chances are of billions dying.
I can only say that a one degree temperature increase within 80 years is a 1 to 20 certainty to occur according to analysts. We will reach the 2 degree limit.
Or said differently a 95% chance.
Here are 4 models explained in diagrams.
Taking the medium levels of emissions instead of low or high it shows that temperatures could be up to 2.9 degrees higher than now. By the year 2100.
The report also uses expressions of “likelihood” to describe the probability of a finding temperature rise occurring.
An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.
Larger risks are expected for many regions and systems for global warming at 1.5°C, as compared to today.
Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence). Changes include increases in both land and ocean temperatures, as well as more frequent heatwaves in most land regions (high confidence).
At current rates human caused warming is adding around 0.2C to global average temperatures every decade. This is the result of both “past and ongoing emissions”, the report notes.
If this rate continues, the report projects that global average warming is likely to reach 1.5C between 2030 and 2052.
If emissions do not start declining in the next decade, the point of carbon neutrality would need to be reached at least two decades earlier to remain within the same carbon budget. This is a bit like saying you have so much money that you can spend to live off. But you are spending over that limit. So suddenly you have to adjust dramatically where you are spending hardly any money at all.
This is not possible with carbon unless some incredible invention saves us because we all need to work eat drink and travel and doing those things creates carbon waste. The adjustments we need to make need to occur now. Otherwise we cannot make up for the over-use currently occurring.
There is only a 5% chance that the Earth will avoid warming by at least 2C come the end of the century, according to new research.
[The 1.5C. target] is barely plausible, the new research finds, with just a 1% chance that temperatures will rise by less than 1.5C.
There are a host of different ways to present information about CO2 emissions.
By country seems logical. But some countries hold bigger populations than others and use more energy.
World Economic Forum
We can see what countries produce what emissions but places like China and India have around a billion people living there so probably they are going to produce a lot of carbon. They have expanding industries.
Other countries are smaller and in total produce less CO2 but each individual living there might each use a lot of carbon due to a modern sophisticated city lifestyle.
Understood the totals for countries can be misleading somewhat. A single person from a country is referred to as per capita.
More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions– are the United States, Australia, and Canada. Australia has an average per capita footprint of 17 tonnes, followed by the US at 16.2 tonnes, and Canada at 15.6 tonnes.
The total amounts of carbon emissions has gone up yearly (more or less) since records began. So we have to wonder where all the United Nations advice went?
Where did the Paris Climate Agreement go to?
It certainly never transferred into lesser emissions.
And you have to wonder at a world order that not only acknowledges the problem too late but then in the last hours quite literally is committing the sin of burning the planet and poisoning the people with CO2 emissions.
I mean what reason or excuse do they have?
Why should we tolerate this?
And the reason is one of information.
Information about the climate is complex and often boring to discuss. It was not loosely talked about until very recent years.
The media have had a frenzy reporting on wild fires or storms across seas hitting coastlines.
But they don’t hold to account the political sphere why the emissions continue to go up. And so what continues is a mirror to the principles of advertising.
Advertising works if it is repeated into the senses of enough people. If not it does not work. There is no gossip there is no following and the world beating product like a Coco Cola never really takes off.
And look how much effort all big brands go to convincing people to buy into their product.
This means in relation to climate change there is not enough of any buzz in the media to confront politicians about why emissions keep going up. And how what an utter disgrace and insult to humanity this is.
My point here is that politicians could slip the net years ago: arguing there may not be climate change. But now they openly confirm it as part of their politics as the Green Party have been warning us for years.
So the insult to our humanity is simply that they all claim to want to lessen the killing machine CO2. But meanwhile openly and blatantly increase the emissions.
It is like a doctor saying I am going to save you from poison and then increasing the dosage.
“I warn you then I warm you,” say all the politicians.
Trump with his normal open brashness pulled America out of the Paris Climate Agreement. The media never really carried the story into any ongoing theme.
Certain ideas like plastic took to the imagination of most of us because there are loads of sad and incredible images regarding plastic. We became emotionally attached to the idea because of the filmed ocean scenes on a David Attenborough program. It spurred us on.
But I had seen a few articles on plastic in the press prior. It hadn’t been missed by the media it is just that they don’t roll with stories that don’t get latched onto by the public.
They care for their own niche of following. Presenting arguments about rising CO2 needs further explaining and no one apart from environmentalists go on about the nitty-gritty of climate controls. Or lack of them.
Meanwhile the politicians have expert media consultants working out a narrative that doesn’t make them look as guilty it might. Or how to turn it into no narrative at all as regards to and through the media.
But I will reiterate: they cannot surely be in the right as leaders or opposition continuing to up the CO2 amounts. And the media meanwhile let it go passing by.
My point here is just another point another legitimate idea from which to argue.
If only you could visually show CO2 like plastic hanging around the heads of dolphins.
Meanwhile ideas like presenting to the youth that they may not have a future just hasn’t taken off as a worldwide event. And anyway what is a worldwide event?
Something like the Arab spring?
Well maybe Greta should pour gasoline upon herself and burn to death in front of the media. Now you’re talking.
But in a world of adults like the ones that live right now it has to be said they are not prone to action they are prone to following the leaders into battles of bombs. Or the leads made by Facebook on how to vote.
And as for the great Arab spring did the women of the East get the freedoms they deserved? And did the mother’s that lost their children for a shot at democracy ever say it was proven to be worth it?
No the biggest coming together ever known by this generation of adults is the one we live with now: C19.
Corona Corona my kingdom for a shot in the arm.
Get behind your door laddie if you know what is best for you.
And so now we hide and fear the black plague – the economy will sink and Africa will suffer quicker than any and more will be seen in rowing boats on the way to the welcoming? EU shores.
The governments could not and did not want to inconvenience a few hundred thousand people who unlucky for them were abroad. So instead being civil the borders remained opened and so it became unlucky for 7 billion of us.
But that is the price of hindsight. If Boris had closed the UK in January and ordered a lock down we would have been heralding him the great British leader.
Had the virus not spread as it now is Boris would have lost his strong position just as Teresa May lost a strong position. So no leader anywhere could block all borders. If anyone had though took the plunge it might have been Trump.
But Trump is led by economic concerns and his own impending political vote in November.
You see it is all about information. If you jump too soon you can look like the first fool. And the media will finish the rest.
So everyone with an agenda looks around for what is the common reaction from the pack.
But it has to be said the people have mustered a very disciplined and obedient response. Everyone deserves credit for that.
But let me make my point here: the repercussions of this Corona thing will amount to a greater loss for much more people than the deaths of thousands.
It is going to cause loss of life greater in number across many poor countries that cannot now fend off other illnesses.
There will be more people starving who cannot go to work and when allowed out won’t have any work for them.
Worst of all is that 7 billion people will be wary of close social contact. Locked in like a herd frightened of the unknown locked in their own minds.
And all because the medical experts of the world never made it clear to politicians what would occur if we left the airports open especially to China.
The so called scientific experts and political experts who have surely got all sorts of varied game theory philosophies made from think tanks to read upon: Did not proclaim – close all borders especially from China.
They did exactly what they have done with Climate Change. Acted too late.
But with Climate Change it involves a pathetic of the most pathetic 30 year debates to even agree there is climate change.
No the civilised western ways, the great Neo-liberalism of freedoms led by the business world captured our thinking when we first heard about the virus in the new year.
None of us wanted to appear so draconian as to cut off China as Trump might a Mexican. And so now we face the doom and gloom of being paranoid about all other human beings. This is arguably the greatest loss to the human condition ever known. Friendship at a distance.
And the full repercussions of it unknown. It is like the dark ages where we did not understand the world and only the fetter of the religious leader was there to guide Mankind through.
Who will guide us through now? Medical experts and politicians who did not close borders quick enough?
Or our own desperation?
I like to think our spirit. When desperate that is where an individual often turns. Or every nation like when at war you see just how brave a nation can be.
So I say stand up for your right to love the neighbour who in normal times you kept your distance from anyway.
If you fall back on selfish self preservation it will be worse than it ever was before the virus. You will alienate your fellow human beings. In some continual paranoid stoop.
You may as well fear Obesity, car deaths, and starvation… but of course YOU can’t starve to death. YOU won’t be one of the 9 billion that do this year.
Protect yourself the brain tells you first and foremost. So it is you are hardwired.
But added up the small c cannot really get us unless we wither away in paranoid distances.
Look out for the big C… Climate.
If you do not come together soon it will be too late.
You are not hardwired to kill billions. But note also you are not hardwired to worry about people 200 years from now.
If you wait for so called experts to lead: you will be attacked again and again through natural forces that the scientific community has documented in relation to winds fires and economic misfortunes. Coming soon.
But don’t take my word on it let us quickly take a look at an interview with a climate expert and see what she has to say.
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe. The planet has only until 2030 to stern catastrophic climate change.
The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control.
Where did the idea come from that we have until the end of this decade to drastically cut carbon emissions or the planet is cooked? What does it mean?
If the world started reducing emissions now, there would be more time to reach the 1.5°C limit. That would make it more likely we could implement measures to reach net zero emissions no later than 2050 and then begin to remove more carbon than the amount we emit from that point going forward. We’re talking about net negative emissions. That’s a tall order. She means a 1% chance.
What are the main actions countries will have to take to maintain a liveable planet? Do we have the necessary technology today to get the job done?
The IPCC special report assessed with “very high confidence” that the world has the technological and societal know-how to meet the 1.5°C target. This conflicts with what was said on the Extinction rebellion video, there it was said that it cannot be scaled in time.
So what do nations around the world need to do—especially the United States and other countries that are primarily responsible for climate change?
First, motors, appliances, infrastructure, industrial processes and all modes of transportation have to become more efficient.
Some sectors of our economy are out front on this. For example, architects, engineers, material scientists and historic preservation experts, to name just a few, are working together to ensure that buildings are renovated to dramatically cut energy consumption and carbon emissions.
Second, we need to “decarbonize” electricity generation by transitioning from coal and natural gas to low- and no-carbon sources, especially wind, solar, and geothermal. We also have to invest in energy storage, modernize our outmoded transmission grid, and capture and store carbon emissions that the electricity sector continues to release.
Third, we have to “electrify” just about everything. We need to transform our transportation sector by transitioning to electric vehicles of all sizes, from two-door passenger cars to buses, big rig trucks and trains.
We have to heat and cool our buildings with low- and no-carbon electricity. And nearly all of our industrial processes will have to capture carbon or run on zero-carbon electricity.
Fourth, we will have to suck carbon out of the atmosphere naturally—by planting trillions of trees, for example—and with technology.
At this point we have expensive prototypes that can do that, but it will take some technological breakthroughs to accomplish that goal at the scale we need. This backs up what Extinction Rebellion say about scale.
Finally, we will have to dramatically reduce methane and other planet-warming gases besides carbon dioxide. Wetlands, ruminant animals—cows and sheep—and natural gas leaks release methane, which traps more heat than carbon dioxide and after around a decade it converts to carbon dioxide. Let’s start the: KILL COWS campaign. And fine people for farting in public places.
Meanwhile, nitrous oxide, which is largely a by-product of farming practices and soil, can trap heat for more than a century. If you are a kid who laughs when someone farts in class. Stop it think of global warming!
I know we are now preoccupied with protecting our families and communities from the coronavirus pandemic, and rightly so. As the epidemic eases—and hopefully it will sooner than later—we will be faced with rebuilding the economy and putting people back to work.
It is critical that we take steps to rebuild the economy in a way that increases our health and resilience in the face of climate change.
Investing in the five-step program I just outlined has a huge potential to generate new jobs and can put us on the path to avoid the worst consequences of a warming world. A positive sounding spin for sure.
I had to let you read what the expert above had to say. I mean she lends hope. As does the site below until they explain the further details of misplaced hope.
there’s no scientific research to show that 2 degrees of warming is safe. And there’s a reason for that — science alone can’t determine what’s an unacceptable level of danger.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proposed 400 scenarios calculated to achieve a 50 percent or better chance of meeting the 2-degree target. But, Anderson writes, most assume either an ability to travel back in time (to prevent emissions that have already happened) or the successful and large-scale adoption of technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere that do not yet exist in a scalable form. Again saying what Extinction Rebellion are saying about scale.
On this site there is a cool method to display information which confirms differences of climate change from 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius.
The chances of achieving 1.5 degrees are 1% so I will not bother to address any facts and figures as regards a 1.5 degree plan…or even 2 degrees plan.
If you are young reading this don’t buy into it. It is an insult to reality and outcomes. They are fooling you.
People in general do not have a concept of it anyway, the very idea is obscured by mainstream media. I wonder if one in ten people even have heard of the 2 degrees target. Lucky them.
But all the websites I visited would know. All 50 of them.
On top of all this I have to return to the ludicrous idea and assumption we must suddenly care for what is just a few major inconveniences. As posited by most of those websites.
It it surely easy for people to adjust to one degree difference from now over an 80 year period.
And those that die through heat wave cannot be said to amount to the 9 million a year that currently starve to death.
Those that are flooded well what do you know pal… tough. Is the prevalent thought. Or worse: Oh what a shame.
Do you really believe people live and lead their lives worrying about the Human race? In the future! Who live at the sea side?
We plummet like desperate sheep behind our doors when we know we ourselves can die from a virus.
In general we each live our own lives filled up with distractions which are often all too challenging for anyone be they rich, poor, high IQ or low.
The world is a helter skelter pace.
It is a concept an idea a belief we as a group care about the world.
It belongs to the educated or the emotionally intelligent that have time to reflect on key presented information through media and websites.
Care for the human race can only exist really because a sufficient amount of information is revealed to a brain through media or another significant channel like education or websites.
Without information inputs who could care about a world? No-one.
You would only care about what you see in front of you daily.
You can only care by dealing with all the problems you face or what others face and from which you might help. In this sense we all care.
But to care for a world and then worse in a context of a future world, is a dramatic shift from the normal everyday sense of caring where we deal with what is in front of us. And from which we show our caring nature.
No, be certain you who have read this far… the care you have about climate change, and thus your showing of your care for the world, is only available to those who can get the intellectual context delivered to their reflective brains so that it is in front of them as a thing to deal with.
It is in short: an information state.
A battle where the media and websites are in charge along with education systems or better still social media as being in charge now.
Without the information and prediction about the future understood by a brain there is no possible way to care for the human race 100 years from now.
Without the emotional impact why will the majority change their consumption ways? They simply will not.
And my point is: unless this climate thing amounts to billions of deaths the information won’t mean much in emotional terms to people. So no information state can replace the current one whatever the hell that is.
God I tell ya does not provide academic details in his books. It is emotional information. That is what stirs religion and note: its very large groups of followers. Plus it built that following over thousands of years.
People will not muster the force of will to push governments to act at an extreme. This idea to save at all costs is not understood within the world’s information state floating about as a meme as a thought or emotional process.
Thus it must fail. And each day we prove this as so. Because overall emissions are going up year by year as a collection of nations.
Your parents left the future to the future.
All that remains from them now as a collective is the passing whimper of lip service to the cause of saving the planet. So it is they have been led by the UN and EU trade ethos.
As for what the real death toll might be… well?
My concern about the IPCC is that they take a few years to construct their fully comprehensive reports. This means that information they know about now they cannot comment on until held in a fuller context. So what they might know now is in a bottleneck waiting to be placed within a report.
The other major concern is that they do not use as part of their modelling the principles around tipping points that involve a sort of accumulating interest to the negative proceedings. Which experts name: feedback.
So in my own words and example I see it like this: when the ice melts if it melts too far; a set of negative effects occur that reinforce the melting.
In my example it is that more heat is trapped and instead of the melting of the ice continuing at the same rate the rate increases because of the accumulating heat that is added to the atmosphere.
Currently the melting occurs and the rate of the melting is a sort of constant and what is accumulating in the atmosphere isn’t an added threat.
But at a certain point called a tipping point that protection does not occur. And it is this that is the threat to Mankind.
If the IPCC are wrong and people like the Joboneforhumanity and Extinction Rebellion people are right I would personally put it as evens or up 3 to 1 we will lose 4 billion people if these tipping points occur.
“Mister Grant-Mcvicar, I put it to you these predictions coined in data driven angst are just wild speculations like the wild fires in the Amazon.”
“Forgive me sir, I have surely reached a tipping point.”
The term “tipping point” itself was popularised by journalist and author Malcolm Gladwell who describes tipping points as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point.
In Hansen’s talk – Hansen warned that “we are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption.”
Ice shelves could trigger a positive feedback loop that sees rapid and irreversible loss of land ice into the ocean – which would add to sea levels. This theory is called “marine ice sheet instability.”
There are 9 tipping points they talk of but ice and trees are what I sort of understand without having to really take in the information which when academically written is a job for experts.
The Amazon Tipping Point is here. The tipping point’s arrival could mean a rapid rainforest die-off — releasing massive amounts of carbon to the atmosphere at a time when the world most needs carbon reductions.
And again in relation to the Amazon.
Some have warned that the forest will soon reach a tipping point that could turn much of it into dry scrubland. But others say they lack the evidence to make specific forecasts about how long the rainforest can remain healthy. This the difficulty for many in academic pursuits: one of evidence.
Politicians, economists and even some natural scientists have tended to assume that tipping points in the Earth are of low probability and little understood. Yet evidence is mounting that these events could be more likely than was thought.
In our view, the consideration of tipping points helps to define that we are in a climate emergency and strengthens this year’s chorus of calls for urgent climate action — from schoolchildren to scientists, cities and countries.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) introduced the idea of tipping points two decades ago.
Information summarized in a IPCC Special Reports suggests that tipping points could be exceeded even between 1 and 2 °C of warming. Could?
If current national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are implemented — and that’s a big ‘if’ — they are likely to result in at least 3 °C of global warming.
This is despite the goal of the 2015 Paris agreement to limit warming to well below 2 °C.
Some economists, assume that climate tipping points are of very low probability (even if they would be catastrophic.
In other words, warming must be limited to 1.5 °C. This requires an emergency response. There is no emergency response. There is no 1.5 target in reality. It is just political spin led by the UN and EU.
If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization.
In our view, the evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute.
The situation is an emergency we have lost control.
The stability and resilience of our planet is in peril. International action — not just words — must reflect this.
The red segment above shows where we are heading in terms of carbon emissions. The blue shows that we would need to be producing half as much carbon to get to the 1.5 limit. In other words we are going to be double the amount over.
Meanwhile experts talk and commentators talk about the Paris Climate Agreement 1.5 standard as if reality. A disgrace and utter insult to our common led intelligence.
Without transformation in society and rapid implementation of ambitious emissions cuts, limiting warming to 1.5˚C while achieving sustainable development will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
The demise of the human species is being discussed more and more. For many, the only uncertainty is how long we’ll last, how many more generations will see the light of day.
For more than 30 years, scientists have tried to inform governments and the public on the urgent threat of global warming, working hard to acknowledge honestly the limits to what they know. It hasn’t worked. As a recent report from the United Nations Environment Program, shows global carbon dioxide emissions have gone up, not down, even in the few years since the once-promising Paris Agreement. Nations’ own projections for fossil fuel use suggest that emissions will keep rising at least through 2030, making the climate problem worse. Emissions will continue to go up beyond 2030!
I do not live and die every detail of these facts and figures I have only bothered to address the problem of information as best I can in a distant academic way for a reason that is beyond the scope of this website. I ended up feeling disappointed.
However I can assure you what follows from here on another website does not cater to any academic whim.
And can only be said to be very funny if not outright remarkable. You can only guess as to how remarkable indeed it may be. When I put it up.
And I do not refer to the madman which is solely a spiritual dimension to this problem about climate. Or rather: it is that the problem about climate is a part of a spiritual problem.
Within the madman website I can assure you it is not meant for the heavy of intellectual stomach especially if you go to university where a level of proof and style of proof has developed. As fully reflected in the last 30 year slow winded debate on climate.
I can assure you the modern developed academic virtue: of the Plato-scientific like reasoning process is fully examined by me in what for some will be known as a remarkable read.
It is not just what is said that is rich but the way that it is said.
It does not cater to the whims of the weak.
themadman.world is a look at highly educated culture and its reasoning process. And with it the religious reasoning process. All wrapped up in a philosophical comedy.
What is said there is meant for those that do read it. Not for those that hear of it.
That does not mean it should be read by all, ha. Oh no.
But for those that do read it let I tell you this: spiritual consequences must occur no matter how you define it because of climate change and the brazen attitude of our yearly output of CO2.
It is the output of a killing machine and utter disgrace to humanity. It is inexcusable and is the tally of the weak led by the strong willed world leaders who dictate: under the guise of the educated report makers who cater to them.
The business elites have cheated on tax, exploited the natural environment and changed laws to defend a UN EU led trade plan.
The end result of this process is that the human race finds itself led into a dark spiritual corner where there must be consequences. Not just to the collective self but the sense of what it is to be a spiritual being for any individual.
For it follows that we are all connected together in our pursuit of morality: to do the right thing.
Each with an inbuilt sense developed over thousands of years to protect and love.
That inbuilt developing sense is now being challenged as it is at times of war when we go and kill others.
But in this situation the killing is not that we defend our own view of existence; but that we kill our own existence.
Is it gong to be left to this sorry state? I think not.
A certain kind has and will prevail on this Earth that goes beyond the scope of strong willed people. Something to do with refined intelligent group awareness that wants to love and protect and do the right thing.
If not we could have never got this far.
When pushed to the Edge we do liven up, we do question and in some strange sense we do lead by the virtue of our everyday politeness humour and care towards each other. As seen in our daily reactions.
So I don’t personally fear the human race will ever fail. I have faith in it totally. It is though making a mistake to have handed its future to what is a mix of leading organisations. Such as media, government, education and business.
As a group we have no basis to change the world except to vote every 4 years and let those involved in creating policy get on with it.
This applies to the creatives in business. What we teach ourselves at education. And then to the people in media who somehow have to define what the hell is going on to us all.
That collective of media, government, education and business, doesn’t work. As proven by climate change. Its very output is reflected in the continual rise of CO2 emissions.
And some might say to me; How so?
Well my academic-media-government-business friends… you took it upon yourselves to lead this world. And lead it you did. Lead it you do. You might have made the modern era but something now needs to come along and unmake it.
Because it is you lot that sold the world to the great and glorious idea of the UN the EU. Democracy tax and war. And law.
And more of course: like the wonders of technology Google smart phones the arts and other great and goods’.
But you hold a dark secret. A limitation – you cannot work out how to apply key information to the human race that it help itself. That it stops its self destruct.
Because be certain: you lame emotional lot of the media government business academics society…
You never altered our course. What you did is fall in love with your own outputs.
And I put it to you all who I have hereby named as a group… that your 100 year rule turned out to be the rule of charlatans. As proven by the climate change reality. Where we risk human extinction.
You would have it we change our spiritual existence? That we sell that at a good price would you? So that we do not care enough about civilisation and the future of the human race? But just live our lives?
All purchased in the free market place of choice.
But what choice did we really have? The collective the masses other than to follow your lead. We had to follow you whilst we led our own individual lives.
I am sorry, but led us you did as a group to this climate change conundrum. And lead us out of it you will not.
The Paris Agreement is obviously some sort of a sham. Unless the plan is to lock everyone up like now during Coronavirus lock down?
Next a site that pays explanation to how the lock down across the Earth has rested the Earth from carbon emissions. I think this gives us a real positive hope. Because the days might come when we all agree to enter lock down periods and force emissions down.
Analysis showed that the Coronavirus has temporarily cut CO2 emissions in China by 25%, with emissions still below normal more than two months after the country entered lockdown.
Carbon Brief analysis of this data suggests the pandemic could cause emissions cuts this year in the region of 1,600m tonnes of CO2.
As a result, the coronavirus crisis could trigger the largest ever annual fall in CO2 emissions in 2020, more than during any previous economic crisis or period of war.
Even this would not come close to bringing the 1.5C global temperature limit within reach. Global emissions would need to fall by more than 6% every year this decade in order to limit warming to less than 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures. This 6% fact is why we won’t reach the 1.5 dream.
To put it another way, atmospheric carbon levels are expected to increase again this year, even if CO2 emissions cuts are greater still. Rising CO2 concentrations – and related global warming – will only stabilise once annual emissions reach net-zero.
And there you have it – we have to get it down to zero emissions otherwise we can’t begin to clear the atmosphere via trees and oceans of the carbon excess.
I do not encourage you to buy into the 1.5 degrees possibility. It is a wasted dream and I am surprised there isn’t more open criticism of it on the sites I encountered.
It is very interesting we live in an era where academics and media groups are openly concerned about the principles of fake news. Meanwhile very intelligent people involved in climate change are proposing an idea for the future of the human race that is not going to be reached.
And other experts and broadcasters are openly discussing the 1.5 and 2 degree limits as if they can or will be met. This is worse than fake news. At least the people who invent fake headlines know it is a lie.
And yet given some inquiry people can do some checks and find that the 2 degrees limit, set by the Paris Climate Agreement, is as big a mislead as what the Human Race has been introduced to. A ridiculous piece of fake hope.
This is not only worrying it is arguably despicable. You may as well say to a child Superman is going to come and save us.
The thread of hope we have been given by the collective of climate experts and their followers is an intellectual hoax. And misleads the world as defined through the media and presented to the people of this world.
The graph below shows the continued increase in carbon emissions.
As for 2 degrees it is a one chance in twenty. Very sad indeed. I can stomach the death figures if the moderates are correct.
But the tipping points alter those predictions. So I suppose it comes down to the odds of those tipping points occurring causing a so called runaway event.
I am not going to speculate about 20 to 1 shot, or said differently 5% chance it happening as the Extinction Rebellion talker does in the 22nd minute of her talk. So as not to confuse you it is NOT LIKELY the tipping points will occur to cause human extinction: 5% chance.
So we are big favourites to be OK. Is my own speculation.
Especially as there is a lot of speculation which makes me wonder as to the accuracy of their odds model building. Many experts dismiss tipping point dangers.
My general impression with all these people is one of 2 types. One lot seem very practical and emotionally basic in their views. Keeping to the likely science. A person who bets on favourites. And looks at the percentages.
I don’t think real decision makers in business or politics care too much for the death tolls when balanced against millions dying yearly right now from all different reasons.
It is these type of thinkers leading us. Be they business world, science, academic, political.
The Earthier kind the romantics the passionate are the ones that are saying something else. They are latching onto the truth that this is a ridiculous situation to be in. Where the future extinction of the human race is even a possibility.
And this group are right: it is ludicrous to be so casual and practical about climate and I would say dragging our feet.
A decision has to be made like that of closing the borders in the first week of January for the Coronavirus. If we are to avoid a high risk scenario. Which is a risk to our very spirituality.
And the reason I say that is because to literally take risks with billions of people just because it is unlikely is like saying we don’t really care about future human beings. And that cannot be right. That cannot be how we are hard wired to be. Given the literature from religion.
Given we all love others and know what love is, be it for a mum a dad a child a sister a brother. A God.
Yes you may not believe in a God. But some thing… some amazing event once took place billions of years ago that science says has no awareness. That religion says has awareness. Either way you have to wonder at the remarkableness that some THING existed that gave us all this.
It does not make any sense we ever forget this truth that some THING gave us this reality.
And may we protect what it gave us with all our hearts and souls.
Russell from Burning Hope.