The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Not tundra but boreal forest. It doesn't happen overnight but neither does the change in climate. What they do have is lots of water, with technology soil is actually optional.

If it gets warmer in Siberia then conditions will look more like Mongolia.
There's big forests... and little agriculture. And they are struggling.

Not all of Mongolia is forest though; the south is part of the Gobi desert. Guess what will happen there if temperatures rise?

Nature often does not work as you'd like.
It is a huge bet to think rising temperatures will create fertile land where none is now.
Especially as we will definitely lose fertile land to desert forming and rising seas.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

If it gets warmer in Siberia then conditions will look more like Mongolia.
There's big forests... and little agriculture. And they are struggling.

Not all of Mongolia is forest though; the south is part of the Gobi desert. Guess what will happen there if temperatures rise?

Nature often does not work as you'd like.
It is a huge bet to think rising temperatures will create fertile land where none is now.
Especially as we will definitely lose fertile land to desert forming and rising seas.

Nature doesn't always work as the alarmists would like either. Nature is what nature is and believe it or not humans are part of nature. Just like pine beetles destroy their habitat to live, humans may do likewise. Nature will survive, it always has, always will, things just change.

Science on the other hand does say warming will help, science done when scientists were just looking for what might change... that is until the machine found out science was saying warming would help. Now there is a bunch of studies that needed to fix that possibility, because nature does need to behave the way they want.

[RedDevil]

Of course, because scientists have a vested interest in climate change and will subdue anything that contradicts it, nor will their peers correct them. Scientists cannot be trusted!
Unlike the oil industry, which works for the better of all, not for their shareholders...

You have no proof, and not because somebody hid it.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by All Darc

What about old TV (90's) documentaries.....showing cure for baldness.....

Was watching an "old 1950s TV (videotape) documentary" by composer, pianist, conductor, & personality Leonard Bernstein. As the video camera scanned the symphonic players, one third towards 50% of the old men in the orchestra were bald. Some of the bald heads even showed that old videotape glow artifact. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right about the extreme need to cure balding.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Of course, because scientists have a vested interest in climate change and will subdue anything that contradicts it, nor will their peers correct them. Scientists cannot be trusted!
Unlike the oil industry, which works for the better of all, not for their shareholders...

You have no proof, and not because somebody hid it.

Some people might fall for the oil narrative... but how prevalent is it? Probably the only people that would cite oil research to back their claims are people with minds already made up about whether we should do anything about reducing oil consumption and CO2 emissions.

People likewise can adopt unobjective narratives on the extreme opposite side of the debate; that CO2 is the #1 problem affecting nearly all aspects of well-being and poses an existential threat. The science community doesn't have a consensus that global warming poses a likely existential threat to humanity.

So you have absurd positions on both ends of a spectrum; those that say humans have no impact on the global environment, and those that attribute every day that is colder or hotter than they'd like to climate change.

BTW-I've never even read an Oil research paper, or know what those claims are, not even 2nd hand from a news outlet, as I have avoided news for about 10 years now... I just found out a plan is in place for humans to visit the moon again in 2024 when I watched a 1 year old Youtube speech by Michio Kaku. I must be doing a good job avoiding the news to have missed that.

[All Darc]

LOL...

I didn't said it's a extreme need, I just used it a example of bull promise. Anyway I heard hair regeneration technology it's connected to skin regeneration, and skin it's important to burn victms.

Originally Posted by litesong

Was watching an "old 1950s TV (videotape) documentary" by composer, pianist, conductor, & personality Leonard Bernstein. As the video camera scanned the symphonic players, one third towards 50% of the old men in the orchestra were bald. Some of the bald heads even showed that old videotape glow artifact. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right about the extreme need to cure balding.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by All Darc

LOL...I didn't said it's a extreme need....

I should have put "" in my post.
Symphonic orchestras already cured the "videotape glowing bald heads" problem. Lots of those old men have been replaced with women & the young. & new tech replaced videotape.

[freebeard]

I just found out a plan is in place for humans to visit the moon again in 2024 when I watched a 1 year old Youtube speech by Michio Kaku. I must be doing a good job avoiding the news to have missed that.

Then you haven't been following the developments at SpaceX? They ditched carbon fiber for stainless steel (cheaper and stronger at cryogenic temperatures) and ditched the three tail fins for four flaps and four legs. It's an entirely new flight dynamic.

Don't live without hope.

[redpoint5]

I somehow was aware of the steel spaceship, but thought it a hoax at first... again probably youtube videos.

I'm very hopeful, which is aided by my avoidance of news consumption, especially local news. Local news is garbage.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So where in the ipcc report did they prove that we have to respond to the climate crisis now?
I have been reading this latest report and the only way anyone is going to draw that conclusion is if they control F search for the most sensational parts of the report, take those out of context, blow them way out of proportion and ignore all the other content.

The IPCC is as urgent as it can be - the need for getting off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible - is the main conclusion. Lie with the ozone hole - science indicates what is needed, and when we do what we should, we are able to affect the problem.

We need to stand with science - like Greta Thunberg says.