The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[redpoint5]

Whenever someone has a difference of opinion, it's always because they are paid shills.

[aerohead]

It doesn't come across as 'opinion'.
A 'greening' planet is 'meaningless' in the context of climate change.
There's an implication that anything green is equal to any other thing which is green.
Clear-cut of green deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest and replacement with a green monoculture soybean and cattle production for export to China somehow equals what was destroyed.
Guatemalan sugar cane 'likes' global warming, while Guatemalan cane cutters drop dead in the field due to the rising heat index. All's good.
An acre of grass = an acre of Douglas Fir.
Tropical forest = palm oil plantations.
Perhaps it's not helpful to tell people about the bright side of global warming. It's so overshadowed by negatives, as to make the positives statistically insignificant.
It's dangerous. And it smells just like a fossil-fuel lobbyist at the federal level.

[redpoint5]

Existential issue is a matter of opinion. The IPCC researchers themselves don't use that language.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Existential issue is a matter of opinion. The IPCC researchers themselves don't use that language.

Scientists who contribute to the literature could / might/ may/ would use it.
Those at the IPCC, who accept materials for consideration in the reports may be instructed to use no language which could spook the marketplace, even if it's personally spooky.
Since science strives for precision, when you find a scientists using a term like existential, you might presume that, out all adjectives available to them, existential was the most precise descriptor available.
From my reading of the science, I'm left in agreement that, climate change truly is an existential threat.
It's the non-linearity that's the problem. It's just like aerodynamic horsepower.
It doesn't follow a straight line, it's geometric.
Nothing on Earth evolved within a geometrically- warming environment.
You cannot light a fire as big as the entire surface of Earth ( oceans included ) and expect zero consequences. And we're burning 1.6-Earths / year.
Perhaps some thought powerful words like 'existential' could motivate people to introspect, and maybe alter their behavior. It appears that nothing can be said to some which would ever make a difference.
Madison Avenue and a few others know all about it.

[freebeard]

You cannot light a fire as big as the entire surface of Earth ( oceans included ) and expect zero consequences.

'Equivalent to'?

Scott Adams is fond of pointing out that the 'slippery [geometric] slope' doesn't exist. It's more a web of interacting pendulums.

Fossil fuel use is symptomatic of the greater threat to humankind -- humankind itself.

[oil pan 4]

It's already been proven the earth's climate changes much faster than what humans might be able to do naturally.

[redpoint5]

I mean, it goes night to day every 24hrs, which is quite the rapid change.

[freebeard]

I'd thought he meant vulcanism.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I'd thought he meant vulcanism.

Vulcanism guaranteed, but there are other fast climate change events that have changed the climate more than man's entire alleged effects in about a decade and with no evidence of Vulcanism.

[redpoint5]

Just to clarify, we are talking about Vulcans who eat other Vulcans, right?