# Jean-Marc jancovici - Climat change



## W.hâ/t (Nov 2, 2022)

In answer to Phishfry profile post (it was to big to fit there) and  beleive the information even incomplete is still worth a thread that may interest a few users.

Jean-Marc jancovici is a french ingeneer (link to his youtube channel), he talks very well about this. He is kind of a lead in the field. I am gonna try to resume a bit of what he says..

Basically, I am sorry Alain De Vos but there is no fixing, it's too late, we're talking about adjusting, preparing for the situation. In other words, having a system that works with less resource while trying to avoid famine and wars.

The earth has a volume with limited and reproducible resources. Forests are recproducible, while petrol is considered limited since carbon phossils(?) take 50 to 300 millions years to 'reproduce'. So at some point you reach a demand that exceed the production.

He shows a graph where it is shown that at no point since the 1870 the production has been 'greener' (sry again Phishfry ). Every inovation that was supposed to reduce greenhouse gaz did not. We just pilled them (see picture). Although with nuclear he's with you. He thinks we should  build more as it produce very little 'garbage' and it is pretty safe. Earth even had a natural nuclear system many years ago, how exciting?

Groenland is going to disapear (polar ice). It is melting and there's nothing we can do about it (it's degradation helps it's destruction).

We will never see the weather we used to know again. It's going to balance between canicules and heavy rain, meaning less reproductability of vegetables, etc...

We've reached a maximum for petrol in 2006, which is very likely related to the econimic crisis. We've reached some other maximum for other gas too. Not all yet but it's not that far.

Big natural changes occur over thousand of years, we've made so that a big change is going to occur in a few hundred years.

Sorry, it's probably going difficult to read. English is not my mother language and I am terrible at resume.. This is also very basic, I didn't develop a lot and there is a lot more to be said.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 3, 2022)

W.hâ/t said:


> take 50 to 300 millions years to 'reproduce'. So at some point you reach a demand that exceed the production.


No. Coal, f.e. can not rebuild. There is nothinf since 300my, because that is when some microbe learned to eat lignin. Fallen biomass now decomposes and does not pile up like it did.

Also, oil is not produced. I remember when the narative was changed ftom exporting countries to producing countries during the first oil crisis. 

Oh, and I'll have an eye on this thread. Be civil.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 3, 2022)

There have already been a lot of climate-change & extinsions.
A summary i made,


			https://devosalain.github.io/clim7.xhtml


----------



## smithi (Nov 3, 2022)

Earth Temperature Timeline
					






					xkcd.com


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 3, 2022)

Climate changes all the time. So you cannot say it's new.
Belgium where i live is becoming warmer, and people are starting to cultivate wine...


----------



## Crivens (Nov 3, 2022)

Alain De Vos said:


> Climate changes all the time. So you cannot say it's new


It's never been this fast, except when some million tons of rock came falling from the sky. There will be no time to adapt for any system. It will be brutal.


----------



## angry_vincent (Nov 3, 2022)

there was brutal and fast climatic changes by means of tens of years, if not faster, and they were much more dramatic ( i may use apocalyptic by modern rhetoric ).  if you look at GISP2 ice cores graphs, not far than ~13ky ago and older, temperature oscillations were chaotic ( yet in some pattern ). holocene is peculiar, yet we are here due to that fact.


----------



## smithi (Nov 4, 2022)

RealClimate: Frontpage
					

RealClimate:Climate science from climate scientists...




					www.realclimate.org
				












						Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
					

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.



					skepticalscience.com


----------



## angry_vincent (Nov 4, 2022)

Sun impacts surely, and if you can test the idea whether its Sun is the main driver of century oscillations, it's possible ( maybe ? ) to gather dynamics of planets surface temperature change and look for pattern which happens on Earth. i guess, such data is available since 70's, so you have around 50 years to look through. if average temps of planets risen, so you have it. But ok, i expect useless debates that how do you measure, how measurement is done, that planets are not the same, usual ballast of opinions. Of course, you cannot even correctly measure temperature on Earth, because it's a scalar field that varies all over globe. So, that in modern times, all is heavily relying on models. here is example of Al Gore saying, that in models, if you took away water vapor, what is left is carbon dioxide. Right, this is viable approach, but if you think, how do you do that on Earth. It's not possible. Water vapor and clouds is a major factor, that you cannot remove from equations and models. You simply cannot.


----------



## W.hâ/t (Nov 4, 2022)

You can determine if the sun is driving this rise of temperatures. You send ballons a bit everywhere in the ozone and you make temperature mesurement. An average of enough ballons will give you an estimate of the global temperature in the ozone. If the temperature is changing there then the sun is the main cause, but it's not. The temperature does not vary in the ozone. Why this works? Well maybe someone else can give it a go. I miss to much vocabulary for it to be clear enough.
As of to day, when the experts in the field are doing models, they try to take as many variables as they can, temperature, pressure, birth rate, and many more. The models of today are for sure not perfect and if you take the end of the graph in post#4, probably none of the estimate will happen as they are shown in the graph. But, models are getting better and we can rely on them to have an idea (quite a good these day) about what's going to happen.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 4, 2022)

I think too the Sun can have an influence. It is not a constant. Magnetic fields, electric fields, sun-bursts, irradiance...


----------



## W.hâ/t (Nov 4, 2022)

Alain De Vos said:


> I think too the Sun can have an influence. It is not a constant. Magnetic fields, electric fields, sun-bursts, irradiance...


Yes the sun is probably not a variable as itself but a set of variables. It's just not the main cause.


----------



## Tieks (Nov 4, 2022)

Crivens said:
			
		

> There will be no time to adapt



In my view this alarmism is ruining a good cause right now. A 1.1 degree Celsius increase in 160 years really isn't that impressive, I am not at all worried about that. I think Darwin was right, adapt or go extinct. 
However, I do feel it is wise to stop burning fossil fuels. Fossils were formed in the course of millions of years, it's not smart to burn them in a few centuries time. So I agree with climate alarmists on that issue. Unfortunately, climate alarmists managed to mess up this good cause already.

The point is this. A well-organized transition to non-fossil energy takes time. We will depend on fossils for at least 25 more years. Not just that, we need AFFORDABLE energy for at least 25 more years. Affordibility is crucial because rising energy prices will drive up other prices, most of all food prices. Producing food requires lots of energy. Additionally, think of how fertilizer is made. We see those prices rising fast now, and it is only just beginning.

How did we get here? Short-sighted green policies brought us here.

1. A ban on investment in fossils by banks and pension funds set the stage. To keep energy prices affordable, a constant stream of investment is needed. Any idea about the cost to insure a single crude carrier load? Banning these investments lowers supply and makes prices go up.

2. Like other governments, someone in a white house decided it was time to stop investment in crude pipelines and drilling leases, hampering supply even more. Saoudi-Arabia and Venezuela were asked to pump up more oil to compensate for it. Apart from the effect on climate, he didn't seem to know the cost of insurance, transportation and rearranging supply lines either.

3. Sanctions. Because they almost never work as intended, we need sanctions against misbehaving countries (not Saoudi-Arabia or Venezuela, mind you!). Back in 2008 with the financial crisis we were told that some banks were "too big to fail". Could it be that some fossil exporting countries are too big to boycot? We will find out soon.

4. Now that we have inflation in both food and energy, governments realise what will happen if large groups of people can no longer afford neither food nor energy. So now they come to the rescue. By running even bigger budget deficits with borrowed money, driving up inflation again...

Green activists just can't wait for an orderly and well-planned transition, they prefer to throw away their old shoes before having new ones. I think it's in fact very funny. It is so short-sighted, it almost qualifies as a Monty Python sketch.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 4, 2022)

Tieks said:


> How did we get here? Short-sighted gree*d* policies brought us here.


There, fixed it for you.
And I would say the activists or lobbyists don't make it easier for anyone.


----------



## W.hâ/t (Nov 4, 2022)

An english version of one conference he gave.





_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzUd8jHMeE&list=PLMDQXkItOZ4II_sYvh0BevIBwmm7fvuHL&index=23_


----------



## Profighost (Nov 5, 2022)

As an engineer having a knack for technical solutions 
I needed to learn that the problem cannot be solved by technical solutions.
Of course technical solutions are needed - one day, in the future. 
But not yet.
Those are second step, not first.

The crucial point is within social relations - not even politics.

Until the social upgrades are actually come to grips
_every_ technical solution is useless.
In contrary the focus on technical solutions are in fact non-productive.
They pretend we could avoid society changes.

If you do the second step before the first you'll stumble.
And that's exactly what's happening now.

Don't blame the politicians within a democracy.
Within a democracy the government does what the majority wants.

Don't blame industry or stores.
Only what people buy is produced and sold.
If customers ignore the offered things and buy other things, other things are produced and sold.

At the moment it's the time again when supermarktes are flooded with useless junk for christmas, again.
Take a close and very good look at all this rubbish!
Always keep in in mind:
Nobody would produce this shit if it's not bought.
(We just had Halloween, and shortly there will be new year, carnival, valentine's, easter ... feeding, boozing and buying crap.)

In the 1980s we had massive arguments because car manufacturers refused to build in catalytic converters.
Forced by law they now advertise with clean(er) cars.

Car manufacturers don't produce battery cars to save the planet, 
but because they are bought, one can make profit from them.

Microsoft had no intention to improve its software to make it better. 
It costs money.
But to prevent people to turn their back on them (losing money)

Industry don't save anything. 
They sell, only.

Climate change is a symptom for the real problem.
The real problem was introduced to wide public in 1972 by The Club of Rome's report "The Limit to Growth",
which still is ignored,
because it does not fit into our religion we built our society on.

Looking back 50 years, 
comparing their conservative approximation with the actual numbers,
even their to-be-complete-implausible worst case scenario is clearly overruffed.
Now you find arguments why still not to believe this, by comparing their technologies and methods with current ones.

The cause of the climate change is too much greenhouse gases are emitted.
The cause for that is the growing need of energy.
And the cause of that - the actual, real problem - is exponential growth.

I learned in the end everything is energy.
It doesn't matter if we speak of electricity or fossil fuel.
Those are just different forms of energy - transformable.
Even the materials your car is built from are energy - dig ore, produce materials, transform materials... - it's all energy.

The majority of green house gases are emitted by powerplants or vehicles.
It doesn't matter if your car is powered fossil or electrically.
As long as you do not produce your electricity renewable it's nothing but a dislocation to burn the fossils somewhere else.

At the moment it's useless to discuss energy sources, 
if we need nuclear or wind or solar power or whatever.

Renewable energies are simply far away from being sufficient to satisfy our current (growing) demand of energy.

A couple of years ago I roughly estimated some numbers for germany.
We would need app. five times germany to just power germany's cars, only, by renewable energy.

This is a question if the contents of a bathtub fit into a whiskey jar.
But we argue: 
"Which whiskey jar? Scotch, Bourbon, single malt?"
"What does single or double malt have to do with the size of the jar?"
...offtopic...
The answer doesn't matter if there are actually 997 or 989 peas in a jar claimed to contain 1000.
All those offtopic discussions are done to not face the reality:
_It simply does not fit_ 
- no matther what jar or bathtub you chose.

Nuclear power is als complete insufficient to satisfy our energy demands.

Assuming that the app. 500 nuclear power plants we have worldwide at the moment produce app. 5% of all energy,
one can simply calculate we would need 9,500 new nuclear powerplants additionally to satisfy 100% 
Beware: We are talking energy, not electricity.
We must substitute all fossil energy sources, not already existing electric oney only.

On does not need to be a nuclear power plant expert to see:
This is impossible.
We cannot build app. 10k nuclear power plants within a couple of years - even if we had the money and (massively) loosen regulations.
This simply will not work.

So the only energy source capable of keeping step with exponential growth is the originally sine qua non for exponential growth :
fossil energy sources
Because we still have enough of them, 
they just needed to be dug out and burned in relytively simple and cheap energy transformers.

So conlcusion:
It is impossible to hold on growth and turn away from fossil energy at the same time.

One need to decide:
Either growth or no fossil fuels anymore.
You cannot have both.
This simply is the Inconvinient truth.
No matter what you do believe or others want you to make to believe.

To avoid climate catastrophy
we actually need to shrink.
Stop growing alone is not sufficient enough anymore.
This would have been sufficient until the early 1980s.
What also proves there don't has to be a complete fallback into the middle ages 
- what the priests of exponential growth preach.

Some kind of stoneage is what we face if we do not prevent it.
With a preceding, not imaginable brutal war the world has ever seen. 
A war about pure survival (ca. 9B humans trying to fit onto a planet that can barly hold 0B5 - any imaganition what this means?) 

Do we want to let this happen?

To avoid this we need to decide
what we need
what we want
what we can afford
and then shrink to this 
fast, very fast!

And not to discuss we don't have enough charging stations for battery driven street battle cruisers.
And better reduce the crap you buy.
Not only on christmas.

Peace out.


----------



## Tieks (Nov 5, 2022)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Short-sighted gree*d* policies brought us here



Seeing you avoid inconvenient facts and blame others, you must be a politician, right?
What do you propose to do about this perceived greed, yet another tax that we will end up paying ourselves?

The problem isn't greed. A transition to clean energy can be done, but it requires a well-devised, overall plan for the long term. Such plans are what is missing. Instead, green zealots come up with a flurry of popular, mostly ill-conceived short term measures that just don't work. Highly amusing sometimes, I remember one who proposed to store electricity in the high-voltage grid. But it also brought us inflation this year and will bring us stagflation next year.

Well-known investor Warren Buffett once said that he always looks for companies with a business plan so clean and simple that even an idiot can run that company. That's important, he stressed, because sooner or later, one will.
If a plan is good, even a green politician can do it. Just don't let them devise the plan.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 5, 2022)

Profighost said:


> Don't blame the politicians within a democracy.
> Within a democracy the government does what the majority wants.


If I could only believe this... but I am living in a capital city and I see too much evidence of the contrary. 


Profighost said:


> At the moment it's the time again when supermarktes are flooded with useless junk for christmas, again


I heard the term 'pre-trash' used for many things. 

But as any engineer can tell you when exponential functions come into play, things are gonna break. Soon. And spectacular. We simply can not grow like before.


----------



## Crivens (Nov 5, 2022)

Tieks said:


> Seeing you avoid inconvenient facts and blame others, you must be a politician, right?



Ah, ad hominim. The sign of a good argument.

For one thing, I am not a US citizen and neither do I think that the white house is the navel of the world or that it matters much who is in there. I'm an engineer watching reality and doing what I can.

There are plans, there are ways. Only, there are also interests which do not want that change to happen. It threatens their revenue. Among the first ones to have proof for global warming was Exxon. And then they spent a lot of money covering it up. That is where greed comes in. Doing the right thing will cost you. Money, power, anything. But tell me, what is the number on the price tag on the future of your kids?


----------



## W.hâ/t (Nov 5, 2022)

Profighost Thank you for your message. I just want to make it explicit, that greenhouse gaz is the reason for global warming. Even tho if we lived today with only 1000000 people, the amount of gaz released would be just fine.



Tieks said:


> The problem isn't greed.


When you decide to builld your economical model on the basis that resources on earth are free and unlimited while the scientist view tells you: No you have limits... (see post#16) ... It won't work in the long run. For me that's greed, willing blindness.


----------



## Profighost (Nov 5, 2022)

Crivens said:


> But as any engineer can tell you when exponential functions come into play, things are gonna break.


Of course.
As also being an engineer I am completely aware of that.

Anybody with the slightest background of (natural) science knows:
Every real system - no matter what - containing at least one parameter growing unlimited to infinity is doomed.

What is one proof of evidence that business administration is no science 

Respecting the fact that we're running out of fossil energy resources soon, anyway (also nuclear fuel resources do not last forever)
actually reduces the choice to:
shrink or sink
So, there is no real choice at all, actually.

But you may unknowingly devitalize my points by bringing up the social points:


Crivens said:


> I am living in a capital city and I see too much evidence of the contrary.


Well, of course, you pointed out hints about the influence of money and maybe also corruption already yourself.
But don't oversee:
Our society decided to do so.
And it can decide otherwise.

This is the question:
Do we still have democracy?
What is democracy?
How it works?
etc.
...leading offtopic.

My already too long posts would be even longer.
Either you keep it short and simple, or unmistakably and complete.
One cannot have both.

Within a democracy we can change things.
And I agree our democracies could use the one or other upgrade.
But I'm still convinced we still live in ones.

Of course one cannot change anything by always voting the same party over and over again, only,
and then, by being frustrated nothing changes if they are proven right by reelection,
voting terrible arseholes who would destroy the world even faster, just to "teach the others a lesson"...

But that's a human reaction.
First not doing anything, and then overreacting into the wrong direction,
but above all no thinking.
That's what governments are for, to overrule the stupidity of individuals.
If we allow - want - our governments to favour capitalism, then after all it's our own choice, too.

What at the moment happens in Iran is another attemp to change misguided conditions.
Also the iranians as others already proved (1979) both:
it's hard but possible,
and it does not have neccessarily have to become something better.
Revolution must be avoided.
They destroy way too much, by at the same time having a small chances to gain improvement.
They are the result of undone upgrades, when it's too late.

It's a law of nature that big money want privileges out of greed.
That's why we have democracies in the first place.

Within a democracy it's way easier to change things, without a revolution.
But democracy also seduces to become lazy,
to do nothing until it's getting hard or even there is no democracy anymore.

It's so convinient to say:
"Yeah, I know. But if he/she is not doing it first, it's pointless for me if I'm doing it first."
That's childish.

The preachers of capitalism want to keep us childs.
So we do not think.
That's good. That's convinient. That's easy.
We go to work for the system.
And when we did good work for it, we are allowed to pick some crap from the rubbish menu.
Wherein the choice in most cases already is predefined, but we are not aware of it, or don't want to believe it's true.

Anybody trying to unclose this, is hunted down.
Not by the preachers - no need for that.
We want to believe we act by our own free will.
The system is protecting itself.

You cannot solve a problem by complaining.
That's what childs do.
Most people acting like childs most of the time.

So if you want to reach people, really change the way they're thinking,
you need to respect the social aspects.

The scientific facts are out of question, even known by most.
But you do not reach people with them.
With scientific facts you at most reach people with a real scientific background, only, if even.
Of course they all admit they are convinced by scientific facts.
Cause that's what they learned.
That's what they were teached:
We are living in a world of science.
They look at their colorful blinking smartphone and are convinced because of that they are part of the scientific world, because this thing is pure science.
It doesn't matter if they don't know shit about HTTP-protocols, or even there is something else as WLAN called LAN.
Many of them think they are experts on computers when they are capable of changing the colors or installing a App. 

Humans live in a dream world of hopes, wishes, emotions, assumptions...
It's the same as the stupider someone is, the more convinced he is about his high intelligence 

You're addressing people, humans - in fact monkeys, who think they are something better because of their hightech gismos .
Humans act emotionally and like childs.

If you give them no choice - what in fact is the point of the topic we're discussing - you don't get them convinced to do the right thing in explaining them, there is no choice.
In the contrary they defiantly blocking.
They are convinced to live in a free world.
So they want to do their own choices.
So you offer them a choice.
And then by also interpersing scientific facts they come to the conclusion there is no choice,
all by themselves, believing it was their own idea.



Hacking is not limited to computers only 
Social hacking is something very amazing,
and something we need very urgently at the moment,
because the preachers of exponential growth also use it for ages for their purposes,
and we have no much time left.

You see, I can only think of two possibilities:
1) You tell people:"We have 5 years left." 
Reaction:"Okay. Then we keep on going 5 years. Then we will see what to do then."
- not working -
2) You tell people:"It's too late."
Reaction:"Well then no effort makes no sense at all, anymore."
- not working -

I am not a social hacker.
I have no idea.
But we need to think about an strategy to reach people.
Not to analyze over and over again, what we already know,
losing ourself in arguing about details.
Since this is another human (childish) strategy of avoiding.

We need to set a complete new course,
not to discuss the color of the sails.


----------



## Tieks (Nov 5, 2022)

Crivens said:
			
		

> Ah, ad hominim. The sign of a good argument.



Considering the question whether you are a politician an ad hominem says how you view politicians. You may well be right at that point. Beware of 'em, especially the green ones.




			
				Crivens said:
			
		

> what is the number on the price tag on the future of your kids?



No need for pitiful crap. I told 'em they would have at least 50 more years to adapt to climate, and if they were too lazy to do that they'd deserve to die out.

Worrying about a catastrophy that eventually may or may not happen near the end of the century seems a typical case of German angst to me. 
Would it not be more social to worry about kids that die from hunger right now as a result of the use of biofuels in the west?


----------



## Tieks (Nov 5, 2022)

W.hâ/t said:
			
		

> When you decide to builld your economical model on the basis that resources on earth are free and unlimited while the scientist view tells you: No you have limits...



I can not imagine anyone sensible who thinks that resources, apart from stupidity, are infinite and free. I suppose that's a matter of different social peers. About your scientists, are you refering to the Club of Rome who predicted in 1972 that most resources would be depleted by the year 2000? Well, it turned out scientists' predictions were about as good as mine.

Maybe you are taking things a bit too seriously. But there is hope, a recession is coming. It could be good for millennials to experience their first real economic downturn. They will have to face big problems right here and right now, instead of some vague problem early next century. A serious recession could provide them with some necessary mental resilience.

It's not all bad, you know. Look at the bright side. Millennials will discover many new issues to worry about, so they will have plenty of reasons again to glue themselves to a road somewhere.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 5, 2022)

Due to warming i magine places currently too cold will become hot enough to live.
And places currently hot will become too hot (eg no rain).
Result, people will have to adapt, and relocate more away from the hot-equator, and more towards the cooled poles.
But i suspect the habitable reagons to be the same, what is lost around the equator is gained around the poles. No ?


----------



## PMc (Nov 6, 2022)

I don't know why people always need a scientist to tell them things. It seems scientists have become the new priests(*)

As far as I know, "peak oil" was in 2012 - that means, half of the resource burnt away. What has accumulated over hundreds of millenia, destroyed in less than a century. It should be obvious to any thinking mind that something is wrong with this.
When I was a young boy back in the 70's, I did not understand why we are doing this. Now, for as far as I understand, it seems the only reason why we are doing this is because people can make money that way.
So, what do you need a scientist for?


(*) In the middle ages people where not allowed to talk to God, they instead had to employ a priest to talk to God on their behalf. Nowadays it seems people are not allowed to think on their own, but have to employ a scientist to think on their behalf. The outcome is similar.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 6, 2022)

The shorter the rest of 50% oil is burned, the better we are.


----------



## Tieks (Nov 6, 2022)

PMc said:


> it seems the only reason why we are doing this is because people can make money that way.


No. Big oil may be as greedy as they want, they won't benefit in any way without customers who buy their stuff. Customers who just ignore the immorality of it all in order to warm their houses, drive their cars, and power their computers. 
Ehm..., you don't happen to be one of these customers, do you?



PMc said:


> So, what do you need a scientist for?



People tend to think scientists know everything. In fact, science is far from complete. I don't think IPCC can predict the average temperature in 2100 yet. However, the underlying science will keep moving forward and provide humanity with better weather forecasts, earlier warnings for floods, hurricanes and earth quakes, and other useful knowledge. Eventually, science may get to the point where they can explain the chaos model that makes up our climate. Just don't hold your breath.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Nov 6, 2022)

I want to warn you. In 5-billion years the Sun will be burned-up and become a red giant. And you will see a big climate change.


----------



## smithi (Nov 6, 2022)

Alain De Vos said:


> Due to warming i magine places currently too cold will become hot enough to live.



Indeed, some Russians were excited about the prospect of Vladivostok becoming like the "Riviera of the Arctic".

The trouble is, extra rapid warming at the poles has recently exceeded 20°C, more than humans can adapt to.
Not to mention other species.



Alain De Vos said:


> And places currently hot will become too hot (eg no rain).
> Result, people will have to adapt, and relocate more away from the hot-equator, and more towards the cooled poles.



You make it sound simple, a few billion people having to move - mostly those with the least resources to do so.



Alain De Vos said:


> But i suspect the habitable reagons to be the same, what is lost around the equator is gained around the poles. No ?



Swings and roundabouts, eh?

Again, what about the many thousands of species that can't just "up and move"?

Especially when we've destroyed most of their natural habitats already.

Half a year of dangerous heat beckons for parts of Australia in 1.8-degree warmer world

Good luck with "brightsiding".


----------



## PMc (Nov 6, 2022)

Tieks said:


> No. Big oil may be as greedy as they want, they won't benefit in any way without customers who buy their stuff. Customers who just ignore the immorality of it all in order to warm their houses, drive their cars, and power their computers.
> Ehm..., you don't happen to be one of these customers, do you?


I think there are two bugs in this (and they are related). 
One: pushing the blame around leads to no useful outcome whatsoever.
And two: if someone earns a fortune, and then spends it in one day, that is in no way "immoral". It is plain stupid.

It seems indeed that science has taken the role of a priesthood, and what should be intelligent decisions are now considered something like "moral" issues. I think that is wrong. I think you should try to consider the entire civilisation as one big single organism, and only ask what is done in total (no matter wo does what individually), and then ask: is this an intelligent decision what we are doing?

So I thought, right from the beginning, that it is a bad idea to burn the oil, because we will need that oil to drive rockets to go up into space - and we may want to do this for another thousand or more years until we find a better means. That's the point.

Then, concerning the items you mention: forcing everybody to have their own car, maintain that car, keep it running, find places to park it, get stuck in traffic jams, get it occasionally damaged, etc.etc. is just a very big hassle. It is not an intelligent decision. It would be much more pleasurable to have a public transport system that actually works and that you can use for 99% of your moves without bothering about anything - and that would be easily possible if all the effort would go into that.
It's similar with houses: if all effort would go into making them self-sustained, many things would be possible.

And then we get back: the reason why we do not create intelligent decisions is that the effort is not driven by achieving them. The effort is instead driven by people wanting to make money.

And that is the actual bug. And you do not only hit it here. You also hit it when you are designing a new system, and some manager tells you about "time to market". And at many other places.

The climate is my least concern.


----------



## W.hâ/t (Nov 6, 2022)

Please lets keep this thread a source of information with actual studies and verifiable facts.


----------



## Tieks (Nov 6, 2022)

smithi said:


> Good luck with "brightsiding".


If you prefer being anxious and moody in 2022 because of what might eventually happen in 2050, well, have fun. Your article about a 1.8-degree warmer world is based on yet another future projection, and so far these projections haven't been very accurate. But should it come true this time, you can solve most of the problems mentioned in that article by installing a small airconditioner in 2049.


----------



## smithi (Nov 8, 2022)

Australia needs to “prepare for 50°C” say experts
					

Climate change is driving temperature records in northern hemisphere, and that’s a warning sign for the land down under.




					cosmosmagazine.com


----------



## Logicien (Nov 9, 2022)

When you listen to Jean-Marc jancovici in a conference (french) he try to make a joke related to what he say about at every minute and generally, the audience do not laugh but he try. He speak fast too what make me hard to follow him. Well, it seem's that he is better as a scientific than as a humorist. He say a lot of words in one minute. He is a brilliant man this is sure.


----------

