Kevin Vaught’s Post

I've been saying this for some time. The best reason to control or slow down human-accelerated climate change is to protect those with settled expectations and interests in how things are today, and where land is productive and valuable today. Human activity may well accelerate climate change but not in any way foundationally harmful to life (life THRIVED when the average global temperature was higher) or even human life. Opposing climate change categorically and trying to preserve everything as it is is about as unnatural and anti-evolutionary an act as anyone can commit. And eliminating fossil fuels is not even remotely the best way to slow or reverse climate change. We should conserve. We should avoid waste. But not in ways that are contrary to natural laws and forces and will almost certainly have significant and unanticipated negative consequences. So let's be a bit more thoughtful when we try to play God. Always.

Weather or Climate? “Land temperatures in March were 14.14C, exceeding the previous high set in March 2016 by 0.1C. This was 1.68C above the pre-industrial average for the month of March, and for the 12-month period it surpassed the 1850 to 1900 average by 1.58C” (FT 10th April 2024) Climatologists differentiate between weather and climate by tracking the latter for consistent observations over at least 30 years. For sure, 12 months is not yet 30 years, but as argued below, the real issue is science-based risk assessment. The science has uncertainties as the models struggle with the immense complexities of their subject. Climate sceptics (ignore the deniers as ideologues) are scientists who question the models and their predictions, albeit too often funded by the fossil fuel industry or representing highly conservative think-tanks. Despite this, their arguments still need to be addressed through science. The implications are too grave to ignore. A key issue is that in science uncertainty comes in the form of probability, and at the heart of the debates are the risks associated with those probabilities. We should all hope the sceptics are correct, but science as it stands requires us to doubt that conclusion. I am currently ploughing my way through the arguments for a book on climate change and global warming, seriously trying to get a handle on these issues. I am an economist not a climatologist (any out there with advice?) and nor are the general public, but a respect for science and a basic understanding of the issues (including the methodologies) is essential for evidence-based policy making. For anyone interested in following the sources of disagreement, a helpful starting point is Skeptical Science at https://lnkd.in/gXxK-NJd. There are Youtube videos galore on both sides of the argument.

The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeSome changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.

The world is already committed to warming that will undercut the global economy by 20 percent between now and 2050. That’s six times the price of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

Is Climate Change the Killer Some Claim? Since the 1970s, discussions around Earth’s climate have oscillated between fears of an impending Ice Age and concerns about global warming. Early reports suggested a cooling trend, warning of a possible new Ice Age. This narrative shifted dramatically by the late 20th century, culminating in the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” by former Vice President Al Gore. He warned that human activity was causing rapid global warming, predicting severe consequences within a decade. When these dire predictions did not fully materialize, figures like John Kerry, appointed as the U.S. “Climate Czar,” extended the timeline for potential climate catastrophe. Recently, the debate has taken a new turn. Some scientists argue that while climate change is occurring, it may be driven more by natural cycles than previously thought. The role of human activity, particularly the increase in CO2 emissions, remains a contested issue. Despite ongoing debate, extreme weather events are often cited as evidence of climate change. With differing perspectives, the question remains: Is climate change the existential threat that some claim, or is the truth more nuanced?

Special Report BioScience 2024. The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth. We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis. For many years ,scientists, including a group of more than 15,000, have sounded the alarm about the impending dangers of climate change driven by increasing green house gasses emissions and ecosystem change. For half a century, global warming has been correctly predicted even before it was observed - and not only by independent academic scientists but also by fossil fuel companies. Despite these warnings, we are still moving in the wrong direction; fossil fuel emissions have increased to an all-time high, the 3 hottest days ever occurred in July of 2024 and current policies have us on track for approximately 2.7 de- grees Celsius peak warming by 2100. Tragically, we are failing to avoid serious impacts, and we can now only hope to limit the extent of the damage. We are witnessing the grim reality of the forecasts as climate impacts escalate, bringing forth scenes of unprecedented disasters around the world and human and nonhuman suffering. We find ourselves amid an abrupt climate upheaval, a dire situation never before encountered in the annals of human existence. Let’s change the climate before the climate changes us. What is holding us back? https://lnkd.in/e9sNY26N

⚠️ BEWARE: Climate deniers have a new game plan! They're no longer outright denying the existence of fossil fuel-driven climate change, they’re now focusing on downplaying its impacts, questioning solutions, and attacking the climate movement. Recent research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate shows a significant rise in “New Denial” narratives, particularly online, where they now make the majority of climate denial content. ✳️ OLD DENIAL CLAIMS: "Global warming is not happening." "Human-generated greenhouse gases are not causing global warming." ✳️ NEW DENIAL CLAIMS: "The impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless." "Climate solutions won’t work." "Climate science and the climate movement are unreliable." Imran Ahmed, founder of CCDH, stated, “Now that the majority of people recognize old climate denial as counterfactual and discredited, climate deniers have cynically concluded that the only way to derail climate action is to tell people the solutions don’t work.” 💬 Have you noticed this shift in climate denial tactics?

Top Climate Scientists Warn of Dire Future as World Heads Toward 3C Warming By Nicholas Vincent Leading climate scientists are voicing deep despair as the world faces the severe consequences of Global warming. Dr. Ruth Cerezo-Mota, a climate expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, reflects the collective anxiety of her peers, stating, “Sometimes it is almost impossible not to feel hopeless and broken.” With extreme weather events becoming more frequent and severe, Cerezo-Mota fears that the global temperature could rise by a catastrophic 3C by the end of this century. by TaboolaSponsored Recent surveys reveal that 77% of climate experts believe global temperatures will exceed 2.5C above pre-industrial levels. Nearly half (42%) anticipate a rise above 3C, while only a scant 6% hold out hope that the 1.5C target, set by international agreements, will be met. This bleak outlook is shared by Dr. Lisa Schipper from the University of Bonn, who also predicts a 3C rise due to insufficient global action. The impacts of such warming are already visible. In Mérida, Yucatán, where Dr. Cerezo-Mota resides, summer temperatures have soared to an unbearable 47C, leading to numerous heat-related deaths. This scenario underscores a broader trend of increasing heatwaves, floods, and other extreme weather events globally, affecting millions and causing significant socio-economic disruption. The failure of governments to act decisively on climate science is a major source of frustration among scientists. Many, including Dr. Camille Parmesan from France’s CNRS ecology center, express deep personal and professional despair. Despite dedicating their careers to climate research, they see little impact on policy, leading to feelings of helplessness and frustration. Political inertia and vested interests are cited as significant barriers to meaningful climate action. Nearly three-quarters of surveyed scientists blame a lack of political will, while 60% point to corporate interests obstructing progress. This lack of decisive action is pushing the world closer to a future marked by widespread suffering, migration, and conflict. The climate crisis is an unescapable reality and every fraction of a degree matters. As Dr. Joeri Rogelj from Imperial College London emphasizes, “Running away from it is impossible and will only increase the challenges.” The message from the world’s leading climate scientists is clear: urgent and comprehensive action is required to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change and safeguard the future of our planet. Read more at https://lnkd.in/etpsaysX

Are Human Beings Threatening All We Hold Dear through Climate Change? The phrase “climate change” can mean very different things. It can be a rallying cry against the shameful practice of burning fossil fuels that will cause supposedly imminent worldwide disaster. The climate change bandwagon is a way to bring about global cooperation as we fight against the danger of too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. OR, the climate change agenda is a way for scientists who are becoming increasingly political to push for a more socialistic policy on generating electricity. In this article I examine what’s really going on with the science and make an argument for not believing anything you read or hear in the regular media. There is no longer much of a middle ground. I have addressed global warming or climate change before, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that the entire enterprise of human-induced climate change is a monumental and brazen attempt to hoodwink the global public into thinking we have jeopardized our future, and drastic action is necessary. Essentially, a group of climate scientists have used the power of the United Nations and their own reputations as scientists to proclaim that we must cut back severely on the use of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas. This will prevent the rising levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere from generating a runaway global warming that will lead to droughts, flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, rising sea levels, etc., that will endanger our future on the earth. This apocalyptic vision can seem quite threatening. Scientists are objective, right? They are not going to promote something the evidence doesn’t support, are they? Well, scientists are human, and their worldview will affect their conclusions and I am convinced that some scientists are presenting a scenario of human-induced global warming that the scientific evidence simply does not support. The supposed villain in this scenario is the gas carbon dioxide. You might not know that this natural and necessary gas is such a bad guy according to the doomsayers! In this next section, I investigate the history of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and the potentially negative and positive effects of increasing its concentration in the air we breathe. #probeministries #lookabove #seebeyond #thinkbiblically #globalwarming #climatechange

There's been a lot of comment online about this article below. The gist is that climate scientists anticipate about 2.5-3C of global warming by 2100 and are fairly down about that. But it's been attacked from multiple directions: it's obvious, these aren't policy experts, it's doom-mongering, it's opinion instead of science, if you feel like that why aren't you rioting... This multi-front assault is a sad reflection on the gatekeeping that characterises much of the academic/research community. The article is clear: this is a human-interest approach to the thoughts and feelings of individuals working in climate science. Scientists are also voters, citizens, parents, children, customers etc etc and are as entitled as anyone else to chat about the world as they see it. What's more is that the 2.5-3C warming by 2100 result is just where the planet is heading based on current policies, and this is well established (e.g. https://lnkd.in/e7xZ8Yun). This is indeed where we will be without significant policy transformation and implementation. A lot of the public probably don't realise this: "Net Zero by 2050" has already become so ingrained in the discourse that many seem to forget it's only a target - which we are not on track to achieve. One of the reasons we are failing to be on track for Net Zero 2050 is that too many individuals and institutions in positions of influence aren't acting as if this is the genuinely-urgent planetary challenge it really is. Squabbling about messaging, demarcating expertise and tone-policing what was clearly offered as an opinion survey isn't constructive. Let's stop challenging each other, and start challenging the systems that preserve the fossil-fuel hegemony instead. Build each other up, don't knock each other down. Co-operate, don't compete. Life isn't peer-review: choose life.