Well, personally I’d start with the notion that the climate always changes. That there have been numerous warm and cool periods during the Holocene, and this one is not really any different. That the Earth is not doomed. That, instead of worrying about a minor increase in the Earth’s temperature they redirect that energy to be better environmentalists. But, that’s me
How to Talk to Anxious Children About Climate Change
At 21, Olivia Vesovich has already put more on the line for the climate fight than most people, regardless of age. In 2020, Vesovich was just 16 and wrapping up her sophomore year of high school when she decided to sacrifice her privacy and step onto the national stage as one of the 16 youth plaintiffs represented by Our Children’s Trust in the Held v. Montana lawsuit.
Vesovich first heard about the search for plaintiffs when the faculty advisor for Students Against Violating the Environment (SAVE) approached the club members at Hellgate High School in Missoula about the possibility of signing on as plaintiffs in the suit seeking to hold the Montana state government accountable for not doing more to counter the worsening climate crisis.
Blah blah blah, more youts suing but refusing to make their own lives carbon neutral.
For the last two decades parents and educators have been muddling through climate discussions without any clear guidelines or idea of the consequences, thoughtlessly introducing kids to climate change without providing the proper emotional support. But this is now starting to change.
New curriculum is being developed to fill gaps between climate education and emotional support while educators and therapists work to help under-supported parents and other family members figure out how to talk to their children about climate change.
Such conversations are not easy, said psychiatrist Lise van Susteren, who thinks these “moral injuries” at such a young age can have lifelong consequences, leading to the loss of faith in social bonds, cynicism and anxious disconnection from others.
In other words, this will reinforce those anxieties, make their mental well being even worse.
How do I feel about climate change? Terrified — but action is essential
When I was a child, the possibility of apocalypse due to climate change seemed too distant for me to worry about. I never would have imagined that climate change would be an existential threat not in a few centuries, but within our modern era. But here we are, and it became a weighty issue for me because of an unexpected experience.
And this is what the media and education system has wrought. Mental destruction. But, if this kid writing in the LA Times wants to take action, no one is stopping him from changing his own life. But, of course, he wants to force everyone else to be included.
William Teach: That there have been numerous warm and cool periods during the Holocene, and this one is not really any different.
That is incorrect. The rate and magnitude of the current warming is anomalous. See Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021. And it is human-caused. See Haustein et al., A real-time Global Warming Index, Nature 2017.
Z,
Kid, your references go to silly graphs of no significant. You don’t understand them.
Don’t argue with Zachriel, folks. It’s a bot that spams several other Conservative websites.
Thanks, would you list a few of the other conservative websites?
Maggie’s Farm.
But of course Vinos 2022 says the Holocene was warmer..
Jl: But of course Vinos 2022 says the Holocene was warmer..
Where specifically does he say that? You do realize that Javier Vinos field was neurobiology? (Not that there is anything wrong with that!)
So kiddieZzz, in what field do you specialize?
Contrarianism?
Z,
You are a child, still in grade school. You know absolutely nothing about scientific credentials. Ever look up the curriculum for a climate scientist? It is very elementary. When you have some credentials, come back.
Where? In “Climate of the past, present and future” Shows earlier in the Holocene as warmer. “You do realize….” You do realize that does nothing to refute the data in the book, right?
Jl: Where? In “Climate of the past, present and future” Shows earlier in the Holocene as warmer.
Where in the book? Please point to a specific page, figure, or quote. Thanks.
Page 49, I believe
Jl: Page 49, I believe
You’re presumably referring to Fig. 4.4, the Holocene global temperature reconstruction. If you read further, “An estimate of c. 1.2 °C global temperature decrease between average HCO temperatures and the bottom of the LIA is therefore consistent with global proxies, glaciological changes, and biological evidence, and might even be a conservative estimate.” However, current warming is more than 1.2°C above the LIA. And warming is expected to continue.
Vinós projects that 500 ppm atmospheric CO2 will result in about 1.5?°C warming. That is at the low end of what most climate scientists believe is likely, so he is arguing only at the margins.
anomalous – deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected.
If mankind is causing this one, what caused the Medieval Warm period?
And then there was a Little Ice Age. What caused that.
And what can be shown that this one is any different than other temperature swings?
And if you want to look at temperature swings, shouldn’t you go back more than 70 years?
James Lewis: If mankind is causing this one, what caused the Medieval Warm period? And then there was a Little Ice Age. What caused that.
The Medieval Warm period probably wasn’t globally synchronous, meaning it didn’t result in a large change in mean global temperature. However, there was some warming which was probably due to increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. The Little Ice Age is believed to be due to the reversal of those forcings; decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity.
James Lewis: And what can be shown that this one is any different than other temperature swings?
As just pointed out, the rate and magnitude of the current warming is anomalous. Furthermore, the forcings due to CO2 and feedbacks are consistent with the observed warming.
James Lewis: And if you want to look at temperature swings, shouldn’t you go back more than 70 years?
Why do you think you know about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, but for scientific studies that “go back more than 70 years”?
A coalition of 1,609 scientists from around the world have signed a declaration stating “there is no climate emergency” and that they “strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy” being pushed across the globe. The declaration itself does not demonize carbon monoxide and does not discuss any harmful effect of other pollutants. The thrust of the declaration challenges the hysteria brought about by the narrative of imminent doom
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/environment/more-1600-scientists-including-nobel-laureates-declare-climate-crisis
But, but it’s “an existential threat if we don’t do something.”
Funny, they never get around to explaining exactly what that “something” is.
That’s non-sense. The “something has been clearly articulated in thousands of articles and features: middle class people in the “West” pay higher prices on everything so that some of it can be skimmed off to make wealthy and politically connected people all over the planet even more wealthy. They will then use that money on a much better quality of hookers and cocaine.
My apologies. Thanks for clearing that up.
JusttheNews is another right-wing (John Solomon) website.
Every few years since 2019 CLINTEL announces a collection of “experts” who deny global warming.
This time it’s 1,609!! Of course, there are over 8 million active scientists on Earth and surveys show that over 90% believe global warming is real, is caused by CO2 emissions and that we should act.
1609/7,200,000 x 100 = 0.02% of global scientists signed the CLINTEL manifasto.
The primary objective of today’s denialists is that no action be taken. If it’s a problem let the next generation take care of it.
James Lewis: A coalition of 1,609 scientists
How many are named Steve?
Even a quick perusal shows that most of the signatories aren’t scientists, much less hold degrees in relevant fields.
Answer the question.
And what can be shown that this one is any different than other temperature swings?
And if you want to look at temperature swings, shouldn’t you go back more than 70 years?
James Lewis: Answer the question.
We’ve been getting numerous errors on posting. We answered above.
Are you going to correct your claim about the 1,609 scientists when most of the signatories aren’t scientists, much less hold degrees in relevant fields?
“Are you going to correct your claim about 1609 scientists..”?
Funny-if they’re correct in their findings, it only takes one
Jl: Funny-if they’re correct in their findings, it only takes one
You said, “A coalition of 1,609 scientists from around the world have signed a declaration . . . ” So, it takes 1,609 for your claim to be correct.
Even a cursory look shows that many of the signatories are not scientists, much less climate scientists.
So far the so-called climate “scientists” have not been correct on one single prediction. So if they represent the best and brightest with the biggest, baddest degrees then those degrees mean next to nothing (imagine our surprise). They may be great fund raisers, propagandists and deep state manipulators but as far as science goes they are bums.
You guys on the left always seem to buy into theories promoted by people being funded (very well funded I might add) by rich corporations, be they in the energy field, automotive field or whatever. All of your so called scientists seem to earn tons of cash by scaring the bejeezers off the average taxpayer and her children. I say “her” children because I cannot imagine any man of stature falling for this bullshit. These are the same scientists who believe there are more than two sexes, men can morph into women, and killing a human embryo is not killing a person. IOW, immoral conscienceless drones willing to follow every snake oil salesman from Covid masks to morons like Ehrlich (who himself has yet to make an accurate prediction).
They are politicians and scam artists making money off you dull witted fools. They are your Heaven’s Gate without the sexy sneakers.
[…] Via Pirates Cove […]
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: So far the so-called climate “scientists” have not been correct on one single prediction.
Model v. Observation
Also, see Feldman et al., Observational Determination of Surface Radiative Forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature 2015: “These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.”
Feel free to ask if you need additional citations.
Nice attempt at obfuscation Zachriel but you know that’s not what I’m referring to. I’m talking about the hundreds perhaps thousands of dramatic climate caused physical changes in the earth. You know, like:
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”
We could go on and on about all theses silly “existential threats” fostered by professional liars and tax money thieves you call scientists but why bother? You and fools like you aren’t listening anyway.
We just need to make sure Trump wins and abolishes the Dept of Ed and sets up an authentic system of educating people that uses pro American propaganda rather than communist hate. We believe honoring George Washington instead of George Floyd is the greater ambition.
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: that’s not what I’m referring to
Let’s take your first example, which is presumably your strongest.
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: 1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Okay, a statement by someone who is not an expert in any field related to climate science. If your point is that people should avoid overstatement and excessive alarmism, then sure. Though not an existential threat in and of itself, anthropogenic global warming is a significant threat to human civilization. But ringing the alarm when a fire breaks out is not unwarranted.
The costs will be economic, ecological, and social. The economic costs of mitigation will be smaller the sooner humans take measures, rather than waiting and paying later. The permanent and incalculable loss of humanity’s shared natural inheritance depends on early action. Climate change will bring about unparalleled human migration, with all the attendant social and political disruptions that will entail, including the struggle over resources.
On the other hand, humans are highly adaptable. There is every reason to believe they will continue to persist and even prosper in the face of anthropogenic global warming. But part of what makes humans so adaptable is their ability to foresee and model the future, especially with the development of modern science. And that is how humans will overcome the challenge—not by pretending the problem doesn’t exist.
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: You know, like:
Browsing the rest of your list; some certainly deserve to be on the list of bad predictions, though not always by someone with expertise in the issue. Others, however, are of the form ‘If nothing is done, then catastrophe.’ That’s equivalent to ringing the fire alarm.
Feldman? Feldman is an imaginary-world analysis because based on clear sky conditions, because clouds exist in the real world 70-90% of the time. And nothing was observed nor measured, but based on models. If you read closely they say they “constructed” model-based spectra to “simulate” a CO2 signal.
“To interpret these measurements and attribute specific signals to CO2 requires an accurate radiative transfer model that reproduces these spectra on the basis…” Notice “attribute specific signals..”. An attribution is a hypothetical construct. It isn’t verifiable cause -effect evidence. On top of that, only 10% of what they think they measured could be attributed to CO2. So in the end Feldman is simply a signal interpretation and model-based attribution.
Jl: Feldman is an imaginary-world analysis because based on clear sky conditions, because clouds exist in the real world 70-90% of the time.
It’s a confirmed scientific prediction. How else would you explain the results? Oh, that’s right, you don’t explain them, but pretend they don’t exist.
Jl: And nothing was observed nor measured, but based on models.
They used highly sensitive spectroscopic instruments. So, yes. They observed. Yes, there’s math involved.
Olivia seems to have no trouble consuming agricultural products. hmmm…
Presume nothing. It’s just the way I received the list. The entire list is not meant to be the definitive argument against climate change because above all that’s not the entire list. It’s a start. They are meant to illustrate the failures of edgy prognostications when it comes to science which is in reality uncontrollable by man. If scientists, supporters, school kids and you fail to understand that none of you have proved anything about climate change (and you know it) because the topic is too complex for a solution. In fact it’s scary that we could do some deadly damage by creating an unrepairable problem trying to fix something we really don’t understand regardless of how many PhD’s they have.
We cannot make it rain, we cannot make it snow, we cannot stop a hurricane or a tornado so what makes these people think they can control the entire ecosphere? It’s preposterous on its face.
What we can do is fuk up food production for all the people on earth and create shortages and therefore sky high prices for everything from food or medicine as well as famines and plagues. But maybe that’s the hidden plan. Perhaps it’s an all out attack on capitalism rather than climate. After all every one of their solutions seems to revolve around some freedom limiting or production ending economic idea. Ending people’s gas stoves or forcing us to drive EV’s is not going to change the climate. Even these goof ball “scientists” know that. So what happens when these regulations don’t solve the problem? More regulations? Till when? How many? This just won’t work and these folks are foolin with us.
Again Zachriel I refer you to my Socrates quote “The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing”.
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: It’s a start.
It’s not a start because it doesn’t address the science, and is of the form “Someone said.”
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: the topic is too complex for a solution
That doesn’t follow from your list. Nor is it correct, as the basics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century and is supported by multiple lines of evidence.
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: It’s preposterous on its face.
Next thing you know, they’ll say the Earth moves, and that people can go to the moon. It’s preposterous on its face. (Most of science is contrary to primitive human notions of the world.)
L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: I refer you to my Socrates quote “The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing”.
Your Socrates quote!? In any case, while Socrates, who predates modern science, was correct that we can’t know anything about the natural world with certainty, we certainly can reach strongly supported conclusions, such as that the Earth moves and that life evolved over billions of years. Again, anthropogenic global warming is strongly supported by multiple lines of evidence, evidence which you have failed to address.
“You said a coalition 1609 scientists…”. Actually, I’m not the one who said it. I said if only one of them is correct, that’s enough. That’s true.
“Yes, they observed”. Nice try-observed what? The so called signal was an interpretation of a signal and modeled allocation. Surprising that it ever got published saying “observation”. Plus, as said before, it’s based on an imaginary world of clear sky conditions, which doesn’t exist, and then only 10% of the interpreted signal was attributed to CO2, fires included. They had to “attribute” the signal to CO2. Attributions aren’t evidence. If you have to “attribute” a signal to CO2, you’re observing nothing. During the ten year period of where they measured, the temps went down in Alaska and stayed the same in Nebraska. Per Stephens 2012 the annual uncertainty in total TOA radiative flux is +/-4W/M2 (CERES) and the total annual impact of what they interpreted to be CO2 in Feldman 2015 is 0.02 W/M2, how could they detect a CO2 signal amid 200x larger uncertainty? Loeb 2020 has the uncertainty in downwelling LW surface forcing as 18W/M2