Larry Hamlin has shown us all, in a post at WUWT, how warped and twisted is the thinking of those who call themselves “skeptics” about climate change, but are actually deniers.
The “carbon budget” is an estimate of how much CO2 we can still emit, but still have a good chance to keep global warming from going over the 1.5°C limit into “dangerous” territory. The budget has recently been revised (upward, thank goodness) to about 420 GtCO2 (420 billion tons of carbon dioxide).
Staying within the 1.5°C limit doesn’t make us “safe” — there are still consequences of climate change, dangerous and costly, and we’re already paying the price despite not having hit 1.5°C yet. But going above 1.5°C takes us into what is best described as: nobody wants to go there.
Scientists have learned three things about climate change.
#1: It’s real
#2: It’s us
#3: It’s bad
Now that we’ve finally convinced most people about #1 and #2 … it’s time for you to face #3. Here’s a start.
#3a: It’s bad already
#3b: It will be terrible
#3c: How terrible? Depends on us.
Those are facts.
Here’s my opinion: our best hope, maybe our only hope, is to get people to TALK ABOUT IT so much that politicians and pundits cannot ignore us. When enough people TALK ABOUT IT often enough, I’ll have hope. Maybe I’ll even give my friends a break and shut the hell up about it.
Since 1979 we’ve kept watch on the Arctic sea ice pack using satellites. It grows and decays with the seasons of course; more ice in winter/spring, less in summer/fall. But over the decades, we’ve also seen it waste away from year to year.
We get an even better view if we show the average for each year:
Now it’s obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course — it does so in fits and starts, always fluctuating about — but the long term pattern, the trend, is clear. Deny it, and you are a denier.
The last post caused a bit of a stir. Some object to my selection, others propose alternatives, many emphasize that we must show unity to defeat president dumbass.
I want to know more about where various candidates stand on the climate change issue. For instance: is Kamala Harris the proper next choice based on the climate change issue? She has a 100% lifetime rating from LCV (League of Conservation Voters) but ClimateHawks specifically mentions that despite her unmpeacable environmental record overall, she hasn’t “stepped up” to climate change specifically. Still, she looks pretty good.
What about the other candidates? Please share your thoughts on their suitability on the climate change issue. If you want to comment on their other attributes, I believe the previous thread is still open.
And thanks for sharing.
I have a new #1. Someone mentioned Jay Inslee (governor of Washington state), and I discovered that he is a serious possibility as a candidate. He also has announced that climate change would be the focus of such a campaign. If he’s in the race, he’s the clear #1. So far.