# Climate change is not the immediate threat facing us today **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2021, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737 "2021-01-29T03:30:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/61 "2021-01-30T03:03:50Z")
Well, get out your calculator and total up the cost to move the residents and rebuild the buildings and infrastructure of Miami, New York, Osaka, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Alexandria - for a start. ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/62 "2021-01-30T03:05:34Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > That’s contrary to the thread title. Sarcasm? “Climate change is not the immediate threat facing us today”. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/63 "2021-01-30T03:06:54Z")
I think the best thing I’m seeing from this thread is some cocktail recipes. Keep ‘em comin’ fellas. We’ll call it the climate change cocktail recipe thread. ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/64 "2021-01-30T03:07:49Z")
> [@digs](#): > > Why don’t we address _all_ the things that will do us harm? Triage. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/65 "2021-01-30T03:17:50Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > It’s not nice to call someone an idiot, even if they are one. Show me any reputable source that backs up your “tens of trillions of dollars” claim, and I won’t call you an idiot. > **[Climate impacts 'to cost world $7.9 trillion' by 2050](https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-impacts-world-trillion.html)** > > Climate change could directly cost the world economy $7.9 trillion by mid-century as increased drought, flooding and crop failures hamper growth and threaten infrastructure, new analysis showed Wednesday. BTW many reports about the effects of ocean rise and other items from global warming usually mention projections for the end of the century, the costs then will be higher (tens of trillions by the end of the century then) if the efforts to deal with the issue are not ramped up soon. > **[Global economy will be 3 percent smaller by 2050 due to lack of climate...](https://www.eiu.com/n/global-economy-will-be-3-percent-smaller-by-2050-due-to-lack-of-climate-resilience/)** > > The EIU has scored the world's 82 largest economies on their ability and willingness to confront climate change. Mind you, the Economist group seems to look mostly at the most common expected changes (extreme weather increases, ocean rise, desertification), things like warfare that can come likely due to nationalist and nativist movements all over the world (preventing with violence the movement of refugees, regional conflicts boiling over due to water or food shortages, etc) can then increase the costs exponentially. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/66 "2021-01-30T03:27:08Z")
Corvallis. What did you major in, shit kicking? ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/67 "2021-01-30T03:31:03Z")
GIGObuster thanks for the relevant links. I trust [phys.org](http://phys.org) as a reputable source. What is the estimate of the cost of ongoing coronavirus pandemics, or serious human and wildlife reproductive issues (e.g. health care or commercial fish harvest declines)? I understand there probably will be significant economic consequences to increased CO2 emissions from humans, but I’m not sure that will be the worst of our problems. ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/68 "2021-01-30T03:32:52Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Corvallis. What did you major in, shit kicking? Not much shit kicking, but lots of beer. And most of my buddies went to U of O, so there’s that. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/69 "2021-01-30T03:37:24Z")
lol, I like people who don’t take themselves _too_ seriously. I mean that as a compliment. Carry on! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/70 "2021-01-30T04:15:46Z")
Again, what the Economist reported is mostly about expected results of not dealing with the issue, they actually noted that the costs can get worse. It is like in Syria, were the changes due in part to Global warming were a factor in the civil war. (The big controversy is about how important that factor was, some do not assign much of a reason since in the end most of the blame for the war goes to the dictator of Syria) [More recent studies point to the current human caused climate change as an important factor in other recent conflicts](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019307307). Making it likely that that factor will grow in importance in the future. And so it will be the cost. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/71 "2021-01-30T04:28:16Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > rboyce understands atmospheric science better than most. What is evident from the OP (and, for that matter, from his overall posting history) is that @rboyce understands nothing at all. The entire OP is a pile of ungodly drivel that is a sort of putrid mix of abject ignorance with a bit of irrelevance thrown in. He’s a useless troll, but a spectacularly stupid one. > [@EastUmpqua](#): > > The problem I have with global climate change is that it became a political agenda, which never seems to lead to good science. That’s a really stupid thing to say. Politics didn’t “lead to” climate science. Climate science evolved on its own. Modern climate science could be regarded as having had its start in a report called _Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action_ , issued in 1975 by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, and specifically an NRC group called the US Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program. The purpose of the report – several decades before the IPCC even existed – was to make recommendations about setting up research programs so that the right questions about climate change could be asked, and eventually answered. As the research progressed, and the evidence became incontrovertible that anthropogenic climate change was a very serious problem, _ **that** _ was when powerful fossil-fuel and industrial interests and the politicians they controlled started distorting and politicizing the science. And the more clear and stark the evidence – like Michael Mann’s paleoclimate temperature reconstructions resulting in the famous “hockey stick” graph – the harder and more vicious the pushback. Mann himself has been subject to numerous political attacks, witch hunts, and even personal threats, as have many other climate scientists. But the science itself has continued to evolve as science always does: slowly, conservatively, but inexorably focused on evidence and truth. And the more we discover about climate change and the human role in it, the more worried those in the know become about the existential threat we are facing. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/72 "2021-01-30T04:31:26Z")
I’m going to put aside the whole “what’s causing climate change” issue and focus on something else the OP wrote. > [@rboyce](#): > > **We are ending the use of fossil fuels** ; thinking it is saving our planet when in fact fossil fuels are finite. It has been determined that if we continue to consume fossil fuels at the rate we are consuming today, **consumers will suck up and burn what known reserves the world has in 30-40 years.** > > **Knowing the above** > > **Save the climate. What do we do–?** > **Prepare for the end of oil, what do we do-?** > > It turns out we do the same for both, two birds with one stone. > Switching to electric power to drive our economies while getting off of oil is the right path forward. Where will this electric power come from? Electricity is a manufactured product not a natural resource. So what natural resources are you proposing we use to produce electric power? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/73 "2021-01-30T05:07:33Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > rboyce understands atmospheric science better than most. **rboyce** has yet to even mention the atmosphere. He’s talked a lot about ice ages, and the OP mentions the earth’s tilt (I guess we’re supposed to infer the latter causes the former). That’s it. > [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Earth won’t develop human-caused run-away global warming like what happened on the planet Venus, and have molten lead on its surface, mostly because we are much further away from the sun. Thanks genius, but do you think, just perhaps, _no-one is suggesting_ that that is a possibility? And that maybe people are talking about smaller changes than that but changes that could still result in widescale droughts, flooding, other extreme weather events, ecosystem destruction etc? 2020 was the most active year ever for tropical storms in the US, plus there was the devastating wildfires across an increasingly arid California. It didn’t quite crack the top 10 hottest years, but 9 of the 2010s are there. ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/74 "2021-01-30T05:15:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s a really stupid thing to say. Politics didn’t “lead to” climate science. You intentionally (I would guess) misunderstood my point. Politicians manipulate climate science for political reasons, mostly to further their own power and influence, and to create fear and obedience. Whenever I hear ‘the science is settled, the debate is over’, I think science is being used for political agendas. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/75 "2021-01-30T05:28:14Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > You intentionally (I would guess) misunderstood my point. If I “misunderstood” your point, it’s because you blatantly misstated it. Your point was very clear: you brought up the political angle, and then concluded “… which never seems to lead to good science.” I’m correctly pointing out that climate science is good science. The fact that right-wing Republican types are lying about it does not in any way detract from its solid evidence-based findings. And yes, the question about the overwhelming influence of human activities in post-industrial climate change, most dramatically over the past 50 years, is indeed incontrovertible settled science. The “debate” over such fundamentals exists only among idiots and right-wing media, not in the scientific community, with the exception of a handful of known crackpots that no one doing real science takes seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/76 "2021-01-30T05:28:29Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Politicians manipulate climate science for political reasons, mostly to further their own power and influence, and to create fear and obedience. Most of the manipulation is being done by climate-change deniers, to further their own power and influence, and to create complacency and disregard of science. This manipulation has worked extremely well on a disappointingly large number of non-scientists. Many people are easily charmed by the flattering idea that they themselves are keen-eyed skeptics able to see through the alarmist rhetoric tyrannizing credulous nincompoops into “fear and obedience”. > [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Whenever I hear ‘the science is settled, the debate is over’, I think science is being used for political agendas. And that makes you feel smug and smart, doesn’t it? It doesn’t matter that you don’t actually know whether the science is in fact settled. You think that your keen-eyed skepticism has enabled you to spot an ulterior motive, so you don’t have to know anything about the science itself in order to understand the situation. How very convenient for the political interests that might lose money if you and millions like you were inclined to take climate change seriously. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/77 "2021-01-30T13:34:57Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > I studied Atmospheric Science at Oregon State You should apply for a refund. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/78 "2021-01-30T15:38:35Z")
I expect any moment now Oregon State’s registrar will disavow EastUmpqua’s matriculation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/79 "2021-01-30T15:52:22Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Whenever I hear ‘the science is settled, the debate is over’, I think science is being used for political agendas. That is the beauty of the fossil fuel industry and right wing propaganda, even the way the discussion “must” be framed comes as a result of the misleading information coming from them. Point being that even that talking point about complaining about “scientists are wrong by claiming that the science is settled” was manufactured also by the science deniers. (that talking point is also in most cases a straw man) > **[Is the science settled?](https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science-intermediate.htm)** > > \Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high... > A common skeptic refrain is that “the science isn’t settled”, meaning there are still uncertainties in climate science and therefore action to cut CO2 emissions is premature. This line of argument betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science. Firstly, it presumes science exists in a binary state - that science isn’t settled until it crosses some imaginary line after which it’s finally settled. On the contrary, science by its very nature is never 100% settled. Secondly, it presumes that poor understanding in one area invalidates good understanding in other areas. This is not the case. To properly answer the question, “is the science settled?”, an understanding of how science works is first required. > > Science is not about absolute proofs. It never reaches 100% certainty. This is the domain of mathematics and logic. Science is about improving our understanding by narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of confidence. For example, while some areas of climate science are understood with high confidence, there are some areas understood with lower confidence, such as the effect on climate from atmospheric aerosols (liquid or solid particles suspended in the air). Aerosols cool climate by blocking sunlight. But they also serve as nuclei for condensation which leads to cloud formation. The question of the net effect of aerosols is one of the greater sources of uncertainty in climate science. > > What do we know with high confidence? We have a high degree of confidence that humans are raising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 emissions can be accurately calculated using international energy statistics ([CDIAC](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html)). This is double checked using measurements of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere ([Ghosh 2003](http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf)). We can also triple check these results using observations of falling oxygen levels due to the burning of fossil fuels ([Manning 2006](http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/manning/ManningandKeeling2006.pdf)). [Multiple lines of empirical evidence increase our confidence that humans are responsible for rising CO2 levels](https://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm). > Poorly understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood. To argue that the 5% that is poorly understood disproves the 95% that is well understood betrays an incorrect understanding of the nature of science. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2021, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737/80 "2021-01-30T16:27:54Z")
> [@BippityBoppityBoo](#): > > expect any moment now Oregon State’s registrar will disavow EastUmpqua’s matriculation. I wasn’t joking. If EastUmpqua really and sincerely believes that the OP’s post contains a good understanding of atmospheric science compared to the tens of thousands of published papers on the subject, then they should apply for a refund. They were obviously either scammed by Oregon State or simply were not paying attention at all, in which case Oregon State should not have graduated them. Either way, their degree is clearly a fraud and they should apply for a refund or sue Oregon State. The alternatives are, of course, EastUmpqua didn’t actually study atmospheric science anywhere, let alone Oregon State, and/or they’re just trolling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-is-not-the-immediate-threat-facing-us-today/931737.md?page=5)