It's interesting how many from the narrative supportive* know so much about people most other people have never heard of. It'd be interesting to know how many of the hits on such sites are theirs and how much their attempts to debunk actually end up leaving people preferring the other views, as people really do not like being preached at, especially if the preaching comes over as pompous and patronising.
(*other terms are available, I was trying to think of a non-abusive generalisation. I'd prefer it if 'them and us' didn't exist, and conversations could relate to the issues, rather than people hunting out people to then try and debunk. There's little kudos in that and it bogs conversations down. )
That aside, It's also interesting to note that the same people are virtually silent on some of the claims made by the likes of Attenborough that turned out to be less than honest, especially as Thunberg claimed his programme was the source of her education on the topic.
The problem with focusing on minutiae is that they tend to be pre-conditional of other things, and it ends up quibbling over semantics, and misses so much.
As mentioned, the new head of it all seems to have an awareness of how the optics of extremism and hysteria from the media and other quarters is having a detrimental impact on the problem. This has been one of my main arguments throughout, and has seen me labelled as a denier by the less informed. If people were offering a balance position, they should be accusing Jim of denial for saying many of the things I and others on here have been advocating. They won't of course, and rightly so.
Along with his comments on the hysteria, his introductory address was reassuring and revealing, as it's long been argued that the various bodies were not collaborating sufficiently, which risks key aspects being missed in each, and not least the impact on less developed areas of the world.
You must log in or register to see media
Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says
07/30/2023July 30, 2023
Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's IPCC, said it's not helpful to imply that a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity. He calls for a balanced approach to the climate change debate.
Speaking to weekly magazine Der Spiegel, in an interview first published on Saturday, Skea warned against laying too much value on the international community's current nominal target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared the pre-industrial era.
"We should not despair and fall into a state of shock" if global temperatures were to increase by this amount, he said.
In a separate discussion with German news agency DPA, Skea expanded on why.
"If you constantly communicate the message that we are all doomed to extinction, then that paralyzes people and prevents them from taking the necessary steps to get a grip on climate change," he said.
"The world won't end if it warms by more than 1.5 degrees," Skea told Der Spiegel. "It will however be a more dangerous world."
Surpassing that mark would lead to many problems and social tensions, he said, but still that would not constitute an existential threat to humanity.
Skea predicted that one difficult area might prove to be changing people's lifestyles. He said that no scientist could tell people how to live or what to eat.
"Individual abstinence is good, but it alone will not bring about the change to the extent it will be necessary," Skea said. "If we are to live more climate consciously, we need entirely new infrastructure.
People will not get on bikes if there are no cycle paths."
Skea said he also wanted to adapt the IPCC so that it could provide better and more targeted advice to specific groups of people on how they could act to combat climate change.
He named groups like town planners, landowners and businesses: "With all these things it's about real people and their real lives, not scientific abstractions. We need to come down a level," he told DPA.
He said he also hoped to make progress during his tenure on how and where money was sent and spent to tackle the problem globally.
"There's enough money in the world, the challenge is getting it to flow to the right places," he said.
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523
