Top 10 climate change myths
Comment: 15 days ago
We're not talking about AGW, we're talking about whether McPherson's claims of human extinction within 10 years, is plausible, and whether "climate change is a hoax" is a plausible best-case scenario.
For climate change to be a hoax, almost every active climate scientist in the world would have to be in on it, either participating in wrongly interpreting data, manipulating data, or remaining silent when their colleagues manipulate data. NASA, ESA, Chinese and Russian space agencies, would all have to have agreed on the same story to fool the public and governments around the world. It's simply not plausible.
For climate change to be a hoax, the media would have to be in on it, making documentaries about animal migrations which are not happening, due to climate change that is not happening. Or maybe the animals are also in on the hoax and are migrating unnecessarily on behalf of wind farmers?
For climate change to be a hoax, there would have to be a plausible explanation as to how the increase of greenhouse gases is not warming the planet. There isn't.
If climate change is a hoax, scientists would already have persuaded almost every government in the world that climate change is a big enough problem to spend serious money when it is not necessary, because actually, the climate is not changing. Scientists are clever people, but they are not that clever.
If you think climate change is a plausible hoax, you're wrong - unless we are living in a simulation, or this is a dream and you'll soon wake up.
That's why climate change being a hoax is not our best-case scenario, it is fantasy with a political agenda routed in the fossil fuel industry. Ask a "mainstream" climate scientist what they think the best-case is, I doubt you'll find many who will be much more optimistic than "catastrophic".
So is McPherson's claim of human extinction within 10 years plausible? I gave you valid reasons why I think it is, from the point of view of a non-expert. Let me summarise. The range between best and worse-case scenarios is depressingly small, something like "catastrophic in the forseeable future" to "human extinction within 10 years". Had we asked the same question 10 years ago, best-case scenario would have been much better, and worse-case scenario would be not quite so bad. But we are where we are. When scientists are "shocked" by how fast the Arctic is warming 3 years in a row, that matters. It means that our computer models are significantly underestimating the sensitivity of the climate to atmospheric changes. Factor in the nature of exponential curves, and I'd say only a fool would claim that McPherson's claims are not plausible.
I understand why you feel McPherson's claims are ridiculous. "Human extinction within 10 years" - how could that even be. I feel the same, but I recognise that's an emotional response based on the inability to imagine such a future. Rationally, considering what we do know, I don't think it's that far fetched for the reasons I have already given. How our future pans out, depends to a large extent on how many people there are who think like you do. If there are too many, we could just sleepwalk into extinction. That would be a real shame.