Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans

[Ultralight]

If you read this entire article, you are probably not part of the problem.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans

[rosarugosa]

Funny but kind of scary-true at the same time.

[SteveinMN]

People think Idiocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy) was fiction...

[happystuff]

Funny but kind of scary-true at the same time.

I agree!

[Ultralight]

People think Idiocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy) was fiction...

LOL!

[bicyclist]

Hello folks, I think we have 12 years to deal with this epidemic of fact resistant leaders who think they will retreat to their ocean side resorts or mountain chalets or fly to the Moon so they won't have a problem with the Earth's climate! Maybe, there will be home deliveries to other planets, save the effort of going to 5th Avenue or downtown L.A. ! Why get upset? The Super bowl has already been scheduled for 2031.

[iris lilies]

Why 12 years? And what are the leaders going to do?

[Rogar]

Why 12 years? And what are the leaders going to do?

I actually just finished looking up some things related to your question, IL. The 12 years comes from guidelines of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They are saying in order to stay below a global average 1.5 degree C temperature rise from pre-industrial temperatures we need to reduce carbon emissions 50% by the year 2030. We are currently at something like a 1.0 degree rise already. The 1.5 degree C number is apparently a tipping point where things go from bad to really bad or could cause feedback loops that cause run away temperature rises, say from things like methane releases from melting permafrost. I believe it is one of the terms of the Paris Climate Agreement. It's pretty easy to look up the predicted consequences of exceeding the 1.5 degree warming for more info. Further, it's only the first step because net carbon emissions then need to be zero by 2050.

The reason I became interested is because my public service provider (Xcel) has advertised zero carbon emissions from electricity generation by 2050. I thought, that's really ambitious, and looked up their energy plan. They claim to be on target for meeting the IPCC guidelines at least for the 2030 goal of 50% reductions. They serve a 12 state area and have retired half of their coal plants and plan to retire the rest by 2030. And are replacing them with wind and solar energy renewables. However, the claim is that they need advances in battery storage technology to meet the 2050 goals. I suppose much of this comes from financial incentives as renewables become cheaper.

There are obviously deniers of the whole thing, but it is my impression that almost all of the climate scientists are on board with these predictions, and if anything they are too liberal and change is happening faster than the model have predicted. And that CO2 emissions globally and in the U.S. are behind in meeting the 2030 goals. It is too bad that some people think science is some sort of voodoo magic.

My take. Perhaps others have further enlightenment.

[happystuff]

If science is wrong, then any and all positive changes are just that - "positive changes"; if science is right... :(