If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Aivar Usk:
I would recommend to let dr. Howard Cork Hayden, professor emeritus of physics at University of Connecticut explain to you what the problem is. It would be interesting to hear if anyone could point out where he is wrong in this 54 minute presentation:
Having a nominally-impressiveacademic title does not necessarily mean much. As you yourself surely understand - it hasn't hindered you from telling me where I might be wrong. (All to the good, I might say.)
As a rhetorical measure, inviting people to watch a one-hour video and criticise it is not very persuasive. Why don't you summarise the arguments for us in, say, a five-minute read?
I was not intending any ad-hominem when suggesting that most of the activists are not knowledgeable about climate science;
If you are talking about people, and (I take it) criticising them for not being knowledgeable, then that is a prima facie case of an ad hominem argument. (It doesn't get much clearer than that.)
People don't have to be individually knowledgeable about matters of science in order to hold and support beliefs about such science. If you say to climate activist A “you don't know much climate science”, A might reply “that may be right, but I talk regularly with and listen to people who do.” And that is an appropriate response (if it is true).
For example, I don't know half as much meteorology as a professional meteorologist, but I do know some stuff about the “rain dome” that formed over the Eiffel in July 2021, which is inter alia why I'll be talking in February on that flooding catastrophe. The other reason is that the conference organisers know I'll do my best to talk to people who really do know, although I admit to having huge difficulties getting anyone to respond (there seem to be political and legal issues which inhibit communication). Weirdly enough, all the data disappeared from the meteo WWW sites within days (if anyone can find the surface and 500mb charts from July 12-17 2021 over northern-continental Europe I'd be very glad of a pointer).
When Joe Blow installs roof insulation and says it will save him 25% on his heating requirements, Joe is not saying so because he is “knowledgeable” about heating science, but because the heating consultant who calculated it is licensed and registered and conforms with a professional code of conduct, and Joe has every reason to think that what the consultant told him is very probably true.
Ms. Thunberg might be a teenager, but the people she consults with are highly knowledgeable and she is - obviously from what she says - a discerning intellect who is capable of making and presenting simple and powerful arguments which most people are not so capable of doing. That is why people listen to her. Not everyone gets to be invited to the WEF. Whatever you might think of it, the WEF is full of intellectually very impatient people whose attention you can't keep for long unless you have something worthwhile to say and can put it briefly.
Personally, I am really glad she is around. Just as I am concerning that other spectacular once-young talent Malala Yousafzai.
Aivar Usk:
I would recommend to let dr. Howard Cork Hayden, professor emeritus of physics at University of Connecticut explain to you what the problem is. It would be interesting to hear if anyone could point out where he is wrong in this 54 minute presentation:
Having a nominally-impressiveacademic title does not necessarily mean much. As you yourself surely understand - it hasn't hindered you from telling me where I might be wrong. (All to the good, I might say.)
As a rhetorical measure, inviting people to watch a one-hour video and criticise it is not very persuasive. Why don't you summarise the arguments for us in, say, a five-minute read?
I was not intending any ad-hominem when suggesting that most of the activists are not knowledgeable about climate science;
If you are talking about people, and (I take it) criticising them for not being knowledgeable, then that is a prima facie case of an ad hominem argument. (It doesn't get much clearer than that.)
People don't have to be individually knowledgeable about matters of science in order to hold and support beliefs about such science. If you say to climate activist A “you don't know much climate science”, A might reply “that may be right, but I talk regularly with and listen to people who do.” And that is an appropriate response (if it is true).
For example, I don't know half as much meteorology as a professional meteorologist, but I do know some stuff about the “rain dome” that formed over the Eiffel in July 2021, which is inter alia why I'll be talking in February on that flooding catastrophe. The other reason is that the conference organisers know I'll do my best to talk to people who really do know, although I admit to having huge difficulties getting anyone to respond (there seem to be political and legal issues which inhibit communication). Weirdly enough, all the data disappeared from the meteo WWW sites within days (if anyone can find the surface and 500mb charts from July 12-17 2021 over northern-continental Europe I'd be very glad of a pointer).
When Joe Blow installs roof insulation and says it will save him 25% on his heating requirements, Joe is not saying so because he is “knowledgeable” about heating science, but because the heating consultant who calculated it is licensed and registered and conforms with a professional code of conduct, and Joe has every reason to think that what the consultant told him is very probably true.
Ms. Thunberg might be a teenager, but the people she consults with are highly knowledgeable and she is - obviously from what she says - a discerning intellect who is capable of making and presenting simple and powerful arguments which most people are not so capable of doing. That is why people listen to her. Not everyone gets to be invited to the WEF. Whatever you might think of it, the WEF is full of intellectually very impatient people whose attention you can't keep for long unless you have something worthwhile to say and can put it briefly.
Personally, I am really glad she is around. Just as I am concerning that other spectacular once-young talent Malala Yousafzai.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
