Stopped reading when it quickly became clear you had no interest in answering the question.

you quoted the literal answer. 5-6 Celsius more in Germany means they get summer highs like Florence and Rome got in 1975.

Ie, absolutely compatible with human life, sought after, summer highs

I'm referencing the degree at which specifically weather channels take in order to cultivate an audience for revenue, not whether a 75 degree day that's categorized in heat stroke category confirms the illegitimacy of climate change. It's the same tactic with guns, pharmaceuticals and a lot more.

You cited a 5 to 6 degree C rise over the 1850 to 1900 average. I’m asking what that means for the summer highs.

I am answering that they will be like in Rome and Florence were pre warming, because Germany is 5-6 celsius colder than central Italy.

Rome in 1880 was 5 (or more) celsius warmer than Berlin. If berlin warms 5 celsius you get to the hellscape, horrible weather or Rome (or Florence, or Perugia, and so on).

Yes take into account proximity to the sea, meters over sea level and so on, sure. Pretty sure we can find places with very good weather that are 5-6 celsius warmer than Berling was 1850-1900, with summer highs that are bearable, and with overall a far better weather for human beings than Berlin 1850-1900.

Anyone who argues global warming is ok cos a little area of the world becomes slightly more comfortable temperature-wise is a moron, edging towards imbecility.

Especially if they suggest trying to tackle it is pointless because it'll be fine.

Topic isn't if it is "ok", topic is if it is ok or not for that place.

Anyone denying that cold places get better for human beings with warming is in bad faith.

After we admit Germany has nothing to be scared about global warming, rather it significantly benefits from it, and anyone claiming the opposite is a bad faith interlocutor who loses of intellectual dignity and whose opinion on the topic loses all validity, we can move from there.

You have absolutely no idea of the entire knock-on effects of global warming on Germany. You have no idea of level of flooding, sea level rising etc.

Your tiresome use of sophistry to try and mitigate your ignorance or denial of possibilities of bad as well as good makes you come across as a fool, at best. However, your clear agenda of presenting all the good things that arise from global warming whilst minimising or ignoring the bad just marks you as a troll.

So there is a whole industry doing the exact opposite, paid with taxpayers money in many countries, if i try to counterbalance that obsessive, delirant taxpayer funded narrative i am a troll.

I know that the netherlands with 1960s technology managed meters of sea levels. So i know with an absolute certainty that sea levels, even if they rise at 3-4 sigma in the worst case scenario in IPCC models, are still extremely well maneageble for Germany. And with far far far better technology

I think the point being made is that assuming that a rise from the current +1.2C over 1760 global average to a possible 2.5C, 3C or worse brings with it vastly unpredictable effects (we already see some of these every year even at +1.2C), and that for you to proclaim that you alone understand all of these effects far better than climate scientists, and that they will be hugely beneficial to Germany, is plainly absurd which is why you've been accused of trolling.

However, I think I know you better and understand your point as a contrivance for not having to advocate for remedial action against extremely bad possible outcomes, as you couldn't give a damn about hundreds of millions or even billions of displaced or dead people around the world, as your stated attitude to refugees is to prevent them from immigrating if necessary by force (because if they are breaking a nation's laws according to you that should put them at risk of being killed).

Fair?

Luciom thinks only linearly .
He can’t see how certain region with 2 higher degrees may not necessarily have the same effect in another part of the world where they have the same climate .
He doesn’t understand what the butterfly is probably .
The weather is obviously interconnected but he try to say otherwise ….

For him +2 degrees is equal regardless your starting point .
He don’t know that a 2 degrees higher today as more volatile impact then if u add 2 degrees higher from a lower temperature from 300 years ago or w.e starting point he choses to pick .

What I would be interested of is why Luciom think scientist in climate changes are more bias then other scientist when the scientist method is always applied?

It would be so easy to prove how those that say , climate changes are big issue , are wrong .
There would be easy tons of more scientist reviewed paper to negate them and yet they just can’t , by a ratio of 100-1 ….

When a guy trust as truth what 1% of scientist say it while negating 99% of the others , there isn’t anything u can add to change his mind .
U just enter into faith territory…

This is the problem.

Neither do you. Earths climate has changed many times over millions of years, from times much warmer than now to times much cooler. It is true that rapid climate change will most likely cause much of the mega flora and fauna in the world today to go extinct, because they wont be able to adapt/evolve in time. But because of technology this is less of a concern for humans, and we dont actually know it will result in the doomsday scenarios for humans climate scientists warn of.

Geologic history (and a high school level understanding of chemistry and biology) indicate higher CO2 and warmer temperatures will result in higher levels of rainfall and plant growth, all else being equal. There is a lot of evidence the Sahel/Sahara have actually been greening the last couple decades, for possibly this reason.

If your internal value system causes you to believe it is important there are lions and koalas and salamanders around in the wild in 100 years then this is a reason to support efforts to slow climate change. But it isn't some universal truth this is important, and if Lucium recognizes mass extinctions in the wild will probably happen if CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rapidly rise and doesn't think this is important that is valid.

It is true that human activity is causing environmental degradation. But it isn't obvious that continued burning of fossil fuels and releasing CO2 in the atmosphere, as has already occurred many times in earth's history, is that large a cause for concern.

And anyone who is absolutely certain it is, is operating off of faith and not science, IMO.

As far as Lucium's Germany example, my understanding is German's hold a lot of value in their forests, and it is likely a rapid increase in temperature would kill off the forests. So for that reason alone Germans might specifically be against global warming, even if it made winters more pleasant. Someone living in poverty on the borders of the Sahel that can now farm in areas they couldn't 20 years ago might have a different assessment. Like I said, it is a matter of what one values.

So better not to assume it's all going to be for the better and sit back and not actually actively try and stop significant change in a complex system. There are concepts in ecology called robustness (ability to function whilst subject to change) and resiience (ability to return to normal function after disturbance) and ecological systems demonstrably have a tipping point where they will never return to the previous state. Weather systems are somewhat similar. To try and play guess on these is extremely difficult, so better to try and reduce such major, ongoing disturbance as much as possilble


PS ecological robustness and resilience are somewhat tied to the complexity of the system, which, is really about species diversity. So it isn't about koalas and lions and salamanders, it's about trying to not let diversity keep reducing.

Yet Democrats really do not seem to care about a ton of folks either. Many of their climate policies illustrate that

Yes I quite agree.

Again, you are imposing your own value system that the previous state is desirable. Which is fine, but you should recognize this is what is going on. Science itself is agnostic. The environment is always changing, and life adapts or dies out/evolves. When the environment changes quickly a lot of species die and diversity goes down, and then new lifeforms evolve to fill abandoned niches. This has all happened several times before.

Missed this, will answer now.

I completly disagree with the notion that a warmer world automatically means a world with more frequent and intense adverse events overall for human beings.

That part of "science" is very far from being settled (unlike the actual warming having happened and having human causes), especially because right now at 1.2/1.3C over the 1850-1900 average it's absolutely not obvious that we are seeing stronger and more frequent adverse climatic events.

Except of course heat waves, those are more frequent & intense. But cold waves are less frequent and less intense. And cold waves *kill a lot more people than heat waves historically*, worldwide, and especially in europe, like it's not even close at all.

So while ofc unpredictable, it might very well be the case that warming aside, the frequency and intensity of events that kill human beings DECREASES for Germany in a warmer world. Absolutely not obvious it's "surely going to be a lot worse than now", not at all, nor eason to believe that.

And btw it's not climate scientists who can claim anything about quality of life of human beings in a warmer world (and place by place, by country, at that), they have absolutely no skills to deal with that topic. It's mostly economists, at least for the quantifiable parts.

And there are plenty of papers, including papers used in the IPCC report, that CLAIM NORTHERN EUROPE WILL BE ECONOMICALLY BETTER OFF IN A WARMER WORLD.

So who are the trolls ? i think the trolls are the science denialists who insist to claim that a country that is FAR colder than the optimal for human beings, where you can easily *freeze to death* absent heating for months every year, will be worse off with 2, or 3 , or 4 , or 5 celsius because of made up, scaremongering nonsense.

1) i am not against the TOTALITY of possible remedial actions. I am against the absurd focus on emission reductions vs mitigation , and against any emission reduction effort which isn't predicated on the only acceptable principle , which is "the most emission reduction with the smallest sacrifice for citizens".

There is almost no 1 on the left working on the "how much exactly does this cost, how much exactly does this reduce emissions, this is the list, we go with the first things first".

It's all moral grandstanding, religious fervour, and the possibility of achieving more socialism with the excuse of emissions reductions.

How ******ed can policy makers be to cover germany in solar panels while closing nuclear plants? in which world is that a sensible way to address emission reduction with the lowest possible sacrifice from citizens?

After they do that and they aren't annihilated politically, canceled forever, criticized as the worst possible and so on (wrt climate change remedies), you start to understand they (=most climate activists on the left) are in bad faith.

Anyone who is not super-in-favour of nuclear for example is clearly a bad faith actor motivated only by nefarious intents. And that's a lot of climate change activists, especially a lot of green parties. They fought tooth and nail (losing narrowly) trying NOT to count nuclear energy as clean (=emission free) even if it is by far the cleanests source, in the emission sense (yes by far).

Once it's 100% transparent they are completly in bad faith, and i explained why that's the case, they can't be interlocutor about the topic anymore. Everything published by anyone linked to them automatically loses any intellectual credibility, any paper they use or cite to make a point loses all credibility and so on. It's not science anymore.

2) I don't give a damn about my own citizens mostly, imagine how much i care about foreign people. I dislike welfare and the only rationale for it is to avoid those citizens voting for something that damages me even more. If someone can't vote against my freedoms i am not up to sacrifice for him in any way in general.

There might be exceptions for some causes sometimes but in general, as all rational people do (the revealed preferences, through actions, prove that), i dont give much of a **** about people who aren't my family or friends.

That said even if climate warming is clearly going to be more damaging for currently-already-hot countries than for cold ones, and many of them are already poor, they are still going to be better off than today even accounting for climate warming because of baseline economic growth by far, UNLESS we suicide the glocal economy.

So the collapse of the global economy & trade is a far bigger threat to Bangladesh (possibly the big country that loses the most from warming) than climate warming. And what risks causing the collapse of the global economy? leftism in general winning and having it's way.

If people actually cared about residents in Bangladesh, the purported reason why someone in Berlin should consume fewer fossil fuels, they would first guarantee that the technocratic, capitalistic, global order of Pax Americana lasts another century, then perhaps discuss emissions.

But as far as emissions go, lying completly is unacceptable anyway. I know for the radical left it is, they have no moral principle in pursuing their agenda. But lying to Germans inventing the most insane possible negatives of global warming FOR THEM, while the reality would be at most to reduce emissions to make life even better for people in Bangladesh, Mexico and so on, is unacceptable.

But the point stays that in 2050 , even if the world is 1 celsius hotter than today, life in Bangladesh would be better than today if their economy grows as per the past 30 years trend. Same is true in 2100 even in the "bad case" warming scenarios.

So all the "climatic refugees" nonsense is just that. I completly made up scare. People wanting to move might increase in numbers, but not because they "die from the heat".

People come to europe from Africa today MUCH MORE than they did in 1970. And objectively life in Africa in 1970 was far far far far worse than it is today.

It's very silly to disregard the risks associated with burying highly toxic radioactive material for a long period of time and call people voicing those concerns "bad faith actors", which is an example of the things you say that cause people to not take you seriously.,


Ridiculous. Bangladeshis aren't the only reason why people who can should reduce their carbon footprint.

Have you ever seen nuance in anything in your life? If you toned back some of the extreme, black-and-white rhetoric, you'd be more convincing (and more correct!).

what's more nuanced than asking for a list of emission-reduction options with associated costs and work from there?

It's fairly complex to claim which would be the first best option for example, because cost assessment requires utilitarianism which is morally bankrupt yet is the only way to quantify aggregated non monetary costs (that i know of).

But the fact that many things are unclear in how best (and how much) to reduce emissions doesn't remove the very clear elements of the picture, like the fact that nuclear is awesome for the task (and to be less dependant on foreign non democratic countries) and indispensable.

Nuclear is the only clean (emission-free) energy source that can provide energy 24/7/365.

A decent amount of baseline energy production is indispensable for now. It might not be the case anymore once we get to the "weeks of electricity stored in meg-batteries" stage, but we are decades away from that.

You know what comes after nuclear? hydro. Which... a lot of environmentalists oppose as well roflmao.

Then there is geo-thermic but that's not something you can use everywhere unfortunately.

THEN there is wind/solar with all their known problems. Ofc in some places solar/wind can be pretty good already for a portion of electrical needs. But lol at "100% solar/wind is the plan".

Oh and environmentalists sometimes have problems even with that, with solar because "we cover precious land" for wind because "poor birds die"

I mean even freaking GRETA had to admit, of course through her teeths and for now only for the "transition phase", that nuclear can play a part. Greta, whose supporters are some of the most radical violent activists in environmentalism, many of whom want 0 nuclear.

With nuclear it IS black & white, at least up to the "20-30% of electrical needs" of a country. There can be debate about going up to France levels, or staying much lower (i think France level or even more is best), that's less obvious.

But it is black & white that Germany closing down nuclear plants was an environmental disaster. They had to fire up again dismissed coal plants ffs

Hydro is probably the cleanest most green way to generate electricity and we are tearing down dams the taxpayers were billed billions of dollars for to save some fish. Fish that we kill with chemical enriched sewage.

The earth deserves her vengeance, and we deserve to die.

I think nuclear is better because it's green the same in terms of emissions, more in terms of general environment, and most importantly it's generation doesn't depend on rain and related stuff