Thanks. I missed this info the first time around, so I guess there's something to be said for duplicates.

Out of my shallow understanding of stellar physics, Betelgeuse strikes me as one hell of a dumpster fire.

UN reports are written by consensus, and it is challenging to keep expertise and politics separate. In subject matters where some states are confronted with facts that go against their perceived national interest (meaning by that the wealth, power and worldview of their ruling class), that can mean a lot of horse trading over every word and every comma. Less cynically, it is also true that once adopted, the consensus report belongs, through the UN, to every state that participated in it. So it's not just a consensus among experts, but also, to a significant extent, a diplomatic one. And that is what makes such reports different from a random academic summary.

For the IPCC reports, that means that some countries that have produced very little in the way of peer reviewed science on climate suddenly become very vocal.So yeah, IPCC reports have been historically very "prudent" for the sake of political acceptability. That should be kept in mind when reading them, but they are still useful, and worth the the very considerable effort, in a number of ways.

Here's an account from the principal of one of the writing committees: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/i-put-myself-through-hell-as-an-ipcc-convening-lead-author-but-it-was-worth-it/

I think you're right, but I wonder how to get to this result. Lobbying does not strike me as the FSF's best suit. The FSF's greatest achievements were to develop a compelling system of truly free software, and developping the GPL itself. By doing this, the FSF created products that embody, demonstrate and further the Free Software agenda.

This points to what I think are the FSF's two best strengths. Those would be activism through software engineering, and the GPL as an inspired bit of licensing judo. I greatly admire the FSF and I know they have access to considerable legal insight, but I doubt they alone could undertake a lobbying effort of this magnitude with much hope of success. It's just not what they do, and I'm concerned that refocusing on lobbying would drain resources away from their other vital ongoing contributions.

I think banding with other like-minded organizations, some of which are focused on lobbying, might have a better chance.

Adding huge quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes (note the present tense) the global temperature rise. That's the simple part, which you are trying to make out to be complicated with a quote out of context. You must feel so clever.

As for the non-linear bit: global temperature has risen, and will continue to rise. It's just not going to manifest in exactly the same way everywhere. Many places are going to get a lot more heat waves. That's already started. What's harder to predict, because of those non-linearities, are other effects like the shifts in precipitation patterns, ocean currents, sea levels, effects on ecosystems that are life support systems to us. So the point of highlighting the non-linearity is not to throw doubt on an existing and worsening crisis, but to say that it is complicated to plan for. Which is good news for no one, and certainly no reason for business as usual.

There are vested interest in every public debate. In Pasteur's day, then-new Germ Theory did step on a lot of toes, and it took a hell of a fight to get it accepted. For the most part that fight was won, to everyone's benefit, even the hold-out's.

There are hippy or redneck type beliefs on both side of the climate debate. Neither are particularly helpful, but they are unavoidable in open public debate, I guess. Normally, these things sort themselves out eventually, but the problem here is time. We lost almost two generation's worth of actions that would have made the climate crisis so much less of a threat. There are credible indications we don't have this much time left now. The worst problem here is not about hippies, believe it or not. Follow the money, instead. It's about a very powerful group of carbon centered industries very knowingly using the same amoral playbook that the tobacco industry used to protect their cashflow.

I once heard a keynote speech from an insurance industry representative. He pointed to the fact that throughout history, cities burned. Rome, London, Chicago, and countless others from antiquity up until some time in the 19th century. That was just a fact of life. Today, large urban fires are practically unheard of. (Wildfires are another matter.) What changed? Proper tax-funded fire departments. Regulations and building codes were introduced and enforced. What an outrage! What a blow to freedom! But, the story goes, Capital intervened and pushed building codes through, because the fire risk had become unbearable to them. Now, regardless of what hippies and rednecks say or think, large Capital entities, such as Norway's Sovereign Fund, are seeing the climate crisis as a risk. This kind of influence just, just may push back against the bad actors so that evidence based policy gets through before it is too late.

I agree, yet I can certainly conceive that there are companies where meetings consist of venting and status display. That does not strike me as "therapy", just straight up dysfunction.

On the other hand, I've seen people complain about too many meetings, even in a healty and productive work environment. In this particular case, these are senior technical people who now have legitimate elements of program management in their workload. But since they do not self-identify as program managers, they feel this is not part of their "real job".

I'm going to ignore the angry schoolyard bullying for just a moment and assume just a little bit of good faith, somewhere, on your part. I'm even going to assume you have some scientific culture, since you posture as a judge of other people's scientific acumen.

The greenhouse effect is what I was talking about and it is indeed 19th century science. Its application in a one dimensional vertical model, taken as a first approximation it comes surprisingly close to what you obtain with a far more sophisticated model. I don't have a quote handy and look, I hardly feel like bothering for your sake. But thank you for the opportunity for clarification.

I am well aware that there are non-linearities in the weather and climate systems. None of them miraculously stop the warming from happening when you pump greenhouse gases in the air. You think they're cherry picking? That's very rich coming from a denier. Here, read a cartoon (that, I'll do for your sake): https://xkcd.com/1732/

So. Why so angry? I think you don't like the message. Neither do I. It's fucking terrifying. Shooting the messenger won't make physics go away, though.

What to say. Meteorologist, here. This being Slashdot, I will hang my hat on one of the saner posts.

I didn't sign this statement but would have in a heartbeat. My point in response to poster is that this is very much a multidisciplinary issue. The whole biosphere (you know, our source of food and habitat and life support systems) is in trouble now. That makes it also a biologist's and an agronomer's, and a forester's business. People are having trouble coping with the issue, that makes it a matter for social scientists, spiritual leaders and health practitioners. The climatology of weather and climate-related disasters is changing. That makes it a matter for disaster preparedness and response organizations. Truth needs to be spoken to power, that makes it everyone's business, but most especially those with direct access to powerful people. Communities need foresight and preparation. It doesn't have to be totally awful (yet). And no, I take no fucking joy in warning of impending disaster. I'd much rather we all did something about it and kept it from getting worse (it is already happening).

There is no scientific controversy. This is well-understood, 19th century physics. A simple 1-dimensional vertical model of the atmosphere gets 90% of the phenomenology right. The rest is figuring out the ghastly details. What controversy there is was manufactured, very successfully I might add, mostly by petrochemical interests. Congratulations, you psychopathic liars. Take your place on the podium, you handily beat the cigarette industry and the opiate pushers.

This is not about who is qualified to say that the climate crisis exists. It is proven and let's move on to solutions.

And sanitation!

What has the BBC ever done for us?

Mods... before you rate this as insightful... read the article, maybe?

Well I have, and it's not about quantity or market value, either. There've got to be limits to this business of depossession through legal abstractions.

Not everything an atheist thinks about is about science. Atheists also think about the human experience, how we relate to each other and to our world and how we can make like bearable for ourselves and others. We just try not to involve our superstitious beliefs into that process, and manage hypothetical assertions with some degree of rigor. If that makes me a "materialist", so be it, even though I did to choose to be called that. On the other hand, if "materialist" is a code word for "a selfish jerk who is not like us saintly believers and who will be up against the wall when the theocratic revolution comes", then I beg to differ.