Nick Gardner wrote:

On 25/02/2021 20:51, Norman Lynagh wrote:

Denialist is rather a pejorative term with connotations. It is now used for
anybody that doesn't agree with either the narrative or somebody else's
opinions. It is used as an insult.

Norman, I studied environmental pollution/science at degree, masters and
doctoral level. And have been a professional environmental scientist for over
20 years. I have met climate and environmental scientists from all over the
world with differing views on climate change.

The term 'climate catastrophe' is a fairly recent term and designed to up the
fear. It has become politicised. But there are several problems with assuming
a warmer world will be a catastrophic world. For that we have to look to the
past and the largest problem is the Eocene. During this time CO2 levels were
estimated to be double (or more) that of today's and the Earth was ice-free.
Life existed in far greater abundance than it does now. Antarctica was
covered in deciduous forests and there very few, if any deserts. Coral reefs
nearly stretched from the Arctic to the Antarctic Circles. If you were a
citizen living in the Eocene and then you were transported to today's Earth,
you would think that a climate catastrophe had really happened. Large parts
of today's Earth struggle to support life in any abundance; rainfall
distribution is very patchy. Antarctica is effectively a dead continent
except for a little slither of life around its edges. Greenland is not much
different.

When I bring up the Eocene paradox, some scientists acknowledge it puts a big
question mark over 'climate catastrophe' theory, others ignore it. To me it
is the same as dark matter/energy to theoretical physicists and the 'great
survivors' such as sharks, insects and turtles etc etc to the mass extinction
theory.

Whatever happens, the Earth will be just fine. What humankind will have to do
is adapt (which the richer countries will do well and leave the likes of
Bangladesh to drown). Oh, and say goodbye to most of the world's major cities
as they gradually disappear under the sea.....

A good book to read is Emerald Planet by David Beerling. He talks about
plants having caused catastrophic climate change in the past by taking too
much CO2 out of the atmosphere and plunging the Earth into ice-ages. For most
of its history the Earth has been warm, we still are in an ice-age, just a
slightly warmer one.

No insult was intended, Nick. I fully agree with your penultimate paragraph.
The earth would get on a lot better without us humans messing things up.

I suppose my point is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been
pretty constant ever since homo sapiens evolved, until very recently that is.
Over the past 100 or so years we have caused that concentration to rise by what
has become a very large amount. There's a lot of time lag but it seems
inevitable that a new climate equilibrium will eventually be reached that's
very different to what we have been used to. As someone (can't remember who)
said a few months ago - 'The planet we think we live on no longer exists'. I
would happily agree with that statement. Whether it will result in
'catastrophe' no-one honestly knows either way. My feeling is that it will
probably end up with hundreds of millions of climate-change related deaths and
a refugee problem of unprecedented proportions. Whether that is seen as
'catastrophe' or just an adustment of the life-balance on the planet is, I
suppose, a matter of opinion. I'll go with catastrophe. I can't be certain that
it'll happen but all the signs that I see seem to point in that direction.
Don't try to tell me in 30 years from now that I was wrong because I won't be
around to listen!

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
Twitter: @TideswellWeathr