I promised it, and I do. I mentioned some time ago that I would write about the green bigotry that is emerging, or about the new ecological populism, and I intend to do it. I know very well that I'm going to piss a lot of people, but in the end, I don't care less than zero.
First things first: when we say that behind the finding of global warming there is science, we mean a mountain of publications about it, which all point (approximately) to the same conclusions, (let's say that according to the models there is a spectrum of conclusions, all agree unless you make different predictions of the future), but what you need to remember is that in the models of evolution of the climate there is a gigantic interdisciplinarity.
It means that "global warming science" contains geophysics papers, upper atmosphere physics, solar proxy physics, geophysics and volcanology, biology, ecology, marine geology, ocean chemistry, ocean biology, botany, etc., etc., etc.
This means two things: there is NO ONE scientist who knows this science. Everyone will know a fraction of it, but entire teams of scientists are needed to answer each criticism adequately. Let's say that if you really want to have an institution in the room that truly understands global warming, you need sixty specialists, by eye and cross.
On the contrary, this also applies to the refutation: A scholar is not enough to challenge the science of global warming. First of all, because it cannot be competent in the whole spectrum, and secondly because, given the amount of papers about it, in one life, it CANNOT HAVE READ ALL OF THEM. So if you send me a link with "the famous scientist X says that", I will laugh in your face. Even if he was right, he would have refuted yes and no for ten thousand of the scientific tests brought, which means that he would have proven nothing at all.
Having said that the second question is: at this point what can I understand? The sincere answer is that I understood some papers (few), I understood about the conclusions of other papers, I understood the topic of others, but the vast majority is not in any field that I know and moreover I would not have the time to read everything.
We say that "of this science I read something, very little".
Now let's go to green bigotry. Despite having (like everyone else) understood only a small part of this science, when I listen to one of these greens that speak I am sure of one thing: they have NEVER read even a page.
Ask one of these fools what would happen if tomorrow morning, say at 10:35, humanity achieved all the objectives of the Paris agreement. They would tell you that we would "stop the catastrophe", and some of them think that if we did, the situation would slowly begin to improve until it returned to normal. And even the most pessimistic will say that the situation would not have resolved, but at least stabilized.
This is not the case. According to the science behind global warming, even if we achieved the goals of PArigi we would have contained the increase in temperature around 1.5 degrees on average by the second half of the century.
This means that the situation will continue to deteriorate year by year. It means that they will burn even more forests in California, Australia, Brazil, in proportion to how much global warming contributes to the events. It means that the glaciers will continue to melt, and that they will melt more and more. So let's write this concept big.
The Paris agreements do not result in stopping global warming. The result of such agreements, if applied, would be a slow deterioration of conditions for at least a century. Neither a stability, nor a return to the previous situation, nor an improvement. They would only slow down the deterioration.
Now let's go to utopia. Starting tomorrow morning, say at 11:00, mankind no longer emits CO2. Puf, out of the blue. What happens? Well, nothing. The current CO2 is in the atmosphere and remains there. So the situation remains as it is today. How long does it take for "nature" to absorb all this CO2? From what I have read (and understood) there are different models, ranging from 80 to 1200 years, depending on the weight they attribute to some absorption phenomena, from tectonic plates to the acidification of the oceans.
In short, even if we zeroed the emissions tomorrow we would not get any visible improvement before Greta Thunberg is about 96 years old, IF IT IS OK. To return to the pre-industrial situation we speak in times ranging from 200 to 400 years after the atmosphere has been freed from CO2. It takes time to lose the heat accumulated around oceans, soil, etc.
Better to write it big:
If we even reset CO2 emissions tomorrow, we would see the first improvement, if all goes well, in about 80 years. And we would go back to the pre-industrial climatic situation, if all goes well, in ~ 300 years. In the worst simulations, they are 1200 and 1700 years old.
Now, we are saying a clear thing. That all the years that follow will be "the hottest ever". We are saying that from now on the forests in California will burn EVERY YEAR, that in Australia temperatures will increase again, that storms and violent climatic events will become more and more frequent.
Why don't I see contingency plans?
I mean, if you are the Australian government and you KNOW that even in the most utopian case your country's soil is going to become a barbecue grill, you should start making plans. How to save agriculture. How to save the farm. How to save the ecosystem from becoming a desert. How to save people from the lack of water that is about to arrive.
Instead, the answer of the bigoted green is: "we need to pollute less".
Sure. I agree 100%. But polluting less does not change the fact that the planet will continue to heat up for the next 80 years (at a minimum) if we achieve the objectives of the Paris agreements. Little, but it will still warm up.
And that for the next 80 at least we will have to deal with fires, human migrations, desertification, hurricanes, floods, melting glaciers, etc.
And nobody has a plan about it. Nobody has it because all "green" politicians continue to mention the science behind climate change, but they haven't even read a page.
And if you dare to enter the debate with the greens saying "hey, but we must also think about saving the existing, because even if we reached zero emissions, the situation would only improve in 80 years ", the green bigot stands out.
The green bigot is exactly like the Catholic bigot. It is raining? let's pray. It's sunny? Let's pray. Do you have measles? Let's pray. Does your house collapse? Let's pray. Do you get the building on fire? Let's pray. Does the planet heat up? Let's pray. Are there storms? Let's pray.
Replace "pray" with "stop emissions", or "block SUVs", and you have the portrait of the green bigot.
The bigot always has only ONE answer. The bigot always has only ONE recipe. The bigot always has ONLY one problem.
And especially, the bigot has NEVER read A SINGLE page of the "holy book" which he quotes continuously, be it the Bible, the Koran or "the science behind global warming".
This is the point. There is a green bigotry, which is blinding governments.
The point is that if we dedicate ten euros to stop CO2, we must also invest TWENTY to stop the damage done by the existing CO2. The point is that the governor of California has to stop very high emission cars, but he must also have a plan that explains to citizens how not to burn alive in the next 80 years, given that the forests will burn each year.
The American government, even if it were different, should not only stop CO2 emissions, it must also have a contingency plan for catastrophic hurricanes that will arrive EVERY YEAR for at least another 80 years, for polar frosts that will arrive EVERY YEAR, and for all related damages.
The same goes for European countries. Merkel has just presented the plan to anticipate the shutdown of coal plants by 3 years. Considering the fact that the related companies were all at a loss because coal costs too much, he should have asked for money instead of giving it, but this is an economic detail. It does not affect the chemistry of the atmosphere.
But the problem is that Germany will have, and for another century, the climate problems it is already having. Its agriculture will have to change. I mean, this year my olive tree has borne fruit for the first time. I literally live in the valley alongside Neandertal. Olives. A. Neandertal . No kidding. Planted on the ground.
But when you talk to the Greens you find that for them the problem is to go around in a scooter, stop emissions, ban SUVs, turn off bad plants with ugly ugly fireplaces and just bad ugly smoke, and poof! SUN THAT RIDEEEEEE !!!. Berghe 'the dam Gredaaaaa !!!!
The bigotry of the greens is a kind of religion that proposes the blocking of CO2 emissions as the ONLY miraculous solution. Simplistic like all religions, it has only one enemy at a time, personified (industry) and offers equally simplistic solutions: eat all vegan. Sure. your avocado takes about 3000Km to get to Berlin, but do you want to fart a cow?
The blockade of emissions will avoid a catastrophe between now and the end of the century. (Which means that Greta can also go back to school: there will be no "human extinction" throughout her life !!).
But as I said, the "science of climate change" has NEVER said, even in the most optimistic models, that if we went to zero emissions tomorrow we would see climatic conditions improve. According to some models, the CO2 already present in the atmosphere is sufficient to raise the average temperatures by another degree: simply the planet warms up slowly so it takes time. Like when you put the pot on the fire: even if the fire is high, it takes time.
But Greta's Witnesses will never let you say such a thing. Although it is "what the science behind global warming" says, they speak as if they knew it better than anyone else (apparently, without ever having read a page), they are the priests and aim to be its church. How dare you contradict the church of Greta?
And so, you find yourself seeing hipsters convinced to save the planet if they go to work with an electric scooter instead of using the tram (just as electric, but OBVIOUSLY more efficient (1)) that they used before.
But none of them asking for a contingency plan to compensate for the problems already in place. Which is precisely the problem, or the effects of the problem.
And if you try to explain to them that old cars pollute much more than SUVs, that trucks pollute much more than SUVs, and that if cities were less extensive and more vertical, urban transport would pollute much less, for obvious reasons geometric, you will discover that their divinity (which makes them the priests of a science they have never tried to read) has decided that you are heretics. Nothing can geometry against the superior divine vision.
And so we are going to limit Co2 emissions (well, very well) without having a shred of contingency plan on how to manage the effects of a phenomenon that will stop worsening, if all goes well, in 80 years.
Forests will burn every year, deserts will advance every year, disasters will happen every year, but the church of the Witnesses of Greta has only ONE solution, and will not allow you to think about anything else.
(1) If you cannot understand why an electric rail vehicle such as a tram is, for obvious reasons, more efficient than an electric scooter on rubber, you are already altar boys from the Church of Greta Thunberg.