15 thoughts on “Michael Mann on the 1.5 Degree Threshold”
At Paris 2015, world governments signed up to keep temperature <2degC. Now Michael Mann says "every little bit helps" and no mention that we must definitely keep to the <2degC target and ideally <1.5degC. Under what authority does he not mention (at best) and (at worst) change the democratically created mandate? Is that a scientific choice or a political one? The current relationship between many "high ranking" climate scientists who sit on government advisory committees, are heads of organisations and research institutions and the politicians they "advise" needs to change. The dissonance between the messaging from the people mentioned above and what many other climate scientists are saying is stark. (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofwmru1hcYQ ) "Get off burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can" – has no meaning. Everybody will have a different view as to what future that looks like.
“Get off burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can” is the one sentence in the English language with the most meaning. People may have different desires & opinions but the facts are the facts. Ecological reality trumps political reality every time, forever.
The mandate for a head fake toward 1.5 with a 2nd head fake toward 2, combined with policies & voluntary requirements (IOW no requirements at all) that made anything remotely close to 2 impossible right from the start, & a follow-up system that just reinforced that…wasn’t democratic at all. It was racially & genderly-determined pseudo-nationalist oligopoly. It was decided by nihilistic narcissistic psychotic psychopaths with attachment, addiction, trauma, neglect, fear, rage, hatred & other issues, who disregard the knowledge of the knowledgeable, the desires of the vast empathetic majority, & are concerned only with avoiding their own bad feelings.
The Kevin Anderson video that →TFU← linked to addresses the disparity between the physical reality and the soft-pedaled way that politicians and climate scientists present it to the public. Scientists/academics should point out the harsh reality that the IPCC and COP negotiations when they come up with pretend solutions like Net Zero or Carbon Capture and Storage.
Dr Mann is the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at Pennsylvania University, who has contributed a lot of works in the field of climate science, and he is speaking as a scientist (not a politician). He does not need to go into the specifics of the legally binding international treaty on climate change as adopted by 196 Parties at Paris in 2015. He does say the current U.S political action sends a signal to the rest of the world, which indeed it does, but avoids politics pretty much. “Get off burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can” is not a bad summary to introduce in a interview of less than 6 minutes, and it should be pretty straightforward to understand by the majority of viewers of the PBS News segment.
Eh, maybe. It’s virtually useless to say we need to get off fossil fuels without saying HOW.
It’s quite obvious that all non-radical methods have failed.
Decades after we absolutely needed to stop to have even a 50/50 chance of preventing the end of civilization & the extinction of millions of species, fossil fuel use is still increasing. The far right has made it utterly clear they won’t allow effective solutions as long as they have power, & they’ll never give up power, to which they’re addicted.
Voting being ineffective now, they’ll have to be removed from power by whatever peaceful means are necessary.
“It’s virtually useless to say we need to get off fossil fuels without saying HOW. ”
I agree entirely some general guidelines to the PBS viewers on HOW they can help in getting off fossil fuels would do some good and be helpful, but this would be the responsibility of the PBS interviewer to ask the question and invite some suggestions, not the co-author of the original hockey stick study.
J4Z: “It’s virtually useless to say we need to get off fossil fuels without saying HOW.”
RSL: “[T]his would be the responsibility of the PBS interviewer to ask the question…”
You yourself pointed out that “Dr Mann is the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at Pennsylvania University.” If he’s going to wear that big hat, he should have a checklist of more explicit suggestions at hand.
Loading...
Some general guidelines:
1. Peacefully but without relenting remove the lunatic right wing from power.
2. In our society, power & wealth are interchangeable commodities.
3. “Lunatic” here is not a qualifier or limiting definer; it’s an entirely redundant explainer.
Loading...
Watched that Kevin Anderson video, and—sadly—he seems to have captured the problem of hand-waving and soft-pedaling in a way that ignores the basic physics we’re facing.
For years now, I’ve had the impression that Mann chose deliberately to understate both the scope and the urgency of the climate problem, and the language he uses here confirms that: the trend line will probably go through 1.5°C “in little more than a decade”. Aw c’mon, Mike! Get real! All the latest research suggests that we’ll be through 1.5° and heading for 2° in five years or six years.
Some 12 years ago, Mann said that Hansen had gone out on a limb in 1981 but also “You take Jim Hansen lightly at your peril.” I suppose he went out on a limb again in 1988 with his watershed testimony to a Senate committee. And again in 2014 when he published “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms” before peer review. And in February this year with “Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’”.
The time has gone when we could afford to avoid alarming people for fear of being dismissed as “alarmist”.
At Paris 2015, world governments signed up to keep temperature <2degC. Now Michael Mann says "every little bit helps" and no mention that we must definitely keep to the <2degC target and ideally <1.5degC. Under what authority does he not mention (at best) and (at worst) change the democratically created mandate? Is that a scientific choice or a political one? The current relationship between many "high ranking" climate scientists who sit on government advisory committees, are heads of organisations and research institutions and the politicians they "advise" needs to change. The dissonance between the messaging from the people mentioned above and what many other climate scientists are saying is stark. (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofwmru1hcYQ ) "Get off burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can" – has no meaning. Everybody will have a different view as to what future that looks like.
“Get off burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can” is the one sentence in the English language with the most meaning. People may have different desires & opinions but the facts are the facts. Ecological reality trumps political reality every time, forever.
The mandate for a head fake toward 1.5 with a 2nd head fake toward 2, combined with policies & voluntary requirements (IOW no requirements at all) that made anything remotely close to 2 impossible right from the start, & a follow-up system that just reinforced that…wasn’t democratic at all. It was racially & genderly-determined pseudo-nationalist oligopoly. It was decided by nihilistic narcissistic psychotic psychopaths with attachment, addiction, trauma, neglect, fear, rage, hatred & other issues, who disregard the knowledge of the knowledgeable, the desires of the vast empathetic majority, & are concerned only with avoiding their own bad feelings.
TFS, wtf are you on about??
“TFS, wtf are you on about??”
The Kevin Anderson video that →TFU← linked to addresses the disparity between the physical reality and the soft-pedaled way that politicians and climate scientists present it to the public. Scientists/academics should point out the harsh reality that the IPCC and COP negotiations when they come up with pretend solutions like Net Zero or Carbon Capture and Storage.
Take thy word for it and agree.
Dr Mann is the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at Pennsylvania University, who has contributed a lot of works in the field of climate science, and he is speaking as a scientist (not a politician). He does not need to go into the specifics of the legally binding international treaty on climate change as adopted by 196 Parties at Paris in 2015. He does say the current U.S political action sends a signal to the rest of the world, which indeed it does, but avoids politics pretty much. “Get off burning fossil fuels as quickly as we can” is not a bad summary to introduce in a interview of less than 6 minutes, and it should be pretty straightforward to understand by the majority of viewers of the PBS News segment.
Eh, maybe. It’s virtually useless to say we need to get off fossil fuels without saying HOW.
It’s quite obvious that all non-radical methods have failed.
Decades after we absolutely needed to stop to have even a 50/50 chance of preventing the end of civilization & the extinction of millions of species, fossil fuel use is still increasing. The far right has made it utterly clear they won’t allow effective solutions as long as they have power, & they’ll never give up power, to which they’re addicted.
Voting being ineffective now, they’ll have to be removed from power by whatever peaceful means are necessary.
“It’s virtually useless to say we need to get off fossil fuels without saying HOW. ”
I agree entirely some general guidelines to the PBS viewers on HOW they can help in getting off fossil fuels would do some good and be helpful, but this would be the responsibility of the PBS interviewer to ask the question and invite some suggestions, not the co-author of the original hockey stick study.
J4Z: “It’s virtually useless to say we need to get off fossil fuels without saying HOW.”
RSL: “[T]his would be the responsibility of the PBS interviewer to ask the question…”
You yourself pointed out that “Dr Mann is the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at Pennsylvania University.” If he’s going to wear that big hat, he should have a checklist of more explicit suggestions at hand.
Some general guidelines:
1. Peacefully but without relenting remove the lunatic right wing from power.
2. In our society, power & wealth are interchangeable commodities.
3. “Lunatic” here is not a qualifier or limiting definer; it’s an entirely redundant explainer.
Watched that Kevin Anderson video, and—sadly—he seems to have captured the problem of hand-waving and soft-pedaling in a way that ignores the basic physics we’re facing.
For years now, I’ve had the impression that Mann chose deliberately to understate both the scope and the urgency of the climate problem, and the language he uses here confirms that: the trend line will probably go through 1.5°C “in little more than a decade”. Aw c’mon, Mike! Get real! All the latest research suggests that we’ll be through 1.5° and heading for 2° in five years or six years.
Some 12 years ago, Mann said that Hansen had gone out on a limb in 1981 but also “You take Jim Hansen lightly at your peril.” I suppose he went out on a limb again in 1988 with his watershed testimony to a Senate committee. And again in 2014 when he published “Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms” before peer review. And in February this year with “Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’”.
The time has gone when we could afford to avoid alarming people for fear of being dismissed as “alarmist”.
Agree he could convey the need for urgency more strongly, but at least he hasn’t gone full Judith Curry.
As baselines go, that one’s pretty low. I would argue that Mann’s interventions have become counterproductive.
Hopefully someone at Penn will read these comments and seriously take the thoughts in consideration.