[MarkPawelek (OP)]

BBC Twitter account says we have "12 years to save the planet from climate change? A growing number of scientists say we actually have just 18 months." https://twitter.com/BBC/status/1155795385354510337

From this BBC "fake news" story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Please name those scientists.

For example, does Hans Joachim Schellnhuber actually say anywhere "we've just 18 months to save the planet from climate change".  OK, maybe over a glass of wine in a bar; but surely not in any publication he wrote?

[alancalverd]

You can't save the planet from climate change, and no scientist worthy of the title would say you could. Climate change is inevitable and has been going on since the planet formed.

There is a limited time available to save humanity from some disastrous consequences of climate change, but there's no money or political kudos to be gained by doing so, so it won't happen. 

[abrooks051]

alancalverd:
Thank you for speaking the truth. I would be more worried about a large rock or snowball from space or the volcano under Yellowstone before worrying about 1/2 a degree of global warming in 2100.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

[mrsmith2211]

Things are changing, I would love to stop it, but we are at an impasse. I think we will survive, some areas better than others,

[Halc]

I would be more worried about a large rock or snowball from space or the volcano under Yellowstone before worrying about 1/2 a degree of global warming in 2100.

Yellowstone erupting or a big rock are far less likely in the next 200 years than the certainty of global warming (far far more than 0.5° by 2100).  On the other hand, you'll be dead by 2100, so what can you possibly care.

Alan did hit it on the nail when he said that no leaders stand to benefit from action to preserve the environment in a time frame outside of their term of service, so nothing will be done, and that is actually the correct solution to that particular problem.
Mother nature takes care of these problems quite well, and will dispose of this one effortlessly.  The planet does not need saving at all.

If you want to worry about something, why not the Ponzi scheme on which the world economy is based?  That will kill us even if global warming is the hoax that all the politicians paint it to be, and it probably will do so before the heat does.

[evan_au]

Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?

The more panicky statements tend to come from environmental groups, who see that numerous species will go extinct in the next 18 months (or even 12 months).

The relevant UN Committee put out a report a few months ago which said that:
- On current trends, we are almost certainly committed to exceed a 1.5C temperature rise (compared to before the industrial revolution). 1.5C was the aspirational goal defined by the Paris accord
- It will take immediate and vigorous action to limit it to just 2C. 2C was the agreed goal at the Paris accord.

Climate scientists say that the CO₂ that we emit now will have an average lifetime in the atmosphere of around a century. This means that actions now will not take full effect for another century - well after the term of current politicians.

Ironically, I think that Donald Trump is doing more than he expected for greenhouse emissions - by creating a trade war, and potentially tipping USA and China (and innocent bystanders) into a global recession, he could well reduce greenhouse emissions by a significant fraction over the next 5 years!

[alancalverd]

Global warming is not a hoax. It is far more dangerous than that.

Climate change is inevitable and cannot be controlled by human activity.  "Climate activism", whether practised by truant schoolkids or posturing politicians, is a hoax, like all religions.

The effects of climate change on an unsustainable population of any species is disastrous for that species. Civilisation is all about specialisation and integration (to the point that the life of a single astronaut depends on the precise and continuous cooperation of thousands of engineers, and the health of the population of London depends on a handful of chemists running the water supply) and the failure of a couple of critical harvests in China, repeated floods in Bangladesh or Louisiana, or even the gradual erosion of soil in overpopulated parts of Africa, will lead to revolution and migration rather than local famine because modern humans are mobile, well informed, and well armed with both guns and "rights".

Mother Nature does not grant you the right to life, only the ability to fight for it.  And we will. And as shown by every war and revolution  in the last 100 years, the damage done to the physical and political infrastructure on which we depend, goes far beyond the generation that caused it.

The only way to prevent a humanitarian disaster is to voluntarily reduce the population to a resilient level before we start slaughtering each other for food and water. How? By making fewer babies. No cost, massive benefits. But it requires a major rethink of economics and politics - two areas of endeavour where rational longterm thought and altruism are generally absent.

[abrooks051]

alancalverd:
I hear your argument and I agree to a point. Over population will be a problem but "governments" are the bigger problem. America presently grows enough food to feed the entire planet, IF all the governments would give the food to their people. There is an old adage, "Control the food and you control the people" and it plays out world-wide. Another is, Climate doesn't create famines, Governments do.

[Bored chemist]

Thank you for speaking the truth. I would be more worried about a large rock or snowball from space or the volcano under Yellowstone before worrying about 1/2 a degree of global warming in 2100.

Did you not recognise that global warming is in a different category to the other events?
We can do something about global warming.

I'm more likely to die from cancer than from a road accident.
But I still look both ways before I cross the road.

[Bored chemist]

Another is, Climate doesn't create famines, Governments do.

It's pretty clear that famines existed before governments.

[Petrochemicals]

Which scientists say we've just 18 months to "save planet from climate change"?

The more panicky statements tend to come from environmental groups, who see that numerous species will go extinct in the next 18 months (or even 12 months).

The relevant UN Committee put out a report a few months ago which said that:
- On current trends, we are almost certainly committed to exceed a 1.5C temperature rise (compared to before the industrial revolution). 1.5C was the aspirational goal defined by the Paris accord
- It will take immediate and vigorous action to limit it to just 2C. 2C was the agreed goal at the Paris accord.

Climate scientists say that the CO₂ that we emit now will have an average lifetime in the atmosphere of around a century. This means that actions now will not take full effect for another century - well after the term of current politicians.

Ironically, I think that Donald Trump is doing more than he expected for greenhouse emissions - by creating a trade war, and potentially tipping USA and China (and innocent bystanders) into a global recession, he could well reduce greenhouse emissions by a significant fraction over the next 5 years!

Unfortunatley energy consumption is going up at an extrodinary rate as places like africa asia become more consumer minded. The global crisis of 2008 took only a 10 percent bite from energy usage, if energy use goes up at a rate of 2 percent year on year in ten years it will increace 21 percent !

Esit

If we couple population incre ace ie 20 billion by 2100 and all of these using recources at the rate of the people of europe (which i concede has fallen, but is still significantly more than 75 percent of the worlds populus, Europe not the enegy use of the americans, lets not get silly) recource usage will increace by ten times !

[abrooks051]

 Bored chemist:
Starvation existed before Governments but many famines were directly caused by Governments.
https://www.reference.com/world-view/main-causes-famine-848746add260292
Also, regardless of how involved people get with "saving the Planet", it is more a tool of governmental control than a real attempt to prevent the inevitable.
BTW, stay safe and don't cross the road. :-)

Halc:
Re read the statement. I was not supporting increased population, I was stating that food shortages occur when governments withhold food from their people as a means of control.

[Bored chemist]

Starvation existed before Governments but many famines were directly caused by Governments.

How do you distinguish that from a "no true scotsman" fallacy?

[alancalverd]

Climate doesn't create famines, Governments do.

This has been the case in modern times thanks to Lysenko et al, but the absence of rain in Ethiopia or the Sahel cannot be blamed on politicians. Amartya Sen pointed out that there has never been a famine in a functioning democracy, but this may be a chicken and egg situation, and the American Dust Bowl would have been classed as a famine had the states and provinces been separate countries rather than part of a national federation.

However climate change and population growth are moving us towards more traditional famines caused by simple crop failure  or disease rather than governmental incompetence or Nazi occupation.

It is indeed true that you can grow enough food in North America to feed everyone on the planet, but does it really make sense to have billions of mouths on the other side of the world being fed entirely by a few million in the north west, so that they can live another day in poverty?

[Bored chemist]

does it really make sense to have billions of mouths on the other side of the world being fed entirely by a few million in the north west, so that they can live another day in poverty?

It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.

The US is the world's biggest food importer BTW.
It's also the largest exporter but in terms of dollars it's a net importer.

[pensador]

The planet doesnt need saving it will survive global warming, meteor impact and the yellow stone volcano blowing up. The issue is climate change which is happening and is going to accelerate.

Feeding the human population, and encouraging it to carry on breeding and making more mouths and more consumers, is the wrong way to go.

Controlling the number of humans by practising birth control in under resourced areas of the world, is obviously against human nature, even though it might be logical(the chinese did it). Maybe radiating the genitals would stop em breeding(the germans thought about it), did the swedes sterilize criminals and cripals.

A world war using nuclear bombs would put some ash/dust into the air and cause cooling via stopping the sunlight getting through and might radiate a few genitals in the process. Weapons companies could make a fortune and it would open up whole new markets for global development, politicians would be happy becuase there genitals would survive in nuclear shelters, and everyone would think the winners were great leaders and solved global warming, making loads of money in the meantime.

We have two model leaders in Trump and Coco the clown in 10 clowning street, could they start a global war and cure global warming.

Unrelated but ironic Trump is English slang to break wind and Johnson is a Penis in American slang.

[Bored chemist]

OK, maybe over a glass of wine in a bar;

in vino veritas

[alancalverd]

It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.

The sane alternative is not to make babies in a place where you can't feed them.

[pensador]

It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.

The sane alternative is not to make babies in a place where you can't feed them.

Are you are appealing to the higher intellect of people living in areas where to have lots of children ensures you are supported in old age, africa perhaps. It wont work, and in fact they are not contributing to global warming, so should not be the focus of attention.

in aqua sanitas

Global warming is caused by developed countries, and them as think they are educated, and wait for politicians to do something. Everyone can do a little,without selfishly motivated cretins politicians to lead them.

The sea temperatures are rising, its a bit late to stop global climate change, its happening!. Weather systems are changing/moving, some countries will be worse off, poorer nations who did not contribute to global climate change are the ones who will most likely be worst affected.

Is starvation an effective method of birth control that might work better than condoms and education? Dont answer that!

[jeffreyH]

I worked for 10 years, about 10 years ago, in the environment sector. With scientists. They were very worried then. How do you think they feel now? All types of species, insect, mammal and reptile, are in severe decline. I really don't think people want to accept how screwed we are. Not even the scientists performing the studies!

We like to think we can solve things. Well we are wrong. Am I just a doom monger? Give it a few more years.