Changed Katharine Hayhoe quote attribuion
Wind turbines and "landscape-change denial" ought to be mentioned here
Another form of denial is when quasi-environmentalists pretend that giant industrial wind turbines A) aren't noisy and ruinous to scenery, B) aren't killing large numbers of birds and especially bats, C) have no intrinsic dependence on fossil fuels for their existence, and D) actually deliver their rated power output (when you see so many of them not spinning it's a clue; typical output is lucky to reach 40%).
Wind industry defenders use the tired canard that one must love coal or be a global warming denier if they hate to see vast stretches of scenery becoming industrial parks. This is what wind turbines are doing to the world's landscapes: http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+farm+mountains (not quaint, tiny machines with happy cows grazing underneath)
The wind industry is a major subsidy scheme, often hiring the same logging, trucking and rigging crews that would work on fracking sites. Business-as-usual gets mistaken for green progress out of naivety and desperation. Few people will admit that the scale of fossil fuels cannot simply be replaced, and we must downsize the economy to be sustainable.
- No. Stop spreading that shit blog around. See Talk:Anti-environmentalism. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sea Level Change
While the bulk of this article is well written, the section on sea level change contains several inaccurate and misleading pieces:
- "The most conservative prediction of sea level rise presently predicted is 9–88 cm (3.5–34.6 inches)"
I'm not sure where the 9-88 cm prediction comes from as it is unsourced. Regardless, in AR5 the IPCC estimated sea level rise in high emission scenarios to be 50-98cm by 2100. This is not a conservative estimate, it is a consensus estimate for the worst case scenario the IPCC considers (RCP8.5). A sourced estimate and removal of the word conservative is appropriate.
- "There is a possibility, however, that the whole Greenland ice sheet would melt leading to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft)"
No there is not. There are absolutely no peer reviewed papers suggesting such a thing is possible in the next 100 or even 200 years, and a quick bit of math reveals just how ridiculous this assertion is. Using facts reported by the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet) on the Greenland ice sheet we find the size of the sheet estimated at 2,850,000 km3 and the melt rate in 2007 estimated at 592 km3 per year. This means that at current melt rates the sheet would take more than 4814 years to melt completely. In my opinion, the original author of this assertion needs to refute the Wikipedia numbers with references to peer reviewed literature or this unattributed assertion needs to be removed.
- "There is even a possibility that the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt raising sea levels by a further six meters (20 feet)"
This is yet another unsourced assertion that either needs to be backed up by a reference to peer review literature or removed.
- "Although the rest of the Antarctic is considered to be stable, if the entire Antarctic were to melt, this would raise sea levels by 62 meters (203 feet)."
If "the rest of the Antarctic is considered to be stable", then why is resultant impact worth mentioning? It's a bit like saying "if all the people in Mexico illegally crossed into the US our healthcare and educational systems would collapse." While it is certainly true, the fact that nobody thinks it will happen means the sole purpose of the statement is to scare people. — Unsigned, by: Transcendence / talk / contribs
"Catastrophic" Climate Change
It should be noted somewhere that a new climate change risk classification was released in September 2017 from UC San Diego that added two classifications of climate change risk: Catastrophic and Existential. Link to Eurekalert publication: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/uoc--ncr091417.php This needs to be differentiated from the "CAGW" snarl word, since the word "Catastrophic" is clear in the risk classification. — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk
"Anyone who, even after the occurrence of extreme weather events that seem to intensify yearly ... is a lost cause. " Extreme weather events that SEEM to intesify yearly? Good job on the anecdotal proof. Rational. Very rational. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)