Essay by Eric Worrall
“… the social plausibility assessments show that global opportunities for climate action multiply, gain visibility, and materialize at least incrementally. …”
Densification of the global opportunity structure for climate action
A dense global opportunity structure that provides a variety of resources for climate action is a necessary condition to increase the momentum or change the direction of social drivers toward deep decarbonization. In the present Outlook, the social plausibility assessments show that global opportunities for climate action multiply, gain visibility, and materialize at least incrementally. In relation to the previous edition, we observe a quantitative increase of climate-related activities, such as more climate-related regulations, protests, net-zero pledges, and transnational initiatives within UN climate governance and beyond (Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4). However, these activities do not necessarily translate into a reduction of persistent ambition, implementation, and knowledge gaps. We ob- serve only limited evidence in terms of qualitative shifts in the global opportunity structure for climate action. These relate to incremental changes in soft and hard law or to voluntary and binding schemes of climate governance (Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.5). Negotiations at the COP26 in Glasgow, UK, have not managed to address implementation gaps and required steps to phase out fossil fuels. This is by and large also true for COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, which took place after our assessment of UN climate governance was finalized. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), transnational initiatives, fossil-fuel divestment, and corporate responses remain largely voluntary, despite the pressure from climate litigation and social movements to render these into legal provisions or policies (Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.6, and 6.1.7). In fact, the densification of the global opportunity structure in terms of quantitative increases still requires qualitative shifts in the resources for climate action, such as new forms of activism, new policy instruments, and hardening of soft law (Sections 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.1.5). The same is true of low-carbon consumption patterns (Section 6.1.8) and increased integration of diverse actors and ways of knowing into knowledge production, decision-making, and climate governance processes (Section 6.1.10). In this regard, Indigenous Peoples play a crucial role in bringing these issues to the fore along with climate protests and social movements and in helping preserve existing natural forests, which can make a greater contribution in terms of natural sinks toward carbon neutrality than affor- estation (Sections 6.1.4, 6.1.10, and 6.2.5).
Source: Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook
Your tax dollars at work. Perhaps Hamburg should test academic water supply quality. Or at the very least the scientists who wrote this impenetrable word thicket should have added “improve clarity of communication” to the list of vital preconditions for preserving their 1.5C global warming target.
Which one of you bastards ate my Thesaurus?
and thprinkled it with thethame theedth?
I’ve managed to find a translation for the first few lines:
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
I’ll see if I can get the rest by teatime.
Everyone knows that you must leverage your synergy!
This is supposed to be a family blog. Moderators?
moving forward
“A dense global opportunity structure that provides a variety of resources for climate action…”
You mean dense like a rock?
Hard as a rock?
Dumb as a rock?
Sinks like a rock?
There. That would do it.
My oldest granddaughter sometimes tries to use big words to sound impressive. She does this as an attempt to mask her insecurities and ignorance.
from the department of redundancy department
Did monkeys type this?
That’s artificial intelligence for you.
Translation:
We have no convincing evidence that might persuade people to take the course we insist upon, so it will be necessary to use brute force and other coercion to implement policy.
I don’t speak Climate Gobbledygook, so have no idea.
Thanks, Eric! This should be a wonderful thread, if I can just keep from blowing coffee out my nose!
It sounds like the CIA has restarted MK ULTRA! Hopefully, no elephants will be harmed this time, and they will not provide large amounts of LSD to career criminals trained as hypnotists!
Written by the same AI, as used for their climate models. They gave it a sample IPCC AR.
Writing to impress, rather than to express.
That reminds me of the moment in Asimov’s “Foundation” novel where Lord Dorwin of the Empire has just left Terminus, and the Encyclopediacists are all excited about the “guarantees” they’d just received from the Emperor via the Lord.
That is, until Salvor Hardin points out that he’d had everything the Lord had said during his visit recorded and analyzed, along with the “guarantees” on the treaty. Hardin reads to them the results of the analysis and then points out to them, “Lord Dorwin, gentlemen, in five days of discussion didn’t say one damned thing, and said it so you never noticed.”
I took a look at the paper. Some of the topics covered, in alphabetical order…
Climate justice, GHG emissions, GW psychology, IPCC RCP8.5, models, social justice.
The PDF is 234 pages.
– – – – – – – – –
Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook: The plausibility of a 1.5C limit to global warming – social drivers and physical processes
The purpose of this second Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook is to systematically analyze and assess the plausibility of certain well-defined climate futures based on present knowledge of social drivers and physical processes. In particular, we assess the plausibility of those climate futures that are envisioned by the 2015 Paris Agreement, namely holding global warming to well below 2°C and, if possible, to 1.5°C, relative to pre-industrial levels (UNFCCC 2015, Article 2 paragraph 1a). The world will have to reach a state of deep decarbonization by 2050 to be compliant with the 1.5°C goal. We therefore work with a climate future scenario that combines emissions and temperature goals.
https://www.fdr.uni-hamburg.de/record/11230#.Y9u3iC8RpX0
(PDF, 234 pages)
https://www.fdr.uni-hamburg.de/record/11230/files/cliccs-hamburg-climate-futures-outlook-2023.pdf?download=1
They can tell that to China, India and the rest of the developing world. Woke bullshit Leftist fantasies hold no water in the real world.
Did anyone check if ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors?
A dense global opportunity structure that provides a variety of resources for tire pump improvement is a necessary condition to increase the momentum or change the direction of social drivers toward deep pump development. In the present Outlook, the social plausibility assessments show that global opportunities for pump improvement action multiply, gain visibility, and materialize at least incrementally.
I could go on, but I think I understand what the good professor is saying.
you need to have a PHD to be that stupid …
Obviously the freebissholzer has been redisconnected from the bauerline chingo.
/sarc
“A dense global opportunity structure that provides a variety of resources for climate action is a necessary condition”
We need to bring back the Storm Troopers because the plebs are waking up.
Not sure what you are complaining about, Trudeau would look down on them for being so direct.
I suspect that the author is as cynical as me, except the author wants to get on the gravy train rather than fight it. He/she/it/that thing is just writing what the Fourth Riech wants to hear from Its minions.
“Densification” of this nonsense!
Haven’t they heard that it’s not a good idea to form a Black Hole on Earth?
Called a word salad.
A tell for cognitive dissonance: the writer is suspicious there is no calamity happening but is cognitively and socially and professionally wedded to an approaching End of Times.
A word salad dissolves the mental stress caused by the contradictions by using undefinable phrases linked together that have the vocal sensibility of Virtuous Effort and Understanding while avoiding clear thinking that, if employed, couldn’t justify his position.
In other words, they are nutty as fruitcakes.
The concluding sentence of the 233-page monstrosity contains this accurate (but predictable) insight:
“In light of these findings, we conclude that reaching worldwide deep decarbonization by 2050 is currently not plausible, given the observable trajectories of social drivers.”
In other words – “It’s not working, people aren’t buying it now that it’s starting to hurt!! Send more money so we can invent even more scary scenarios, and we need to turn up the volume control to 11”
Yes, NetZero is not plausible. For many reasons.
Now, if we can just get the Alarmists to give it up and accept their fate.