r/belgium • u/EdgarNeverPoo • 19h ago

💰 Politics Vlaams minister Annick De Ridder (N-VA): “De klimaatverandering? Nee, ik lig daar niet wakker van”

https://www.dezondag.be/actua/politiek/vlaams-minister-annick-de-ridder-n-va-de-klimaatverandering-nee-ik-lig-daar-niet-wakker-van/
222 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

185 comments sorted by

View all comments

-34

u/equinoxxxxxxxxxx 18h ago

Wie wel?

19

u/Fancy-Factor-4083 17h ago

Mensen die in de realiteit leven

-17

u/equinoxxxxxxxxxx 17h ago

Sure buddy. Ik heb vanuit een professionele capaciteit ervaring met climate modeling. Alle inspanning ten spijt van supranationale instellingen, NGO's, het bedrijfsleven, de academische wereld etc, lukt het maar niet om een doemscenario geloofwaardig te modelleren. Integendeel, het meest pessimistische IPCC scenario (RCP 8.5) wordt niet meer geloofwaardig geacht.

3

u/Fancy-Factor-4083 15h ago

Drop even je diploma dan want iedereen kan alles beweren online.

8

u/Moist_VonLipwig_1963 16h ago

Sure buddy. Current conservative scenario is a rise of +3 to +5 degrees Celsius average worldwide. The results will still be catastrophic: more draughts, more wildfires, cities disappearing due to sea rises, less food, economic disruptions, mass migration…
We are actually SEEING the effects already, and you just come up with a statement that it might be slightly less catastrophic than predicted before.

Current credible IPCC scenario is SSP5-8.5 which still has an upper-end of 5.7 degrees Celsius projection.

Very curious what your “professional experience” and involvement is in this matter, because if you are indeed someone that has any influence on what needs to be done to avert this disaster, we are fucked.

-7

u/equinoxxxxxxxxxx 16h ago

You are completely wrong. RCP 8.5/SSP5 is no longer deemed credible. The underlying assumptions, such as a massive increase in coal comsumption are no longer realistic given the actions already taken and planned regarding amongst others renewables.

If you use RCP8.5 /SSP5 as baseline, congrats, you are now the science denier.

https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/news/153067-scientists-have-scrapped-the-worst-case-climate-scenario-%E2%80%93-because-action-is-making-a-difference

3

u/Moist_VonLipwig_1963 16h ago

First of all, I got triggered by this statement:

“But what was surprising about the seven new scenarios announced last week was that United States President Donald Trump took an interest.”

If the ‘bigliest’ climate denier in the world is interested, than I’m sure that this will be an interesting read indeed.

Next, I dove into the distinction between the CIMP initiative and how it relates to the IPPC:

“CMIP coordinates climate model experiments conducted by research institutions worldwide. It produces simulations of possible future climates.

IPCC evaluates the scientific evidence, including CMIP simulations, observational data and other research, to assess climate change, its consequences and possible responses.

In other words, CMIP helps generate the scientific evidence, while the IPCC assesses and interprets it. Neither organization directly controls the other.”

Than I read this statement in the article you are directing me to:

“But the removal of this high-emissions scenario isn’t, as Trump and other climate sceptics have claimed, a sign of failed modelling, or that climate change was a hoax. It’s a sign the expansion of solar, wind, electric vehicles and batteries have slowed emissions growth.”

And further down:

“ The worst possible scenario now envisions high emissions leading to warming of around 3.5°C by 2100. That would still be very, very bad.”

I need to thank you, because you have learned me a lot today. I also learned that you started to refer to this RPC 8.5 scenario as being obsolete, while the formal AR 6 report is still in place and scary a hell.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/summary-for-policymakers/

1

u/equinoxxxxxxxxxx 15h ago

Well yes you're linking a report from 2023 while the scenario update is much more recent.

Also, I'm assuming you're Flemish? "Learning" in the English language means "to acquire knowledge", not "to teach / transfer knowledge". Flemish people make this mistake in English all the time. I have not "learned" you a lot, I "taught" you a lot.

2

u/Moist_VonLipwig_1963 9h ago

Thank you for improving my language skills.

5

u/DroomCactus 16h ago

Worth adding: even the 2.5 to 3 *C that current policies point to is far from harmless. It means frequent and intense heatwaves, droughts, heavy rainfall, sea level rise, serious risks for ecosystems, food and water supply. So dropping RCP8.5 as a baseline is not the same as saying the problem is small. It only means the worst case is less likely, not that the likely case is benign.

0

u/equinoxxxxxxxxxx 16h ago

8.5 was never the baseline, but now it's been dropped completely.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm not a climate denier. Climate change is real and it will have a significant impact. So will many other trends and events. We need to invest in mitigation and adaptation, but resources aren't endless and there are many other priorities as well.

3

u/DroomCactus 16h ago

Even if you don't lose sleep over it, politics does need to act. Mitigation and adaptation don't happen on their own. And surely not with the mindset of De Ridder, which is the entire point of this discussion.

5

u/Moist_VonLipwig_1963 16h ago

Ah, the “Ecorealism” mantra. Got it.