https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/23/we-dont-know-where-the-tipping-point-is-climate-expert-on-potential-collapse-of-atlantic-circulation
An interview by #JonathanWatts with #Rahmstorf on his assessment of the AMOC situation.
Nothing new if you follow Rahmstorf. But I'd like to point out this bit: " Some colleagues say we shouldn’t talk about extreme possibilities like an Amoc collapse because it sounds alarmist and might distract people from more certain impacts of global heating "
because it is reminiscent of the outrageous NYTimes event 4 weeks ago where David Wallace-Wells had Rahmstorf on stage with Michael Oppenheimer.
Oppenheimer is an anti-alarmist. And acc to his Wiki article, he shaped the US interface between politics and science since the acid rain issue. Interface = read "filter".
So he is a major reason why the US has not done anything in the past 30 years. And due to huge influence on multi-state bodies like OECD, G7, IMF, World Bank, Oppenheimer is also co-responsible for their failure.
On stage, Oppenheimer said exactly that which Rahmstorf alludes to in the Guardian interview: "Let's not talk about AMOC at all. No politician can hang his hat on those uncertainties. Let's focus adaptation instead!"
Oppenheimer was not corrected by Wallace-Wells. Typical NYTImes failure.
But what do you suggest to adapt to, Oppenheimer? A warming world, a super-heating world, or one with a collapsed AMOC?
And do politicians "hang their hat on" nuclear plants or bridges being built with a 50% risk of a major catastrophe?
Arrogant, smug Dunning-Kruger ass. <shudders>
I feel, the interview in the Guardian is a direct response to that event.
But it isn't really. The interview is part of the news cycle of the letter from 44 Scientists to the governments of the #ArcticCouncil .
I posted about the NYTimes event in the previous toots ⤴️
