81–90 of 198 posts
I think we should talk about: - How to be decent human beings to each other, and especially how to not kill each other - The media has too much power - Government over-reach Probably other things, but I don't know, these seem like way better hot-button issues.
Social unrest is being driven by climate issues, which makes these things largely secondary to it.
The climate of the earth has changed for millions of years w/o humans, and while certainly greenhouse gases impact the current trends, they aren't cause for apocalyptic concern.
I realize many people will probably vote this into oblivion, but I do not think there is a climate crisis at all.
Like how Race is involved with climate change: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-18/race-enviro...
Also how climate change is itself racist: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-13/climate-...
Then also covering anti-climate change politician as black face of white supremacy? You'll have to read the article to understand how a black dude is a white supremacist. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-c...
Dont worry about the title; the article definitely brings up race: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-22/what-has...
Not sure why they are so focused on race. Race doesn't really have anything to do with climate change in the rest of the world. Perhaps that's what we are doing wrong?
I’m a full on believer. I even own an EV but I think this alarmism is just making people numb. I think there’s a whole generation out there that never read “the boy who cried wolf”.
They read it, or had it read to them - but they learned the wrong lesson.
I’m a full on believer. I even own an EV but I think this alarmism is just making people numb. I think there’s a whole generation out there that never read “the boy who cried wolf”.
Do something that costs you, and you have better credibility. Here's my litmus test: commit to never flying anywhere ever again.
BTW, latimes will be closed in China's solution.
The whole premise of this opinion piece is to be a "what-about"ism.
I was going to do a point-by-point response, but I can't bring myself to it. This is more of "just trust The Science TM", when the ScienceTM is heavily flawed, the models ever changing, the proportion of disaster predicted ebbs and flows with the seasons, and government funding is the only thing that continues to fuel positive results. Not to mention lack of transparency into the models which makes replication impossible.
The politicians use the fear generated to win elections and erode freedoms and levy more taxes that are uselessly added to the slush-funds of state and federal government.
The solutions offered ("adopt clean energy") are tone deaf -- even elitist -- and if adopted, will kill vulnerable populations all over the world.
I hate fear mongering. Fear is a powerful tool for control and will be exploited by every single sociopath that takes office, whether they intend to or not.
[edit]Removing irrelevant claims.[/edit]
Here are some of the many of Los Angeles Times’ newspaper headlines that they used to help with their circulations: 1966 - Oil gone in 10 years 1968 - Overpopulation will spread worldwide 1969 - Everyone will disappear in a Cloud of Blue Steam in 1989 1970 - World will use up its natural resources by 2000 1970 - Urban citizens will require gas mask by 1985 1970 - Nitrogen buildup will make all lands unusable 1970 - D…
Ignoring the fact that cherry picking the worst headlines says little about the average quality of journalism, I started looking into these claimed headlines and found that many were not in the LA Times, some were not headlines (they seem to be from the article text), and some don't seem to exist as described (like "5G cellular towers causes cancers" and "Volcano caldera ready to wipe out civilization"). I'm not a fa…
I said …”some” …
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are nowhere near exaggerating it. We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio. But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.
>> We are nowhere near exaggerating it. If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to water vapor and air travel (which has a specific phase relationship with sunshine that must be taken into account). I'll also try to dig up that graph correlating the rise in air travel with temperatures. I'll insist that even if I accept human cause of these cha…