401–410 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps those drifting into panic and depression are doing so because we are now clearly seeing undeniable effects and yet denial persists while CO2 emissions creep up seemingly inexorably?
Drifting into panic and depression...or not...is just signalling Very concerned people who do not take action are equally to blame as those who don't care
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And it would not change anything at planet scale, because on the other side of the world China is going to "pick up any slack" of CO2 generation we may not do. We're still far better off decarbonising because (rest of the world CO2 + China CO2) > China CO2.
China's per capita carbon emissions are half those of the US (8 metric tons vs 16 metric tons, 2018 figures). Mote, beam, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the "basic changes" are more extreme than the COVID lockdowns, which made the entire world miserable, brought unprecedented economic destruction we'll be dealing with forever, and which also didn't cool the planet at all despite massive decreases in CO2 emissions... no thanks. I'll keep voting against anything that makes me poorer and more miserable.
I sincerely hope that we aren't at a point where most people's guiding principles are minimizing their own poorness or misery. Those should be a given and self interest is backed into us, but we're in for a world of hurt if those are the only deciding factors take into account. Some things are in fact worth dying for.
This isn't to say that measures to reduce carbon emissions can't or shouldn't be taken, they can and they should, but with a mind towards exactly what you deride, preventing as many people as possible from falling into draconian economic and social misery. That at least is something we concretely know to be possible if governments adopt the wrong control measures in a heavy handed way. The pandemic showed it clearly and concretely in many forms.
We're not talking here about the impending, concrete impact of a large asteroid, or a super volcano eruption that's definitely imminent, where mass economic sacrifice for the sake of saving humanity would be understandable. Climate change is, despite all the political fanfare, something that has too many variables to clearly define as a cataclysm.
Given that, there is nothing selfish about wanting to avoid misery and "dying" for yourself and your children in the face of ambiguous predictions about future events. If you're so convinced that "some things are worth dying for", what stops you from applying your own advice instead of preaching sanctimoniously to others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Prove that the earth has never warmed faster than it has in the last 100 years. Obviously, you cannot, the data lacks that sort of granularity. This is silly. We know the precise chemical makeup of earth's atmosphere, and by extension its' climate, going back hundreds of thousands of years through antarctic ice core samples, which can be dated to a resolution of less than a hundred years. We are in an absolutely unp…
Thanks for linking that. It entirely disproves the 'unprecedented' warming narrative. Figure 5 indicates there's a 10-15 degree rise in temperature in around 200 years 45k years ago. In any case, the data is not granular enough, nor are the enough samples to make any kind of determination on a global scale.
> During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within a few decades. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean.
So what you're seeing is not a 10-15 degree rise in global temperature, but an oversized effect on Greenland in one direction (while other parts of the world were experiencing different effects in different directions).a
For example, nuclear power plants generally take a lot of resources and time to build. Is there enough money in the world to throw at the problem to build 1,000 nuclear power plants in the next 5 years? Or what if solar panels and household batteries became free to everyone on the planet? Would that solve the problem?
I know that changing people's minds and changing laws are hard to do, but is there enough money in the world to make it happen? Money makes laws all the time and giving people free stuff generally makes them compliant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a. X claims he didn't have enough money to live well . and b. The only way for X to reach his workplace is to consume a more and more expensive resource. "Change job", " work more", "live somewhere else" are not good advices because X is often unqualified, works already a lot and cannot afford a place inside the town where he works. What should X do ? The necessity of consumption is a bigger problem than "we consume…
X could first of all stop voting for people who scream "This isn't real" and start voting for people who say "We can do something about this" But they won't do that, because X doesn't think the climate is actually changing from human actions because they have picked one of the several half-assed narratives that claim to "prove" it.
That's wrong to imply that X voted for that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The entire biosphere (forests, forest-dwelling animals, ocean life, the crops > we grow, us) as well as most human infrastructure rests on an equilibrium so > precarious that a couple degrees in mean temperature change is going to have > first, second and third order effects we can barely predict. No one and nowhere > will be “sheltered” in any broad sense. This is complete speculation. And the annual variation in…
> And the annual variation in temperature of ~50 degrees C many places on earth does not really support it. Ummm, hello? so "most anomalously hot month ever" does not suggest a change in the underlying system?? Would you predict that handrails in Arizona now can give 3rd degree burns? https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/health/arizona-heat-burns-er/... Because I remember conversations like this when I was growing up: "Mom…
"equilibrium so precarious that a couple degrees in mean temperature change" does not really mesh very well with having annual (and even daily) variation much larger.
If you never experienced a hot slide as a kid, maybe you were just coddled? Lots of the modern so-called environmentalism is driven by people having ridiculously little first hand experience with nature or even being outdoors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because communist countries don’t pollute?
If someone says "end of capitalism" and this is assumed to be "about communist countries", because it's binary, what else is there? Then this is precisely the dangerous failure of imagination being pointed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone says "end of capitalism" and this is assumed to be "about communist countries", because it's binary, what else is there? Then this is precisely the dangerous failure of imagination being pointed to.
I’m quite stunned by the virulence of the responses and how strong the (false) dichotomy between ‘communism’ and ‘capitalism’ is.