Climate records tumble, leaving Earth in uncharted territory – scientists

Post by ant6n » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:13 AM UTC

numbers_guy wrote: post #96

ant6n wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany as one of the richest nations, and one of the largest cumulative polluters, should be a role model here. If everybody needs to do it, somebody needs to start.

The role model nonsense, I never got that. How is that supposed to do anything. As for the comparative wealth, I already earn 1/3 of what I would in the US, my home is smaller, I don't own a car and I have no A/C. And now I should also be taxed even more, while Americans who already pollute 10x as much keep doing as they please. Fuck that. That's fucking unfair and I am not willing to do that.

Post by the8472 » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:14 AM UTC

psychphysic wrote: post #75

defrost wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear why you would post that but it's certainly worth pointing out that climate change denialism has been funded since the mid 1970s and that the author of that opinion piece is Art Robinson, a recent Oregon State Senator and long time denier via his "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine". While it adds nothing to the history of actual earth based science it is certainly an insight into the history clim…

Thanks for posting the link so I could see the article. I did only skim it, and I'm surprised. I don't think it's an unreasonable criticism for 1997. But that's over a quarter of a century ago. He accepts CO2 is probably released by humans and apparently at a rate the sinks can't cope. He accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can lead to warming. But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming…

Post by uxcolumbo » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:17 AM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #89

uxcolumbo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This study[0] and several other studies by UN, Oxford Uni etc disagree with you. The single best thing an individual can do is immensely reduce or completely avoid meat and dairy. Imagine millions and millions of people doing this, behavioural change will trigger system’s change. It’s something we can do today, just need to decide whether having a burger is more important or not. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s…

Why stop at meat and dairy. Why not go all the way, select handful of optimal foods and only allow those to be sold or grown. Anyone doing anything else would heavily punished? After all, if we ban beef. We have accepted that taste has no meaning in life and we can just ban everything not mandatory like spices and herbs.

Post by someone321 » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:20 AM UTC

Post by myshpa » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 9:25 AM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #103

psychphysic wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for posting the link so I could see the article. I did only skim it, and I'm surprised. I don't think it's an unreasonable criticism for 1997. But that's over a quarter of a century ago. He accepts CO2 is probably released by humans and apparently at a rate the sinks can't cope. He accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can lead to warming. But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming…

> But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming was happening. Should we wait until predictions of bad outcomes become true and only then react? Has anyone tried adding a D part to the PI policy.