81–90 of 205 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Save the planet? The planet's fine - it's us that are fucked." -- George Carlin
Yes, I always found environmental protection kind of funny, nature does not need protection, it will survive until Earth becomes finally uninhabitable [0], it's us that might not make it that long if we don't take enough care. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future
[flagged]
Should the data not also reflect that there are more urban areas ? I mean, if you raze the Amazon rainforest the honest thing is not to move the weather stations to the remaining bits that still self-regulate temperature.
If you wish to show that baseline temperature increases, you let more measuring stations in urban areas. If you intend to compare apples with apples, you must consider the kind of location where your measuring station is.
It's like bringing more and more Hobbits to Gondor, and then complaining that an average height of the Gondorian citizens decreased over time. But did the height of an ethnic Gondorian really decrease?
Does anybody know where I can find a copy of the new report? I'd be interested to read what arguments they came up with.
I think this is the one https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Criti... It is really just a collection of 'skeptic' arguments form the last 20 years or so. Science magazie had an article about it https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-a...
“U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s not get carried away with hubris. Nature wrote our genes. Nature made us the way we are. All this nonsense you see going on is ultimately a result of cognitive biased thinking, especially confirmation bias. The fact that we differ so deeply from these biases was not our decision, it was thrust upon us by nature and it helped us survive in an environment very different from the one we found ourselves in now.
No, most people believe in climate change. In a fundamentally anti-human move, oligarchs have put a climate denier in office so he would push against doing anything about it, as it goes against their short-term interests.
I mean, Trump is so blatantly destroying american influence that it would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. When you think about the alternative, that is, a "regular" american elite saying that climate action is important with their regular hypocrisy, pretending to be doing anything at all, but in fact going the other way, then things don't look so bad in the medium term. Sure, a bit of short term pain, but otherwise, might end up being better off.
I mean, try to put yourself in the shoes of one of those oligarchs a few years ago and ask yourself how you'd actually solve the climate problem, given current cultures around the world. Maybe you'd come up with the "let's prop up Trump".
That being said, it's just a pet theory. I actually have doubts that such smart oligarchs exist.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman -- In this case, nature will not just not be fooled, it will extract retribution, unfortunately also on those that weren't fooled in the first place.
The old reports were somehow protecting us? Carbon emissions can only be reduced by engineering and manufacturing advances
Carbon emissions can first and foremost be reduced by reducing the combustion of fossil fuels.
Everything else is just bookkeeping and icing on the cake.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman -- In this case, nature will not just not be fooled, it will extract retribution, unfortunately also on those that weren't fooled in the first place.
Nature has no feelings, there will be no retribution, things will work out just fine, it will just be tough for us, maybe even wiped out, but nature will prevail. life will find a way, look at places where humans get excluded, everything regenerates. It is not a crises of nature, it is a crises of habitat for us as species, and a bunch of other like us.
From another angle, it's taken a really long time for evolution to get to this point, what can be experienced from the myriad life forms is quite wide and widening, it would be a shame to return to only the level of a microbe.
Must we take everything else down with us?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman -- In this case, nature will not just not be fooled, it will extract retribution, unfortunately also on those that weren't fooled in the first place.
Let’s not get carried away with hubris. Nature wrote our genes. Nature made us the way we are. All this nonsense you see going on is ultimately a result of cognitive biased thinking, especially confirmation bias. The fact that we differ so deeply from these biases was not our decision, it was thrust upon us by nature and it helped us survive in an environment very different from the one we found ourselves in now.
It says something when we act against that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should the data not also reflect that there are more urban areas ? I mean, if you raze the Amazon rainforest the honest thing is not to move the weather stations to the remaining bits that still self-regulate temperature.
It depends on what you want to measure. Big cities are hotter than small are hotter than villages are hotter than forests. If you wish to show that baseline temperature increases, you let more measuring stations in urban areas. If you intend to compare apples with apples, you must consider the kind of location where your measuring station is. It's like bringing more and more Hobbits to Gondor, and then complaining th…