Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
What do we know about climate change and is it anthropogenic or not?
They were literally penned by scientists employed by ExxonMobil. If it were all a hoax perpetrated by outside parties why the hell would they would they sit on it for forty years?
Doesn't matter who wrote them; they were an assessment of the public information available at the time. They "sat on them" because they didn't consider it important to their business operations. They didn't hide them, because they contained nothing that wasn't already widely available.
Is climate change real: Yes
Is it affected by human activities: Probably
Will it be anywhere near as apocalyptic as the impression the media gives?: Probably not
Does the climate change lobby give a shit about climate change beyond what power they can get out of it?: No
There's a lot of evidence both ways. I don't really trust climate researchers personally. Any relatively new field fill of activists isn't going to be very honest. You see this with psychology and sociology a lot, where most of the claims coming from this field can't be replicated and simply don't have much proof. Climate field appears to be the same. These fields attract people that aren't smart or disciplined enough for harder science, and they tend to have personal pet issues they want to prove so they're simply not objective.
Specific carbon caused climate change (formerly global warming) is something ive had doubts about for a while, so much of the information has been contaminated by political influence and junk science on all sides. Using it as an excuse to extract more tax revenue or remove cars from people. However I will not doubt or deny for a second the extreme damage humanity has caused to the global environment thus far. Deforestation, heavy metal run off, destruction of habitat & subsequent species extinction, plastic pollution, oil spills, the list goes on and on. These are clear threats that must be acknowledged and regulation enacted to solve. However because the third world exists and is allowed to industrialize they will continue to pollute the earth. This also includes unrestricted free trade which serves to sidestep the environmental laws in the western world, further compounding the third world menace.
I do not blame rightists who distrust environmental laws and sees them as either a cudgel to beat them down with or a one way tool to aid the third world sweat shops. This is a situation that may not be solvable without the miracle of the third world shitholers actually bringing their pollution under control or an impossible forced Morgenthau plan to ensure they are incapable of pollution
Specific carbon caused climate change (formerly global warming) is something ive had doubts about for a while, so much of the information has been contaminated by political influence and junk science on all sides. Using it as an excuse to extract more tax revenue or remove cars from people. However I will not doubt or deny for a second the extreme damage humanity has caused to the global environment thus far. Deforestation, heavy metal run off, destruction of habitat & subsequent species extinction, plastic pollution, oil spills, the list goes on and on. These are clear threats that must be acknowledged and regulation enacted to solve.
This is ultimately the problem I have with the entire environmentalist position today. In the name of "saving the environment", by "fighting climate", we now have primordial forests being torn down in Germany and Australia to erect wind turbines, thousands of square miles of land reduced to toxic hellscapes for the production of batteries and solar panels, huge areas covered over with solar "farms" that leech chemicals into the soil and destroy fragile eco-systems, hundreds of thousands of often rare birds and bats being slaughtered by wind turbines every year, entire jungles being destroyed to plant crops for biofuels, and on and on and on. Even if global warming were the real problem they claim, this destruction does nothing to solve it (keeling curve rise is still constant despite massive, economically and ecologically destructive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions) and is causing immense, often irreversible damage to ecosystems around the world.
The purpose of a system is what it does. AGW environmentalism, whatever its stated claims and justifications, has only achieved the mass transfer of wealth to international conglomerates and hopelessly corrupt organisations, the destruction of vast tracts of the planet, and the collapse of western economies in the service of these first two efforts. It is categorically not about saving the planet.
To a degree, but it's a bit of a strawman argument. Cats typically take small songbirds with occasional forays up to pigeons and the like. In most places this does cause problems, but isn't usually species-threatening (except in places like Australia, where the rarest species are the perfect size for cats to hunt). Windmills, because of their location, take raptors and other rare birds that breed far less prolifically, while also killing bats and small birds at a comparable rate to cats.
Even if you ignore the small birds taken by turbines, the arguments people use to brush off wind turbine kills are pretty silly. Just a few incidental deaths is what they like to say. It's necessary to save the rest of them from our environmentally destructive ways and it's only a small amount compared to the cats. It's like saying cats kill millions of small mammals every year, so a few hundred rhino deaths is no big deal.
You don't need to take le based Hitler-Trump-Putin pill to see it. You just need to consider how safe we can make nuclear or thorium reactors, and see how the supposed protectors of nature would rather build coal power plants than to build a reactor or buy gas.
It makes no sense. It is simply religious doctrine. Nuclear is BAD, therefore it must not be used, even if it would reduce pollution by a great margin. It is the same as a starving muslim or jew with some ham beside him. The ham is perfectly edible and will do him no harm, but he is not reasonable and won't eat it.
They are the OG grifters with a cult following. That's why I'm sceptical on what data they put out. If I was paid handsomely by the government to study ghosts, I would totally not say ghosts aren't real and loose my job.
I think climate change, as defined by fluctuating temperatures and all of that, is probably not anthropocentric in origin but our industrial activities aren't really "helping" the matter. It is most likely part of a natural cycle, one that we cannot really control. But it benefits elite power structures to use this as the final gambit, as religiously-minded apocalyptic fervor no longer really has a grip on people as a control mechanism.
Climate change, as defined by a loose "humans are negatively impacting the ecosphere," is undeniably true and gets worse every year. The destruction and rape of the natural world in pursuit of multinational megacorporate profits and the unending exponential growth of consumption demands that the natural world be torn apart, bit by bit, to be parceled as mines and as farmland. It's undeniable.
You don't need to take le based Hitler-Trump-Putin pill to see it. You just need to consider how safe we can make nuclear or thorium reactors, and see how the supposed protectors of nature would rather build coal power plants than to build a reactor or buy gas.
It makes no sense. It is simply religious doctrine. Nuclear is BAD, therefore it must not be used, even if it would reduce pollution by a great margin. It is the same as a starving muslim or jew with some ham beside him. The ham is perfectly edible and will do him no harm, but he is not reasonable and won't eat it.
They are the OG grifters with a cult following. That's why I'm sceptical on what data they put out. If I was paid handsomely by the government to study ghosts, I would totally not say ghosts aren't real and loose my job.
There is a fantastic passage I read once about this that I simply have not been able to find in the five years since. It made the point that many environmentalists will themselves admit that they intentionally choose more costly/destructive/wasteful policies because they prefer the sacrifice it entails. While they never frame it as a religion, they behave and think like a religion.
Human beings are this evil that disturbs a natural and pure order just by their presence. I once read a thing talking about space industrialization and how we'd have to figure out how we're going to deal with pollution and littering... on asteroids. Places no living thing lives on, that nobody sees, literally the perfect place to dump trash. To them humankind is fundamentally different from nature (although they can't, because it's removed from the sort of religious doctrine that would justify this) in a way that just by existing we constantly disturb the cosmic order. Then you add in all the gay Communist shit that goes hand in hand with it and the ascetic values and you get this attitude where conspicuous sacrifice is what determines the merit of a policy.
This is why you can't just build nuclear plants. The shittiness of windmills and solar panels IS the point. They're not Good People (TM) that overcame their inherently flawed nature if they don't suffer. Even if it ends up actually hurting the world more and especially hurting human society. There are actual quotes from these jackasses talking openly about it. Nor does it matter that many of their goals (like conserving land and being organic/anti-GMO) are directly contradictory.
Of course they also tend to think in ways that don't even make sense, like taking a static view of nature. Even though nature itself evolves and changes, any change WE cause is a BAD, UNNATURAL change, and they'll even actively fight the forces of nature themselves like propping up loser species and going on vindictive crusades against invasive species. Not in contexts that matter for us, that's a different matter, but for its own sake.
Environmentalism as a general idea is perfectly fine, necessary. But Environmentalism as it has become in the west, particularly when attached to the cause of global warming (something I think is probably real, but the more moderate, sane environmental economists project that it's easier to just adjust for it than try to stop it: a little bit of low-hanging fruit emissions abatement, a lot of preparation), has totally become a religion, and what's more, a death cult, even a death cult that will blindly ignore facts well-accepted by everyone else (as it does with the Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian conviction that we're going to overpopulate, even though known reserves of damn near everything keep growing and demographic transition's already sitting in in poor countries).
I guarantee you, this shit will wind up causing a mass death event, like a little Communism. They almost come from opposite ends: Communism tried to turn men into gods. Environmentalism demonizes human beings.
Good post. Since most of them are either very poor or very rich, it also comes across as another religious practice.
Namely, buying indulgences. If noble Jeanjaque lePierree the Honhon sexed up another noble's wife, he paid the Vatican to erase his sins.
Now if Goysoomer the Normie exchanges his Iphone Turbo 998 to Iphone Turbo mega 999, which is 1% better, he buys indulgence from Gaia by buying a (now non Tesla) electric car and campaigning against the demons of oil and nuclear. Especially if he can make others suffer, not him.
It is like the worst parts of religion and communism combined with none of the better parts.
Just look at Tom Cruise and Taylor Swift jetting to every save the rainforest on their private jet. They give a sermon, and given indulgence.
I will take anthropogenic global warming seriously when its supposed proponents do. When they stop buying houses in warm climates, when they start building nuclear reactors and when they stop flying around so much.
It's always we should use less of this, make up silly carbon credit systems and tax shit.
It's never a crash program to make us have the same or more energy coming from nuclear.
There are of course other reasons like being unable to make a working predictive model. But that can be talked to death. Show don't tell.
This is always a fun argument because it's simply wrong.
Even Hansen's 1988 projection (which was famously re-evaluated because of how "wrong" it was) was actually pretty spot on.
The solid black line shows the estimate if absolutely no action was taken to curb climate change. The dashed line for if moderate action is taken. The dotted line for if aggressive action were taken. The blue lines show "observed reality."
Look at that chart and then remember Hansen's estimate was famously inaccurate and had to be adjusted later in favor of more accurate models.
The rhetoric and predictions behind climate change "science" change so haphazardly, it's a sure sign that the entire field of study is fraudulent. If the manufactured hysteria is not enough to clue people in, the failed predictions of Al Gore should do the trick.
Former Vice President Al Gore warned a Hollywood audience this week that a "Gulf Stream collapse" could occur within 25 years, leading to an abrupt and devastating new Ice Age.
The claim is related to Gore's assertion that ice cap melt will disrupt global oceans volumes and salinity, leading to a a change in the gulf stream and the distribution of heat to higher latitudes. However, Gore's predictions (and the predictions of the scientists he cites) on ice melt have been widely debunked.
In a 2009 speech at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, Mr. Gore cited researchers who he said projected a 75% chance the Arctic could be nearly ice-free during some summer months within five to seven years — a forecast that did not materialize. The researcher he cited, Naval Postgraduate School professor Wieslaw Maslowski, said afterward that he did not know how the 75% figure had been arrived at.
In reality, the kind of ice melt Al Gore warns about would take centuries or even thousands of years, causing millimeters per year of ocean rise which is barely noticeable and not catastrophic. It is interesting, though, that Gore has jumped on the idea of a new Ice Age, given the numerous doomsday predictions by climate scientists over the decades that are now proving to be frivolous.
The truth is, the Earth has been far warmer (and rarely colder) than temperatures are today. Global warming science relies on a rigged data window: The temperature history that "experts" use only goes back to the 1880s. This is a tiny sliver of the Earths atmospheric history that is completely inadequate to understanding climate change, which is a natural process, not man-made.
There is also no concrete evidence supporting the claim of correlation or causation of carbon emissions to global warming. The data over millions of years simply does not match.
The climate change grift is a creation of the Club of Rome from the 1970s to the 1990s. It was a UN associated group of prominent elites which sought to fabricate a rationale for global governance. What they came up with was "global environmental disaster" as a way to motivate the populace to accept more centralized control of industry, trade and energy.
Al Gore is a long time member of the Club of Rome, according to the groups own documentation. He often cites the Club of Rome's 1972 report "Limits Of Growth" as a basis for his ideological beliefs.
Can't help but notice his model only works for the past 50 years, what happens when you feed it data from 1850 and ask it to generate the next century?
Oh they didn't do that for some reason? I guess climate science is the realm of propagandist retards after all.
Here's a fun idea they don't explore: we actually caused global warming by cleaning up air pollution so atmospheric particulates cause more infrared and UV light to get through.
I was wondering that a lot. If climate change is the most pressing problem humanity faces and immediate reduction of CO2 emissions is a must, then nuclear power must be an option. They'll say nuclear power costs too much and takes too long, but they'll also say that climate production can't cost too much since it's so important, and the renewable energy infrastructure required for full decarbonisation will take some 30 years and trillions of dollars per country and has to be basically made national priority right now to even get there in 30 years.
Nobody talks about the energy storage problem and the required infrastructure that simply doesn't exist. Germany would need to build over 100 GWh of batteries per year for the next 20 years to hit goals. That's a tenfold increase, and I do not believe that the worldwide battery production can deliver.
A smart solution would be renewables and a focus on cheap and efficient hydrogen electrolyseurs produced en masse, and a backbone of nuclear power plants that provide some 60%-80% of base power demands. Use renewables to mostly produce hydrogen for industrial purposes, with a huge overcapacity. It's cheap to build, after all.
But people don't like that, and tbh I think it's purely ideology and ignorance. Most of the people talking about this stuff are either ideologues and won't consider nuclear on principle, involved in the renewable industry and thus also ideologically against any other solution, or just plain ignorant on how dangerous nuclear power actually is and how cheap and fast renewables would really be.
With any luck we'll see some fusion concepts working in the next two years, and it might solve the issue finally. Or at least provide another option.
Either way I recommend investing in lithium mining, or sodium processing. The demands for lithium are only gonna increase with battery production, and nuclear fusion will also need lots of it.
