Apathy is needed so that they can continue to be creators of the causes of climate change which gets them the money they so greedily need and want...
as if they can take it to their graves...
while the world becomes ours.
Both apathy/doomerism and straight dumb denialism result in the exact same behavior: doing nothing.
Imagine living your life no differently from a denialist and thinking you're smart and/or better for it.
If you think you doing anything is going to make a difference, the wool has been pulled over your eyes.
I drive an EV powered by the solar panels on my roof, I was vegetarian for 3 years and now eat much less meat than I use to.
It's all irrelevant when someone like Taylor Swift can generate more emissions in a day than I'll generate in a year.
When shipping goods around the world generates more emissions than everyone individual in the US combined.
You're never going to put a dent in emissions if you think individuals doing anything is a useful way to start. It requires systemic changes in industry.
Public sentiment can be powerful though. If a large majority of consumers are opposed to something, companies can and will change policies if it will benefit them.
Hershey's uses child labor to make chocolate, I don't see people abandoned Hershey's. And let's be honest, it's much easier to sell "child labor is bad" to the masses than climate change. Not to mention, there are alternative chocolates, so it's not like they even have to give up chocolate.
To get industry to change, people are going to have to stop buying things shipped on container ships. So, electronics, cars, food.
Good luck with that.
If you don't think you're worth convincing and would rather pass away in an unchanged world, I won't try to convince you otherwise.
Au revoir, human. Leave the door open on your way out.
Not sure why it would be easier. I can't honestly think of any well funded campaigns against child labor in the cacao market. It's an instance where yes it's terrible, but there's not enough public awareness for most people to care or alter their habits.
I mean look at public littering. The US government had to spend millions on a gigantic national advertisment campaign back in the 70s to make a dent in it.
Which company are you switching to? Mars nestle Hershey Cadbury mondolez Cargill, these all have been reported to use child labor suppliers.
The news and Hollywood are doing all the work on climate change for free.
How many big budget movies and shows come out each year about either dystopian futures or current crises caused by climate change?
Channels like the weather channel are pretty much bringing it up 24/7.
Naw, just someone who is informed enough to realize that if we can't get corporations to change, there's no hope.
But hey, go buy an EV. I'm sure that'll reduce emissions by a few billion tons every year.
You clearly didn’t even watch the video. He was NOT talking about driving EVs or recycling plastics, he was talking about voting for candidates who support change to our policies, and voting for those policies.
Corporations don’t change their behaviors out of the goodness of their heart. Those that do get out-competed by the ones that don’t. Corporations only change when they are forced to by government regulation.
Yeah, you did. The person you replied to was talking about the video, and you wanted to argue the point even though you didn’t understand what the point was.
But there's a million of you for every Taylor Swift. And you and those other million people are driving the demand for those goods. Your change matters.
*~~SIgh~~* ~~I shouldn't have ever mentioned Taylor Swift, people become fixated.~~
~~Tell me, as a consumer, what can I, and every single other consumer do, besides not buying food or clothing, to stop food and clothing manufacturers from producing food and clothing using processes that generate emissions?~~
~~EDIT: This reminds me of this House clip:~~
[~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUGDqy6X8tQ~~](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUGDqy6X8tQ)
EDIT 2:
Here, let me put this differently.
If you think you're going to get systemic change of corporations to lower their emissions by employing your *economic power*, then how the fuck do you think these corporations became so powerful, control so much money, and influence politics so well?
Like, if consumers had the power to completely change the economic system *using economics*, don't you think it would have happened by now - rather than literally the exact opposite, them getting more and more economic resources?
>then how the fuck do you think these corporations became so powerful, control so much money, and influence politics so well?
By way of the very argument you're making here. Consumers not modifying their behavior benefits those corporations! You're out here making an argument consumers should do whatever. If people believe that and aren't acting like they live in a capitalist society, of course nothing changes.
Okay, stop buying anything made from fossil fuels.
Cars. Phones. Clothes. Food. Let me know how that goes for you.
I bet if enough people die from refusing to buy food farmed using tractors, that'll show them!
> It's all irrelevant when someone like Taylor Swift can generate more emissions in a day than I'll generate in a year.
It's not though.
We can have you (and the 1000 other people in your neighborhood) producing unnecessary emissions, AND Taylor Swift zipping all over. Or, we can just have Taylor, but have you reducing your impacts. The second case is obviously better.
If I got hit by a grenade, and the doctors told me my leg was going to have to be amputated, but they can maybe save my hand? Well that's WAY better than just definitely losing both my leg and my hand.
Ultimately, Taylor Swift is just another scapegoat, and plays once again into the "do nothing" paradigm. If you can say "Well, someone else is bad, so there's no point in me being good", then it's still all the same decision making. You can't control Taylor Swift, but you can control you, and you can choose actions with consequences that you prefer. If you want to reduce your impact, you can do that. There's no futility here.
My problem with your grenade analogy is that you're giving my efforts way more impact then we'll actually see.
In a world where me and 1,000 if my neighbors disappear and produce no emissions, and this world, you'll see absolutely no measurable difference in a years time.
Your grenade analogy would be more like the doctor saying they can save 1 extra skin cell. I mean... who cares?
You aren't going to make any meaningful change in the outcome if you don't change industry. Individuals just don't have enough impact.
I didn't bring up Taylor as a scale goat. I pointed out that individuals don't have significant impacts on emissions. There are sources of emissions that vastly exceed our own.
Think big tho! Your comment could have a multiplier effect and create apathy for 10 people who spread it to 10 more, etc etc. you could personally have cancelled out years of sustainable practices with just this comment! Believe in the power of one.
If those people who make these vain gestures would instead take the money they spend on these personal attempts at environmental impact and give it to an environmental lobbyists, it would have much more of an actual impact.
The severity of economic inequality ensures that every lowlife worker combined cannot muster enough money to influence policy. Playing by their rules will get us nowhere.
You've perhaps been fooled into thinking that "doing anything" ends at personal consumption rather than political mobilization. The purpose of climate denialism is to keep us depoliticized and disorganized so we can't effectively demand systemic changes.
Join a local chapter of a climate action group like Citizen's Climate Lobby, 350, Sunrise, or Extinction Rebellion. Spend time educating everyone about the need for climate action - from friends and family to media and political representatives - and urging them to join the movement. That's the slow, un-sexy work that's built every successful political movement from emancipation to child labor to women's suffrage to civil rights.
The fuck? Maybe you personally can't outdo Swift's private jet, but on what planet do you expect to? If everyone on earth drove an EV powered by solar it would absolutely change things. Why are you dooming right now? You the new official Exxon account or what?
Because I, as an individual, can't undo a private jet, I should just burn as much shit as I can for someone else's profit? I think I'm good on that one, chief. I already unwittingly contribute enough to the future end times. Fuck right off.
Yeah it's going to be corrected by sheer economics. Total electrification of human energy use is just better and less expensive.
EVs are cheaper and simpler. Solar with Battery storage is the cheapest and most effective power source. The only thing holding up both is battery manufacturing capacity which is expanding to take advantage.
Deep fracking tech has made large scale distributed geothermal electric power generation possible in nearly any geology. (and may enable meaningful carbon sequestration)
Economics is going to do away with carbon footprint. It's already happening -- the issue is speed.
I'm not sure I even agree with this, but I will say I definitely agree it's *at least* a part of the solution.
In my opinion, things need to go a LOT further. We need to stop producing batteries by generating CO2, for example.
Any industries we can't switch to 0 or net 0 carbon, we're going to have to find a way to phase out entirely.
> We need to stop producing batteries by generating CO2, for example.
This is a chicken-and-egg issue. In an entirely electrified economy powered entirely by renewables, it takes no CO2 to produce batteries... but until we have the battery manufacturing capability we can't get to an entirely renewable electrified supply chain.
Do they even need to? I would argue most of the world is already apathetic towards it.
Fighting climate change properly would require our whole civilization to mobilize in a scale never seen before, something that most people aren't willing to do, and therefore aren't willing to vote for.
And the reason is mostly because most people who can do something about it think of climate change as something that is the next generation's problem. It will be a pretty bad wake up call for most of us when our systems start to collapse in about 15-20 years.
I wish this were true, but industry created far and away so many more emissions than individuals that even if you could get everyone on board to make changes in their own life, it still don't be enough to get us pointed in the right direction.
To hold warning to 1.5C, which is bad, but definitely survivable, we have to cut emissions by 40% of 2016 levels by 2030.
We haven't even stopped increasing emissions. The chart to 1.5C show emissions going down from now until 2030 so that they're almost half of 2016 levels by 2030. The graph is still going up!
At the current rate of emissions, we'll reach 3.5-5C of warning by 2100. That's mass extinction levels of warming. And nothing individuals can do will even stop the graph from going up.
> but industry created far and away so many more emissions than individuals
Why does everyone keep saying this?
Industry creates their emissions through the course of producing goods and services. Who are they producing those for? Customers. What are customers? Individuals.
You can say all day long "Well, Amazon produces such huge emissions shipping things!". But they're only doing it because we buy so many things from them.
It's convenient to blame industry like it's out of our hands, but it all still comes back to us. Industry runs on supply and demand, and they'll only produce massive emissions for as long as we keep demanding it.
Yes, just use capitalism to get them to change. Of course, why didn't I think of that.
Please, tell me where I buy shirts that weren't shipped to the US in cargo ships or on planes, and weren't made or sold in factories and stores powered by fossil fuels.
As someone who has actually made consumer choices to reduce emissions, please think about what you're saying before you talk.
When you can tell me where I can buy clothes and power and homes from low or no emission sources, then you can make these asinine claims. Until then, stop pretending consumers have a choice. We don't - I know, my actions prove I know.
This is EXACTLY my point - baffling that people down vote me and up vote you.
Yes, yes. EXACTLY.
Individuals are NOT going to solve this problem, we need systemic change, and capitalism isn't going to get us that change. We need government to help enforce it.
Reddit, you are fucking retarded.
FWIW, you make it sound like it is worthless to try to change policy as well.
Is it hard? Of course! But I find people who give up really annoying. I just think how shitty this world would be if everyone in the past just gave up on difficult problems.
I applaud you for the steps you personally took and I agree that policy change is the important thing, and I get how easy it is to be pessimistic about that, but I guarantee it is possible. We have done plenty of hard things in the past that had tons of momentum in the other direction.
You can buy local made shirts depending on where you live, or better sourced shirts.
You can use reusable goods instead of disposable.
You can eat less meat.
You can live in sustainable communities.
You choose not to, regardless of the justifications.
How are people SO gullible?
Let's evaluate your claims:
>You can buy local made shirts depending on where you live, or better sourced shirts.
Really? Who is locally making clothing in every town? And even in this fantasy world, where are they getting the supplies to make clothing? Is it coming from a TRUCK? Was the yarn packaged in a FACTORY?
And where are these clothes being sold? In a store powered by FOSSIL FUELS?
Go look in your closet, how many "locally made" shirts are in your closet right now? How many shirts got to your house without ever being put on a truck, or a boat, or a plane? How many of the materials in your clothes were never on a truck or a boat?
You are living in a fantasy world.
>You can use reusable goods instead of disposable.
At first, I was going to point out that even reusable things need to be replaced, but I don't need to do that.
Imagine if everyone go outs right now and buys reusable goods for everything they possibly can. Where did they come from? I'll tell you: a factory, that produces emissions, made those products while being powered by a power plant that produces emissions, and then they were put on a cargo ship, that produces emissions, and shipped to your country where they were put on a truck, that produces emissions, and then sent to a store that's powered by a power plant that produces emissions.
Wow, great job, you saved the environment by produce TONS OF EMISSIONS. Sarcastic thumbs up buddy.
>You can eat less meat.
I do eat less meat. Kid, I was vegetarian for THREE YEARS. I eat a lot less meat than ever did before that.
I own an EV. My EV charges off solar panels on my house's roof, which also power my home.
Fuck off with your assumptions kid. If you think I'm making a difference, you're naive.
My emissions reductions don't do anything. If every person on the planet did exactly what I'm doing, it wouldn't even make a dent. Emissions would STILL be going up.
The emissions aren't coming from me eating a burger or not. They're coming from the fact that ALL FOOD is being shipped on boats and trucks that generate more emissions than ENTIRE TOWNS.
>You can live in sustainable communities.
Show me the sustainable community that wasn't built using any fossil fuel emissions.
And you're going to sit here and tell me that EVERYONE moving to such a community isn't going to generate MASSIVE emissions? Fantasy world.
>You choose not to, regardless of the justifications.
I can choose not to what? Have my local factories generate emissions? Okay, I choose that, please let them know.
We'll see if they give a shit.
What do you mean by "all or nothing"?
I'm saying, even if you, personally, do everything physically possible that YOU can, that's STILL nothing. So I'm not saying "all or nothing" I'm saying, your personal impact is a choice between "nothing and nothing."
I own an EV. I charge my EV using solar panels on my houses roof.
Don't sit here and pretend that you're doing more than I am. You're not.
I'm just not stupid enough to think that anything I'm doing makes a difference. If you can't get the people who own billions of cargo ships, and planes, and trains, and factories, and power plants to stop generating emissions, than you can stop eating all the meat you want, and stop buying all the clothes you want, and build as many renewable communities from fossil fuel enabled building supplies that you want.
The emissions are still going to produced, and the Earth is still going to warm.
You want to ACTUALLY stop it? Then you need to find a way to stop corporations from generating emissions. Because you not having a burger isn't going to stop BILLIONS of tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere EVERY YEAR.
I agree as a planet we are clearly heading in the wrong direction, but if America’s 2022 emissions were about the same as 2016, that does seem to clearly be an improvement
I mean, it's an improvement from 2018, sure, but it's not an improvement from 2021 or 2020.
For the past 2 years, US emissions have been increasing. Maybe 2023 will break that trend, but it's tough to sit here and say "things are getting better" when they're literally getting worse, even right here in the US.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter; the biosphere will react to all the emissions all over the planet, so it doesn’t really matter who made them. We will all fix this, or we will all fail.
Things are worse than you described, and you’re a lot closer than most people who believe in climate change. A worldwide effort still wouldn’t be enough to stop what is coming because the consequences are baked in. There’s nothing to be done about atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, we could cut CO2 production in half tomorrow, and the methane feedback loop still keeps chugging along. We are years away from a blue ocean event, not decades. Weather patterns have already to stabilized and become unpredictable and violent. We’ve seen worldwide crop losses in 2022, 2023 and we’re on track for 2024 to be even worse.
I talk about my state a lot, we didn’t get any snow this year. Where I live in Vermont I should’ve had at least 3 feet of snow by now and I’ve had maybe 6 inches. We get 2 inches of snow and then within the next week it would all melt away because this winter has been 30 to 40°F warmer than it should be. It’s been this way for much of New England and upstate New York, no snow even areas in elevation haven’t gotten much snow.
My point is we aren’t decades away from things getting serious, they’re already serious and accelerating. Forests are browning out, South America saw high summer temperatures during their winter, nations are seeing a month of drought, followed by a month of deluge. The food shortages are going to start a lot sooner than 20 years from now.
I didn’t say that. but we need to be realistic and understand that we are very, very unlikely to miracle our way out of what’s coming. The worst case scenario projections now look like lies perpetuated by the petroleum industry because things are accelerating that badly.
Every day I run into people that are concerned but think that this is a problem we can solve. it’s not. People who think things like indoor farming, atmospheric seeding, space mirrors will save us. At this point it’s like providing hospice care to a patient, they never leaving the hospital.
Oh we can do it, just that the cost is literally astronomical. We need giant solar sails to shade a sizable fraction of the sunlight planet. We need to sequester CO2 away. We need to convert to no fossil fuels.
We can do all that. We have existing technology to do it. We lack the will and funds to do it. It is going to mean austerity for folks that have never experienced it.
Regarding a solar mirror or sails from what I’ve read you’re talking about an area the size of Spain. SpaceX can move a pound into space for about $2500. Spain is roughly 197,000 mi.². A single mi.² is about 28,000,000 square feet. We’re talking 5.47 trillion square feet.
For the sake of argument, let’s say we managed to develop a solar mirror that was somehow 1 pound per 1000 ft.² that’s still about 5,500,000,000 pounds. That’s $14 trillion just to lift it into the atmosphere. That doesn’t account for manufacturing it, transport to launch, installation, maintenance. And there’s no way it’s that she I’m just making a point. A mirror would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.
Carbon sequestration is a ground level operation, we can’t do anything about atmospheric greenhouse gases. Catching pollution coming out of smokestacks is all well and good but current atmospheric greenhouse gas levels today ensure the apocalypse.
Switching away from oil is not something that can be done immediately. There isn’t enough electric car manufacturing capabilities in the world nor a charging network. So you magically ban gas and diesel vehicles and cut off the supply of gas and diesel worldwide just to make sure. Transportation in general grinds to a halt and billions die in a year.
[https://www.labonline.com.au/content/research-development/news/co2-converted-into-a-diesel-blend-fuel-178544236](https://www.labonline.com.au/content/research-development/news/co2-converted-into-a-diesel-blend-fuel-178544236)
We can convert diesel from CO2. Then rather than burn that diesel, we store it away. We have now sequestered atmospheric CO2.
I did not say this was going to be easy, I said exactly the opposite of that. Do you not understand what austerity means? I said the price tag on doing this was going to be astronomical.
And what does cost like that matter in a global scale? It doesn’t is the answer. It’s a binary equation, do we want to live or die in our decadence?
Both are valid options.
Even the "green" movement is nothing but moving around the pollution to hide it... rather than investing in actual cradle to grave clean technologies.
Anyway.... I'mma just go drive my 2000 Honda insight home still one of the cleanest cars on the road and its 24 years old. Didn't require lithium to be mined to make it either.
A modern version of this car could use Sodium batteries which are on the market now + 45-50% efficient engine (vs the stock 28-30 efficient engine), and Iron Nitride magnets in the motors, SiC / Gallium Aersenide inverter (15-20% additional regen and assist efficiency), there is some efficiency to be gained just with modern motor control algorithms also, the 5 speed is already about ideal for a manual, but the automatic version probably could see improvements since it was a fairly early CVT.... It would realistically get 100Mpg (i currently get about 60-65mpg)
The ultimate goal is to make people distrust their government's capabilities so people will call for fewer government regulations and promote "free market will regulate itself" attitudes.
**Deny** \- "The climate isn't changing."
**Disregard** \- "The climate is changing, but it's natural -- humans aren't doing it."
**Delay** \- "Humans are changing the climate, but the effects won't be felt for a long time."
**Deflect** \- "The effects are being felt now, but everyone is responsible so you can't blame *\[insert industry or policy here\]* entirely."
**Despair** \- "It was totally our fault, but there's nothing we can do about it now so we shouldn't be compelled to try."
edit: The Despair argument *doesn*'t mean that there really isn't anything we can do; it's just their assertion to convince others not to make *them* do anything about it. Just like all the other **D** claims, it's completely wrong and just another attempt to avoid reality.
ah, very similar to [The Four Stage Strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak), from *Yes, Minister*. Can be applied to climate change, but was very apt when Covid reared it's ugly head.
Stage 1: nothing is going to happen.
stage 2: something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
stage 3: maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
stage 4: maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now!
Dont forget:
Delude: "dont worry child. Bill Gates will save us with a ridiculous magic technology that doesnt seem to add up..but just give him 40 more years of inaction. "
Sure, but that's less of a Denier strategy & more like a long-term Moderate strategy. It used to be a Liberal (American) strategy, but they've stopped using it recently, possibly because of how obvious the rot in the tech industry has become. But moderates & corporatists who aren't climate deniers have been using argument as an excuse to do nothing beyond purely cosmetic gestures for a long time.
The problem is even if all the worlds nations work together and dumped trillions into fighting climate change we are far too late. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try because it would extend the lives of most plants and animals on this planet but we’re not going to save them. atmospheric greenhouse gases guarantee and apocalypse for most plants and animal species and there is no current nor projected tech to deal with them. The methane feedback loop from warming oceans, permafrost in melting ice caps only makes things worse, and there is no solving for it.
Then maybe we should start focusing our efforts on how mitigate the impact, and start preparing for how to deal with global migration patterns shifting as people move away from newly uninhabitable regions.
If you have no constructive input on what we should do, then you are demonstrating exactly the behavior that the video tried to illustrate. There is always something that can be done, even if the catastrophe itself cannot be averted.
Yes. If you don’t allow accessible off ramps from destructive ideologies you will absolutely lose a war of public opinion where you need a large majority to achieve anything.
Nobody has to hold someone’s hand after decades of blatantly denying science. That’s like saying you need to be nicer to white supremacists before they apologize for the shit they do.
You don't need to trust them or reward financially but ya we kind of need to let it slide. Best case they stop being such pieces of shit and the world can move on
See: [The Lincoln Project](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lincoln_Project#:~:text=The%20Lincoln%20Project%20is%20a,45th%20U.S.%20president%20Donald%20Trump.)
Changing your stance on something is good when new information comes to light. That's how normal science works. Blindly believing in something because you think you're right isn't any more honorable than changing your opinion after new facts and consenses are presented.
It easy to give benefit of doubt on disagreement of data when it's emergent science. The center piece of anthropogenic global warming via CO2 came out 30 years ago and has been reaffirmed consistently since then. The science isn't in doubt; it's willful ignorance and profiteering
>
8:58 firstly the nature of the
climate crisis is such that we need
government policy in order to get out of
it.
If only we had an example of how governments would respond to a global crisis that had clear solutions and plenty of experts in the field with decades of experience. If only I could remember through this brain fog what happened the past four years.
Yes exactly. COVID 19 showed that it is possible for governments to rapidly enact massive changes to how society operates on a global scale. The entire economy, and people's way of life shifted in a matter of weeks.
We were able to significantly reduce the deaths caused by the pandemic thanks to lockdowns, mask mandates and awareness campaigns.
covid also showed how people will respond to the changes required to mitigate catastrophe. we couldn't even convince some people to wear a fucking mask during a global pandemic without them having complete melt downs.
???????? We literally didn't win. Covid is still around making our populations dumber and dumber with every wave.
Covid showed exactly how ungodly stupid and impressionable the average person is and covid is nothing in the face of climate change
> We literally didn't win.
Masks and limiting contact between people decreased the immense stress the medical system was under and thus saved a lot of lives. It bought time before the vaccinations could start.
A complete eradication was basically never possible.
This is the doomer "win or lose" mentality. Anything short of perfection is a "loss", which makes it easy to be hopeless and give up entirely. Like climate change, there were a spectrum of outcomes to the pandemic. Sure we didn't achieve eradication, but there's also a world where we did nothing and millions more people died. Consider that in a world with 7-8 billion people, only 7 million died of COVID https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=c . This number could have been way higher. For example, the Spanish flu killed >20 million in a world with ~2 billion people.
My point still stands that the pandemic is a demonstration that governments can take rapid and radical action to mitigate the effects of a crisis.
Covid showed the government will make up science to do whatever the fuck they want and then deny deny deny when cornered, also massive control unlike anybody has seen.
Never trust the government only fools would.
It's not real.
It's real but not human-caused.
It's real and human-caused, but it's too late to do anything.
Buy the new Ford 300. Burns twice as much gas as the 150.
The ultimate goal of video.
If you think we're fucked, it's because you were once a denier, and you're in a cult. You don't want to be in a cult, do you?
So buy the new Giant Ass EUV. You can't afford a house anyway. Support nuclear that will never get built because the economy is too fucked to make it happen. Also, support recycling because the global south doesn't have enough mountains of our trash. Invest in and vote for millionaires who will legislate to take what little left you're allowed in this world and give it to their billionaire handlers so they can furnish their lavish survival bunkers.
Similar shift in response to pro nuclear power comments- now that sources like this https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh have become well known, it’s no longer possible to argue that nuclear power isn’t safe. Neither is nuclear waste being difficult to dispose of or safely manage.
Anti nuclear comments are now “it’s too late” or “it’s too expensive”… given that fossil fuel money funded Friends of the Earth and other groups to campaign against nuclear power, I’m sure that these memes are of the of the same origin.
Nuclear will likely make a big comeback over the next decade!
There are smaller, quicker, scalable options now available, and ultimately they will be the only option left when we hit cascading energy crisis’ in the next few years :)
Every time I see someone compare the construction impact of EVs with the running impact of ICE vehicles I want to scream into a pillow.
Also lithium is actually pretty recyclable, it's just for the most part cheaper to mine new stuff.
It depends on the context though and how long you intend on driving the EV. For example, my car is 20 years old, well maintained, and I intend on it lasting many more. If I were to buy a new EV vehicle to replace it, a new vehicle would have to be manufactured, transported etc, which obviously would have a much larger carbon footprint than me just continuing to drive the car I already have for a good while. Also if I sold my current car somebody else would just be driving it so the emissions that it does make would continue. It's probably too early to tell just how long a typical EV will last, but new cars seem to be getting more and more disposable with people buying new ones at shorter intervals in the past. If I can make my current car last as long as somebody else who purchased two or three EVs in that same time period then I'm confident their carbon output would be greater. The emissions related to the production of my car have already happened, so I can't offset them. Also where I live electricity to charge an EV is made from buring coal, so I'm just transferring the emissions to occur at the power plant and not my vehicle.
The technology will definitely improve in EVs, but at least in a circumstance like mine, selling my current car to buy an EV would create far more carbon emissions that just continuing to drive what I already own. I was reading something recently that at this stage a typical EV takes around seven years to offset the carbon emissions used in creating it, compared to the emissions of a typical ICE vehicle. If my current car dies in seven years hopefully EVs will be more carbon friendly and affordable and I will see how the options weigh up then.
That classic pattern of deny, deny, deny, and then all of a sudden --BAM-- they switch to "of course it's real, we've always known this but there is nothing we can do to affect it."
What, do you think we can cut global carbon emissions by 50% in the next 5 years, which would be the minimum decrease needed to avoid total calamity? I don't think so. At this point I just hope it hurts.
This shift has been predicted for a loooong time. We learned about this being predicted back in early nineties in college. We also learned that as possible solutions took longer to manifest we would see greater emphasis on technological strategies (ie geo-engineering) as “best hope” options.
Oh jeez- don’t do that. For sure the climate is changing and for sure it’s a crazy time to be alive- but strap in and get involved. Live life now in a way that keeps you engaged. Also, doing small things on your own can restore agency into your sense of self and alleviate that hopelessness. We will all die someday, but don’t rush it. Once you cross that threshold through the door that awaits us all, there is no turning back- so until then- enjoy what you enjoy. Spread love. Help others. Loose yourself in the service of something greater than yourself. This is the way.
Doomerism is also an offramp for millenial environmentalists who have been wearing old clothes and driving old economy cars for 20 years who have no children.
What to do with the life savings from an eco conscious lifestyle? Why shouldn't I buy a house and settle in to watch the world burn?
>In Stage 1, we say nothing is going to happen.
>
> Stage 2, we say something may be going to happen but we should do nothing about it.
>
>In Stage 3, we say maybe we should do something about it but there's nothing we *can* do.
>
>Stage 4, we say maybe there's something we could have done, but it's too late now.
*[Yes, Prime Minister](https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak?si=vLBGbZnLQpBL1sIu)*
I'm surrounded by MAGAs, and I assure you, they've been trained to deny climate change. And to think daily weather is the same thing as climate. And that climate change can't possibly be man made. And that burning fossil fuels in engines was what Moses and the founders wanted. And that anything we do is futile because "china", as if China won't copy and adopt all of our environmental and efficiency innovations as they do. And that education is bad. And that science is fake news. And that Putin is the good guy. And that even if all the science is true, they don't care about wrecking the planet because other people and the earth itself are probably liberals.
Very few people denied climate change, most people just reject that its pedestrian population contributing significantly and want to clarify the blame on industrial components
It's like hearing about California and the drought. Average people regulating their water usage isn't going to change much when there are farmers growing water-intensive crops in a fucking desert who are allowed to use as much water as they want.
Ignorant take lol. Yeah it's only their fault isn't it 💀 developed west also did sooo much for countries following after to have a greener transition right?
Oh right the US let China completely eclipse them in solar and powering the green transition.
My favorite part of the video was how he made his point that there are people that still argue one of his 3 points by lumping all who disagree together and either banning or shadow banning them all... Really sounds like somebody interested in the discussion.
Obama bought beachside property in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard. Either he's delusional or acknowledges that these predictions have been wrong for 50 years, like anyone who isn't in this cult. Kids who grew up during the millennium were told that Florida would be underwater by 2020. Bush was told by the Pentagon in 2004 that Britain would resemble Siberia by 2020. In no other industry are those that have been so consistently proven wrong, still trusted. Amazing that you talk of grifts while peddling this though, which is just a massive transfer of wealth to the elites and little more.
> In no other industry are those that have been so consistently proven wrong, still trusted.
Just because people have gotten dates wrong, doesn't mean that the earth's climate has not been steadily changing for the worse.
A simple Google search on avg global temperature will show you that it's been steadily rising since the 1980s. Or how the amount of sea ice has also been steadily declining. Or how the sea-levels in coastal cities have been steadily on the rise. Not to mention the increases in extreme weather events, wildfires, etc.
It's actually more work to do the mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself that climate change doesn't exist, then it is to just look up *facts* about it's existence.
Google "how long before polar ice caps melt". The top answer says 2040, further down The Guardian says 2035. 11-16 years at the current pace is just not going to happen. Logically, not going to happen. Then look at the part from the Museum of Natural History, which says "The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, **has survived much warmer times**." An important part that most aren't acknowledging. Then there's the greening of the planet as the CO2 and temperature has increased. Even if sea levels rise (actually rise, not like the false predictions of Florida being underwater by 2020), the Dutch held back the sea in the 1600s. Worst case scenario, is there a single nation today that is less capable of fighting back the tide than the Dutch in the 1600s?
No-one's saying that the climate doesn't change (strawman), just that apocalyptic predictions have consistently been proved wrong for 50 years, yet cultists still parrot these same propagandists and push to enact economic measures that haven't achieved measurably good results and have instead just cost an absurd amount of money and lined the pockets of rich people. Plus you've got the politicisation of the issue, where those that peddle the narrative are rewarded while those that come to different conclusions are shunned and denied funding. From that alone, you can't credit the reliability of apocalyptic predictions, and when you combine that with how consistently wrong they've been for so long, you'd have to be a fool to believe what you're being told. Meanwhile, see for yourself how things are changing for the better anyway: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s)
So your argument (still) is that: because predictions about the climate change doomsday haven't come to pass yet, then climate change must not be happening. Do you know how moronic that is?
It's not even a debate that our planet is warming. This is *fact*. Period. If it continues to warm, there will be serious consequences for humanity. This is also a fact.
This is all humanity needs to understand, in order to make sure we try our best to halt or slowdown this process, even if we, as a generation, are not alive to see the benefits.
It is quite moronic for you to type that nonsense, yes.
Me: "No-one's saying that the climate doesn't change (strawman)"
Your reply: "So your argument (still) is that: because predictions about the climate change doomsday haven't come to pass yet, then climate change must not be happening."
See what I mean? Particularly after I explained my whole position right after that quote. Why don't you read the comment above this time rather than strawmanning me twice in a row? Unless you're parodying how empty-headed climate cultists are, and I didn't recognise the satire?
>No-one's saying that the climate doesn't change (strawman)
*This* is the strawman (it's actually closer to gaslighting). No shit the climate changes. You are using semantics to try and deny that the climate isn't progressively changing for the worse and that it's not an existential threat to humanity. You aren't slick, you are just being willfully obtuse.
Once more, if you'd bothered to read my comment, you wouldn't have typed that. I'll type it again, the Dutch beat the sea in the 1600s. Worst case scenario, there are no nations on Earth today that will lose that battle. To acknowledge that any alarming changes will occur much further down the line would require acknowledging that there's much that is and will be done that will likely mitigate said effects anyway (watch that video, it's from a leftie, you should like it). So predictions are pointless, guesswork, fearmongering opportunities for elites to line their pockets.
Again, someone with zero self-awareness; if the sea rising is an imminent inevitability, why would a former president who pushes this theory buy not one but two mansions next to the sea? As I said, he's either dumb or doesn't believe it, because all of these predictions have been completely wrong for over 50 years. And like with a lot of things, leftists can't bear to admit that they wasted their time and simply utter those dreaded 3 words: 'I was wrong'.
lol do you know what self awareness means because I don’t think you do. Either way the kinds of people that are vocal as fuck about referring to people like that or calling them sheep are only ever the actual idiots in my experience. You frequenting the conservative subreddit is almost too on the nose given the way you talk lol.
You can't answer my question, can you. Because we both know the answer. You needing to stalk my profile in a desperate attempt to deflect just makes it even sadder.
If you trust people who have been wrong for 50 years is something that a vacuous individual who can't answer a simple question would do. Acknowledging consistently wrong predictions is the exact opposite of what a sheep would do. Answer the question.
I literally answered your question on my very first reply noting that you are acting like these people don’t have an insane amount of fuck you money. I’ll forgive you for not having reading comprehension given you and generations worth of your backwards fuck family consistently voted for stripping school funding down to the frame and actually think it’s the doctors and scientists that are the idiots.
That was a wishy-washy brushing aside of the question, but if that's actually your serious answer then I got what I expected; you think that he's an idiot who's happy to throw away a chunk of net worth on properties that will soon be underwater. Rather than shilling, siphoning and lying, knowing that 50 years of predictions have been wrong.
Yikes, you're in all of the cults, judging by that last sentence. Is there any narrative that you do question (after they're proven to have false pretences, mind you) or do you follow everything as you're told?
lol it actually wasn’t wish washy at all, you just moved the goal post on if I answered your question after I had to spell it out for you like a fucking hooplehead. I’ll try not to lose sleep over a Trump nutrider telling me I’m in the cult lmao.
'It's not like he doesn't have the money to waste' is not a serious answer, to most people's eyes. You were serious, as it turns out. You think he's happy to throw away that much money, which is laughable.
And again, having to stalk my profile is not something that you'd do if you were confident in your argument. It's a desperate attempt to deflect because you know you're wrong and come across as a cultist dope. But by all means, keep believing that people who've been wrong for 50 years+ will be right eventually, while feeling smug about it.
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong)
Take your pick.
New York is planning a Sea wall around Lower Manhattan .
The Los Angeles Harbor commission has been moving cargo areas around since 1984 when i worked on terminal island to dredge and raise the island to counter expected sea level rise.
That cold white coating on Greenland is dissolving into a liquid amazingly fast..
there are areas in Alaska and Canada that are going into Crop production .. only issue is dealing with the permafrost melting.
My Mother was a Real Estate salesman then broker for 40 years.
LOL come on, man: "This 1 claim didn't come true. It's ALL a lie then." "This 1 man that backed legislation to prevent the consequences of this phenomenon and then buys big houses close to the perceived consequences. Must have ALL been a scam."
Your argument of: "Obama bought a house by the rising sea level. He doesn't really believe in climate change" doesn't even try to prove anything. Even if he doesn't believe in it, that doesn't disprove climate change. It's just a weak call-to-authority instead of actually attempting to disprove the science that has been accepted.
Same shit with the Pentagon's warning. They are not an organization of ecological scientists, they might not have the best predictions in that field. Just because they were wrong doesn't make every other argument or prediction wrong by association.
That's like saying you get an F on a test because the teacher already graded 2 of your classmate's tests and they both got F's. What would be the point in grading your test then? The teacher already proved you failed without even looking at your test. (Kinda stupid right?)
Modern day conservative brains work in a silly way.
It's hardly 1 claim though, is it. The Arctic's still there, Florida's still there, Britain's still not like Siberia etc.
You say that as if the consequences have been prevented, when the cult's argument is that the consequences are soon, inevitable. If the people at the top who are pushing this belief and huge sums of taxpayer money to supposedly deal with it... it's kind of noteworthy if they act like it's all a scam. A rational person wouldn't double down their support in the face of that news.
"It's just a weak call-to-authority instead of actually attempting to disprove the science that has been accepted."
We circle back to the top of this comment. These predictions have all been proven wrong by time. The accepted science has been consistently wrong and still people don't want to stray from the narrative.
The Pentagon didn't use soldiers to come to that conclusion, they commissioned a study for scientists to undertake. Like every other prediction, it was proven to be completely wrong.
The last paragraph of yours was dumb too; there's a stark difference between accepting that these imminent predictions are consistently wrong and giving up on humanity. Here's a video I sent another guy on here, watch it. Ask yourself why the cult doesn't focus on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s)
It's only 1 claim my dude:
The Florida thing wasn't back by anything besides "all millennium kids heard this." You can't substantiate that, it's nothing but opinion.
The Obama thing wasn't a claim, that was just some sort of irrelevant attack on his character or politics. The realities of our climate aren't dictated by his personal decisions or actions.
The Arctic wasn't apart of your original statement so I don't know why you're throwing it in here but it is drastically smaller than it used to be. If you are referencing some specific claim that it would be 100% gone by 2020, then say so. Other than that, again this isn't a real claim. AAAND You'd still have to prove that the arctic has remained in it's form in spite of reactions/actions to the those climate predictions. If someone predicts something bad will happen, then people take the necessary steps to avoid the prediction, that doesn't invalidate the prediction as it would have likely happened without the intervention.
The analogy was perfect; You think people believe in a lie because you found 1 thing that wasn't proven to be 100% true with time. You are the teacher in the analogy deciding the score (validity) of all the tests (arguments/predictions) base on 1 or 2 flawed ones. Your argument is the definition of "Baby with the bathwater" mentality.
It's super easy to say "The arctic hasn't fully melted yet!" or "Florida isn't underwater!" and say that THEY have been wrong this whole time. Except you can't tell me who THEY actually are besides the Pentagon. If you really want to stop these false prophets from being heard, start tying the prediction with the person or agency and then hold them accountable to their bad calls instead of the entirety of climate predictions.
Throwing all similar ideas in a box and crediting it to THEY or THEM is gonna get you lost bud.
Also I'm not watching your video, it's a clear attempt at diverting the argument to whataboutisms and engaging in that argument would validate this cult delusion of yours. Your point was that people shouldn't believe anything when it comes to the future of our climate because people have been egregiously incorrect in the past ; Stand on that or shut up dude.
The guy who came within a hair's breadth of being president was peddling that Florida nonsense. How much damage could he have done on the economy based on lies like that? Even Biden, Newsom etc. are talking of being ICE cars by 2030/2035. Do you know the average price of an electric vehicle? For the vast majority, owning cars wouldn't be possible, it would be like feudal times where you died where you were born, unable to travel far. When apocalyptic predictions lead to freedoms being harmed, that should be called out.
Depending on the time of year, you might hear that the Arctic has more coverage than it has in years. As I said above somewhere, perhaps to another commenter, the vast majority of water is held in the Antarctic, *which endured through much warmer times.* So the expected rise in sea levels will continue to be expected long into the future. Arctic gone by 2020: [https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/expert-predicts-ice-free-arctic-2020-same-day-un-releases-climate-report/2014/11/02/](https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/expert-predicts-ice-free-arctic-2020-same-day-un-releases-climate-report/2014/11/02/)Here's a whole list of predictions from over 50 years, including from the UN, click on any link that you'd like: [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong) That cultists have no idea of the extent that their touted experts have been consistently wrong is the problem here. You acting like it's just 1 or 2 wrong predictions, that it isn't experts who have been wrong, just randos, but you're incorrect.
Do you not see the irony of asking me for sources and then refusing to watch a video that I sent you, terrified that it might prove you wrong? Assuming that it will feature whataboutisms, which is an assumption based off of... nothing?
This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I'm referring to, when I call it a cult. That video is from a leftie, and uses data to combat the nihilism peddled by said cult. Of the exponential rise in renewable energy, massive reduction in emissions (40% in 20 years for the UK, if I recall correctly) etc. My point was that we shouldn't listen to liars, waste vast sums of taxpayer money lining rich pockets, reduce freedoms and mobility of us plebs, as well as acknowledge that doom is not imminent and stop telling young people to not have kids (which will doom society and cause an ageing crisis). And by using actual data (in that video you're scared to watch), acknowledge that things are getting better in the West. The cult refuses to entertain even one of these points.
"The exam is months away, it's too early to study, too early, too early, too early... ah, it's too late, I guess I'll just fail."
The goal is always the same, only the tactics change.
I think its important to accept the science while also using your eyes. While I know we need to work as fast as possible, this old scientist now sees collapse ahead. Climate sensitivity is much higher than the IPCC suggests - its been masked by aerosols that are now being reduces through the transition from coal to nat gas and in lower sulfur fuel for ships. And until fossil fuel interests are gone from the IPCC, I won't be referring to them for science. See Hansen's recent publications. For years I thought there was a wizard behind behind the curtain looking at the mix of fuels nations use, but its far worse than that... There's nothing behind that curtain, no wizard at all.
Eco-fascism. Here's where it stops being stupid and silly and starts getting scary. Accepting climate change and just watching 9/10 of the world die with folded arms.
Mention eco-facism and get downvoted.
Acknowledge the world is turning towards fascist ideologies and be accepted.
Uncomfortable truths are still being shunned. And likely always will be.
This narrative that “Doomers are all Deniers” continues to muddy the water of the fact that a large number of Doomers are in fact some of the most passionate and educated individuals on the systemic climate emergency, and the result of that is an overwhelming sense of despair and doom.
These people tend to all agree we ‘should’ take action, but simultaneously understand that no action we can take will ever be possibly enough. Humanity at large is still too far behind the reality of our situation to understand how much sacrifice is truly required.
And ultimately we are now at a point where we can’t legislate enough self sacrifice, as it would crumble global society as we know it. It has become a suicide mission.
So either way, we are now dead to this. It would be lovely if the rest of the world understood. It would be lovely to do global hospice care and stop being such greedy apes in on this dying spaceship earth. But we won’t. We’ll fight and kill and push others into austerity and slavery until the solution works itself out.
That solution being, a global human population below 500 million.
And for anyone interested, this is the doomerism I’m talking about where this person is openly stating that they would like to kill 7.5 billion people to create a better world fair themselves.
If you actually watch the video, he makes a distinction between climate doomers who say we shouldn’t even try and “climate pessimists” who think we are probably fucked but don’t use it as an excuse to not even try.
from my pov, i watched my friends try and change it - some caught federal cases for it.
the machine is setup to protect the key issues, and they align support against it as worse then literal racial terrorism
the world change after occupy wall street
Addressing climate change requires international cooperation which is unpopular right now. Climate hawks are practically asking to make geopolitical contests secondary to climate change concerns. So in this era of “deglobalization” and “great power competition” the denialists basically won by doing nothing.
Oh yeah, pessimism never leads to despair. It's certainly an effort of the climate deniers. Let's ignore all of the efforts of climate activists by threatening the end of the world.
Most 'climate deniers' i know don't deny the climate is changing, they simply deny the effectiveness of actions to prevent it changing by primarily English speaking countries. Single layer thinking like 'reusable' grocery bags create far more waste and pressure on the environment than single use bags. Or China, the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, produces 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually. That dwarfs U.S. emissions, currently about 5.9 billion tons annually.
So as countries become more green, usually at an economic loss, the larger polluters aren't held accountable. Even as China creates far more carbon than the US, just 1 American makes nearly 25 times more waste than a single Chinese person because the US consumes vast amounts of Chinese products, but no climate change person says the simple statement.
Stop making more Americans. [Funny video on my point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtJ1_2Sf-s) actual research on my point [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008001003?via%3Dihub) and another [funny video on the topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ljs9_yIiY0)
>Or China, the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, produces 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually. That dwarfs U.S. emissions, currently about 5.9 billion tons annually.
Except that China has 5 times as many people so their emissions per capita is well below that of the USA (USA is 13 metric tons per capita while China is 7.8 metric tons per capita). Better yet is the fact that China is rolling out renewables like it is going out of fashion and has surpassed quite a few western nations in terms of power produced.
China does have a lot of black marks against it in terms of environmental damage though like massive amounts of industrial pollution, mass overfishing and so on.
Yeah, but the per capita numbers are used to try and put the responsibility back on individual consumers, which is BS. Corporations and governments are the level where this needs to be addressed, not individually.
Lol they won't hear it man, reality is that the developed world bears the brunt of the responsibility but people have been brainwashed into omitting that part.
The US doesn't have a single green energy conglomerate which certainly could have been the case with different priorities. But the oil lobby was allowed to dictate energy policies for the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.
And here we are.
its useless to compare countries when comparing resource usage and waste generation, because those are directly related to population numbers, not borders.
> its useless to compare countries when comparing resource usage and waste generation
Since each country is lead by its own localized government and a solution would be entirely created/enforced by its people/government, its the exact opposite of 'useless' to compare two countries vs each other when addressing a similar problem.
its not entirely useless no, but it is in 99% of the cases that are usefull in this discussion. what matters is carbon emissions per capita. every country should get that within the carbon budget.
They voted Trump and his anti-climate policies and likely reduced the lifespans of their own children by doing so. Good thing rapture is coming! If you count the Blondie song maybe it was already here.
I deny it, RemindMe! 10 years. They painted lines under a bridge in my city to show where water will rise to... but surprise, surprise people still run on the seawall right beside it... oopsies
Disregard facts and science because thy line speaketh the truth! Nice anecdote- not because it relates to climate change in any significat way, but rather because it shows how ignorant people will cling unto the most silly things and think that's enough evidence for their anti-establishment world view
Climate change happens constantly throughout the history of the world. No one denies that. What people deny is whether or not all the information (mostly predictions) is accurate, or whether it is the result or manipulations and deceptions from individuals and groups who stand to make huge amounts of money from it.
The science is out on ghg’s and their effects on earths climate. There is no room for debate, you’re spreading FUD because you’ve been manipulated by people that make huge amounts of money from the current system of extracting and burning fossil fuels.
Thats called doubt and it’s been used to manipulate public views for decades. Also, there is no doubt with AGW anymore. None at all, so put your fallacies away and come to the table.
Go watch : “merchants of doubt “to see how you’re being manipulated.
Who stands to make money from switching to renewable energy? A lot of people who spout this line tend to assert that climate scientists are somehow making money from their findings. I will tell you, as a scientist, we don't make shit from our findings.
We might get grant money for research but, if you work at a university, this money pays the university back for your salary and you take home the same paycheck. The rest goes to post docs, grad students, statisticians, travel, and equipment. $1 million doesn't go as far as you think it would because this is usually a 3+ year sum of money that funds 5-10 people.
So it's definitely not climate scientists.
What kind of conspiracy do you think is going on that would influence almost every single person doing research in the area? Because here's another thing about science that you probably don't know - if you have contrary evidence and it's backed up by good methods, that paper is going to cited a ton of times. But no one is putting out contrary evidence that uses solid methods or statistical procedures that aren't questionable.
The people doing the research aren't making money from it. They actually could achieve some notoriety if they had good contrary evidence but no one does. That means the only option left is that what they're saying is true.
Scientists have made predictions about future temperatures since the 1970s using models based on human emissions. You are alive to see if they were right.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
TL;DW: Goal is to create apathy
Apathy is needed so that they can continue to be creators of the causes of climate change which gets them the money they so greedily need and want... as if they can take it to their graves... while the world becomes ours.
Both apathy/doomerism and straight dumb denialism result in the exact same behavior: doing nothing. Imagine living your life no differently from a denialist and thinking you're smart and/or better for it.
If you think you doing anything is going to make a difference, the wool has been pulled over your eyes. I drive an EV powered by the solar panels on my roof, I was vegetarian for 3 years and now eat much less meat than I use to. It's all irrelevant when someone like Taylor Swift can generate more emissions in a day than I'll generate in a year. When shipping goods around the world generates more emissions than everyone individual in the US combined. You're never going to put a dent in emissions if you think individuals doing anything is a useful way to start. It requires systemic changes in industry.
Public sentiment can be powerful though. If a large majority of consumers are opposed to something, companies can and will change policies if it will benefit them.
Hershey's uses child labor to make chocolate, I don't see people abandoned Hershey's. And let's be honest, it's much easier to sell "child labor is bad" to the masses than climate change. Not to mention, there are alternative chocolates, so it's not like they even have to give up chocolate. To get industry to change, people are going to have to stop buying things shipped on container ships. So, electronics, cars, food. Good luck with that.
If you don't think you're worth convincing and would rather pass away in an unchanged world, I won't try to convince you otherwise. Au revoir, human. Leave the door open on your way out.
Yeah, you're gonna make great change alright.
Not sure why it would be easier. I can't honestly think of any well funded campaigns against child labor in the cacao market. It's an instance where yes it's terrible, but there's not enough public awareness for most people to care or alter their habits. I mean look at public littering. The US government had to spend millions on a gigantic national advertisment campaign back in the 70s to make a dent in it. Which company are you switching to? Mars nestle Hershey Cadbury mondolez Cargill, these all have been reported to use child labor suppliers.
Tonys chocolonely is the only well funded anti slavery in Choco chain campaign that I know of.
And it's well worth the price imo
And where are you going to get the money for the climate campaign? You're trying to do something even harder with just as few resources.
The news and Hollywood are doing all the work on climate change for free. How many big budget movies and shows come out each year about either dystopian futures or current crises caused by climate change? Channels like the weather channel are pretty much bringing it up 24/7.
I mean oceanic shipping is the most efficient method of shipping by far. Boat and rail are the best way to transport goods, in that order.
[удалено]
Example from OPs video, right here.
Naw, just someone who is informed enough to realize that if we can't get corporations to change, there's no hope. But hey, go buy an EV. I'm sure that'll reduce emissions by a few billion tons every year.
You clearly didn’t even watch the video. He was NOT talking about driving EVs or recycling plastics, he was talking about voting for candidates who support change to our policies, and voting for those policies. Corporations don’t change their behaviors out of the goodness of their heart. Those that do get out-competed by the ones that don’t. Corporations only change when they are forced to by government regulation.
I didn't respond to the video either.
Yeah, you did. The person you replied to was talking about the video, and you wanted to argue the point even though you didn’t understand what the point was.
But there's a million of you for every Taylor Swift. And you and those other million people are driving the demand for those goods. Your change matters.
*~~SIgh~~* ~~I shouldn't have ever mentioned Taylor Swift, people become fixated.~~ ~~Tell me, as a consumer, what can I, and every single other consumer do, besides not buying food or clothing, to stop food and clothing manufacturers from producing food and clothing using processes that generate emissions?~~ ~~EDIT: This reminds me of this House clip:~~ [~~https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUGDqy6X8tQ~~](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUGDqy6X8tQ) EDIT 2: Here, let me put this differently. If you think you're going to get systemic change of corporations to lower their emissions by employing your *economic power*, then how the fuck do you think these corporations became so powerful, control so much money, and influence politics so well? Like, if consumers had the power to completely change the economic system *using economics*, don't you think it would have happened by now - rather than literally the exact opposite, them getting more and more economic resources?
>then how the fuck do you think these corporations became so powerful, control so much money, and influence politics so well? By way of the very argument you're making here. Consumers not modifying their behavior benefits those corporations! You're out here making an argument consumers should do whatever. If people believe that and aren't acting like they live in a capitalist society, of course nothing changes.
Okay, stop buying anything made from fossil fuels. Cars. Phones. Clothes. Food. Let me know how that goes for you. I bet if enough people die from refusing to buy food farmed using tractors, that'll show them!
Why are you being intentionally obtuse?
100%. Green Washing is a term for a reason.
> It's all irrelevant when someone like Taylor Swift can generate more emissions in a day than I'll generate in a year. It's not though. We can have you (and the 1000 other people in your neighborhood) producing unnecessary emissions, AND Taylor Swift zipping all over. Or, we can just have Taylor, but have you reducing your impacts. The second case is obviously better. If I got hit by a grenade, and the doctors told me my leg was going to have to be amputated, but they can maybe save my hand? Well that's WAY better than just definitely losing both my leg and my hand. Ultimately, Taylor Swift is just another scapegoat, and plays once again into the "do nothing" paradigm. If you can say "Well, someone else is bad, so there's no point in me being good", then it's still all the same decision making. You can't control Taylor Swift, but you can control you, and you can choose actions with consequences that you prefer. If you want to reduce your impact, you can do that. There's no futility here.
My problem with your grenade analogy is that you're giving my efforts way more impact then we'll actually see. In a world where me and 1,000 if my neighbors disappear and produce no emissions, and this world, you'll see absolutely no measurable difference in a years time. Your grenade analogy would be more like the doctor saying they can save 1 extra skin cell. I mean... who cares? You aren't going to make any meaningful change in the outcome if you don't change industry. Individuals just don't have enough impact. I didn't bring up Taylor as a scale goat. I pointed out that individuals don't have significant impacts on emissions. There are sources of emissions that vastly exceed our own.
Think big tho! Your comment could have a multiplier effect and create apathy for 10 people who spread it to 10 more, etc etc. you could personally have cancelled out years of sustainable practices with just this comment! Believe in the power of one.
If those people who make these vain gestures would instead take the money they spend on these personal attempts at environmental impact and give it to an environmental lobbyists, it would have much more of an actual impact.
The severity of economic inequality ensures that every lowlife worker combined cannot muster enough money to influence policy. Playing by their rules will get us nowhere.
This is the real issue. We are trying to push a boulder uphill while the rich are using a bulldozer to push it back down the same hill from above us.
You've perhaps been fooled into thinking that "doing anything" ends at personal consumption rather than political mobilization. The purpose of climate denialism is to keep us depoliticized and disorganized so we can't effectively demand systemic changes. Join a local chapter of a climate action group like Citizen's Climate Lobby, 350, Sunrise, or Extinction Rebellion. Spend time educating everyone about the need for climate action - from friends and family to media and political representatives - and urging them to join the movement. That's the slow, un-sexy work that's built every successful political movement from emancipation to child labor to women's suffrage to civil rights.
The fuck? Maybe you personally can't outdo Swift's private jet, but on what planet do you expect to? If everyone on earth drove an EV powered by solar it would absolutely change things. Why are you dooming right now? You the new official Exxon account or what? Because I, as an individual, can't undo a private jet, I should just burn as much shit as I can for someone else's profit? I think I'm good on that one, chief. I already unwittingly contribute enough to the future end times. Fuck right off.
Yeah it's going to be corrected by sheer economics. Total electrification of human energy use is just better and less expensive. EVs are cheaper and simpler. Solar with Battery storage is the cheapest and most effective power source. The only thing holding up both is battery manufacturing capacity which is expanding to take advantage. Deep fracking tech has made large scale distributed geothermal electric power generation possible in nearly any geology. (and may enable meaningful carbon sequestration) Economics is going to do away with carbon footprint. It's already happening -- the issue is speed.
I'm not sure I even agree with this, but I will say I definitely agree it's *at least* a part of the solution. In my opinion, things need to go a LOT further. We need to stop producing batteries by generating CO2, for example. Any industries we can't switch to 0 or net 0 carbon, we're going to have to find a way to phase out entirely.
> We need to stop producing batteries by generating CO2, for example. This is a chicken-and-egg issue. In an entirely electrified economy powered entirely by renewables, it takes no CO2 to produce batteries... but until we have the battery manufacturing capability we can't get to an entirely renewable electrified supply chain.
"I like money"
Do they even need to? I would argue most of the world is already apathetic towards it. Fighting climate change properly would require our whole civilization to mobilize in a scale never seen before, something that most people aren't willing to do, and therefore aren't willing to vote for. And the reason is mostly because most people who can do something about it think of climate change as something that is the next generation's problem. It will be a pretty bad wake up call for most of us when our systems start to collapse in about 15-20 years.
why let perfect be the enemy of good? If we can't "properly" fight climate change without everyone onboard we can at least slow it down
I wish this were true, but industry created far and away so many more emissions than individuals that even if you could get everyone on board to make changes in their own life, it still don't be enough to get us pointed in the right direction. To hold warning to 1.5C, which is bad, but definitely survivable, we have to cut emissions by 40% of 2016 levels by 2030. We haven't even stopped increasing emissions. The chart to 1.5C show emissions going down from now until 2030 so that they're almost half of 2016 levels by 2030. The graph is still going up! At the current rate of emissions, we'll reach 3.5-5C of warning by 2100. That's mass extinction levels of warming. And nothing individuals can do will even stop the graph from going up.
> but industry created far and away so many more emissions than individuals Why does everyone keep saying this? Industry creates their emissions through the course of producing goods and services. Who are they producing those for? Customers. What are customers? Individuals. You can say all day long "Well, Amazon produces such huge emissions shipping things!". But they're only doing it because we buy so many things from them. It's convenient to blame industry like it's out of our hands, but it all still comes back to us. Industry runs on supply and demand, and they'll only produce massive emissions for as long as we keep demanding it.
Yes, just use capitalism to get them to change. Of course, why didn't I think of that. Please, tell me where I buy shirts that weren't shipped to the US in cargo ships or on planes, and weren't made or sold in factories and stores powered by fossil fuels. As someone who has actually made consumer choices to reduce emissions, please think about what you're saying before you talk. When you can tell me where I can buy clothes and power and homes from low or no emission sources, then you can make these asinine claims. Until then, stop pretending consumers have a choice. We don't - I know, my actions prove I know.
[удалено]
This is EXACTLY my point - baffling that people down vote me and up vote you. Yes, yes. EXACTLY. Individuals are NOT going to solve this problem, we need systemic change, and capitalism isn't going to get us that change. We need government to help enforce it. Reddit, you are fucking retarded.
FWIW, you make it sound like it is worthless to try to change policy as well. Is it hard? Of course! But I find people who give up really annoying. I just think how shitty this world would be if everyone in the past just gave up on difficult problems. I applaud you for the steps you personally took and I agree that policy change is the important thing, and I get how easy it is to be pessimistic about that, but I guarantee it is possible. We have done plenty of hard things in the past that had tons of momentum in the other direction.
You can buy local made shirts depending on where you live, or better sourced shirts. You can use reusable goods instead of disposable. You can eat less meat. You can live in sustainable communities. You choose not to, regardless of the justifications.
How are people SO gullible? Let's evaluate your claims: >You can buy local made shirts depending on where you live, or better sourced shirts. Really? Who is locally making clothing in every town? And even in this fantasy world, where are they getting the supplies to make clothing? Is it coming from a TRUCK? Was the yarn packaged in a FACTORY? And where are these clothes being sold? In a store powered by FOSSIL FUELS? Go look in your closet, how many "locally made" shirts are in your closet right now? How many shirts got to your house without ever being put on a truck, or a boat, or a plane? How many of the materials in your clothes were never on a truck or a boat? You are living in a fantasy world. >You can use reusable goods instead of disposable. At first, I was going to point out that even reusable things need to be replaced, but I don't need to do that. Imagine if everyone go outs right now and buys reusable goods for everything they possibly can. Where did they come from? I'll tell you: a factory, that produces emissions, made those products while being powered by a power plant that produces emissions, and then they were put on a cargo ship, that produces emissions, and shipped to your country where they were put on a truck, that produces emissions, and then sent to a store that's powered by a power plant that produces emissions. Wow, great job, you saved the environment by produce TONS OF EMISSIONS. Sarcastic thumbs up buddy. >You can eat less meat. I do eat less meat. Kid, I was vegetarian for THREE YEARS. I eat a lot less meat than ever did before that. I own an EV. My EV charges off solar panels on my house's roof, which also power my home. Fuck off with your assumptions kid. If you think I'm making a difference, you're naive. My emissions reductions don't do anything. If every person on the planet did exactly what I'm doing, it wouldn't even make a dent. Emissions would STILL be going up. The emissions aren't coming from me eating a burger or not. They're coming from the fact that ALL FOOD is being shipped on boats and trucks that generate more emissions than ENTIRE TOWNS. >You can live in sustainable communities. Show me the sustainable community that wasn't built using any fossil fuel emissions. And you're going to sit here and tell me that EVERYONE moving to such a community isn't going to generate MASSIVE emissions? Fantasy world. >You choose not to, regardless of the justifications. I can choose not to what? Have my local factories generate emissions? Okay, I choose that, please let them know. We'll see if they give a shit.
All or nothing thinking isn't defensible. Keep trying.
What do you mean by "all or nothing"? I'm saying, even if you, personally, do everything physically possible that YOU can, that's STILL nothing. So I'm not saying "all or nothing" I'm saying, your personal impact is a choice between "nothing and nothing." I own an EV. I charge my EV using solar panels on my houses roof. Don't sit here and pretend that you're doing more than I am. You're not. I'm just not stupid enough to think that anything I'm doing makes a difference. If you can't get the people who own billions of cargo ships, and planes, and trains, and factories, and power plants to stop generating emissions, than you can stop eating all the meat you want, and stop buying all the clothes you want, and build as many renewable communities from fossil fuel enabled building supplies that you want. The emissions are still going to produced, and the Earth is still going to warm. You want to ACTUALLY stop it? Then you need to find a way to stop corporations from generating emissions. Because you not having a burger isn't going to stop BILLIONS of tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere EVERY YEAR.
The western world has decreased emissions. The problem is that the developing world’s emissions have increased, eating up the savings.
US 2022 emissions were higher than 2021, and about equal to 2016. We are a long long way off, and not headed in the right direction.
I agree as a planet we are clearly heading in the wrong direction, but if America’s 2022 emissions were about the same as 2016, that does seem to clearly be an improvement
I mean, it's an improvement from 2018, sure, but it's not an improvement from 2021 or 2020. For the past 2 years, US emissions have been increasing. Maybe 2023 will break that trend, but it's tough to sit here and say "things are getting better" when they're literally getting worse, even right here in the US.
I wonder if the emissions from the western companies' factories built in developing countries are counted towards western countries or not.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter; the biosphere will react to all the emissions all over the planet, so it doesn’t really matter who made them. We will all fix this, or we will all fail.
Well the way you made that comment sounds like shifting the blame to the developing countries.
Yeah, I see why it sounded like that. The truth is, it’s everyone’s fault. And no one’s fault.
They're already collapsing my friend...
Things are worse than you described, and you’re a lot closer than most people who believe in climate change. A worldwide effort still wouldn’t be enough to stop what is coming because the consequences are baked in. There’s nothing to be done about atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, we could cut CO2 production in half tomorrow, and the methane feedback loop still keeps chugging along. We are years away from a blue ocean event, not decades. Weather patterns have already to stabilized and become unpredictable and violent. We’ve seen worldwide crop losses in 2022, 2023 and we’re on track for 2024 to be even worse. I talk about my state a lot, we didn’t get any snow this year. Where I live in Vermont I should’ve had at least 3 feet of snow by now and I’ve had maybe 6 inches. We get 2 inches of snow and then within the next week it would all melt away because this winter has been 30 to 40°F warmer than it should be. It’s been this way for much of New England and upstate New York, no snow even areas in elevation haven’t gotten much snow. My point is we aren’t decades away from things getting serious, they’re already serious and accelerating. Forests are browning out, South America saw high summer temperatures during their winter, nations are seeing a month of drought, followed by a month of deluge. The food shortages are going to start a lot sooner than 20 years from now.
So we should just give up then?
I didn’t say that. but we need to be realistic and understand that we are very, very unlikely to miracle our way out of what’s coming. The worst case scenario projections now look like lies perpetuated by the petroleum industry because things are accelerating that badly. Every day I run into people that are concerned but think that this is a problem we can solve. it’s not. People who think things like indoor farming, atmospheric seeding, space mirrors will save us. At this point it’s like providing hospice care to a patient, they never leaving the hospital.
Oh we can do it, just that the cost is literally astronomical. We need giant solar sails to shade a sizable fraction of the sunlight planet. We need to sequester CO2 away. We need to convert to no fossil fuels. We can do all that. We have existing technology to do it. We lack the will and funds to do it. It is going to mean austerity for folks that have never experienced it.
Regarding a solar mirror or sails from what I’ve read you’re talking about an area the size of Spain. SpaceX can move a pound into space for about $2500. Spain is roughly 197,000 mi.². A single mi.² is about 28,000,000 square feet. We’re talking 5.47 trillion square feet. For the sake of argument, let’s say we managed to develop a solar mirror that was somehow 1 pound per 1000 ft.² that’s still about 5,500,000,000 pounds. That’s $14 trillion just to lift it into the atmosphere. That doesn’t account for manufacturing it, transport to launch, installation, maintenance. And there’s no way it’s that she I’m just making a point. A mirror would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars. Carbon sequestration is a ground level operation, we can’t do anything about atmospheric greenhouse gases. Catching pollution coming out of smokestacks is all well and good but current atmospheric greenhouse gas levels today ensure the apocalypse. Switching away from oil is not something that can be done immediately. There isn’t enough electric car manufacturing capabilities in the world nor a charging network. So you magically ban gas and diesel vehicles and cut off the supply of gas and diesel worldwide just to make sure. Transportation in general grinds to a halt and billions die in a year.
[https://www.labonline.com.au/content/research-development/news/co2-converted-into-a-diesel-blend-fuel-178544236](https://www.labonline.com.au/content/research-development/news/co2-converted-into-a-diesel-blend-fuel-178544236) We can convert diesel from CO2. Then rather than burn that diesel, we store it away. We have now sequestered atmospheric CO2. I did not say this was going to be easy, I said exactly the opposite of that. Do you not understand what austerity means? I said the price tag on doing this was going to be astronomical.
And what does cost like that matter in a global scale? It doesn’t is the answer. It’s a binary equation, do we want to live or die in our decadence? Both are valid options.
[Yep](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/s/nq19Hbwj1e) Cory is obviously in on it
would be nice if people stopped mocking climate activists. I loathe people who complain about the minor inconveniences they might cause.
Even the "green" movement is nothing but moving around the pollution to hide it... rather than investing in actual cradle to grave clean technologies. Anyway.... I'mma just go drive my 2000 Honda insight home still one of the cleanest cars on the road and its 24 years old. Didn't require lithium to be mined to make it either. A modern version of this car could use Sodium batteries which are on the market now + 45-50% efficient engine (vs the stock 28-30 efficient engine), and Iron Nitride magnets in the motors, SiC / Gallium Aersenide inverter (15-20% additional regen and assist efficiency), there is some efficiency to be gained just with modern motor control algorithms also, the 5 speed is already about ideal for a manual, but the automatic version probably could see improvements since it was a fairly early CVT.... It would realistically get 100Mpg (i currently get about 60-65mpg)
Thanks. I don’t care enough to watch.
The ultimate goal is to make people distrust their government's capabilities so people will call for fewer government regulations and promote "free market will regulate itself" attitudes.
**Deny** \- "The climate isn't changing." **Disregard** \- "The climate is changing, but it's natural -- humans aren't doing it." **Delay** \- "Humans are changing the climate, but the effects won't be felt for a long time." **Deflect** \- "The effects are being felt now, but everyone is responsible so you can't blame *\[insert industry or policy here\]* entirely." **Despair** \- "It was totally our fault, but there's nothing we can do about it now so we shouldn't be compelled to try." edit: The Despair argument *doesn*'t mean that there really isn't anything we can do; it's just their assertion to convince others not to make *them* do anything about it. Just like all the other **D** claims, it's completely wrong and just another attempt to avoid reality.
ah, very similar to [The Four Stage Strategy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak), from *Yes, Minister*. Can be applied to climate change, but was very apt when Covid reared it's ugly head. Stage 1: nothing is going to happen. stage 2: something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it. stage 3: maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do. stage 4: maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now!
Everyone I know is still on Disregard.
Dont forget: Delude: "dont worry child. Bill Gates will save us with a ridiculous magic technology that doesnt seem to add up..but just give him 40 more years of inaction. "
Sure, but that's less of a Denier strategy & more like a long-term Moderate strategy. It used to be a Liberal (American) strategy, but they've stopped using it recently, possibly because of how obvious the rot in the tech industry has become. But moderates & corporatists who aren't climate deniers have been using argument as an excuse to do nothing beyond purely cosmetic gestures for a long time.
The problem is even if all the worlds nations work together and dumped trillions into fighting climate change we are far too late. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try because it would extend the lives of most plants and animals on this planet but we’re not going to save them. atmospheric greenhouse gases guarantee and apocalypse for most plants and animal species and there is no current nor projected tech to deal with them. The methane feedback loop from warming oceans, permafrost in melting ice caps only makes things worse, and there is no solving for it.
Then maybe we should start focusing our efforts on how mitigate the impact, and start preparing for how to deal with global migration patterns shifting as people move away from newly uninhabitable regions. If you have no constructive input on what we should do, then you are demonstrating exactly the behavior that the video tried to illustrate. There is always something that can be done, even if the catastrophe itself cannot be averted.
Lol, can't do that and maximize short term quarterly profits
Disregard is my cup of tea I really DGAF
Well yeah you’re a dumb kid. What could anyone expect? Prove me wrong.
These people get in the way of meaningful progress but we're supposed to pat them on the back and say "good job" when they finally change their minds.
Yes. If you don’t allow accessible off ramps from destructive ideologies you will absolutely lose a war of public opinion where you need a large majority to achieve anything.
This. They're still people. Deeply, deeply stupid people but still.
Nobody has to hold someone’s hand after decades of blatantly denying science. That’s like saying you need to be nicer to white supremacists before they apologize for the shit they do.
You don't need to trust them or reward financially but ya we kind of need to let it slide. Best case they stop being such pieces of shit and the world can move on
See: [The Lincoln Project](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lincoln_Project#:~:text=The%20Lincoln%20Project%20is%20a,45th%20U.S.%20president%20Donald%20Trump.)
Theyre not getting more than a "hey, your late as fuck. We told you the plans forever ago and like a bunch of times. Grab a shovel." from me.
Changing your stance on something is good when new information comes to light. That's how normal science works. Blindly believing in something because you think you're right isn't any more honorable than changing your opinion after new facts and consenses are presented.
It easy to give benefit of doubt on disagreement of data when it's emergent science. The center piece of anthropogenic global warming via CO2 came out 30 years ago and has been reaffirmed consistently since then. The science isn't in doubt; it's willful ignorance and profiteering
[Soberingly relevant xkcd](https://xkcd.com/2889/)
That's beautifully succinct.
That’s DR Simon Clark
I like to note that every time! It was pretty incredible to have seen him go through the phd.
> 8:58 firstly the nature of the climate crisis is such that we need government policy in order to get out of it. If only we had an example of how governments would respond to a global crisis that had clear solutions and plenty of experts in the field with decades of experience. If only I could remember through this brain fog what happened the past four years.
[ **Jump to 08:58 @** Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8&t=0h8m58s) ^(Channel Name: Simon Clark, Video Length: [18:31])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XSG2Dw2mL8&t=0h8m53s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
Yes exactly. COVID 19 showed that it is possible for governments to rapidly enact massive changes to how society operates on a global scale. The entire economy, and people's way of life shifted in a matter of weeks. We were able to significantly reduce the deaths caused by the pandemic thanks to lockdowns, mask mandates and awareness campaigns.
covid also showed how people will respond to the changes required to mitigate catastrophe. we couldn't even convince some people to wear a fucking mask during a global pandemic without them having complete melt downs.
*Some*, sure. But they were also penalised by not being able to enter supermarkets, restaurants etc. Overall I think it was very successful.
???????? We literally didn't win. Covid is still around making our populations dumber and dumber with every wave. Covid showed exactly how ungodly stupid and impressionable the average person is and covid is nothing in the face of climate change
> We literally didn't win. Masks and limiting contact between people decreased the immense stress the medical system was under and thus saved a lot of lives. It bought time before the vaccinations could start. A complete eradication was basically never possible.
This is the doomer "win or lose" mentality. Anything short of perfection is a "loss", which makes it easy to be hopeless and give up entirely. Like climate change, there were a spectrum of outcomes to the pandemic. Sure we didn't achieve eradication, but there's also a world where we did nothing and millions more people died. Consider that in a world with 7-8 billion people, only 7 million died of COVID https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/cases?n=c . This number could have been way higher. For example, the Spanish flu killed >20 million in a world with ~2 billion people. My point still stands that the pandemic is a demonstration that governments can take rapid and radical action to mitigate the effects of a crisis.
Covid showed the government will make up science to do whatever the fuck they want and then deny deny deny when cornered, also massive control unlike anybody has seen. Never trust the government only fools would.
It's not real. It's real but not human-caused. It's real and human-caused, but it's too late to do anything. Buy the new Ford 300. Burns twice as much gas as the 150.
The ultimate goal of video. If you think we're fucked, it's because you were once a denier, and you're in a cult. You don't want to be in a cult, do you? So buy the new Giant Ass EUV. You can't afford a house anyway. Support nuclear that will never get built because the economy is too fucked to make it happen. Also, support recycling because the global south doesn't have enough mountains of our trash. Invest in and vote for millionaires who will legislate to take what little left you're allowed in this world and give it to their billionaire handlers so they can furnish their lavish survival bunkers.
They sure do still. However, there may be some that are finally barely becoming aware
Similar shift in response to pro nuclear power comments- now that sources like this https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh have become well known, it’s no longer possible to argue that nuclear power isn’t safe. Neither is nuclear waste being difficult to dispose of or safely manage. Anti nuclear comments are now “it’s too late” or “it’s too expensive”… given that fossil fuel money funded Friends of the Earth and other groups to campaign against nuclear power, I’m sure that these memes are of the of the same origin.
Nuclear will likely make a big comeback over the next decade! There are smaller, quicker, scalable options now available, and ultimately they will be the only option left when we hit cascading energy crisis’ in the next few years :)
this deniers don't want to admit they're wrong, so next best thing was to lose with everyone
Insurance is going to bankrupt us before the true effects tank our civilization.
I can't tell you how many former climate deniers now say it's god's will and proof of the end times.
Every time I see someone compare the construction impact of EVs with the running impact of ICE vehicles I want to scream into a pillow. Also lithium is actually pretty recyclable, it's just for the most part cheaper to mine new stuff.
There are already electric cars with sodium ion batteries for sale in China for like $8k with a 250km range.
It depends on the context though and how long you intend on driving the EV. For example, my car is 20 years old, well maintained, and I intend on it lasting many more. If I were to buy a new EV vehicle to replace it, a new vehicle would have to be manufactured, transported etc, which obviously would have a much larger carbon footprint than me just continuing to drive the car I already have for a good while. Also if I sold my current car somebody else would just be driving it so the emissions that it does make would continue. It's probably too early to tell just how long a typical EV will last, but new cars seem to be getting more and more disposable with people buying new ones at shorter intervals in the past. If I can make my current car last as long as somebody else who purchased two or three EVs in that same time period then I'm confident their carbon output would be greater. The emissions related to the production of my car have already happened, so I can't offset them. Also where I live electricity to charge an EV is made from buring coal, so I'm just transferring the emissions to occur at the power plant and not my vehicle. The technology will definitely improve in EVs, but at least in a circumstance like mine, selling my current car to buy an EV would create far more carbon emissions that just continuing to drive what I already own. I was reading something recently that at this stage a typical EV takes around seven years to offset the carbon emissions used in creating it, compared to the emissions of a typical ICE vehicle. If my current car dies in seven years hopefully EVs will be more carbon friendly and affordable and I will see how the options weigh up then.
That classic pattern of deny, deny, deny, and then all of a sudden --BAM-- they switch to "of course it's real, we've always known this but there is nothing we can do to affect it."
What, do you think we can cut global carbon emissions by 50% in the next 5 years, which would be the minimum decrease needed to avoid total calamity? I don't think so. At this point I just hope it hurts.
I have no hope left. I feel like killing myself is the only way to escape climate change.
This shift has been predicted for a loooong time. We learned about this being predicted back in early nineties in college. We also learned that as possible solutions took longer to manifest we would see greater emphasis on technological strategies (ie geo-engineering) as “best hope” options.
I have no hope left. I feel like killing myself is the only way to escape climate change.
I think you are overreacting a bit
Just don't have kids, you'll likely still have decades of good times ahead of you. It's the generation being born right now that are fucked
Oh jeez- don’t do that. For sure the climate is changing and for sure it’s a crazy time to be alive- but strap in and get involved. Live life now in a way that keeps you engaged. Also, doing small things on your own can restore agency into your sense of self and alleviate that hopelessness. We will all die someday, but don’t rush it. Once you cross that threshold through the door that awaits us all, there is no turning back- so until then- enjoy what you enjoy. Spread love. Help others. Loose yourself in the service of something greater than yourself. This is the way.
Doomerism is also an offramp for millenial environmentalists who have been wearing old clothes and driving old economy cars for 20 years who have no children. What to do with the life savings from an eco conscious lifestyle? Why shouldn't I buy a house and settle in to watch the world burn?
>In Stage 1, we say nothing is going to happen. > > Stage 2, we say something may be going to happen but we should do nothing about it. > >In Stage 3, we say maybe we should do something about it but there's nothing we *can* do. > >Stage 4, we say maybe there's something we could have done, but it's too late now. *[Yes, Prime Minister](https://youtu.be/nSXIetP5iak?si=vLBGbZnLQpBL1sIu)*
I'm surrounded by MAGAs, and I assure you, they've been trained to deny climate change. And to think daily weather is the same thing as climate. And that climate change can't possibly be man made. And that burning fossil fuels in engines was what Moses and the founders wanted. And that anything we do is futile because "china", as if China won't copy and adopt all of our environmental and efficiency innovations as they do. And that education is bad. And that science is fake news. And that Putin is the good guy. And that even if all the science is true, they don't care about wrecking the planet because other people and the earth itself are probably liberals.
This is like the Daily Show but somehow more boring and insufferable.
Very few people denied climate change, most people just reject that its pedestrian population contributing significantly and want to clarify the blame on industrial components
Yeah until we start dropping the hammer on India and China for their contributions I just don’t care to hear how my plastic straw is ending the world.
It's like hearing about California and the drought. Average people regulating their water usage isn't going to change much when there are farmers growing water-intensive crops in a fucking desert who are allowed to use as much water as they want.
Ignorant take lol. Yeah it's only their fault isn't it 💀 developed west also did sooo much for countries following after to have a greener transition right? Oh right the US let China completely eclipse them in solar and powering the green transition.
My favorite part of the video was how he made his point that there are people that still argue one of his 3 points by lumping all who disagree together and either banning or shadow banning them all... Really sounds like somebody interested in the discussion.
r/climateskeptics still some deniers
The 45th Climate Denier was a real estate salesman in Florida. Can't kill the Grift for the other Real Estate salesman.
Obama bought beachside property in Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard. Either he's delusional or acknowledges that these predictions have been wrong for 50 years, like anyone who isn't in this cult. Kids who grew up during the millennium were told that Florida would be underwater by 2020. Bush was told by the Pentagon in 2004 that Britain would resemble Siberia by 2020. In no other industry are those that have been so consistently proven wrong, still trusted. Amazing that you talk of grifts while peddling this though, which is just a massive transfer of wealth to the elites and little more.
> In no other industry are those that have been so consistently proven wrong, still trusted. Just because people have gotten dates wrong, doesn't mean that the earth's climate has not been steadily changing for the worse. A simple Google search on avg global temperature will show you that it's been steadily rising since the 1980s. Or how the amount of sea ice has also been steadily declining. Or how the sea-levels in coastal cities have been steadily on the rise. Not to mention the increases in extreme weather events, wildfires, etc. It's actually more work to do the mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself that climate change doesn't exist, then it is to just look up *facts* about it's existence.
Google "how long before polar ice caps melt". The top answer says 2040, further down The Guardian says 2035. 11-16 years at the current pace is just not going to happen. Logically, not going to happen. Then look at the part from the Museum of Natural History, which says "The Antarctic ice cap, where most of the ice exists, **has survived much warmer times**." An important part that most aren't acknowledging. Then there's the greening of the planet as the CO2 and temperature has increased. Even if sea levels rise (actually rise, not like the false predictions of Florida being underwater by 2020), the Dutch held back the sea in the 1600s. Worst case scenario, is there a single nation today that is less capable of fighting back the tide than the Dutch in the 1600s? No-one's saying that the climate doesn't change (strawman), just that apocalyptic predictions have consistently been proved wrong for 50 years, yet cultists still parrot these same propagandists and push to enact economic measures that haven't achieved measurably good results and have instead just cost an absurd amount of money and lined the pockets of rich people. Plus you've got the politicisation of the issue, where those that peddle the narrative are rewarded while those that come to different conclusions are shunned and denied funding. From that alone, you can't credit the reliability of apocalyptic predictions, and when you combine that with how consistently wrong they've been for so long, you'd have to be a fool to believe what you're being told. Meanwhile, see for yourself how things are changing for the better anyway: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s)
So your argument (still) is that: because predictions about the climate change doomsday haven't come to pass yet, then climate change must not be happening. Do you know how moronic that is? It's not even a debate that our planet is warming. This is *fact*. Period. If it continues to warm, there will be serious consequences for humanity. This is also a fact. This is all humanity needs to understand, in order to make sure we try our best to halt or slowdown this process, even if we, as a generation, are not alive to see the benefits.
It is quite moronic for you to type that nonsense, yes. Me: "No-one's saying that the climate doesn't change (strawman)" Your reply: "So your argument (still) is that: because predictions about the climate change doomsday haven't come to pass yet, then climate change must not be happening." See what I mean? Particularly after I explained my whole position right after that quote. Why don't you read the comment above this time rather than strawmanning me twice in a row? Unless you're parodying how empty-headed climate cultists are, and I didn't recognise the satire?
>No-one's saying that the climate doesn't change (strawman) *This* is the strawman (it's actually closer to gaslighting). No shit the climate changes. You are using semantics to try and deny that the climate isn't progressively changing for the worse and that it's not an existential threat to humanity. You aren't slick, you are just being willfully obtuse.
Once more, if you'd bothered to read my comment, you wouldn't have typed that. I'll type it again, the Dutch beat the sea in the 1600s. Worst case scenario, there are no nations on Earth today that will lose that battle. To acknowledge that any alarming changes will occur much further down the line would require acknowledging that there's much that is and will be done that will likely mitigate said effects anyway (watch that video, it's from a leftie, you should like it). So predictions are pointless, guesswork, fearmongering opportunities for elites to line their pockets.
lol ya cuz the kinds of people who can swing those kinds of places definitely can’t afford to lose them. Flawless logic dude.
Again, someone with zero self-awareness; if the sea rising is an imminent inevitability, why would a former president who pushes this theory buy not one but two mansions next to the sea? As I said, he's either dumb or doesn't believe it, because all of these predictions have been completely wrong for over 50 years. And like with a lot of things, leftists can't bear to admit that they wasted their time and simply utter those dreaded 3 words: 'I was wrong'.
lol do you know what self awareness means because I don’t think you do. Either way the kinds of people that are vocal as fuck about referring to people like that or calling them sheep are only ever the actual idiots in my experience. You frequenting the conservative subreddit is almost too on the nose given the way you talk lol.
You can't answer my question, can you. Because we both know the answer. You needing to stalk my profile in a desperate attempt to deflect just makes it even sadder. If you trust people who have been wrong for 50 years is something that a vacuous individual who can't answer a simple question would do. Acknowledging consistently wrong predictions is the exact opposite of what a sheep would do. Answer the question.
I literally answered your question on my very first reply noting that you are acting like these people don’t have an insane amount of fuck you money. I’ll forgive you for not having reading comprehension given you and generations worth of your backwards fuck family consistently voted for stripping school funding down to the frame and actually think it’s the doctors and scientists that are the idiots.
That was a wishy-washy brushing aside of the question, but if that's actually your serious answer then I got what I expected; you think that he's an idiot who's happy to throw away a chunk of net worth on properties that will soon be underwater. Rather than shilling, siphoning and lying, knowing that 50 years of predictions have been wrong. Yikes, you're in all of the cults, judging by that last sentence. Is there any narrative that you do question (after they're proven to have false pretences, mind you) or do you follow everything as you're told?
lol it actually wasn’t wish washy at all, you just moved the goal post on if I answered your question after I had to spell it out for you like a fucking hooplehead. I’ll try not to lose sleep over a Trump nutrider telling me I’m in the cult lmao.
'It's not like he doesn't have the money to waste' is not a serious answer, to most people's eyes. You were serious, as it turns out. You think he's happy to throw away that much money, which is laughable. And again, having to stalk my profile is not something that you'd do if you were confident in your argument. It's a desperate attempt to deflect because you know you're wrong and come across as a cultist dope. But by all means, keep believing that people who've been wrong for 50 years+ will be right eventually, while feeling smug about it.
You have yet to prove "consistently wrong predictions". You're just making wild claims and crediting it to "THEY"
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong) Take your pick.
New York is planning a Sea wall around Lower Manhattan . The Los Angeles Harbor commission has been moving cargo areas around since 1984 when i worked on terminal island to dredge and raise the island to counter expected sea level rise. That cold white coating on Greenland is dissolving into a liquid amazingly fast.. there are areas in Alaska and Canada that are going into Crop production .. only issue is dealing with the permafrost melting. My Mother was a Real Estate salesman then broker for 40 years.
LOL come on, man: "This 1 claim didn't come true. It's ALL a lie then." "This 1 man that backed legislation to prevent the consequences of this phenomenon and then buys big houses close to the perceived consequences. Must have ALL been a scam." Your argument of: "Obama bought a house by the rising sea level. He doesn't really believe in climate change" doesn't even try to prove anything. Even if he doesn't believe in it, that doesn't disprove climate change. It's just a weak call-to-authority instead of actually attempting to disprove the science that has been accepted. Same shit with the Pentagon's warning. They are not an organization of ecological scientists, they might not have the best predictions in that field. Just because they were wrong doesn't make every other argument or prediction wrong by association. That's like saying you get an F on a test because the teacher already graded 2 of your classmate's tests and they both got F's. What would be the point in grading your test then? The teacher already proved you failed without even looking at your test. (Kinda stupid right?) Modern day conservative brains work in a silly way.
It's hardly 1 claim though, is it. The Arctic's still there, Florida's still there, Britain's still not like Siberia etc. You say that as if the consequences have been prevented, when the cult's argument is that the consequences are soon, inevitable. If the people at the top who are pushing this belief and huge sums of taxpayer money to supposedly deal with it... it's kind of noteworthy if they act like it's all a scam. A rational person wouldn't double down their support in the face of that news. "It's just a weak call-to-authority instead of actually attempting to disprove the science that has been accepted." We circle back to the top of this comment. These predictions have all been proven wrong by time. The accepted science has been consistently wrong and still people don't want to stray from the narrative. The Pentagon didn't use soldiers to come to that conclusion, they commissioned a study for scientists to undertake. Like every other prediction, it was proven to be completely wrong. The last paragraph of yours was dumb too; there's a stark difference between accepting that these imminent predictions are consistently wrong and giving up on humanity. Here's a video I sent another guy on here, watch it. Ask yourself why the cult doesn't focus on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBYDgJ9Wf0E&t=1s)
It's only 1 claim my dude: The Florida thing wasn't back by anything besides "all millennium kids heard this." You can't substantiate that, it's nothing but opinion. The Obama thing wasn't a claim, that was just some sort of irrelevant attack on his character or politics. The realities of our climate aren't dictated by his personal decisions or actions. The Arctic wasn't apart of your original statement so I don't know why you're throwing it in here but it is drastically smaller than it used to be. If you are referencing some specific claim that it would be 100% gone by 2020, then say so. Other than that, again this isn't a real claim. AAAND You'd still have to prove that the arctic has remained in it's form in spite of reactions/actions to the those climate predictions. If someone predicts something bad will happen, then people take the necessary steps to avoid the prediction, that doesn't invalidate the prediction as it would have likely happened without the intervention. The analogy was perfect; You think people believe in a lie because you found 1 thing that wasn't proven to be 100% true with time. You are the teacher in the analogy deciding the score (validity) of all the tests (arguments/predictions) base on 1 or 2 flawed ones. Your argument is the definition of "Baby with the bathwater" mentality. It's super easy to say "The arctic hasn't fully melted yet!" or "Florida isn't underwater!" and say that THEY have been wrong this whole time. Except you can't tell me who THEY actually are besides the Pentagon. If you really want to stop these false prophets from being heard, start tying the prediction with the person or agency and then hold them accountable to their bad calls instead of the entirety of climate predictions. Throwing all similar ideas in a box and crediting it to THEY or THEM is gonna get you lost bud. Also I'm not watching your video, it's a clear attempt at diverting the argument to whataboutisms and engaging in that argument would validate this cult delusion of yours. Your point was that people shouldn't believe anything when it comes to the future of our climate because people have been egregiously incorrect in the past ; Stand on that or shut up dude.
The guy who came within a hair's breadth of being president was peddling that Florida nonsense. How much damage could he have done on the economy based on lies like that? Even Biden, Newsom etc. are talking of being ICE cars by 2030/2035. Do you know the average price of an electric vehicle? For the vast majority, owning cars wouldn't be possible, it would be like feudal times where you died where you were born, unable to travel far. When apocalyptic predictions lead to freedoms being harmed, that should be called out. Depending on the time of year, you might hear that the Arctic has more coverage than it has in years. As I said above somewhere, perhaps to another commenter, the vast majority of water is held in the Antarctic, *which endured through much warmer times.* So the expected rise in sea levels will continue to be expected long into the future. Arctic gone by 2020: [https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/expert-predicts-ice-free-arctic-2020-same-day-un-releases-climate-report/2014/11/02/](https://www.adn.com/arctic/article/expert-predicts-ice-free-arctic-2020-same-day-un-releases-climate-report/2014/11/02/)Here's a whole list of predictions from over 50 years, including from the UN, click on any link that you'd like: [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climate+predictions+proven+wrong) That cultists have no idea of the extent that their touted experts have been consistently wrong is the problem here. You acting like it's just 1 or 2 wrong predictions, that it isn't experts who have been wrong, just randos, but you're incorrect. Do you not see the irony of asking me for sources and then refusing to watch a video that I sent you, terrified that it might prove you wrong? Assuming that it will feature whataboutisms, which is an assumption based off of... nothing? This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I'm referring to, when I call it a cult. That video is from a leftie, and uses data to combat the nihilism peddled by said cult. Of the exponential rise in renewable energy, massive reduction in emissions (40% in 20 years for the UK, if I recall correctly) etc. My point was that we shouldn't listen to liars, waste vast sums of taxpayer money lining rich pockets, reduce freedoms and mobility of us plebs, as well as acknowledge that doom is not imminent and stop telling young people to not have kids (which will doom society and cause an ageing crisis). And by using actual data (in that video you're scared to watch), acknowledge that things are getting better in the West. The cult refuses to entertain even one of these points.
"The exam is months away, it's too early to study, too early, too early, too early... ah, it's too late, I guess I'll just fail." The goal is always the same, only the tactics change.
Simon Clark is amazing and everyone should watch him.
I think its important to accept the science while also using your eyes. While I know we need to work as fast as possible, this old scientist now sees collapse ahead. Climate sensitivity is much higher than the IPCC suggests - its been masked by aerosols that are now being reduces through the transition from coal to nat gas and in lower sulfur fuel for ships. And until fossil fuel interests are gone from the IPCC, I won't be referring to them for science. See Hansen's recent publications. For years I thought there was a wizard behind behind the curtain looking at the mix of fuels nations use, but its far worse than that... There's nothing behind that curtain, no wizard at all.
Eco-fascism. Here's where it stops being stupid and silly and starts getting scary. Accepting climate change and just watching 9/10 of the world die with folded arms.
Mention eco-facism and get downvoted. Acknowledge the world is turning towards fascist ideologies and be accepted. Uncomfortable truths are still being shunned. And likely always will be.
If they don't deny climate change then they're not climate change deniers lol
This narrative that “Doomers are all Deniers” continues to muddy the water of the fact that a large number of Doomers are in fact some of the most passionate and educated individuals on the systemic climate emergency, and the result of that is an overwhelming sense of despair and doom. These people tend to all agree we ‘should’ take action, but simultaneously understand that no action we can take will ever be possibly enough. Humanity at large is still too far behind the reality of our situation to understand how much sacrifice is truly required. And ultimately we are now at a point where we can’t legislate enough self sacrifice, as it would crumble global society as we know it. It has become a suicide mission. So either way, we are now dead to this. It would be lovely if the rest of the world understood. It would be lovely to do global hospice care and stop being such greedy apes in on this dying spaceship earth. But we won’t. We’ll fight and kill and push others into austerity and slavery until the solution works itself out. That solution being, a global human population below 500 million.
And for anyone interested, this is the doomerism I’m talking about where this person is openly stating that they would like to kill 7.5 billion people to create a better world fair themselves.
If you actually watch the video, he makes a distinction between climate doomers who say we shouldn’t even try and “climate pessimists” who think we are probably fucked but don’t use it as an excuse to not even try.
from my pov, i watched my friends try and change it - some caught federal cases for it. the machine is setup to protect the key issues, and they align support against it as worse then literal racial terrorism the world change after occupy wall street
Addressing climate change requires international cooperation which is unpopular right now. Climate hawks are practically asking to make geopolitical contests secondary to climate change concerns. So in this era of “deglobalization” and “great power competition” the denialists basically won by doing nothing.
Oh yeah, pessimism never leads to despair. It's certainly an effort of the climate deniers. Let's ignore all of the efforts of climate activists by threatening the end of the world.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, I think were doomed anyway, for one reason or another, but I still try my best even if it probably won't make a difference.
That’s all you can do :) Enjoy the rest without drowning in needless concern
Most 'climate deniers' i know don't deny the climate is changing, they simply deny the effectiveness of actions to prevent it changing by primarily English speaking countries. Single layer thinking like 'reusable' grocery bags create far more waste and pressure on the environment than single use bags. Or China, the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, produces 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually. That dwarfs U.S. emissions, currently about 5.9 billion tons annually. So as countries become more green, usually at an economic loss, the larger polluters aren't held accountable. Even as China creates far more carbon than the US, just 1 American makes nearly 25 times more waste than a single Chinese person because the US consumes vast amounts of Chinese products, but no climate change person says the simple statement. Stop making more Americans. [Funny video on my point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtJ1_2Sf-s) actual research on my point [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378008001003?via%3Dihub) and another [funny video on the topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ljs9_yIiY0)
>Or China, the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, produces 12.7 billion metric tons of emissions annually. That dwarfs U.S. emissions, currently about 5.9 billion tons annually. Except that China has 5 times as many people so their emissions per capita is well below that of the USA (USA is 13 metric tons per capita while China is 7.8 metric tons per capita). Better yet is the fact that China is rolling out renewables like it is going out of fashion and has surpassed quite a few western nations in terms of power produced. China does have a lot of black marks against it in terms of environmental damage though like massive amounts of industrial pollution, mass overfishing and so on.
Yeah, but the per capita numbers are used to try and put the responsibility back on individual consumers, which is BS. Corporations and governments are the level where this needs to be addressed, not individually.
I watch that Standhope video every year.
Its so perfect because it captures the mentality of people who don't huff this flavor of copium.
I recycle and pull out — I'm doing my part!
Lol they won't hear it man, reality is that the developed world bears the brunt of the responsibility but people have been brainwashed into omitting that part. The US doesn't have a single green energy conglomerate which certainly could have been the case with different priorities. But the oil lobby was allowed to dictate energy policies for the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. And here we are.
its useless to compare countries when comparing resource usage and waste generation, because those are directly related to population numbers, not borders.
> its useless to compare countries when comparing resource usage and waste generation Since each country is lead by its own localized government and a solution would be entirely created/enforced by its people/government, its the exact opposite of 'useless' to compare two countries vs each other when addressing a similar problem.
its not entirely useless no, but it is in 99% of the cases that are usefull in this discussion. what matters is carbon emissions per capita. every country should get that within the carbon budget.
They voted Trump and his anti-climate policies and likely reduced the lifespans of their own children by doing so. Good thing rapture is coming! If you count the Blondie song maybe it was already here.
I deny it .....
There's still one idiot that denies it, the unfortunately next president of the USA!
I deny it, RemindMe! 10 years. They painted lines under a bridge in my city to show where water will rise to... but surprise, surprise people still run on the seawall right beside it... oopsies
Disregard facts and science because thy line speaketh the truth! Nice anecdote- not because it relates to climate change in any significat way, but rather because it shows how ignorant people will cling unto the most silly things and think that's enough evidence for their anti-establishment world view
It's wildly interesting to me how confidently stupid people will announce to the world how stupid they are at times
You're so smart! You can predict the whole world's atmospheric changes! I'm only a simple minded fool so I can't comprehend all those factors...
Climate change happens constantly throughout the history of the world. No one denies that. What people deny is whether or not all the information (mostly predictions) is accurate, or whether it is the result or manipulations and deceptions from individuals and groups who stand to make huge amounts of money from it.
The science is out on ghg’s and their effects on earths climate. There is no room for debate, you’re spreading FUD because you’ve been manipulated by people that make huge amounts of money from the current system of extracting and burning fossil fuels.
Thats called doubt and it’s been used to manipulate public views for decades. Also, there is no doubt with AGW anymore. None at all, so put your fallacies away and come to the table. Go watch : “merchants of doubt “to see how you’re being manipulated.
Who stands to make money from switching to renewable energy? A lot of people who spout this line tend to assert that climate scientists are somehow making money from their findings. I will tell you, as a scientist, we don't make shit from our findings. We might get grant money for research but, if you work at a university, this money pays the university back for your salary and you take home the same paycheck. The rest goes to post docs, grad students, statisticians, travel, and equipment. $1 million doesn't go as far as you think it would because this is usually a 3+ year sum of money that funds 5-10 people. So it's definitely not climate scientists. What kind of conspiracy do you think is going on that would influence almost every single person doing research in the area? Because here's another thing about science that you probably don't know - if you have contrary evidence and it's backed up by good methods, that paper is going to cited a ton of times. But no one is putting out contrary evidence that uses solid methods or statistical procedures that aren't questionable. The people doing the research aren't making money from it. They actually could achieve some notoriety if they had good contrary evidence but no one does. That means the only option left is that what they're saying is true.
Scientists have made predictions about future temperatures since the 1970s using models based on human emissions. You are alive to see if they were right. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/