For sure, but even at a 100 % green energy you'll still raise the temperature of the Earth if you need enough of it. So endless growth isn't a possibility. Of course, you'll need to produce a looot of energy before that becomes a concern. However, we should very much start thinking of how to do steady-state economics, but that means breaking with an economic paradigm that isn't interested in ending.
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
Green energy sources aren't enough and to create them we need energy produced by oil/gas/etc. Electric cars aren't the solution because we would need more energy to charge the batteries (my bet for the future is on hydrogen). In first place they should replace all the coal power plants in the world but China and India are building them by the hundreds, they produce more pollution than anything else, that's why I believe nuclear power is the answer for now. Pollution is killing the animals and trees with acid rains and poisoning air and I see all the hypocrisies in the world claiming the governments should act but they own smartphones, laptops, TVs. etc that are one of the biggest reasons why we have high levels of pollution. People travel, car or airplane, we eat meat, we buy cheap crap made in China - the biggest polluter in the world, we the people need to change our way of life but increasing our taxes for that money to go to the rich people (investors, politicians, etc) giving them business to pretend they will save the world they contaminated in first place.
China pretty much stopped, didn't they? 95% reduction of new construction. Drop in the bucket but they did.
I watched a very good interview with a German climate scientist (Stefan Rahmstorf, I think he has the highest h-index in Germany), who stated that the Murdoch press has been an enormous problem with regards to the perception and acception of Global warming. The fact that vast amount of people still think that the scientific community is somehow 50/50 or even 70/30 split on the question on humanity's impact on Global warming when in reality there's a well above 99% consensus on anthropogenic climate change is massively influenced by the press constantly giving voice to nutcases or lobbyists downplaying the issue.
There's obviously no completely unbiased press outlet but what Murdoch and other conservative/reactionary newspapers are doing is a complete failure to live up to any journalistic standards to accurately bridge the knowledge gap between science and societies.
I remember seeing those reports. Obviously they were going to probably let the almost finished ones slide. But it's far from hundreds of new ones being constructed.
48.9C in western Sydney today. Everything is perfectly normal. Nothing to see here. Move along
Australian heatwave: Canberra and Penrith smash temperature records that stood for 80 years
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...h-temperature-records-that-stood-for-80-years
Australian heatwave: Canberra and Penrith smash temperature records that stood for 80 years
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...h-temperature-records-that-stood-for-80-years
I trust that this is of no surprise to you.
Some time ago I realised that the press and newspapers were the lowest of the low.
Totally without any integrity whatsoever.
Not even fit to wipe you know what.
I will not lower myself to read any of the lies they serve up.
@Kasper
1 way to measure the impact of Murdoch is that global warming denial is correlated to speaking English, since his opinions and news are spread in English-speaking countries.
Another way to see his impact in an unrelated area is:
The underlying reason that this propaganda is so well-spread is that there are solid, self-interested reasons to spread it. Either directly, like the Kochs, oil, and energy companies, or indirectly because a transfer of power to the state (needed to urgently reshape the energy system) undermines all private wealth (which is what motivates Rupert probably).
But they have effectively made it a war on many fronts. In the US, it links with religious stuff (man was given this earth by god and can't change it), with universities and research (through industry-funded centres) and with culture war stuff (coastal elites are coming for not just your guns, but also your steaks and SUVs).
1 way to measure the impact of Murdoch is that global warming denial is correlated to speaking English, since his opinions and news are spread in English-speaking countries.
Another way to see his impact in an unrelated area is:
The underlying reason that this propaganda is so well-spread is that there are solid, self-interested reasons to spread it. Either directly, like the Kochs, oil, and energy companies, or indirectly because a transfer of power to the state (needed to urgently reshape the energy system) undermines all private wealth (which is what motivates Rupert probably).
But they have effectively made it a war on many fronts. In the US, it links with religious stuff (man was given this earth by god and can't change it), with universities and research (through industry-funded centres) and with culture war stuff (coastal elites are coming for not just your guns, but also your steaks and SUVs).
Car crash interview. When Piers Morgan has the moral highground you know you are in trouble.
3
3
Random person (from a video game channel) to retweet in this context I know, but it needs attention and I need to distract my attention from other violence...
A huge number of wildlife and farmed animals have died.
WIRES are an excellent wildlife rehab organisation.
yet the climate deniers will just read the same thing and say, 'look, we had temperatures this high 80 years ago, it's all a cycle!'
It’s all the “arsonists” fault.
What the actual feck is that
Those are some spectacular pictures
Having set temperatures in certain places means nothing, plus the weather does cycle. Are you a weather denier
Despite less than 1% of the area burn in the current Aussie bushfires being caused by arson. Deniers are pathetic.
Well let them think and say what they like. Because nobody with any sense at all actually believes them and they are becoming a joke.
Of course there are weather cycles. But we are talking about climate change and not weather.
The facts are that due to our man made actions, the climate is warming and will continue to do so until we reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Exactly this, so simple.
Not entirely correct. Climate cycles are a natural phenomenon and the climate is in a warming cycle whatever we do. It is the rate of warming that is alarming.
You must be correct in what you say if you are to accuse climate deniers of speaking nonsense.
d/dt.
The most alarming element is that we are moving away(if not done so already) from an equilibrium state regarding the climate --> weather on the earth. A system not in balance will, or in transition into a new equilibrium might create some volatile output(weather).
I completely agree with you about being technically.
How is this different to what I said.
This is interesting as is the letter the CEO wrote explaining why climate risks are now investment risks. This kind of thing is essential. Reckon we are going to see a lot more of this quickly.
There’s lots of thing govts could be doing to speed this process - using the tools available to it to accelerate investment changes.
There’s lots of thing govts could be doing to speed this process - using the tools available to it to accelerate investment changes.
I'm sooooo not buying it. Its just way too easy to call him wrong now. Where was his criticism a decade ago? Like presumably this guy is taking over when Rupert kicks the can (please hurry up with that), distancing himself from the harm thats been done doesn't strike me as a particularly selfless act.
We are in an interglacial period but there hasn't been significant natural warming for about 6000 years (actually a very slight cooling trend), so I think it is probably a stretch to say we are currently naturally warming. Of course anthropogenic factors have so overwhelmed natural cycles that that it is hard to tell if there is a very slight/slow warming or cooling. What we can say is that the next glacial period will have been delayed by at least 50,000 years even if we go carbon neutral tomorrow. And in any case the incredibly slow speed of natural change (10's or 100's of thousands of years, rather than decades) makes it irrelevant - as you say it is the phenomenal and totally unprecedented rate of change that is alarming. Without greenhouse gases our climate would almost certainly be indecipherable from the mid 1700's.
Last edited:
Migration is always stated as an outcome of global warming. Not sure this is what was envisaged.
but but but it was colder today than yesterday! It snowed 3 weeks ago! This is a hoax.
(Either you are dumb as a rock or you have long term financial interest in certain energy industries)
We finally got some rain but this has caused further ecological destruction that may take decades to reverse.
Hundreds of thousands of fish dead in NSW as bushfire ash washed into river
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ead-in-nsw-as-bushfire-ash-washed-into-river?
Hundreds of thousands of fish dead in NSW as bushfire ash washed into river
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ead-in-nsw-as-bushfire-ash-washed-into-river?
How stupid is the president of the USA yet again making himself a complete laughing stock at Davos.
Prophets of doom eh...
Good to hear that he is an expert in climate change.
America. You have a true leader.
Prophets of doom eh...
Good to hear that he is an expert in climate change.
America. You have a true leader.
Didn't he equate modern environmentalists with the soothsayers of yesteryear? I know he doesnt believe in evidence but there is a stark difference between the two groups.
He is a climate change denier pure and simple who thinks that it is right to damage the environment for the sake of short term benefit to the US economy.
If the voters demand a more climate and environmentally friendly policies during the election (not that the GOP voters will, but some might), then Trump will say some generalizable garbage towards protecting/fixing the environment/climate. If he is re-elected he will not give a sh*t given that his moneymaking is dependent on renting out empty hotel rooms to oil states, which for the likes of Saudi A et.al. is a great return on investment.
As most politicians and especially somewhere with a two-party system, they are slaves to the polls and pandering the voters during the election regardless of what is actually needed.
Pleased that you corrected yourself.