Climate Change

  • Started 15 years ago
  • Last post 22 days ago
  • 573 Responses
  • R_Kercz1

    Ars Technica : In court, oil companies accept climate science but rewrite its history

    https://arstechnica.com/science/…

  • utopian0

    $2 billion spent to influence Congress on climate change, Drexel study finds

    Lobbyists spent more than $2 billion trying to influence the U.S. Congress on climate change from 2000 to 2016, with fossil fuel industry groups outspending environmental groups 10 to one, according to a new study by a Drexel University professor.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/hea…

  • sted0

    Global 1850-2017


    +1.35°C average

    CANADA


    5.5°C (dark blue) to 11.0°C

    UK 1772-2017


    7.6°C to 10.8°C

    USA 1895-2017


    50.2°F to 55.0°F

    Vienna 1775-2017


    7.5°C to 12.0°C

    Australia


    20.7°C to 23.0°

    • its just water vapour. nothing to worry about.inteliboy
  • teh0

    oil=lubricant
    gas=buffer
    water=life

  • Ianbolton1

    Interest post regarding Palm Oil and that bloody orangutang advert that Iceland made over here in the UK.

    https://www.facebook.com/5765850…

    Is this about climate change?

    • Great post! I had no idea that Palm Oil was so much more productive than alternatives :\Nairn
    • everything that is related to how we consume products, produce/waste food, travel around, use electricity, heat our homes/office is connected to climate changelowimpakt
    • ^ wow, thanks man!Ianbolton
    • Huh. No shit?Nairn
  • shapesalad0

    What's better:

    One lorry brings a load of clothes to a shop(not in usa where everyone one drives, somewhere in europe, in a city) and customers on lunch breaks, after work, using public transport and lets say 10% drive to the city to visit the store.

    Vs

    No store. customers order online =no customer polluting journeys to stores (but as mentioned above, in our case that is quite few anyway). Lorry brings clothes to warehouse. A few vans take orders from warehouse to customer houses, delivering packages. And then lets say 60% of those need to be returned, so same journey again of van to warehouse.

    Just thinking all that through... Isn't online shopping more pollution expensive than us popping into a store during our lunch breaks?

  • ********
    -1

    First of all there is the larger cycles that dont encompass what we consider the human race. we know through "science' there are cycles of ice ages and warming periods. we know humans have an effect and a large amount of media and money is spent to point out the obvious that "stuff" effects things. What we don't know scienticially is to what extent. We have had numerous models and all have failed. Yes all based on data and hypothetical "science" of said data. But we dont really know wether we cut 1000 or 2 years off natural cycles. And we really have no ability to control climate change if everyone on earth was an ant and fell in line to those who thought they could control.

    But i will say there is a ton of money to be made from it. from statician grants for bias to carbon credits.Hell tesla has made 2 billion in carbon credits alone while remaining unprofitable except to the upper echelon. Its manipulation of best interests by those you hate. i mean i cant really say you dont deserve it... spelled out and ppl still fall for it. at the end of day you have to wonder if its larger darwinianism, a culling of the herd for the better good.

    • Drill baby drillutopian
    • I love how people like deathboy have lovely nice big opinions on climate science. That is contrary to, you know, what actual climate scientists say.inteliboy
    • Tesla is not a voice in the scientific community. There's a mistake in confusing science as a whole as a 'for profit' entity.T-Dawg
    • If you make a claim of people 'falling for climate science' where the interest was profit, back that claim up. Give us some examples.T-Dawg
    • Show me the dataT-Dawg
    • climate "scientists". its quite a name that really gets people to go along. but little has to do with any science.
      ********
    • as far as tesla im just using them as one example of the profit motive behind such pushes that has little to do with ... well results to stop climate change...
      ********
    • which is so absurd... who here thinks we can stop climate change? we cant even control inflation to our liking which is complex but much less so than climate.
      ********
  • Nairn4

    We do know about the physics of the 'greenhouse effect, and - to actual fucking scientists who know what the fuck they're talking about - the logical thermodynamic effects to our atmosphere are so inevitably obvious that there;s a global sense of exasperation at bullshit diversionary twaddle regularly trotted out by the likes of 'deathboy' here.

    https://www.lenntech.com/greenho…

    You fucking mug.

    • haha im quite aware of greenhouse effect. are you aware co2 build up is quite natural in larger cycles outside our human cycles and a big part is on orbit
      ********
    • im actually embracing the whole co2 thing you mug. im saying what science are you believing we can control it. or even exactly how much we contribute?
      ********
    • and to your "scientists". lets call them a new name. lets call them mechanics. something people relate more too since they relate more.
      ********
    • your scientist data plotters are no different than your mechanics. few good most garbage selling you on "new pads" to make a buck or whatever is hot.
      ********
    • the way ppl follow "scientist" terms reminds me of middle ages following "priests" its crazy. but than again we aren't really any different in rational capabili
      ********
    • ties than milleniums a go. just gotten farther on the coattails of the 1% of people who pushed the species into knowing a little more.
      ********
    • its funny you should look up some articles on geology for orbital eccentricity. geology of all places unrelated to buoys and sensors that record fascinating dat
      ********
    • a they help detail extreme weather patterns based on about a 100k scale which largely is part of our orbit.
      ********
  • ********
    -7

    Theres 2 types that puzzle me

    1) Climate change deniers. Now I think this group is more likely misunderstood do to absurd nature of believing such a thing. I could be wrong, but I think this camp is more common sense driven. Lived in an area 30-40 years and has seen the weather and sees little correlation to the narrative man and extent he has altered the environment.

    2) Climate controllers who believe they can stop climate change through man made laws and actions.... now this group I find the crazier of the two. We know climate changed before man. History. And now we have people telling us we can control it by adopting varying rules.... Seems a little suspect right? BS detector pinging? Thinking a little highly of our capabilities like a dotcom company who thinks they're changing the world?

    I prefer choosing 3

    3) we will die as a species more than likely, wether it be weather or by our own hand. chasing hubris is simply a power game for politicians and corps. Not trying to tax countries burning our computers. Its best to practice the 3 Rs where possible, but to penalize ppl or tax them to alleviate fears of the rich with more assets and property to fear about... thats bullshit. And the whole pitch being sold is as educated as a flat earth sale. And yes i expect the ocean will swallow NY one day and i find no need to panic about it. Thats life. And i do feel that way because i have no assets there. And not going to irrationally try to protect them. If i did thought i still wouldn't be a stupid child and think stupid laws would make a difference... idiots...

    • you are the personification of everything wrong with mankind. your handle suits you well!hotroddy
    • cool bro. of course interpretation of my handle is more a reflection of your meaning. which you'd need to define. im all wise and comfy not runnin from death?
      ********
    • Like I said before, laws made a difference with ozone layer depletion. Which you tried to refute with a forbes article that had a clickbait title.T-Dawg
    • Are you 1) an ozone layer denier? 2) An ozone layer controller? or do you still prefer choosing 3) we will die as a species anyways.T-Dawg
    • Which you're still perfectly entitled to do, but seems silly when we look at this past example of a large scale air pollution measure.T-Dawg
    • there's tons of evidence to backup claims of climate control and our man-made impact on its change ... but only anecdotes and confusion from deniersmonospaced
    • Denying a global environmental crisis where millions could die because politicians and corporations told you to is pretty much the definition of sheeplikeyuekit
    • thinking...maybe it's time to reevaluate your other beliefs too if you genuinely were fooled by this.yuekit
  • pr22

    Two words: Adam Curtis:

    • Ah, just google: "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace - Episode 2"pr2
    • two words: password requiredsted
    • one word: googlepr2
    • three words: that didn't work ;)GM278
    • LOUD NOISESzarkonite
    • Two words: four wordsnb
  • nb8

    "And yes i expect the ocean will swallow NY one day and i find no need to panic about it. Thats life. And i do feel that way because i have no assets there." - deathboy

    ^ honestly, this one of the dumbest (and funniest) statements I've heard on this topic. The rest of his idiot rant reeks of narcissism, but this is just too hilarious not to call out.

    • narcissism... hmm. well if you knew me you would know how funny of a statement that is. but glad i could entertain
      ********
    • but tell me this do you not think NY will be swallowed by the ocean outside man made anything?
      ********
    • oh yea and assets there. its a bit of a joke, but a lot of people dont like to face reality when they have skin in the game. like those blinded abusive
      ********
    • relationships. some mighty rich people might not realize they built an empire on a foundation that might not last their lifetime. deny that shit fiercely
      ********
    • ill take your non "no" as a "yes" by the way
      ********
  • MrT2

    Deathboy's not alone in saying we may not be the culprits but I wonder if that's just the satisfaction of being contrarian.

    Whether or not we're causing climate change, to use that doubt as justification for more mining and general shit burning, is just wrong IMHO.

    • He is pretty much alone actually...I don't think any credible scientists seriously believe billions of people burning fossil fuels aren't affecting the climate.yuekit
    • OK. I have a mate who’s of this opinion but that’s me exaggerating I guess!MrT
    • jeezus have i ever ever denied climate change or that man is a vector? It's asinine these people talking of stopping climate change.
      ********
    • I merely question the cost vs time and acknowledging every climate data manipulator so far has been pretty wrong on projections of the limited data avaibable
      ********
    • or there choices of using select data and ignoring other on short time frames to guarantee their money for bias. If i seem so wrong in looking at it vs believin
      ********
    • a couple politicians with little knowledge except how to ladder climb can create policy that stops global climate change in its tracks... well fuck all. ill
      ********
    • live under a bridge and hope this salem witch hunt logic passes
      ********
    • OK, I hear ya. But can we agree they still shouldn’t dig up and burn what we’ve got left?MrT
  • imbecile3

    we all buy consumer goods. we use services like amazon, or other means of procuring mass produced goods. smartphones are in each of our pockets. the amount industry required to fulfill that level of consumption creates enormous amounts of pollution. to believe that pollution will have no ill effect is naive. to not believe those gasses are capable of altering the atmosphere we are contained in is closed minded.

    • to believe the repercussions are not exponential is an act of retardationhotroddy
    • and we keep searching for life on other planets, while we don't pass the Great Filter...grafician
    • who thinks such things have no costs?
      ********
    • im still looking for a real solid denier of of any man made climate change effect. i think a large amount of those people are falsely portrayed... IE me
      ********
    • hard not to see the witch hunt tactics being employed around any such discussion of the topic
      ********
  • PonyBoy1

    You guys go first... I promise I'm right behind you. <3

    • lolT-Dawg
    • why not?MrT
    • its funny but serious. if someone truly believes in man made change, wouldn't that be the logical end game.
      ********
    • yes the solution is always the most extreme one. praise those serial killers/terrorist. they are doing earth's good work.pango
    • Mmmm... Dead bodies > methane, not a good short term solution. Another fantastic idea you genius?OBBTKN
    • I'm with you pony, I'll wait for themOBBTKN
  • colin_s0

    https://www.theguardian.com/envi…

    The world is increasingly at risk of “climate apartheid”, where the rich pay to escape heat and hunger caused by the escalating climate crisis while the rest of the world suffers, a report from a UN human rights expert has said.

    Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said the impacts of global heating are likely to undermine not only basic rights to life, water, food, and housing for hundreds of millions of people, but also democracy and the rule of law.

    Alston is critical of the “patently inadequate” steps taken by the UN itself, countries, NGOs and businesses, saying they are “entirely disproportionate to the urgency and magnitude of the threat”. His report to the UN human rights council (HRC) concludes: “Human rights might not survive the coming upheaval.”

    (no fucking shit)

    • and watch them laugh at us while we scrap around in the filth blaming everything on immigrants and poor people.inteliboy
  • BaskerviIle2

    I just can't understand why population reduction isn't a more high profile solution. You almost never see/read discussion around having fewer children. Surely the aim with climate change is to reduce consumption/emissions? So reducing the number of people creating those emissions seems like an obvious longer term solution that needs adopting whatever else we do in the short term?

    Why do we still celebrate when people get pregnant, as if it's something novel? Why do we shun people who choose not to have children as if they're being selfish? I know China failed massively with their 1 child policy, it was a disaster. But if choosing not to have children, or only 1 to 2 was more culturally accepted (not mandated by an authoritarian state) but there was a gradual shift, much there seems to be right now with people opting to eat less meat etc.

    The rise of automation would mean that we need less people in general for every day tasks, we're already seeing people losing jobs because of this. The 4 day work week could be a normal thing soon, which again is an implication that we may do just fine with smaller populations.

    • because the entire Western capitalist model is built on an ever-growing workforce - why on Earth do you think immigration's so highly encouraged?Nairn
    • I agree Nairn. I think it's pretty obvious that capitalism needs rethinking if we're to get out of the climate crisis.BaskerviIle
    • Growth for the sake of growth is so absurdly unsustainableBaskerviIle
    • My mum was from a family of 10, my father from a family of 9. My parents had two kids, I've had 1. The numbers are already decreasing.PhanLo
    • We can't get people to stop using plastic bags. What hope for stopping them having kids!Hayzilla
    • ^Hehehe.PhanLo
    • *mulls hayzilla's point* The answer is clear - we need to remove the child safety warnings from plastic bags and encourage their use as toys!Nairn
    • ^the population was controlled by a phenomena known as 'Nairn's blue bairns'.PhanLo
  • Ianbolton0

    Why do you think capitalism needs changing to save the environment when we've only realised that we're a destructive force on this planet within the last 50 years we've developed more sustainable technologies than ever. We're more likely to destroy ourselves through nuclear war than anything, but who knows?

    Capitalism (we as a collective) are rethinking our ways every single second and it'll still be too late if we don't sort out a global narrative to get along with each other.

    • because capitalism is contributing just as much to the denial of necessary changes to ensure profitability for a select few above survival for the manycolin_s
    • not to mention the multitude of ways greed and individualism harm society as a whole from a humanist viewpointcolin_s
    • not to mention capitalism has never thrived without enslavement and oppression so to believe it is a-OK is abhorrently self-centeredcolin_s
    • Okay, here we go! So what's your solution mate?Ianbolton
    • Capitalism is too nearsighted, and it's inclined to short term solutions and cutting corners. You can't save the planet and profit off all its resources.sarahfailin
    • I'm with you there, market based initiatives are the most likely to succeed. Air is free, so is polluting (mostly) so of course it's not taken into account butzarkonite
    • we're setting up costs and changing the system. No one's proposed any alternatives that I'm aware of anyways...zarkonite
    • In a socialist system where is the incentive to innovate, to invent, to push the boundaries. Profit is a very good motivator.Morning_star
  • whatthefunk2

    • Ha advertising! Slowly selling cheaper(less) product for more money.
      ********
    • At least we know it can't get any smaller than it is and maybe increase material with obesity. SO pendulum swings back
      ********
    • This is as compelling evidence as I've seen. Point well made! hahahaMondoMorphic
  • ********
    -1

    Because Walmart needs more and more stuff to fill their store. It takes energy to make and deliver the junk.

    • Walmart provides a service the people desire. Blame walmart or advertising, consumerism, and self interests of people?
      ********
    • I'm pretty anti consumerism. But i also know its necessary to provide commerce and jobs for people. It keeps things fresh like a running stream.
      ********
  • utopian-1

    #MAGA Country
    #Cowards

    • Make America Smug Again, this effen guy, wtf...whatthefunk