Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Magmacube_tr]

magmaqb

My name nooooooooo...

[TD1]

Happy birthday mamagcircle_us

The void slips never backwards from shame

[Magmacube_tr]

mamagcircle_us

Stop mutilating my name please.

[hector13]

Happy birthday magmaqb

The universe marches ever onwards to glory

I envision an American sports star made out of molten rock.

[dragdeler]

Sigh

There are no competent climate activists are there ? Insurance is gonna cover those extra tyres with their superfluous ecological footprint. And they're in britain too, a country with lacking recycling infrastructure and enough problems with clandestine garbage disposal sites as is... Go to the wrong tyre merchant and you might just be left with the impression you can spare a buck if you take your old tyres with, only to find out you got no place to bring them to that will accept them...


It's like when they glue themselves to the street it is as if it's all for clout. Don't they have like a single mason or a boarder, don't they have a single fucking comrad that knows to do something with their hands?!?! I'm all for a good cyberdjihad let's smash some stuff, but it's like these people just want to play martyr in a disfunctional justice system. How about you build an actual fucking wall on the crossroad instead of glueing yourself to the road for 20 minutes?! FFS

[Il Palazzo]

There are no competent climate activists are there ?

Of course there are. But by definition they're not in the news for doing weird shit.

[dragdeler]

Hopefully.

I'm so tired of allways seeing skinny college kid and old hippies who buy only organic food, pull of this shit. Why does everything have to be such a clichee.

Imagine how different the same protest method would be if, if it were like 30 artisans stomping in with workerman boots, putting the correct signals up on the road, at the correct distance. Armored in steelcapped boots, leather gloves and wearing a construction helmet. I'd like to see the cops approaching them if they know fully well that they brought half a dozen wheelbarrows filled with bricks.


Why is it allways people that can be brushed away by a mild wind breeze.






edit: compare the symbolism alone:

-you will have to drive me over. fine fuck you I'd drive over my grandchildren if they scratched my car
VS
-there is a wall, the wall is an immutable fact of nature, go ahead try and force your will against the laws of physic, see how it goes

[Lord Shonus]

There's some pretty strong evidence (as in, you follow the money trail it gets hazy but not that hazy) that most of the major climate activist groups are bankrolled by the oil companies. Which is where you get groups like Sunrise trying to prevent the construction of solar panels on the grounds that They Can't Instantly Fix Everything and They Are In ATV Riders Way. Also why so many of the popular climate claims are several orders of magnitude more apocalyptic than the science actually supports - legit climate researchers are constantly asking people to tone down the rhetoric because it is helping to drive denialism.

[dragdeler]

Also why so many of the popular climate claims are several orders of magnitude more apocalyptic than the science actually supports - legit climate researchers are constantly asking people to tone down the rhetoric because it is helping to drive denialism.

Say what now, the worst case scenario keeps being adjusted to the worse, last I checked they were talking about a ring of death around the equator, where protein formation is too difficult to sustain any life. What was alarmist when I was a kid, has become pretty much a moderate position. It's bad allright.

[Lord Shonus]

Cite an actual paper on that - I can't find one, and the studies I can find from climate scientists are putting a 3 degree rise as a too-likely worst case scenario. The effects of that are bad, but several orders of magnitude less than "a ring of death".

That's the large problem - people are looking at the apocalyptic reports from five years ago, saying "well, that didn't fucking happen" and using that to justify dismissing the entire thing as alarmism.

EDIT: Finally found a non-paywalled source for this:

Here's an interview with one of the people behind An Inconvenient Truth plainly stating that the doomerism movement is being promoted by conservative groups.

One of your “D” words is division. Can you give some concrete examples of how the fossil fuel industry has been working to create divisions within the environmental community?

An e-mail sent to journalists in 2020 by CRC Advisors [a PR firm that represents industry players and others] contained talking points that appeared to attempt to sow racial division within the climate movement. The e-mail suggested that the Green New Deal—supported by white environmentalists—would hurt minority communities. It is an attempt to drive a wedge right down the center of the progressive movement—between social activists and climate activists.

Another case involves Michael Moore’s recent documentary Planet of the Humans, which contains a laundry list of deceptive facts and bad arguments against renewable energy. An industry advocacy group known as the American Energy Alliance spent thousands of dollars promoting this film. Conservative foundations and media outlets all came out of the woodwork to support the film.



You say that fossil fuel interests are not just fighting against renewable energy. They are also pushing the idea that it is too late—that climate change cannot be stopped, and it is pointless to try to do so at this stage.

Conservative media are promoting people such as Guy McPherson, who says that we have 10 years left before exponential climate change literally extinguishes life on Earth and that we should somehow find a way to cope with our imminent demise. I call it “climate doom porn.” It’s very popular, it really sells magazines, but it’s incredibly disabling. If you believe that we have no agency, then why take any action? I’m not saying that fossil fuel companies are funding people like McPherson; I have no evidence of that. But when you look at who is actually pushing this message, it’s the conservative media networks that air his interviews.

[dragdeler]

You call a knife a deadly weapon too even if there is a good chance to survive a stab

[Lord Shonus]

All I can read of that is the abstract (don't have access to the entire paper), but from that abstract it very much is a "equatorial regions may be uninhabitable to humans if climate change is not brought into check, not a "the equator will be a ring of death where no life can form" one. In other words, along the lines of the actual consensus, but far short of the "guaranteed upcoming climate apocalypse that will drive everything extinct" notion that most of the "activist" groups are pushing.

[dragdeler]

I think there is also a fairly broad consensus that the 6th mass extinction event has been ongoing since the 20th century. How could you possibly abstract one from the other?


My understanding is that our cells go downhill beyond 36°C and that that is not some sort of preference, but very much related to the thermic properties of a bunch of biochemical reactions. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm quite unhappy with what my search engine terms yield me. Anyway wet bulb temperature is relevant to us because our natural heat mitigation strategies are rather quite unique in the animal kingdom. To be honest I don't how the fuck a bearded dragon manages to survive the desert heat, I'd be interested to know that too. But I don't think it's such a controversial take to describe deserts as hostile to life.

[Lord Shonus]

Neither of those statements are wrong (except that the sixth mass extinction event far predates the 20th century). But I think you're missing the point. The paper you linked is very much a consensus of climate scientists on the worst case scenario by 2100 if mitigation efforts fail. That scenario is very, very bad, and we need to address it with systemic change to avoid that happening.


But a huge number of climate activists are pushing the idea that the minimum possible effect is far, far worse than that. The effects described by that paper drive out humans and a lot of other mammals, but there's plenty of forms of life that can survive there. It won't produce a "band of death" where nothing at all survives. Far less the "total human extinction by 2100" that is popularly claimed, let alone the "Earth will be a lifeless ball of rock and water by 2100" that more extreme activists claim it is. It is possible that some of the people doing so were mislead by pop-sci (there has never been an actual consensus that things were that bad, but a lot of preprints got wide circulation before being withdrawn for serious underlying flaws), or thought that they needed to shock people into action, but that's probably not why so many of them are doing it now. Many activist groups are pushing a "NO HALF-MEASURES! ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T SOLVE EVERYTHING IMMEDIATELY IS BAD!" approach (Michael Moore's "documentary" Planet of The Humans attacks renewable energy and electric cars on this basis), and there is a growing "IT IS TOO LATE TO STOP THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE!" movement. The effect of this is that it becomes incredibly easy to present the entire climate-change awareness movement as kooks that can be safely ignored.

 This is "coincidentally" in parallel with the growing push from the fossil fuel industry and others to shift all blame for climate change on individual action (the "personal climate footprint") as a deflection from the serious institutional and systemic changes that are needed. A lot of the climate activist groups are dangerous as hell not because there is no climate problem, but because they're actively damaging the efforts to address it.

[Il Palazzo]

The paper you linked is very much a consensus of climate scientists on the worst case scenario by 2100 if mitigation efforts fail. That scenario is very, very bad, and we need to address it with systemic change to avoid that happening.

I'm not sure one can talk about a consensus when citing a single paper that is not a literature review. But in any case, that paper (as per the abstract) purports to show that with mitigation efforts >better< than the current track the tropics will largely >not< be rendered uninhabitable*. Or rather, the meat of the work - again, going by the abstract - seems to be in showing that the projections of WB temperature extremes have lower uncertainty than just the temperature extremes, sufficiently so that statements like that can be made.

*in the sense that there would be times of day when you can't go outside for extended periods of time. WB temperatures higher than 35 degrees C have been recorded, and these didn't sterilise the regions.