Would you join a climate change protest?

The articles were chosen because they were fast overviews. (To save you the time of reading a long and more complete discussion of the science.) However, if you want a more hard science article: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/ And to take it even more into the realm of data, and less opinion: https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/ And further data detail: https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/ Also, Rob posted an excellent link below, and if you want to verify the data analysis from realclimatescience.com then you can download the actual datasets from the relevant websites. As I noted in another comment, the WHO is not an authority on health. Neither is NASA or NOAA an authority on weather or climate. They just serve their various agendas. Why are real scientists supressed (even official ones at times,) if NOAA has nothing to hide?

Peter

Fair enough, I don't have that data. Nor, to be fair, do I care enough about that topic to search for that data. I could just argue on the data I had, that said what I told you. True, I didn't question it and to get an accurate conclusion you have to, like you said, get multiple sources. Would you take part in a protest? Why would you? What do you hope to accomplish? This might sound bitchy, but I don't mean it that way. I personally dislike political intervention in any way, shape or form. Because every intervention, every power a government can use to enforce my POV, it could also use against me. So I don't want an entity that has such powers. Logically I wouldn't go and ask (to me, protest is more like bagging, rather than demanding) such a power to intervene. The free market sorts such things out. If not enough people see this as a problem big enough to change their way of living, who am I to tell them, what to do. I don't want to be told, how to live my life either. If the free market doesn't give you the result you want, that is not a failure of the market, it is a failure of ideas. If you need political intervention to steer people in a certain direction, it is socialism light.

Aule_Mahal

My point is, data you provided is based on a methodology that arrives to a representation of reality. It's not the reality itself. Every research needs be evaluate based on its methods. So to take one paper and claim it as the sheer and only scientific fact is exactly what you are not supposed to do if you care about accurate conclusions. You can't definitively claim the West has marginal CO2 emissions, when there are peer-reviewed papers suggesting otherwise. At best, what you can do is a spectrum or even better would be a forest plot. If you only care about affirming a position you already hold, then you can do whatever the fuck you want. But at that point, it's no longer a scientific discourse. It's a self-affirming monologue.

The Hated One

I don't think climate change is a distraction. I think it's a very real problem that was disproportionately caused by the ultra wealthy. It is currently not being addressed enough and all proposed solutions are just business as usual, only "greener". The global 90% are exploited by the top 10%, that's how I see it.

The Hated One

Your sources are a medium blog post and a forbes opinion post. You are not looking for facts. You are looking for affirmations.

The Hated One

Truth here ==>https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Rob

Your point about how that quick search I did, was showing a reference to an industry sponsored article, is certainly correct. Scientific consensus about climate change being reached decades ago, is however something you can disprove yourself, without needing any articles. Simply ask around: ask people who are 45+ years old, what it is that they were taught in elementary school about climate change. At the time, the "scientists" were convinced that the earth was headed for an ICE AGE. Not melting ice caps, not rising sea levels. Clearly they can *NOT* predict crap. There is a quick overview at : https://medium.com/black-list/climate-alarmism-five-decades-of-false-predictions-9fb8d9625720 There is a process that is used to make real climate science hard to find, and spread fake climate alarmism. In fact it is basically what you said in your coverage of Kurzgesagt. And what applies to creators, basically applies to scientists too. They are creators also, but, of science papers. To quote the famous YouTuber THO: "...paying millions a year to blogs and creators affiliating with them to promote their companies/services. But no one is paying critics who point out flaws and limitations... ...creators will have more resources to make more and better quality content than critics who will be left out and will struggle to keep with the quality and quantity without equivalent funding. " These days, climate scientists who talk about REAL climate DATA, are also likely to have their accounts disabled.

Peter

I must admit, I don't quite get your point. I say: the influence of the west on CO2 is marginal, so it does neither make sense for the west to act, nor for average Joe to join a climate protest. Here is some data to back this up. You say: why don't you use more data? 1. I don't have this other data and I can work just based on the data I have 2. Without having looked at the other sources: I'm quite sure, that the percentage as well as the ranking will be similar, if not the same. A source like statista cannot survive, if they give dramatically false data. So your point does not negate my argument, that it doesn't make a difference, if the west to does sth, and even less the average Joe to join a climate protest. I would go so far as to say that your point doesn't touch my argument in the slightest. It seems a bit off topic tbh

Aule_Mahal

Huh, are we not talking about same issues? My point is that the way climate change is being addressed now looks like a distraction. Or a business model.

G

So... why should this be the only source that's used? We now have three - Our World In Data, the Lancet, Statista. Who decides which one to go by? Why choose only one and not report on the spectrum of all of them?

The Hated One

Do we have time to wait additional decades for future innovations though? Or should we start implementing what we have right now?

The Hated One

If you are gay, gay marriage is gonna be more important than other issues. If you are living pay check to pay check, welfare is gonna be more important to you. If you are a minority of color, racial injustice is gonna be pretty important to you. Or why is it so important for conservatives to prevent gay people from marrying, poor people from getting help, and black people from seeking justice? Don't they have more important issues to worry about? You can flip this logic any way you want. You don't decide what should be important to people that suffer from issues you don't.

The Hated One

Dude this is literally an opinion piece from an industry lobbyists. Did you seriously think one fucker can checkmate the entire global scientific community? Do you really expect one forbes article to have more weight than thousands of academic papers on this topic? I mean what the fuck... Scientific consensus was reached decades ago. This is like elementary school. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

The Hated One

It is in my bookmarks somewhere. Definitely not backwards. The climate nonsense seems so real after hearing the media say it over and over, I can really see why it sounds backwards. I looked, and without searching my bookmarks, a quick duck duck go search, pulled up an example of an article debunking the entire idea that climate scientists agree on man made climate change. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/?sh=534a16e33f9f ) But the analysis I was referring to earlier goes much further.

Peter

Do you have a source for the claim of 90%+ climate scientists not believing in human induced climate change? it sounds like you have it backwards to me

Helixir

Sorry for just answering now. I saw the numbers in this video at the 5:50 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvg6tS_441g I do speak German, so you have to trust me on that. Chart's roughly named: "CO2-Emission: biggest Countries sorted by percentage for worldwide CO2-emission in 2020. This is the link to the primary source, sadly behind a paywall and in German yet again. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/179260/umfrage/die-zehn-groessten-c02-emittenten-weltweit/#:~:text=ImJahr2020warChina,wesentlichzumCO2-Aussto%C3%9Fbei I use statista frequently at work and while at university and would argue they are as reliable as it gets.

Aule_Mahal

Lots of people defer to experts on topics they have little experience with. So a survey of EXPERTS was taken... about climate change. Results showed 90%+ of climate scientists don't believe in human induced climate change. Problem was, if you look only at climate scientists appearing on major media... 95%+ of those, DO believe in human climate change. So the media simply interviews a tiny minority of the scientists, and picks mostly those with beliefs that are unconvincing to 90%+ of the other scientists.

Peter

Planned obsolescence protest idea: For every generation of iPhone that comes out, everybody shows up to Apple stores in nothing but leaves for clothing, snake costumes, and doctor uniforms. Everybody forms a blockade and chant "Don't eat the apple," and a Jesus is there for each Apple store demonstration leading the event and spreading the word to onlookers about Louis Rossmann and right to repair. Fast fashion protest idea: everybody goes to H&M stores, take off their clothes, then put on every store item that they have in there, have a food court brawl in them, and then put the clothes back on the shelves. Google protest idea: we hire churches and priests to assemble around Google stores and Google sections in other retail stores and have them perform exorcisms on Google products and put charms everywhere to rid the stores of evil. Additional ideas to these are always welcomed.

Petrified

As far as I see, technological solution is the only way to solve this issue; I am most optimistic about fusion power and it's recent and near-future developments that may help move us on from coal-based power. Hydrogen-electric hybrid cars are going to be important in reducing our vehicle emissions. Protesting this issue seems rather pointless.

Harr

Not in particular order: food shortages, water shortages, housing issues, mandated vaccines, privacy invasion, wars, centralized financial system with stock markets and how they affect everyday lives, children abuse and slavery in general. The list can go on and on. Instead they are talking about climate change, space travel, gay marriage (I'm not against that, but come on, this is the most important thing?), black life matters (it's like other life does not). Soon they will be talking about alien invasion and how serious that is... I don't think what happens to the deforesting, lakes exhaustion and other environmental issues is not a problem. But the way how they tackle them is just absurd. So yea, I think climate change is just yet another distraction from what is actually going on. Which is business as usual a.k.a. make money while you can.

G

The biggest contributor to climate change is the US military

v0odoo

Where do you have these emission numbers from? Please share source.

The Hated One

What is more important?

The Hated One

I feel like the only factor involved in climate change is the Sun. The models are wrong and distorted to fit an agenda. We, as humans, are still to small and insignificant to really affect the climate on a global scale. However, I still believe we should be responsible to not pollute the environment but that is a separate topic from climate change.

It really depends on what the protest stands for. I'd totally support a protest against billionaires and/or corporations polluting the planet. I'd totally support reasonable policies to support our planet, but I'm not keen on policies such as banning non-EVs or imposing a carbon tax on individuals

India, China and Russia combined are responsible for emitting ~50% of the World's CO2 rn. They don't give an f and who can blame them? They want more wealth, people want higher living standards and lower energy prices... And coal is still a cheap way to get there. In the TOP 15 countries with the most CO2-pollution are only 4 western countries (USA, Germany, Canada and Australia) and two westernised countries (Japan, South Korea) who have the industrial power and the financial capability and the technological know-how to actually provide technologie, to actually reduce the carbon footprint... But these 6 countries are responsible for only 22,5% of worldwide co2 output. Except the USA (and Japan), each of these countries are emitting sub 2% of worldwide CO2. So even if these countries would do sth, it would have a marginal effect. And the second question is: how much do they cripple their own economy - for changing basically nothing? The smarter idea in my mind would be to boost the low-carbon technology, to reduce the prices of this tech and to sell 2nd and 3rd world countries cheap technology to allow them to do the next step in development, while emitting fewer CO2. Protests don't change anything what so ever, no critical mass will support the claims of FFF or other organizations. And policies have never done anything good in history, except causing financial dislocation, which leads to economical crisis like today or '08. So: no. Don't go there, don't support policies, even if you believe in man-made climate-change. We have bigger problems at hand

Aule_Mahal

This is total BS. In other words, yet another topic to force everyone to talk to stop thinking about what's more important.

G