3 ms·

What group doesn’t have a vested interest to spew demonstrably false information about it? Climate change isn’t science it’s mostly politics around preserving

by _3u10 4y ago

What group doesn’t have a vested interest to spew demonstrably false information about it? Climate change isn’t science it’s mostly politics around preserving or not preserving the temperatures and sea levels from when the steam engine was invented. Like I believe the climate is changing, but we should do almost nothing about it. That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property.

throwaway15908 4y ago
Consider it like this. Sustainability is _only_ a waste management system that enables recycling rates of 90% or higher (which is damn hard). CO2 is also just one of many waste products, we totally dont care about, but _must_ to sustain our civilisation. No politics, just input/output, same goal.
- _3u10 4y ago
  The earth has had higher CO2 levels… and had much more biodiversity when it did. If anything for a sustainable world for life we should probably be targeting the 800ppm of the Carboniferous and not the 200ppm of the little ice age. Can you tell me why from a sustainability perspective why 200ppm is the ideal? Or if 200ppm is not the ideal what is the sustainable ideal, and why civilization collapses if we don’t reach that target? I mean the totality of civilization not just that Buckingham palace or a few other places might be underwater? Like why can’t we build ports a little inland from Amsterdam? Why can Paraguayans survive 40C but civilization collapses if Europe goes above 27C.
  - throwaway15908 4y ago
    >Why are 200ppm sustainable? The higher CO2 levels of long gone times where probably not even remotely a problem for those critters around, because evolution had plenty of time to do its thing. Your whole point of "but what about back then" is comparing apples with oranges. Looking at the steep graph today, the increasing weather extremes and how brittle our supply chains are, i think its very appropriate to call it a climate catastrophe, we are heading for. Btw. I was using the ideal of perfect recycling and applied it to CO2, no absolute or relative ppm value is relevant for this.
spidersouris 4y ago
> That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property. Are you implying that those who are the most concerned about climate change are wealthy people afraid to lose their possessions? How do you explain then that the wealthiest people, that is those possessing the greatest number of companies and contributing the most to climate change, are those that will do the least for climate change and will even fight to maintain the current economic model?
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  Excuse me? This is factually incorrect. Most wealthiest people, big tech, big business, mainstream media are all backing climate change. Politicians have been trying to get political support for years to pass new taxes for that. Recently Europe bundled a bunch of climate change funds together with covid recovery and postponed that 10 years in the future. Then, in terms of doing, I'm sure they will all find a way to make the middle class pay while the wealthiest pay zero like usual. And I'm also sure companies innovating will do way more to reverse co2 emissions and make renewables work than any western government will (China's dictatorship actually did some meaningful changes, especially in making solar cheaper; they must have been tired of pollution in the cities). I don't think it's wealthy owners of seaside properties who are causing all this climate alarmism, I think it's the usual politicians who would never let a good crisis go to waste.
  - spidersouris 4y ago
    > Most wealthiest people, big tech, big business, mainstream media are all backing climate change. They may indeed be backing it, but what are they really doing to fight it? Most of what's promoted by big businesses and such is just greenwashing. They solely talk about ecology for marketing purposes and to build their user base's loyalty. How can one believe that Amazon seeks to "reach net-zero carbon by 2040"[1] while Bezos blasted into space just because he found it fun? > I'm sure they will all find a way to make the middle class pay while the wealthiest pay zero like usual. That's the problem and that's what I wanted my comment to highlight. > I don't think it's wealthy owners of seaside properties who are causing all this climate alarmism, I think it's the usual politicians who would never let a good crisis go to waste. There is no alarmism. I see how some politicians may leverage the catastrophic (and real) news about climate change, but that's not because they seek to use it to fulfill their interests that it's not real. The consequences of climate change have already started being visible. Just this morning I saw that forecasts were predicting up to 48-49°C in Pakistan and up to 46-47°C in India[2], this in April(!). [1] https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/the-climate-pledge https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/the-climate-ple... [2] https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1517904633859133448 https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1517904633859133448

by _3u10 4y ago

throwaway15908 4y ago

Consider it like this. Sustainability is _only_ a waste management system that enables recycling rates of 90% or higher (which is damn hard). CO2 is also just one of many waste products, we totally dont care about, but _must_ to sustain our civilisation. No politics, just input/output, same goal.

_3u10 4y ago
The earth has had higher CO2 levels… and had much more biodiversity when it did. If anything for a sustainable world for life we should probably be targeting the 800ppm of the Carboniferous and not the 200ppm of the little ice age. Can you tell me why from a sustainability perspective why 200ppm is the ideal? Or if 200ppm is not the ideal what is the sustainable ideal, and why civilization collapses if we don’t reach that target? I mean the totality of civilization not just that Buckingham palace or a few other places might be underwater? Like why can’t we build ports a little inland from Amsterdam? Why can Paraguayans survive 40C but civilization collapses if Europe goes above 27C.
- throwaway15908 4y ago
  >Why are 200ppm sustainable? The higher CO2 levels of long gone times where probably not even remotely a problem for those critters around, because evolution had plenty of time to do its thing. Your whole point of "but what about back then" is comparing apples with oranges. Looking at the steep graph today, the increasing weather extremes and how brittle our supply chains are, i think its very appropriate to call it a climate catastrophe, we are heading for. Btw. I was using the ideal of perfect recycling and applied it to CO2, no absolute or relative ppm value is relevant for this.

spidersouris 4y ago

> That said I don’t own any property within 7 feet of sea level so I don’t really give a shit if the people who do lose a little bit of their waterfront property. Are you implying that those who are the most concerned about climate change are wealthy people afraid to lose their possessions? How do you explain then that the wealthiest people, that is those possessing the greatest number of companies and contributing the most to climate change, are those that will do the least for climate change and will even fight to maintain the current economic model?

jokethrowaway 4y ago
Excuse me? This is factually incorrect. Most wealthiest people, big tech, big business, mainstream media are all backing climate change. Politicians have been trying to get political support for years to pass new taxes for that. Recently Europe bundled a bunch of climate change funds together with covid recovery and postponed that 10 years in the future. Then, in terms of doing, I'm sure they will all find a way to make the middle class pay while the wealthiest pay zero like usual. And I'm also sure companies innovating will do way more to reverse co2 emissions and make renewables work than any western government will (China's dictatorship actually did some meaningful changes, especially in making solar cheaper; they must have been tired of pollution in the cities). I don't think it's wealthy owners of seaside properties who are causing all this climate alarmism, I think it's the usual politicians who would never let a good crisis go to waste.
- spidersouris 4y ago
  > Most wealthiest people, big tech, big business, mainstream media are all backing climate change. They may indeed be backing it, but what are they really doing to fight it? Most of what's promoted by big businesses and such is just greenwashing. They solely talk about ecology for marketing purposes and to build their user base's loyalty. How can one believe that Amazon seeks to "reach net-zero carbon by 2040"[1] while Bezos blasted into space just because he found it fun? > I'm sure they will all find a way to make the middle class pay while the wealthiest pay zero like usual. That's the problem and that's what I wanted my comment to highlight. > I don't think it's wealthy owners of seaside properties who are causing all this climate alarmism, I think it's the usual politicians who would never let a good crisis go to waste. There is no alarmism. I see how some politicians may leverage the catastrophic (and real) news about climate change, but that's not because they seek to use it to fulfill their interests that it's not real. The consequences of climate change have already started being visible. Just this morning I saw that forecasts were predicting up to 48-49°C in Pakistan and up to 46-47°C in India[2], this in April(!). [1] https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/the-climate-pledge https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/the-climate-ple... [2] https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1517904633859133448 https://twitter.com/extremetemps/status/1517904633859133448