Social How do we sleep while our beds are burning? The climate changing thread

[Cole train]

The UK literally just just announced a digital ID that would do just that. Mind you the UK is on a different level of self destruction than most Western countries. But I'd be willing bet others are discussing it behind closed doors. Hopefully I'm wrong .

Most countries in EU are also trying to pass chat control as well which will basically end privacy

Thing has been rejected twice yet they keep pushing

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yeah its those money hungry research scientists who started this whole global warming malarkey.

The poor fossil fuel owners can barely afford to protect their 100s of trillions of dollars in reserves against such a powerful motive as research grants.

Exactly.

A bunch of science nerds that make $150,000 a year doing research = they have an economic incentive to make up data and fudge the data

A bunch of energy exec making $20,000,00+ a year by consuming fossil fuels = no economic incentive to cast doubt on the research

 

[SurferH2O]

they intend to make everything they don't like more expensive. they will punish business, then people second and the new industries they create will benefit themselves and their insider friends. it's mafia type shit.

Authoritarians in the name of "Saving the Planet".... you will eat bugs and like it. Also, 15 Minute Cities... Fuck the Left.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

Meh, there’s also big money to be made from climate change…

“Globally, total climate-finance (i.e., money devoted to climate-action — both mitigation & adaptation, not just research) approached about US$1.3 trillion per year in 2021/22.”

Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023 - CPI

The most comprehensive overview of global climate-related primary investment

www.climatepolicyinitiative.org

Exactly, it's a fucking pittance compared to the hundreds of trillions in fossil fuel reserves at risk. And that is all climate adaptation, not just related to fossil fuels.

Further the world spent more than that total just on fossil fuel subsidies in the same year.

Global explicit subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to around $1.5 trillion in 2022. This is a vast sum. For context, that’s equivalent to around 1.5% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) or the entire GDP of countries like Russia or Australia.1

How much in subsidies do fossil fuels receive?

Estimates range from less than $1 trillion to $7 trillion. Where do these numbers come from?

ourworldindata.org

 

[PhitePhan]

Exactly, it's a fucking pittance compared to the hundreds of trillions in fossil fuel reserves at risk. And that is all climate adaptation, not just related to fossil fuels.

Further the world spent more than that total just on fossil fuel subsidies in the same year.

Global explicit subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to around $1.5 trillion in 2022. This is a vast sum. For context, that’s equivalent to around 1.5% of the global gross domestic product (GDP) or the entire GDP of countries like Russia or Australia.1

How much in subsidies do fossil fuels receive?

Estimates range from less than $1 trillion to $7 trillion. Where do these numbers come from?

ourworldindata.org

You think 1.3 Trillion per year is a pittance?
That is about 2x the amount given to big oil in explicit subsidies (per your article).

For the record, I’m not in favor of huge subsidies for fossil fuels, but let’s not pretend there isn’t A LOT of money behind climate change.

 

[Witchhunt]

You think 1.3 Trillion per year is a pittance?
That is about 2x the amount given to big oil in explicit subsidies (per your article).

For the record, I’m not in favor of huge subsidies for fossil fuels, but let’s not pretend there isn’t A LOT of money behind climate change.

I heard somewhere that all of big oil’s current subsidies were green money. Coal cleaners and efficiency technology.
Is that true?

 

[EndlessCritic]

I can explain exactly what he's doing.

He's reacting to the Trump admin cutting aid to the most vulnerable countries, it's in the essay this statement was extracted from. He's saying the west shouldn't abandon those dying TODAY and only worry about death in future generations.

How lowly do you think of Bill Gates that you think he's simply reacting to something Trump is doing?

Bill's post is nothing short of monumental. It is a public rejection of the climate movement's most important tenet: That climate change represents an imminent existential threat to humanity.

I would direct you to read the following lawsuit which was filed in Canada seven days ago, and the claims made about what will happen with a 1.5 degree increase in global temperatures: https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/up...-Document-Form-14E_-Notice-of-Application.pdf

The lawsuit alleges that in the event of global warming above 1.5-2 degrees, there will be "catastrophic climate change", which will result in, "severe, widespread, non-linear and irreversible harm to human populations, ecosystems, and infrastructure."

Bill's post completely rejects this. Bill expressly concedes that the earth's temperature will probably increase by 2-3 degrees by the year 2100, and he says that's a good thing, because we need more energy usage to improve people's lives, and we need to stop focusing on increased temperature as a doomsday metric.

Take the ten minutes to read the link I posted. Very specific claims are made about the effects of 1.5-2 degree increases in global temperatures.

 

[PhitePhan]

I heard somewhere that all of big oil’s current subsidies were green money. Coal cleaners and efficiency technology.
Is that true?

Sounds like a bit of a stretch, but they are definitely also making money. Per ChatGPT:

According to a recent article: Exxon is “leveraging the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to receive billions in public subsidies for carbon-capture and storage (CCS) technologies.”

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

You think 1.3 Trillion per year is a pittance?
That is about 2x the amount given to big oil in explicit subsidies (per your article).

For the record, I’m not in favor of huge subsidies for fossil fuels, but let’s not pretend there isn’t A LOT of money behind climate change.

I really don't see us cutting enough emissions to stop AGW so remediation is going to emerge as a major economic sector in the coming decades.

 

[UberHere]

Exactly.

A bunch of science nerds that make $150,000 a year doing research = they have an economic incentive to make up data and fudge the data

A bunch of energy exec making $20,000,00+ a year by consuming fossil fuels = no economic incentive to cast doubt on the research

Who do science nerds need to appeal to in order to get their grant money?

 

[Beechwood]

Bill Gates’ climate doomer reversal is welcome — and can help save far more lives​

Bill Gates’ climate doomer reversal is welcome — and can help save far more lives

As politicians prepare to jet into Belém, Brazil, for the 30th annual UN climate meeting, philanthropist Bill Gates has provided a straightforward insight.

nypost.com

As politicians prepare to jet into Belém, Brazil, for the 30th annual UN climate meeting, philanthropist Bill Gates has provided a straightforward insight: climate summits like COP30 should prioritize what truly improves human lives, and not just chase reductions in emissions or temperatures. His point is both refreshingly overdue and, frankly, obvious common sense.

I have long argued that policymakers should always ask: What’s the smartest way to do the most good with limited resources? For billions of people in the developing world, tackling immediate challenges like poverty and disease outweighs chasing distant temperature goals.

In poor countries, parents are not kept awake by concern about achieving a 0.1°C temperature reduction in a century. They worry whether their children will survive a bout with malaria or get a decent education. As Gates points out, “the biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been.” Every year, more than 7.5 million people in poorer countries die from illnesses that can be very cheaply prevented or managed. Smart investments in health, nutrition, and education could every year save over 4 million people, while also building growth and resilience for the future.....

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Who do science nerds need to appeal to in order to get their grant money?

A number of places. Richard Muller (Phd Physicist) who was a skeptic of man made climate science, launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. The goal was to independently analyze global temperature data and address criticisms raised by climate skeptics. He got funding from the Koch brothers who were notoriously skeptical of Climate Change and against most environmental regulations.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/koch-brother-funded-study_b_1032439?ec_carp=8352905747917103397

What they found is that their data confirmed that the warming trend found by NOAA, NASA and other agencies was real. Muller called himself a "Converted Skeptic"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...an-argues-humans-to-blame-for-climate-change/

 

[deviake]

Exactly.

A bunch of science nerds that make $150,000 a year doing research = they have an economic incentive to make up data and fudge the data

A bunch of energy exec making $20,000,00+ a year by consuming fossil fuels = no economic incentive to cast doubt on the research

It makes sense if you don't think about it

 

[deviake]

Highly recommend Climate Town for infotainment on climate related matters. Fun, engaging and informative.

Climate Town

Rollie Williams and a ragtag team of climate communicators, creatives and comedians are here to examine climate change in a way that doesn’t make you want to eat a cyanide pill. Get informed about the climate crisis before the weather does it for you. Patreon if you're feeling crazy -...

www.youtube.com

 

[deviake]

Global warming is not real. It snowed at my house.
And if it is real, its natural.
And if its not natural, we didn't cause it.
And if we did cause it, its a good thing.
And if its not a good thing then at least it triggers the libs.

And the multitrillion dollar oil industry is a smaller financial interest than big solar and wind. Can't trust climate scientists, especially not the ones at Exon who studied climate change like half a century ago, concluded the present change is anthropogenic and covered it up while using the data to their advantage to get through thinning ice sheets to do more drilling.

Also, because petrol is used in the making of a lot of stuff and is a finite resource, there's no point in reducing consumption of it.

Big green energy at it again.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Who do science nerds need to appeal to in order to get their grant money?

Nonprofits, the government, corporate.

 

[PBAC]

Netherlands had an early Autumn and crop failure his year. Something that happens once in 20 years is now happening every second year.

 

[Barteh]

Netherlands had an early Autumn and crop failure his year. Something that happens once in 20 years is now happening every second year.

Great change for us, makes spring and autumn weather a lot better overall. Winters a bit less harsh too.

Too bad we'll most likely get an extremist cabinet of leftards because our population is too dumb.

 

[PBAC]

Great change for us, makes spring and autumn weather a lot better overall. Winters a bit less harsh too.

Too bad we'll most likely get an extremist cabinet of leftards because our population is too dumb.

You know crops need those things right? Forests were dead over summer and public parks flowerless. That is seriously straight from the Road. Ook, in drought for plants to recover they need heavier rainfall in autum/winter. Tulips an tomatoes underperformed dramatically too. Idk if you saw the disappoinment trends from tourists at the Keukenhof.

 

[Barteh]

You know crops need those things right? Forests were dead over summer and public parks flowerless. That is seriously straight from the Road. Ook, in drought for plants to recover they need heavier rainfall in autum/winter. Tulips an tomatoes underperformed dramatically too. Idk if you saw the disappoinment trends from tourists at the Keukenhof.

There's no trend that shows we're getting less rain. Highest rainfall in the chart is in 2023 (half of the paths in my hometown forest were blocked by standing water), now we have a below average year. Shit has always been fluctuating wildly. I see zero reason for concern just because we've had one dry year.