Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 17,335]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

that is a pretty RW site, headed up by the hardcore US zionist Bari Weiss, her progressive-bashing wife Nellie Bowles, plus the RW British journo Douglas Murray, and the Thatcher/Reagan-loving RW US/British historian Niall Ferguson

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss

According to The Washington Post, Weiss "portrays herself as a liberal uncomfortable with the excesses of left-wing culture"[70] and has sought to "position herself as a reasonable liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech".[71] Vanity Fair called Weiss "a provocateur".[6] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said that her writing "doesn't lend itself easily to labels".[72] Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Business Insider.[73][74][75][76] In an interview with Joe Rogan, she called herself a "left-leaning centrist".[77] The Times of Israel reported that her public fight with The New York Times made her a hero among some conservatives.[78]

Weiss has expressed support for Israel and Zionism in her columns. When writer Andrew Sullivan described her as an "unhinged Zionist", she responded that she "happily plead[s] guilty as charged".[79] As of 2024, Weiss had visited Israel over 15 times, including after the October 7 attacks, and compared pro-Israel social media commentators to former Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky, whose years in prison made him an icon of the movement to free Jews from the Soviet Union.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)

Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979)[1] is a British author and conservative political commentator, cultural critic, and journalist. He founded the Centre for Social Cohesion in 2007, which became part of the Henry Jackson Society, where he was associate director from 2011 to 2018.

He is currently an associate editor of the conservative British political and cultural magazine The Spectator, and has been a regular contributor to The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, the Daily Mail, New York Post, National Review, The Free Press, and Unherd.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Murray is known for his criticism of immigration and Islam. His books include Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005), The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017), The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (2019) and The War on the West (2022).

Murray has been praised by conservatives, but strongly criticised by many progressives.[8][9][10][11] Articles in the academic journals Ethnic and Racial Studies and National Identities associate his views with Islamophobia[12][13] and he has been linked to far-right political ideologies[14] and the promotion of far-right ideas such as the Eurabia, Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories.[15][16][17][18]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

Sir Niall Campbell Ferguson, HonFRSE (/niːl/ NEEL; born 18 April 1964)[1] is a British-American conservative historian who is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.[2][3] Previously, he was a professor at Harvard University, the London School of Economics, New York University, a visiting professor at the New College of the Humanities, and a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford. He was a visiting lecturer at the London School of Economics for the 2023/24 academic year and at Tsinghua University, China in 2019–20.[4][5] He is a co-founder of the University of Austin, Texas.[6]

Ferguson writes and lectures on international history, economic history, financial history and the history of the British Empire and American imperialism.[7] He holds positive views concerning the British Empire.[8] In 2004, he was one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world.[9] Ferguson has written and presented numerous television documentary series, including The Ascent of Money, which won an International Emmy Award for Best Documentary in 2009.[10] In 2024, he was knighted by King Charles III for services to literature.[11]

Ferguson has been a contributing editor for Bloomberg Television and a columnist for Newsweek.[12] He began writing a semi-monthly column for Bloomberg Opinion in June 2020 and has also been a regular columnist at The Spectator and the Daily Mail.[13][14] In 2021 he became a joint-founder of the new University of Austin. Since June 2024 he is a bi-weekly columnist at The Free Press.[15] Ferguson has also contributed articles to many journals including Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy.[16][17] He has been described as a conservative and called himself a supporter of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.[18][19]

Yup you're right.  It was on someone elses recommendation - now I think if his reputation stinks, what does that say about his organisation ? (tony montana)

[Fernando 6,585]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

no, that is not 'the vibe', that is your attempt at playing denialist games, and just repeating the same talking failed points

look at the graph

it says nothing like you are trying to say it does

it clearly shows a massive rise within a very short duration

that duration started when human beings started to flood the ecosphere with hydrocarbon emissions

it is NOT some sort of 'natural cycle'

 

 

And again if the human are producing it is nowhere near as  bad as the climate warming of past. 

Previous global warming was extreme that lead to ice age. 

 

[Fernando 6,585]

25 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

That's like saying that, "it does not happen because I had a fall and a winter." The fallacy here is that climate change never said that past natural fluctuations (big or small) did not happen.

We've been through this before: it's forensics similar to what the police uses to solve crime. Analyzing Tree cores and a number of difference methodologies in a number of sciences come to the same conclusions, which makes for as much consensus as you get in science.

There is FAR less consensus in how to address it; I personally always found the idea of a global emission control naive and silly.
For me the only solution at this point is through science itself: some form of carbon sequestration, or something that we don't yet know.

But according to the chart shown here it is the human fault. 

In the past it was the orbit. And in the past the weather was more extreme that led to ice age. 

We are nowhere near those levels of extreme heat to produce an ice age right now. Which tells me we can change this if something scientific is done. 

It's good that we are going to EV, but I'm not sure how much that will help when the plants that produce them are also using a lot of fossil fuels. 

[Vesper 30,233]

7 minutes ago, Fernando said:

And again if the human are producing it is nowhere near as  bad as the climate warming of past. 

Previous global warming was extreme that lead to ice age. 

 

there has been nothing in the past 800,000 years plus remotely like what has occurred in the past 150 years

anthropogenic climate change denialists are either thoroughly discredited malign actors, with ill intentions and nefarious motives, or are wilful dupes, or are plain old crackpots and cranks, spewing out anti-science ramblings and all manner of false conspiracy theories

end of story

this is not something that is up for any sort of legitimate debate

it is like debating flat earthers and/or people who think the moon landing was fake

people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts

[robsblubot 3,595]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

But according to the chart shown here it is the human fault. 

In the past it was the orbit. And in the past the weather was more extreme that led to ice age. 

We are nowhere near those levels of extreme heat to produce an ice age right now. Which tells me we can change this if something scientific is done. 

It's good that we are going to EV, but I'm not sure how much that will help when the plants that produce them are also using a lot of fossil fuels. 

Sorry, these claims are both false as well as irrelevant.

Just to show how that is irrelevant:
Imagine that at some point in time a natural event DID indeed produce a similar jump in that one chart you showed -- just as it is happening today. Let's say that it was caused by 2 super volcanos erupting, or a solar event... Now, what would be the natural event today that is causing a similar drastic change? If we had cause and consequence back then, what's the cause now? All reputable scientists agree that we are cause.

Besides looking at *one* chart is a vast simplification; in my line of business I deal with many many different graphs and each may tell a different story. It takes time to learn how to interpret them. I can imagine scientists who study this for a living have access to far more information than a single chart.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to put more trust in opinions from (random) people (even here) than vetted information. We are in an era where good information is harder to find, but it's still available--it just takes some looking and it usually comes from the usual suspects (e.g. not from your friendly YT content creator or podcaster).

I, for one, respect specialists opinions because they put their time and efforts into things so that we don't have to -- there are only so many hours in a day. 😅

Edited November 26, 2024 by robsblubot

[Fernando 6,585]

19 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

Sorry, these claims are both false as well as irrelevant.

Just to show how that is irrelevant:
Imagine that at some point in time a natural event DID indeed produce a similar jump in that one chart you showed -- just as it is happening today. Let's say that it was caused by 2 super volcanos erupting, or a solar event... Now, what would be the natural event today that is causing a similar drastic change? If we had cause and consequence back then, what's the cause now? All reputable scientists agree that we are cause.

Besides looking at *one* chart is a vast simplification; in my line of business I deal with many many different graphs and each may tell a different story. It takes time to learn how to interpret them. I can imagine scientists who study this for a living have access to far more information than a single chart.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to put more trust in opinions from (random) people (even here) than vetted information. We are in an era where good information is harder to find, but it's still available--it just takes some looking and it usually comes from the usual suspects (e.g. not from your friendly YT content creator or podcaster).

I, for one, respect specialists opinions because they put their time and efforts into things so that we don't have to -- there are only so many hours in a day. 😅

So in the end the impact of humans is real but not extreme like orbital change, super volcano and what not that produce massive climate change and ice age. 

We are getting hot but nowhere near what we see in the past of extreme climates. 

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

there has been nothing in the past 800,000 years plus remotely like what has occurred in the past 150 years

anthropogenic climate change denialists are either thoroughly discredited malign actors, with ill intentions and nefarious motives, or are wilful dupes, or are plain old crackpots and cranks, spewing out anti-science ramblings and all manner of false conspiracy theories

end of story

this is not something that is up for any sort of legitimate debate

it is like debating flat earthers and/or people who think the moon landing was fake

people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts

In the past the climate change was more intense then today. We are producing climate change but not as hard as natural events that happen in the past. 

[Vesper 30,233]

18 minutes ago, Fernando said:

In the past the climate change was more intense then today. We are producing climate change but not as hard as natural events that happen in the past. 

that is a flat out lie, at least as far as the last 800,000 years are concerned

you are engaging in pure disinformation, whether it is on purpose or through sheer ignorance I leave it for the others here to determine

Edited November 26, 2024 by Vesper

[Vesper 30,233]

Defiant Joe Rogan insists he’s not a propaganda asset, just actually this stupid

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2024/11/defiant-joe-rogan-insists-hes-not-a-propaganda-asset-just-actually-this-stupid/

AUSTIN, TX – Following comments on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where multi-millionaire podcaster Joe Rogan blamed Ukrainian defence for “causing World War III”, the podcast phenom clarified that he was not echoing Kremlin propaganda, but is in fact truly this fucking braindead.

“I know it might seem suspicious, how I consistently and unquestioningly regurgitate Russian and authoritarian talking points to my millions of listeners,” explained the former host of a game show where contestants ate bull testicles for money. “When I say things like ‘Ukraine and Biden are entirely to blame for antagonizing Russia’ it’s not because I’m echoing Putin’s disingenuous justifications for invading a sovereign nation, it’s because I’m a true cretin who doesn’t know shit about shit.”

Asked to elaborate on his pinheaded methods, Rogan continued: “I’m not getting my information from any nefarious conspiracy. I get my info where all truly moronic online conspiracy chuds get theirs – TikTok videos, half-read wikipedia entires, and my own truly ignorant punch-drunk brain.”

Rogan continued to outline ways that his recent actions were not in fact an organized effort to shift his fanbase’s politics rightward, but instead a byproduct of his staggering naiveté and utter lack of critical thinking skills. This includes offering softball interviews to exclusively Republican candidates, consistently pushing vaccine skepticism, and listening to Jordan Peterson without once laughing in his face.

“Nope, no sinister agenda, that’s all just pure authentic simpleminded me,” Rogan continued in the middle of a rambling 3 hour interview with a discredited climatologist who claims super intelligent alien chimps built the pyramids.

“Honestly, I wish this was all part of a brilliant long con to profit off the dumbing down of a generation of economically disadvantaged MMA fans. How impressive would that be?” Rogan added. “But no, I’m too stupid to even understand the sentences I just said, and it turns out America just loves rewarding the dumbest, most aggrieved mediocre white men it can find. It’s entirely possible, baby!”

The 8th lead from Newsradio elaborated on how his own doltish limitations have fuelled his improbable career. “It was really lucky that UFC and conspiracy mongering became so popular, since it distracted fans from the fact that I’m far too idiotic to be a funny standup.”

Asked whether his famously uncritical credulity inherently benefits bad faith actors looking to use his platform to spread misinformation, Rogan answered “I don’t know what any of those words mean.” Still, looking forward, he assured his listeners that he’s far too much of an imbecile to look forward.

“Naw, I’m just gonna keep making this bullshit up as I go,” Rogan insisted. “It turns out there’s a bottomless market for encouraging mediocre men to hide their own intellectual insecurities and lack of curiosity behind claims that they’re ‘just asking questions’. I’ve been just asking questions for years and haven’t found a single goddamned answer, but it didn’t stop Spotify from making me rich.”

Rogan elaborated, “All today’s men really want is a daily reassurance that they never have to change or grow – that their own reflexive ignorance is worth just as much as any expert’s so-called facts. Luckily, that job description fits perfectly into the wheelhouse a truly mindless block-headed simpleton like myself.”

“Also, dragons were definitely real,” Rogan concluded, before reading ads for 5 different brands of supplements.

At press time, Joe Rogan has accepted a nomination as Secretary of the Interior for the incoming Trump Administration.

 

 

Site Disclaimer

The Beaverton is a news satire and parody publication. All articles contained within this website and on its social media accounts, however similar to real events, are fictitious. When public figures or actual businesses are mentioned by name, the corresponding story details are invented. In all other cases, any resemblance to actual persons, businesses or events is entirely coincidental.

[Fernando 6,585]

23 minutes ago, Vesper said:

that is a flat out lie, at least as far as the last 800,000 years are concerned

you are engaging in pure disinformation, whether it is on purpose or through sheer ignorance I leave it for the others here to determine

Not a lie. 

Climate change in the past was more extreme then today. 

Why is Greenland more warmer in the past then today despite the human made climate change? 

Greenland once truly green, scientists reveal

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal S...

 

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science.

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science

Edited November 26, 2024 by Fernando

[robsblubot 3,595]

51 minutes ago, Fernando said:

So in the end the impact of humans is real but not extreme like orbital change, super volcano and what not that produce massive climate change and ice age. 

We are getting hot but nowhere near what we see in the past of extreme climates. 

Don't think we can conclude that. Humans were not around when volcanos were super active for a reason.

It's also hard to know the actual potential outcomes of this man-made increase.
Rumsfeld from Bush the administration once talked (yeah different subject but still) about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns, and I suspect we have a lot of the latter in the mix here.

Here's the kick: Earth does not care one bit whether the climate is viable to humans or not. Imagine a small impact in the food chain today and what prices, as well as availability, would look like. 

 

Edited November 26, 2024 by robsblubot

[Vesper 30,233]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Not a lie. 

Climate change in the past was more extreme then today. 

Why is green land more warmer in the past then today despite the human made climate change? 

Greenland once truly green, scientists reveal

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal S...

 

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science.

climate change is being driven by anthropogenic causes, unlike anytime in the past

it is not being caused by natural cycles

CO2 levels have NEVER been higher (as I have shown) over the past 800,000 years

they have skyrocketed over the past 100, 150 years, caused by humans use of fossil fuels

these are driving an unprecedented rapid increase in global temperatures over such a short duration

this has been definitively proven, it is settled science

[Vesper 30,233]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

[Vesper 30,233]

Causes of climate change

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/causes-climate-change_en

 

Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth’s temperature.

This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Global warming

2011-2020 was the warmest decade recorded, with global average temperature reaching 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2019. Human-induced global warming is presently increasing at a rate of 0.2°C per decade.

An increase of 2°C compared to the temperature in pre-industrial times is associated with serious negative impacts on to the natural environment and human health and wellbeing, including a much higher risk that dangerous and possibly catastrophic changes in the global environment will occur.

For this reason, the international community has recognised the need to keep warming well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

Greenhouse gases

The main driver of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Some gases in the Earth's atmosphere act a bit like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun's heat and stopping it from leaking back into space and causing global warming.

Many of these greenhouse gases occur naturally, but human activities are increasing the concentrations of some of them in the atmosphere, in particular:

• carbon dioxide (CO₂)
• methane
• nitrous oxide
• fluorinated gases

CO₂ produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming. By 2020, its concentration in the atmosphere had risen to 48% above its pre-industrial level (before 1750).

Other greenhouse gases are emitted by human activities in smaller quantities. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂, but has a shorter atmospheric lifetime. Nitrous oxide, like CO₂, is a long-lived greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere over decades to centuries. Non-greenhouse gas pollutants, including aerosols like soot, have different warming and cooling effects and are also associated with other issues such as poor air quality.

Natural causes, such as changes in solar radiation or volcanic activity are estimated to have contributed less than plus or minus 0.1°C to total warming between 1890 and 2010.

Causes for rising emissions

• Burning coal, oil and gas produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.
• Cutting down forests (deforestation). Trees help to regulate the climate by absorbing CO₂ from the atmosphere. When they are cut down, that beneficial effect is lost and the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.
• Increasing livestock farming. Cows and sheep produce large amounts of methane when they digest their food.
• Fertilisers containing nitrogen produce nitrous oxide emissions.
• Fluorinated gases are emitted from equipment and products that use these gases. Such emissions have a very strong warming effect, up to 23 000 times greater than CO₂.

Countering climate change

As every tonne of CO₂ emitted contributes to global warming, all emissions reductions contribute to slowing it down. In order to stop global warming completely, CO₂ emissions have to reach net zero worldwide. In addition, reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, can also have a powerful effect on slowing global warming – especially in the short term.

The consequences of climate change are extremely serious, and affect many aspects of our lives. Both countering climate change and adapting to a warming world are top priorities for the EU.We need climate action now. Find out about what the EU is doing to fight the climate crisis.

[Vesper 30,233]

Debunking eight common myths about climate change

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change

The world is warming at a record pace, with unseasonable heat baking nearly every continent on Earth. April, the last month for which statistics are available, marked the 11th consecutive month the planet has set a new temperature high.

Experts say that is a clear sign the Earth’s climate is rapidly changing. But many believe – or at least say they believe – that climate change is not real, relying on a series of well-trodden myths to make their point. 

“Most of the world rightly acknowledges that climate change is real,” says Dechen Tsering, Acting Director of the Climate Change Division at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “But in many places, misinformation is delaying the action that is so vital to countering what is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.” 

This month, delegates will be meeting in Bonn, Germany for a key conference on climate change. Ahead of that gathering, here is a closer look at eight common climate-related myths and why they are simply not true. 

Myth #1: Climate change has always happened, so we should not worry about it. 

It is true that the planet’s temperature has long fluctuated, with periods of warming and cooling. But since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, the climate has been relatively stable, which scientists say has been crucial to the development of human civilization. 

That stability is now faltering. The Earth is heating up at its fastest rate in at least 2,000 years and is about 1.2°C hotter than it was in pre-industrial times. The last 10 years have been the warmest on record, with 2023 smashing global temperature records.   

Other key climate-related indicators are also spiking. Ocean temperatures, sea levels and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are rising at record rates while sea ice and glaciers are retreating at alarming speeds. 

Myth #2: Climate change is a natural process. It has nothing to do with people. 

While climate change is a natural process human activity is pushing it into overdrive. A landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which draws on the research of hundreds of leading climate scientists, found that humans are responsible for almost all the global warming over the past 200 years.  

The vast majority of warming has come from the burning of coal, oil and gas. The combustion of these fossil fuels is flooding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, which act like a blanket around the planet, trapping heat.  

By measuring everything from ice cores to tree rings, scientists have been able to track concentrations of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 2 million years, while two other greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are at their highest in 800,000 years.  

As the Earth’s climate changes, hurricanes and other superstorms are expected to become more common in many parts of the world. Photo: APF/NOAA

Myth #3: A couple of degrees of warming is not that big of a deal. 

Actually, small temperature rises can throw the world’s delicate ecosystems into disarray, with dire implications for humans and other living things. The Paris Agreement on climate change aims to limit average global temperature rise to “well below” 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C, since pre-industrial times.  

Even that half-a-degree swing could make a massive difference. The IPCC found that at 2°C of warming, more than 2 billion people would regularly be exposed to extreme heat than they would at 1.5°C. The world would also lose twice as many plants and vertebrate species and three times as many insects. In some areas, crop yields would decrease by more than half, threatening food security. 

At 1.5°C of warming, 70 per cent to 90 per cent of corals, the pillars of many undersea ecosystems, would die. At 2°C of warming, some 99 per cent would perish. Their disappearance would likely lead to the loss of other marine species, many of which are a critical source of protein for coastal communities. 

“Every fraction of a degree of warming matters,” says Tsering. 

Myth #4: An increase in cold snaps shows climate change is not real. 

This statement confuses weather and climate, which are two different things. Weather is the day-to-day atmospheric conditions in a location and climate is the long-term weather conditions in a region. So, there could still be a cold snap while the general trend for the planet is warming.  

Some experts also believe climate change could lead to longer and more intense cold in some places due to changes in wind patterns and other atmospheric factors. One much-publicized paper found the rapid warming of the Arctic may have disrupted the swirling mass of cold air above the North Pole in 2021. This unleashed sub-zero temperatures as far south as Texas in the United States, causing billions of dollars in damages. 

Some experts believe that climate change could spark cold snaps in unusual places, like the American state of Texas, which was hammered by a historic snowstorm in 2021. Photo: AFP/Matthew Busch 

Myth #5: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change. 

A 2021 study revealed that 99 per cent of peer-reviewed scientific literature found that climate change was human-induced. That was in line with a widely read study from 2013, which found 97 per cent of peer-reviewed papers that examined the causes of climate change said it was human-caused. 

“The idea that there is no consensus is used by climate deniers to muddy the waters and sow the seeds of doubt,” says Tsering. “But the scientific community agrees: the global warming we are facing is not natural. It is caused by humans.” 

Myth #6: It is too late to avert a climate catastrophe, so we might as well keep burning fossil fuels. 

While the situation is dire, there is still a narrow window for humanity to avoid the worst of climate change.  

UNEP’s latest Emissions Gap Report found that cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 42 per cent by 2030, the world could limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C compared with pre-industrial levels.  

A little math reveals that to reach that target, the world must reduce its annual emissions by 22 billion tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent in less than seven years. That might seem like a lot. But by ramping up financing and focusing on low-carbon development in key transport, agriculture and forestry, the world can get there.  

“There is no question the task ahead of us is massive,” Tsering says. “But we have the solutions we need to reduce emissions today and there is an opportunity to raise ambition in the new round of national climate action plans.”  

To avert the worst of climate change, the world must embrace low-carbon technologies, like solar power, say experts. Photo: UNEP/Duncan Moore

Myth #7: Climate models are unreliable. 

Climate skeptics have long argued that the computer models used to project climate change are unreliable at best and completely inaccurate at worst. 

But the IPCC, the world’s leading scientific authority on climate change, says that over decades of development, these models have consistently provided “a robust and unambiguous picture” of planetary warming.  

Meanwhile, a 2020 study by the University of California showed that global warming models were largely accurate. The study looked at 17 models that were generated between 1970 and 2007 and found 14 of them closely matched observations.  

Myth #8: We do not need to worry about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Humanity is inventive; we can just adapt to climate change. 

Some countries and communities can adapt to rising temperatures, lower precipitation and the other impacts of climate change. But many cannot.  

The world’s developing countries collectively need between US$215 billion and US$387 billion per year to adapt to climate change, yet only have access to a fraction of that total, found UNEP’s latest Adaptation Gap Report. Even wealthy nations will struggle to afford the cost of adaptation, which in some cases will require radical measures, such as displacing vulnerable communities, relocating vital infrastructure or changing staple foods.  

In many places, people are already facing hard limits on how much they can adapt. Small island developing states, for example, can only do so much to hold back the rising seas that threaten their existence. 

Without significant action to lower greenhouse gas emissions, communities will reach these hard limits faster and begin to suffer irreparable damage from climate change, say experts.  

[robsblubot 3,595]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

Myth #6: It is too late to avert a climate catastrophe, so we might as well keep burning fossil fuels. 

I strongly disagree with this one and find it extremely naive to think this way.

"the world must"  There is no such thing. There are regions and countries with extremely different agendas and goals.

[Vesper 30,233]

What is ‘new denial?’ An alarming wave of climate misinformation is spreading on YouTube, watchdog says

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/climate/climate-denial-misinformation-youtube/index.html

If you’ve been on YouTube lately, you might have come across someone claiming wind and solar energy don’t work, that rising sea levels will help coral reefs flourish, or that climate scientists are corrupt and alarmist.

These are all false and misleading statements taken from a handful of thousands of YouTube videos analyzed by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has identified a stark change in the tactics of climate deniers over the past few years.

Where once climate deniers would outright reject climate change as a hoax or scam, or claim that humans were not responsible for it, many are now shifting to a different approach, one which attempts to undermine climate science, cast doubt on climate solutions and even claim global warming will be beneficial at best, harmless at worst.

The past five years have seen a “startling” rise in this “new denial,” according to a CCDH analysis published Tuesday, which also suggests this shift in narrative could also be helping YouTube video creators circumvent the social media company’s ban on monetizing climate denial.

Researchers gathered transcripts from more than 12,000 videos posted between 2018 and 2023 across 96 YouTube channels that have promoted climate denial and misinformation. Transcripts were analyzed by artificial intelligence to categorize the climate denial narratives used as either “old denial” or “new denial.”

“New denial” content — attacks on solutions, the science and the climate movement — now makes up 70% of all climate denial claims posted on YouTube, according to the report, up from 35% in 2018.

Assertions that “global warming is not happening,” one of the main “old denial” claims the analysis focused on, declined from 48% of all denial claims in 2018 to 14% in 2023, the report found. Claims that climate solutions won’t work, however, soared from 9% to 30% over the same period.

‘Murderers’ and ‘criminals’: Meteorologists face unprecedented harassment from conspiracy theorists

Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer and founder of CCDH, said the report in some ways is a story of success.

“The climate movement has won the argument that climate change is real, and that it is hurting our planet’s ecosystems,” he told CNN. As the impacts of the climate crisis — from scorching heat waves to fierce storms — affect a broader swath of the global population, narratives that deny the existence of climate change are becoming less effective.

But, he added, it’s also a huge warning. “Now that the majority of people recognize old climate denial as counterfactual and discredited, climate deniers have cynically concluded that the only way to derail climate action is to tell people the solutions don’t work.”

“This new climate denial is no less insidious,” Ahmed said, “and it could hold enormous influence over public opinion on climate action for decades to come.”

It’s particularly worrying because of the young demographic attracted to YouTube, according to the CCDH. A December survey from Pew Research Center found YouTube to be the most widely used social media platform it analyzed among 13- to 17-year olds, used by roughly nine in 10 of them.

“Climate deniers now have access to vast global audiences through digital platforms,” Charlie Cray, senior strategist at Greenpeace, said in a statement. “Allowing them to steadily chip away at public support for climate action — especially among younger viewers — could have devastating consequences for the future of our planet.”

The shift in tactics to undermine climate action could also help creators get around YouTube’s policy banning them from making money on climate denial content, the report suggests. In 2021, the company prohibited advertising against content that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.”

Yet YouTube is potentially making up to $13.4 million a year from ads on videos the report found to contain climate denial, according to the CCDH’s calculations, including ads from prominent sportswear companies, hotels and international nonprofits.

“There aren’t many companies that would be happy about seeing their advertising appear next to clear climate denial content,” Ahmed said. “And I imagine they will be furious to find out that they are inadvertently funding climate denial content.”

In a statement to CNN, a YouTube spokesperson said, “debate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed.”

However, the spokesperson added, “when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on climate change and context from third parties.”

YouTube said its enforcement teams work quickly to review videos that may potentially violate policies, then act on them.

‘An agenda to control you’: How climate solutions got sucked into a fevered culture war

The company said that after reviewing the CCDH report, it found some of the videos included did violate existing climate change policies and has since removed ads from them. However, it also said the majority of the videos in the analysis did not breach their policies.

Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the narrative shift in climate denial, said the findings were “disturbing.”

“It is extremely unlikely that this is the result of organic social media activity,” Mann, who was not involved in the study, told CNN. “It suggests that bad actors have made a concerted effort to weaponize social media in a way that is especially targeted toward young people, recognizing that they are the greatest threat to the fossil fuel industry status quo, as evidenced by the tremendous impact of the youth climate movement.”

Ahmed called on Google to boost its policies to deal with “new denial” content. “We’re asking Google to extend their ban on monetization and amplification of ‘old denial’ content to include ‘new denial’ as well,” Ahmed said, adding that other social media companies should also take note of the report’s findings.

“We’re asking other platforms that claim to be green in one breath not to profit from, to revenue share, and therefore, reward or to amplify clear climate denial content that contradicts scientific consensus,” Ahmed added. “You can’t claim to be green but then be the world’s biggest megaphone for climate change-related disinformation.”

[Vesper 30,233]

6 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

I strongly disagree with this one and find it extremely naive to think this way.

"the world must"  There is no such thing. There are regions and countries with extremely different agendas and goals.

there is only one planet Earth

it is called GLOBAL climte change for a reason

no area can 'opt out' as time flows on

all areas will be impacted in massive and varied ways

 

[robsblubot 3,595]

15 minutes ago, Vesper said:

there is only one planet Earth

it is called GLOBAL climte change for a reason

no area can 'opt out' as time flows on

all areas will be impacted in massive and varied ways

 

The same way that "the world" does not care about children dying, as it is posted here often, it does not care about climate change.

There is no unity until there is no choice, and given that climate change will affect different areas and countries differently, by the time most countries are driven to action it will be way too late. So, I have to disagree on this one.

[Vesper 30,233]

A Bumpy Ride Ahead