this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
501 points (100.0% liked)
worldnews
4823 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Didnt she say on twitter we would already be dead in 2023?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2023/07/14/the-case-of-greta-thunbergs-deleted-tweet---what-alarmists-need-to-hear/?sh=63a90cc2145c
I don't think you read your article. And Steve Forbes himself doesn't seem to have basic logic capabilities.
2023 was the supposed deadline for stopping the usage of fossil fuels, not the exact time humanity will be wiped out. Did you think this was going to happen in as little as one year?
It will take decades. But with every year we keep using fossil fuels, we're ensuring that it'll be worse.
The way the climate alarmist make it sound it will. Or maybe there is other factors in play but you can't waste a good way to scare the populous into fear.
Not like we havent have had climate change before industrialization... Those glaciers melted just out of fun, hell we were told the late 70's it was a "micro ice age". Been around the block, this is a ploy for control. If these elites really cared about it they would scrape their G5's jets... Never gonna happen.
Plastic pollution in the sea, yeah thats on us. R22 eating the ozone, yeah again us. But CO2 is a natural compound, some man made, mostly naturally made. So I'm keeping w/ the status quo.
I mean one might want to consider that oil production is also controlled by elites and brings them a lot of money, so it might be why media outlets like Forbes are being paid to call it "climate alarmism" lol
Natural CO2 is part of a mostly balanced cycle. That balance is no longer there. We're at a level that hasn't been seen before in human history. Higher CO2 levels have been seen on Earth before, but that was before our species.
The temperatures are going to be high enough that there will be no "going out" in many areas, you're restricted to air conditioned buildings and cars. If your AC breaks at the wrong time, you're fucked.
People have been living in way hotter environments for centuries w/o AC and modern convenience. I'm pretty sure we can do it again if it comes down to it...
Example:
https://old.lemmy.world/post/2083383
This only works in low humidity. Try again.
Why do you assume climate change simply means 'it'll get a couple degrees hotter everywhere?' Will this ancient air conditioner allow Florida residents to continue living in their homes under 6 feet of water?
What it means is more energy in the atmosphere which will be unleased in things like hurricanes, tornados, blizzards, floods, and yes, hotter weather. It isn't going to change the entire planet into a desert climate, but it will make lots of areas uninhabitable.
Every summer there are some who die of heat stroke. Yes, there are survivors, but that doesn't mean the heat isn't dangerous; it just means you've decided you're comfortable with what you perceive to be a low risk. But each summer that heat stroke death toll will get higher. What happens when you decide you're no longer comfortable with the risk? By then we will have missed several key opportunities in reducing CO2 levels. Better to stem the tide now, no?
The little ice age was not an actual ice age, and it was a tiny blip on the global average temperature charts compared to where we're headed right now. Have you seen any of those charts? I have no idea how you could still claim "this is normal and has happened before" after you've seen them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you think this is a ploy for control, please tell me, who do you think is attempting to control who here? Because the people usually accused of that kind of thing (governments and billionaires) are the ones doing frustratingly little to admit and tackle the problem, and they are the only ones who actually could produce meaningful change.
@TIEPilot @hikaru755
China and India don't pollute much per person.
But the point is we need to continue developing clean energy so that it is the best economic choice so that other countries use it.
"China and India don't pollute much per person"
Not accurate, its easy to divide up the industrial waste on the common folk (per person). Ive been to China, its horrid. Makes Buffalo in the late 1970's seem green.
Nuclear, then batteries that are made from more common and easier materials that can be safely recycled.
What is the per capita carbon emissions in China and what is it per capita in your country?
I'll help, it's 7.8metric tonnes per capita in China.
What country are you from?
EDIT: Oh and it's a paltry 1.74metric tonnes per capita in India.
Ah yes the CCP bot has been ID'ed
1.41 billion * 7.8 = 10,998,000,000
335 million * 13 = 4,355,000,000
Still making less
Per capita is what matters mate.
Let's not forget that they're also making literally everything you use too. If you made that in your own country their emissions would drop off a cliff and yours would rocket lmao.
Stop being so intellectually dishonest. You're not thick, why pretend to be?
You've just independently derived the meaning of "per capita". Congrats!!
@TIEPilot
"Not accurate"
You're simply wrong.
Yeah well thats like your opinion, man.
@TIEPilot they pollute less per capita than almost every other developed country.
The fact is, this nonsense is rooted in racism and is frankly disgusting.
Previously you said CO2 isn't an issue so why are you even bringing up India and China's pollution levels if you don't think pollution is to blame for any of this?
Furthermore how can you claim the current trend is a 'nano blip' while we're still in the 'blip?' This is like being able to predict when a stock is at its lowest or at its peak, which requires you to know the future.
That's the issue of your reading comprehension if anything. Like, in general, not only in this topic
What is this micro ice age you are talking about? Perhaps you could point it out on the image here? https://xkcd.com/1732/
No she didn't. Even her tweet quoted a climate scientist. Here, let me read the article you clearly didn't.
In June 2018, climate activist Greta Thunberg fired off an urgent tweet: “A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.”
Here's some context that isn't just Steve "human ballsack" Forbes complaining about something that didn't happen.
And it was BS that she propagated...
Read the context. You guys are all into "do your own research" so fucking do some!
Even that article doesn't say that.
If you think it does, pull the quote from it that proves it instead of linking an article that you clearly didn't read.
She tweeted a lie, so there we are...
You're not literate are you? Poor thing.
So Greta has no onus on tweeting a lie? Oh yeah its (D)ifferent.
When did she say it?
Show me then. Literally all I asked for
DO A SHOT!