Uhuh
he’s not talking about the quality of these structures preventing deaths. He just makes the point that they are more expensive and therefore there’s more damage to be done today. It’s laughable
Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity
- Thread starter Buster15
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Which accounts for the fact in changes in gdp you mentioned earlier.
Im sorry "I hate refugees"? Hating China? Do you know my father was born and raised in China? Do you know my mother in law is Chinese? But carry on with your warped perception of a person you dont know. I think you are honesty an asshole enough based on those jibes that lets put each other on ignore and never exchange posts again. I dont know how you managed to throw putin in. You never explained that either.it accounts for a tiny part of the problem with climate change (directly weather-related deaths), and within them, implicitly assumes that disasters now will be of the same magnitude as disasters when the temperature deviation crosses 2, 3, 4C etc
so it has nothing to say about the difficulty of growing crops, rising vulnerability to microbes as they adapt to warmer climate, of reduction/loss of water for the majority of humanity, or even of events like this, which don't show up in death statistics but do show up as lack of food or work. there are also secondary effects of events like mass extinctions and destruction of marine like in its current form, and what that could mean.
nice article!
But, living in Denmark, hating refugees, and hating China in particular, you should not worry. As Putin pointed out 20 years ago, and your ideologues agree:
Last edited:
which he presents very disingenuously
2020 GDP was ~ 85,000 bn, so 0.18% is 153bn
1990 GDP was ~ 23,000 bn, so 0.26% is 59.8bn
the actual cost has almost tripled, despite the advancements in technology, that make us better at handling everything, which underpin his entire point.. and he expertly explains this by stating, "there's more stuff now"
Last edited:
Are you confusing me with other posters? I did read Lomborg's article. I also read these reviews. I didn't page through Lomborg's sources; did you? But these reviewers did and have an opinion about them. So, why not read them? You don't insist I take Lomborg's views on face value, do you?
you are a troll. you are posting an article by a climate denier. when that is pointed out, you say "what's specifically wrong with the science" when @Cheimoon pointed out what's wrong with the science, you said, "too much for me."
i know your views on china, your views on politics generally - they align with and are relevant to your "let's not do much" attitude to climate change, and are why i added that line at the end of my post (and you didn't respond to my direct criticism of the article, of course).
Unlike some posters in this thread i want China to be prosperous even if it means burning coal. I do not want the west to be reliant on rare metals and minerals from China which is different. But since you made a big feck you to me, we won't exchange views anymore. And i really dont know where you got the ideas i hate refugees from since ive done volunteer work for refugees. Its your own warped perception.
Last edited:
Also, given he turns out to be a known climate denialist whose arguments in relation to climate change are debunked time and again, I hope you didn't take Lomborg's article at face value either, but researched its merits. That'd be the sensible thing to do before sharing it with others.
He was denialist and changed his tune about 15 years ago or maybe later. I don't have the date.
a lot of the denialists changed their tune around then because the science just became too difficult to debate
they've had to focus on different methods of obfuscating the debate now, such as the article we're discussing
I mean, even the Daily Mail stopped lying about climate change nowadays
Yes, that's exactly the shift that the entire denialist scene went through that I mentioned above. That doesn't make Lomborg suddenly a reliable writer. As those reviews point out, he's twisting data just as denialism did.
Anyway, we're now having a metadiscussion. You have yet to address any of the points I brought up about the reliability of the WSJ article.
Well if the data he uses is wrong he is wrong. Otherwise he's not at least mostly wrong depending on the issue we are focusing on.
I cannot comprehend the idea of anyone who says, in a debate, "I cannot be bothered reading all of that" as a means of debating. It's absurd. "I have likely been shown to be entirely incorrect, so I'll just ignore all evidence which proves it and pretend that I can't be bothered reading it as a means of publicly shrugging it off". Not aimed personallly, btw, but something I read a lot of across various CE threads. The debate goes on anyway, so why not read it? Never do understand that mode of response.
Climate change requires global action. Desert irrigation type schemes from negative pressure oceanic dams. That is the sort of action, in tandem with carbon emission, which will solve the problem and produce a general economic positive in the process via immense employment opportunity. Irrigating deserts, with algae, for example, and I mean only X% of say three deserts, the North America, the Saharan/Fertile Cresent, and the Australasian, as spiralled oases (again, tiny fractions of these vast lands), will do many things. One, water treatment direct from oceanic source. Two, power generation if we go deep underground at staggered rate and apply an immense turbine in density but small in size, (think Hoover, but exponential and much smaller though much more powerful), three, terraformation practice leading directly to superstructural endeavours going into the next few decades wherein the moon (by century's end, and probably mid, if the world has survived) becomes next stop along the human progression trend, four, migration/immigration in terms of centripetal ordering of states from Central/Mexican/Southern United States, into African, Middle Eastern, and then, contractually, Supply/Demand, into the Australasian.
Basic premise is simple: Amazonian/North American square miles of certain plants (Congo for Saharan; various forests and so on for the Fertile Cresent and Papua New Guinea for Austalasian); then zoning for agricultural resettlement, to maintain the species barrier and solve that, immunological/species extinction problem; then, as we go on, massive water treatment all across North America (runs dry in the summer as it is, water disputes between states and nations), also Africa, where the Nile and dams along that river are subject to warring tribal conflicts as its level is less predictable; into the Fertile Cresent wherein Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Yemen, et al, all have an interest in pursuing said project within their own national imaginaries (and then X amount of Australasia).
This is an exponential breaker which is required, along with cleaning up the oceans and rivers - at the same time with vast trawling apparati, already in place, just micro. Reduced carbon output, by itself, will not work. Species barrier is more likely to kill off the planet than melting Glazers. A few waves of viruses at once usually contained within species, now going extinct, exponentially, - that is more doomsday than climate change viewed solely as rapid heating. It's an all or nothing approach. I see this decade (multi decade) thinking nowhere and that will be the death of all orders unless they get it together. It doesn't cost a cent but actually perpetuates the economy to come. There is no economy to come unless you can get along with this. I have done this point by point elsehwere (not publicly) and it works for all states implied, albeit at different levels of land.
America: from "border" as left/right issue, to economic issue. A solution rather than problem. The Mexican side, which is the hammer/anvil of the desert as they move into USA proper, will develop its own gold-rush towns. That is how you solve that problem forever. There is no other solution. It is a climate issue economically and socially misunderstood. Anyway, I await the so-called "ruling class" (useful idiots) of the world to do precisely nothing about it even as they benefit from it.
Climate change requires global action. Desert irrigation type schemes from negative pressure oceanic dams. That is the sort of action, in tandem with carbon emission, which will solve the problem and produce a general economic positive in the process via immense employment opportunity. Irrigating deserts, with algae, for example, and I mean only X% of say three deserts, the North America, the Saharan/Fertile Cresent, and the Australasian, as spiralled oases (again, tiny fractions of these vast lands), will do many things. One, water treatment direct from oceanic source. Two, power generation if we go deep underground at staggered rate and apply an immense turbine in density but small in size, (think Hoover, but exponential and much smaller though much more powerful), three, terraformation practice leading directly to superstructural endeavours going into the next few decades wherein the moon (by century's end, and probably mid, if the world has survived) becomes next stop along the human progression trend, four, migration/immigration in terms of centripetal ordering of states from Central/Mexican/Southern United States, into African, Middle Eastern, and then, contractually, Supply/Demand, into the Australasian.
Basic premise is simple: Amazonian/North American square miles of certain plants (Congo for Saharan; various forests and so on for the Fertile Cresent and Papua New Guinea for Austalasian); then zoning for agricultural resettlement, to maintain the species barrier and solve that, immunological/species extinction problem; then, as we go on, massive water treatment all across North America (runs dry in the summer as it is, water disputes between states and nations), also Africa, where the Nile and dams along that river are subject to warring tribal conflicts as its level is less predictable; into the Fertile Cresent wherein Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Yemen, et al, all have an interest in pursuing said project within their own national imaginaries (and then X amount of Australasia).
This is an exponential breaker which is required, along with cleaning up the oceans and rivers - at the same time with vast trawling apparati, already in place, just micro. Reduced carbon output, by itself, will not work. Species barrier is more likely to kill off the planet than melting Glazers. A few waves of viruses at once usually contained within species, now going extinct, exponentially, - that is more doomsday than climate change viewed solely as rapid heating. It's an all or nothing approach. I see this decade (multi decade) thinking nowhere and that will be the death of all orders unless they get it together. It doesn't cost a cent but actually perpetuates the economy to come. There is no economy to come unless you can get along with this. I have done this point by point elsehwere (not publicly) and it works for all states implied, albeit at different levels of land.
America: from "border" as left/right issue, to economic issue. A solution rather than problem. The Mexican side, which is the hammer/anvil of the desert as they move into USA proper, will develop its own gold-rush towns. That is how you solve that problem forever. There is no other solution. It is a climate issue economically and socially misunderstood. Anyway, I await the so-called "ruling class" (useful idiots) of the world to do precisely nothing about it even as they benefit from it.
Having read most of that, i dont currently have a nytimes subscription, so i missed that one, i agree its a solid take down of Bjørn in general. I will look at the databases later he references in the WSJ article but it requires an account and i havnt slept all night so it will probably take some time before i look at it.
Edit: Having looked at the international disaster database, I mainly looked up 2020 because thats where Bjorn claimed 14000 people died from climate related disasters. I found the database a bit overwhelming to navigate, but by the total death count they give for 2020 I counted 15879 total deaths. So unless the database has added more deaths since, he released that article it would be appear he undercounted about 2000 deaths using that source. Perhaps I counted wrong. But anyway, when I share a article from any author it does not mean that Im a personal fantatic of the author or out to sell his book. I was specifically sharing one very brief article. Going back the database does include droughts in its stats.
Last edited:
Face it, the planet is fecked.
Revealed: UK plans to drop flagship £11.6bn climate pledge
Exclusive: Disclosure provokes fury as Rishi Sunak accused of betraying populations vulnerable to global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-to-drop-flagship-climate-pledge-rishi-sunak
Revealed: UK plans to drop flagship £11.6bn climate pledge
Exclusive: Disclosure provokes fury as Rishi Sunak accused of betraying populations vulnerable to global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-to-drop-flagship-climate-pledge-rishi-sunak
He's such a shit PM.
When dealing with someone who has formally been accused of scientific dishonesty and who talks very obvious bollocks every time he opens his mouth can safely be assumed to be wrong on everything until proven otherwise (with actual evidence, properly interpreted e.g. know how to fit a trend line on a graph)).
It only takes a few minutes to register a free account on the international disaster database he uses as reference for numbers of deaths. It doesnt take long to see if he is way off the mark or not. I looked up the numbers for 2020 and i counted about 16000(edit: after using the criteria he cited I found 15000 deaths for 2020) while he cited 14000 so either he published a sligtly wrong death toll for 2020 or more deaths were added in retrospect since that article. I looked up the average pr. some decades to see if it fits with the averages he cites, and they do add up.
But lets agree I shouldnt have shared that article and agree Bjorn is unreliable because X, Y and Z, and im weary of this discussion.
Last edited:
It’s just fecking hopeless, we should be on a global war economy to revolutionise our energy sources, yet we’re sleepwalking into oblivion!
Absolutely correct on both counts.
But everything else seems to get priority over man made climate change. And all the global pledges made at the recent COPs are treated as just that. A pledge that is forgotten about the next days or weeks.
I mean in the UK, the government is failing on each and every so called pledge, while giving planning approval to a new coal mine and oil and gas exploration.
It has even failed to plant a fraction of the trees it promised. Something hardly difficult to carry out.
But it is giving maximum efforts to send migrants to Rwanda where no doubt they are busy spending the millions we have already given them on chopping down their forests.
As you say ..cking hopeless.
No worries. It’s cyclical.
What is the best argument people have used to counter family members/friends that say there is no point of the UK taking action because of China/developing countries' ongoing reliance on fossil fuels?
I really think your intentions are noble, but I'm not sure it will eventually matter. I don't want to sound overly pessimist, but I know I do, I'm not sure humanity, either on individual level or on global scale, can change much.
We are probaby less than a decade away from mass migrations towards north from large parts of Africa and Asia. We've seen how Europe has dealt with mere couple of millions, imagine what it's going to turn into when there's ten times as many people.
We are not going to willingly change as a race, but we will be changed by unforgiving climate, whether we want it or not.
A pivot to the argument for cheaper and more secure energy is probably the best argument. The other being we're responsible for much of it so we should be leaders in addressing it so developing nations are able to transition quicker. If we move away from gas quicker then other nations will have cheaper alternatives to coal.
China are actually ahead of their pledges and look to be leading the way it'll just take some time before they're able to fully move away from coal given their infrastructure.
China has the world's largest non-carbon industry. It's not even close as to the second (United States). By hundreds of billions. They are transitioning the world's largest leviathan at a rate which exceeds all other nations which can be dubbed comparable per capita (given starting position and general aim/progress). Most investment in green alternatives, battery technology (US catching up but only in supply/logistics), and so on.
Tell them that they don't have a choice. If they want to continue living, then the blood and oil economy (we're only on oil here, but it's steeped in blood and foreshadows it, too) as to end.
That China is many times the size of the UK and per capita is nowhere near the worst for emissions in the world? It's just a very convenient soundbite that means nothing. Source.
Tuesday was world’s hottest day on record – breaking Monday’s record
Average global temperature hits 17.18C and experts expect record to be broken again very soon
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hottest-day-on-record-breaking-mondays-record
Ha, feck you Monday!
What's worrying about this is that those average temperatures were achieved while I was back in my winter jumper in Manchester due to the unseasonable chill in the air here. Dreading the coming heatwave and the inevitable shattering of this record again.
I've found the only thing that actually works is doing tangible organizing work in the field, because you end up being able to say something like "we need to change things here, and the people who feel as I do in China are doing the same work as me."
Also, whether or not China/developing countries do good or bad stuff there's always local work to do, whether it's trying to change policy or helping the people impacted by the issue locally.
Not satisfying rhetorically, but it is more Maoist.
Could always say that because of peak oil a transition to renewable energy sources has to happen sooner or later.
Or how about telling them that if everyone does nothing massive portions of the developing world will be coming to them in boats before they know it.
This video is from a pro-business perspective, but it is nice reporting that illustrates the problem of trying to make directional changes in a decentralized, laissez-faire world
Another symbol of the conflict between market economics and environmental progress:
(pair that with: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-of-lithium/ and https://jalopnik.com/tire-pollution-will-get-worse-as-heavy-evs-hit-the-road-1849490346)
I wanedt to write a longer post on this topic, but too little time/too lazy/lost bookmarked tweets/etc.
Another symbol of the conflict between market economics and environmental progress:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
(pair that with: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/01/18/the-paradox-of-lithium/ and https://jalopnik.com/tire-pollution-will-get-worse-as-heavy-evs-hit-the-road-1849490346)
I wanedt to write a longer post on this topic, but too little time/too lazy/lost bookmarked tweets/etc.
Thanks all. Just to clarify, it was not my view point at all but family members are increasingly using that argument to excuse their indifference to climate change and I was just curious to see how everyone would respond! I have tried the inevitability of cleaner energy sources argument before but to no avail.
I dont think using China as a benchmark is of much value. They are the most populous country in the world and are investing more in green energy while also building more coal plants than anyone else. Essentially they are adressing the energy demands here and now while having an eye on the future. Its what you would expect from a country of their size and increasing prosperity. If they were the benchmark they would commit to net zero by 2050 but they didnt.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160...w-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
https://www.reuters.com/business/en...e-costly-second-fiddle-renewables-2023-03-22/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-up-coal-power-despite-carbon-neutral-pledges
Last edited:
I wouldn't go to Sevilla the next week or so.
https://www.yr.no/en/forecast/daily-table/2-2510911/Spain/Andalusia/Seville/Seville
https://www.yr.no/en/forecast/daily-table/2-2510911/Spain/Andalusia/Seville/Seville
Christ, what a number.
Yeah I agree. Will say this though, lithium and so on, battery tech, being what it is, you can see why China also has massive incentive to push ahead there. A very diversified nation so as you say it would be simplistic to just paint them as doing this or that for x reason when it's more dynamic than that.
There is also this problem with mining for lithium and rare metals and minerals in general. Is something you rarely hear about.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-lithium-hub-mining-boom-comes-cost-2023-06-15/