I will not be surprised if we get a lot of snow this winter.
When I was younger, I learned that science was something pure. But as I've grown older, it seems like science is really about how it's used—and who gets to use it.
And yet, every day, I see us getting removed further and further away from it.
when are we going to acknowledge this catastrophe that we are barreling towards?
i can only hope that things start improving. between this and government im gonna lose it
Not to be a total downer, but probably never unless all the Republicans in the US suddenly disappear? Like, remember who the "we" is in your question. Remember what policies they stand for and what methods they employ.
Guess who is the main target of a purge in the US now.
China seems to be winning now. And lead in solar, and robots.
I'm appalled that there still seems to be the need to find _evidence_ for this.
You would think, with all of the advancements in medicine, technology, and infrastructure, we'd be continuing to see improvements. Instead, it's ticking back up. Why do you think that is?
This is a ridiculous requirement to suggest. CO2 lasts around 100 years, waiting until your satisfied of "evidence of catastrophe" is like waiting for evidence that a car crash has fatalities before considering swerving.
The objections to climate change are transparently ideological. Admitting it is real is admitting certain ideologies are flawed, and people like you would rather deny reality than abandon their parasitic memes.
Unfortunately we as people cannot see our older ones so future planning is not so easy…
Guns and ammo was the conclusion how to prepare for the future - in the book “10 Billion” by Stephen Emmott.
I don’t dispute capitalism and democracy.
Just trying to figure out what I (as person) really need.
Every weekend travelling by plane just to experience something else?
Ordering some stuff across the globe from Temu, Aliexpress just because it is cheap(er)?
Eating e.g. tuna because it is healthy that had to be transported around the globe?
Drinking wine from South Africa because I don’t like Californian? (Blind tests by Wine Spectator magazine confirm that even a sommelier doesn’t recognize cheap from expensive ones.)
Global export-import statistics is staggering… just a few: all metals, honey, fish, vegetables from Spain, avocados from Peru, almonds from California, cheaper than local milk transported across Europe , bananas from everywhere you can imagine… supply and demand - a lot of people have a much more money.
Vessel and plane trackers show so many vehicles moving around that I wonder how whales can handle this traffic.
There is chemical and industry that is real spin doctors.
(Almost) everyone wants to have house, car, cheap everything, travel everywhere. Those who can’t afford do everything to become rich.
Wealth is good. Plundering to get more money not so much. And mankind plunders like there is no tomorrow. All the CSR, circular economy etc is nice but brainwashing and stuff for distraction so people could feel better.
I do the capitalism part, or more specifically what form of capitalism because there is a vast range between "society should work for capitalism" and "capitalism should work for society".
I'd likely argue that on the whole capitalism in it's current form isn't working for society and the trend is towards that getting worse over time.
But we should. This is a taboo topic but pretending that these consequences are either disconnected from capitalism or that capitalism is some natural law of the universe that should never be challenged is, for lack of a better word, delusional.
These consequences are inherent to capitalism because people benefiting from it demand infinite growth and nobody is incentivized to care about the environment. People who care about it get outcompeted by those who don't in ruthless pursuit of "efficiency".
We can try to regulate it to the point that people wouldn't call it capitalism anymore but the nature of a system where the only incentive is maximizing profit will always have a natural tendency to harm the environment, so it should be disputed.
We're already in an ice age (there is ice at the poles). I suspect you mean this would make Europe cooler, but do nothing to reverse the trend of increasing global mean surface (land + ocean) temperature.
Edit: For reference: https://colossal.com/direwolf/ https://colossal.com/mammoth/
The thesis: Climate change is strengthening El Niño clearly uses the word "is".
Everything else is evidence, both for and against the thesis subject to interpretation.
Here it's "Something we can see in coral records correlates with what we'd expect given the thesis"
The study doesn’t prove climate change is the culprit. But because the intensification coincides with rapid postindustrial warming and exceeds El Niño’s natural variability, the authors argue that human-driven warming is the leading explanation.
As the weight of evidence in favour of a thesis builds, so does the confidence in the thesis itself.
That being said, consensus would not necessarily settle the thing.
Even when the worldwide scientific community reaches a consensus and accepts using plain language (as in "It _is_ unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land" [1]), you still have a number of politicians begging to differ. [2]
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-polic....
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/de-pire-en-pire-sur-france-5-... (Sorry, fr-fr)