World Heading Into 'Uncharted Territory of Destruction,' Says Climate Report 294
The world's chances of avoiding the worst ravages of climate breakdown are diminishing rapidly, as we enter "uncharted territory of destruction" through our failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions and take the actions needed to stave off catastrophe, leading scientists have said. From a report: Despite intensifying warnings in recent years, governments and businesses have not been changing fast enough, according to the United in Science report published on Tuesday. The consequences are already being seen in increasingly extreme weather around the world, and we are in danger of provoking "tipping points" in the climate system that will mean more rapid and in some cases irreversible shifts.
Recent flooding in Pakistan, which the country's climate minister claimed had covered a third of the country in water, is the latest example of extreme weather that is devastating swathes of the globe. The heatwave across Europe including the UK this summer, prolonged drought in China, a megadrought in the US and near-famine conditions in parts of Africa also reflect increasingly prevalent extremes of weather. The secretary general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, said: "There is nothing natural about the new scale of these disasters. They are the price of humanity's fossil fuel addiction. This year's United in Science report shows climate impacts heading into uncharted territory of destruction."
Recent flooding in Pakistan, which the country's climate minister claimed had covered a third of the country in water, is the latest example of extreme weather that is devastating swathes of the globe. The heatwave across Europe including the UK this summer, prolonged drought in China, a megadrought in the US and near-famine conditions in parts of Africa also reflect increasingly prevalent extremes of weather. The secretary general of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, said: "There is nothing natural about the new scale of these disasters. They are the price of humanity's fossil fuel addiction. This year's United in Science report shows climate impacts heading into uncharted territory of destruction."
Good. Hurry it up already. (Score:2)
Something needs to save us from the constant whining about the end of the world.
Private Jets (Score:2)
Re:Private Jets (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point the collective hot air of everyone pointing this hypocrisy out raise temps 1C.
Like we get it, you're not wrong, the wealthy in the world are hypocritical dirtbags but the people who always point this out also refuse to raise taxes or do anything to disrupt the wealthy and their lifestyle and insist that their money is beyond reproach.
Re: (Score:2)
Sir, do yourself a favor and watch the devil speech in "a Man for All Seasons," only replace devil with rich person. And then realize that once we start taking all rich people's money we probably won't stop there, and we can all be equal in our misery.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great that a movie exists and is good and that it makes a point but it has little to do with the economic and political reality of wealth inqueality and sensible taxation policies in a modern economy.
Quotes are nice and all to talk about but we are talking about policy here and honestly it feels like a distraction from the real issue to bring up what is essentially fuction as a response.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to ask you something, so lets say you tax everyone into whatever oblivion that is to your liking, imagine that it changes nothing at all from point of view of the climate control on this planet, so what then? Will you be the first to demand that everyone now starts working for the government directly, so that one huge government is placed on top of everything to decide what every single individual human should be doing, how they should be working, where, how they should be spending whatever is left
Re: (Score:3)
Holy slippery slope Batman.
How about we just move the tax brackets that were in place in the 1970's, adjust the capital gains rate to a more reasonable rate closer to the income tax rate and implement some redistributive efforts and go from there.
I am also not exactly looking for a one to one tax rate to environmental outcomes, don't be so quick to motte-and-bailey me.
Beyond the taxes primarily I would be tickled pink if we moved to a sane multi-payer universal healthcare system and maybe some sort of feder
Great Time to have Child (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't wait to talk to my kid some day about Climate Change.
Sorry kiddo. We had a great planet but some people fucked it all up because not wrecking it would cut into their profit margins.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Gen X and that's exactly the conversation my parents had with me in the 1980s.
It's not all about you, kiddo.
Conflating? (Score:2)
Sounds like they're conflating weather and climate.
Wh00t! - adapt or die... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm usually a glass half-full kinda guy, but it seems completely clear to me that humanity ain't gonna get out of this climate bind in a hurry.
I guess the most ridiculous and shocking aspect, is how the fuck anthropogenically induced climate change was denied for so long.
We've had decades to sort this out - FFS, scientists working for "big oil" warned their bosses of the potential outcome nearly 5 decades ago.
Guess what, they were right.
The general consensus now, finally, is that it's real, it's happening ... and there's nothing we can do but adapt. ... and pray that tipping points don't send the climate right off the charts, to "hot house earth" - because that is game over for human civilisation.
Meanwhile, the planet just absorbs it and changes - "been there, seen that, got the t-shirt".
No matter how bad things get - even complete nuclear annihilation of 99% of life - earth will rebound.
Sure, it may take a few hundred thousand years and more, but it will.
In the meantime, within anyone under 70's lifetime, profound changes are unfolding that will require rapid adaptation.
We kinda know the story - seen enough disaster movies, read enough sci-fi - the first step is a rapid decline in food production.
If global harvests fail in multiple regions, for 2 or 3 years in a row, for the poorest, that equals starvation.
Clearly, when faced with that prospect, humans tend to migrate.
Migration is soon going to reach epic proportions, which in turn will result in regional conflict - war.
How quickly will this all happen?
Who knows - the best climate scientists agree, at least behind the scenes, we've squandered any chance of a soft landing.
What is considerably alarming is changes that were predicted to happen decades from now, are already happening.
The most "out there" scientists, the "glass half full" types, are giving us literally two decades before civilisation collapse.
How can that possibly be true? How can it possibly happen? We're safe, right? We're modern? We've got tech?
Back to food again - the global breadbaskets - you can't move those in a hurry - starvation and conflict due to that, will cause the collapse of our current civilisation.
Good luck, fellow humans. We're in for a wild ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wh00t! - adapt or die... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is more or less retrospectively the same as the whole 'smoking causes cancer' except, once they put public smoking restrictions in place, it is pretty easy to avoid significant contamination from smokers. Not so with the environment. The stressors it is creating are already being exploited by authoritarians, I'm not sure where it will end up. The richest countries may well have the resources to shoulder through much of it, although depending on how things get allocated you'll end up with either a lower standard of living or else a brutal oligarchy. We've seen where the latter gets you with Russia ever striving for complete demographic collapse.
Succinct reply - there is no escape when it comes to biosphere change/collapse(?)
It's really a case of crisis piled on top of crisis - as is ever the human condition - with that extra fun part "no escape".
I'll take a lower standard of living any day of the week, yet it seems clear that brutal oligarchy will rapidly rise as the food runs out.
We're already seeing a shift toward the far right and we're already seeing what happens when resources are scarce.
It's almost as if the pandemic was a "practice exercise" for the coming storm.
Yet, if you read more deeply into climate change one of the predicted outcomes is indeed pandemics - a warming earth, humans ever closer to nature as it collapses.
That "practice exercise" of the pandemic showed all of us both the best and the worst of humankind.
The "great toilet roll shortage" of 2020, whilst somewhat funny, was a little tiny blip of what we face - there was plenty of "loo roll", it's just that the media panicked everyone - and they went on a panic buy splurge.
Imagine that splurge with basic food staples, like wheat or rice. Not so much you can't wipe your bottom, more that you can't feed your stomach.
Queues outside supermarkets, fights breaking out, governments under pressure sending in the military to calm things down - but just exacerbating the situation.
We're about to witness the terrible fragility of "just in time" (JIT) economics - heck, we already are.
JIT made things cheaper, but the result of that, is less storage of ... everything. Food, fuel, electronics - whatever.
Fun times.
Advanced civilization can't rebound (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The general consensus now, finally, is that it's real, it's happening
We'll know there's a consensus when Fox News and Newsmax begin warning about climate change and the urgent need to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the planet just absorbs it and changes - "been there, seen that, got the t-shirt".
Humanity owes our present rule of the land to the K-T extinction. A geologic boundary marked by iridium enrichment around the globe.
Perhaps it will be the descendants of the cephalopods that will owe their rule to the Anthropocene extinction. An event marked geologically by a thin sediment of microplastics and PFAS's.
Re: (Score:3)
I know you're just a troll, but... The frequency of the glacial cycle is about 100,000 years between glacial maximums. We are not "due" for glaciation for tens of thousands of years, a timescale that's utterly irrelevant to our current civilization. Anthropomorphic global warming is affecting us within our lifetimes.
Sand. (Score:2)
send ManBearPig to moscow! (Score:2)
send ManBearPig to moscow!
Bring it on. (Score:2)
I've got 20kg of popcorn, 10 litres of coconut oil, 4kg of salt, and a really good lidded camping pot.
Let the spectacle commence.
On the plus side (Score:2)
We got NFTs!
So that's okay, right?
The planet is /fine/ (Score:2)
But the large mammals are f*cked.
Pack your shit, folks--we're goin' away.
[With apologies to George Carlin.]
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the mammals are probably fine too. There's one that depends on reliable weather for extremely optimized agriculture that supports an outrageous population in incredible luxury. That one is going to have some bad times.
Actually, the other mammals will probably come out ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the lions, and tigers, and polar bears. Oh my.
;-)
Re:Greens / Communists using this as a power lever (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
recent changes in how people vote is ensuring that only one party gets to keep power.
I do love how selectively this has come to be applied.
Republican won a race? "Voting is secure here sir, o7"
Democrat won a race? "Mail in voting is fraudulent and ensures one party control. Better change the legislature so we have the power to override however the people vote."
Just come out and say you want to return voting to white male land owners and save us all the time from decrypting your accusations.
Re: (Score:2)
Where have democrats made legislative moves to restrict voting access or give state legislatures the ability to override votes?
I also don't recall many, if any, saying the election was "rigged" to anywhere of the same degree that Trump and his supporters have. ALso Hillary conceded the very next morning of the election.
So no, in my opinion while there have been some stupid things said about Trump in 2016 nothing in the same universe of egregiousness of the sitting President of the Unted States calling into
Re: Greens / Communists using this as a power leve (Score:2)
No it wasn't. There were not a lot of people on the left or the media claiming voter fraud when trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college vote. Yet Trump still griped about losing the popular vote. The only side that has been screaming 'election fraud' has been those on the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't win the popular vote, only the electoral college and we still didn't have a massive amount of people claiming voter fraud on the left in 2016. Just Trump and his cult following. I was awake and remember.
Re: (Score:2)
"How many links would you accept as proof?"
"How many times do I have to repeat this claim for you to accept it as proof?" Links do not constitute proof, even if you have a million of them. You need evidence. Do you have it?
Re: (Score:2)
An impartial poll would be good evidence that "a large percentage of...consumers thereof believed Trump's win was fraudulent or had significant fraudulent components"
Re: (Score:2)
How many links would you accept as proof? And are we excluding claims of fraud in the primaries?
There are LOTS of links showing Republicans claiming fraud in the 2016 election.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24... [cnn.com]
https://www.factcheck.org/2016... [factcheck.org]
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
Do you want more?
Trump claimed 2016 election was rigged, too. (Score:3)
It's funny because it was the other way round when Trump won. Quite the selective memory you have.
Nope, I have a good memory. When Trump won in 2016, he still declared that the election was fraudulent, https://www.bbc.com/news/elect... [bbc.com] because he should have won by more: https://www.latimes.com/politi... [latimes.com]
A summary of his claims here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
Re:Greens / Communists using this as a power lever (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference being that once the legal paths had been explored it was over. The system as designed. The whole thing smelled, but it was over. The other guy? Still doing his best to burn the whole thing down with lies and corruption- and somehow you people are still on your knees for him.
I understand the hate for the Ds, they fucked over the entire middle class in the 90s and there is a huge chunk of the country still salty over that and will never recover. I can't get my head around how all of these otherwise perfectly reasonable Americans have been so completely caught up in this guys grift that they will defend him over even their own kin, and send him their last dollar, and even after he lands them in prison.
Here we are years later, insurrection in the rear view, and now we've got you nut jobs shooting up the FBI and killing your own families over this con and yet here you are, still on the internet pointing fingers, trying to convince people that it's actually the other team that's causing problems. You have to be careful with gaslighting, when it stops working, its a very sudden change, and it happens all at once.
This guy is your leader? The soft draft dodger who lives in a palace but constantly begs you for money? This mobbed up limo-lib clown who shits on golden toilets and changes teams when the money dries up? The soft rich asshole who disrespects our fallen veterans, ogles little girls, gives national secrets to dictators, betrays our allies, and refuses to pay his tradesmen? This guy is your chosen one?
The rest of us don't know weather to laugh or cry. You lot are a national embarrassment, but we would help you if you would only let us. It's not evil socialism to help lift your fallen countrymen. You can come back to reality. It's not easy to stop hating everybody, but it's possible. It's not to late. We will accept you. For most of you, your family is still there- softly trying to break the spell without pushing you over the edge.
Or I guess send another $100 to the "Save America" fund that totally 100% exists and is not just the T family slush fund, and lock and load. Those pizza parlor pedos aint gonna shoot themselves up, amiright?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Greens / Communists using this as a power lever (Score:5, Insightful)
He won fair and square by the rules but it sucks because I think the popular vote should matter, but the rules as they are led to this and while I'll state my displeasure at the result, I will recognize them. I will never claim that his presidency is *actually* illegitimate, just that it sucks. Even as voters express this discontent, the actual candidate accepted the result without complaint.
versus:
I refuse to even recognize the legitimacy of the freely elected president. It should be allowed for our party to just discard the results of elections and just declare the winner our party prefers. Failing that, we at least need to pass laws to make it harder for low-income voters to participate in elections. I will still hope for some way to reinstate our guy as president, whatever it takes, without an election taking place. Meanwhile the candidate doubles down, to this day never acknowledged the loss, and even in the face of violence in the capital, refuses to utter the words that the election was over.
Sorry, the Trumpism has taken things way way beyond any reasonable level. I had hoped that the party would have healed from Trumpism but primary results seem to be that the party is doubling down on it...
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, they are similar statements if you cut off the differentiating part. If I go to leave my house and my car isn't in my driveway it's a pretty big distinction between "My car is gone because my wife used it to run to the store" and "My car is gone because the local teenagers are out for a joy ride." Yeah, those statements are the same, in that my car is gone. The distinction is the important part.
I will acknowledge that I'm biased, based on the fact that I think Trump was overall a shitty presid
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those more than 200 counties that Obama won twice flipped to Trump in 2016 b/c racism? And Joe Biden got 81 million votes. LOL
Re: (Score:2)
Greens / Communists
I have never understood the affinity between environmentalism and socialism, and why so many greenies look to big government as the solution to every problem. Socialist countries had a horrible environmental track record, and the solutions to climate change (EVs, better solar panels, bigger wind turbines, cheaper batteries) are coming from capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the free market is reactive. So after the world is past the point of no return, the free marker wakes up and says "Oh Shit!" We can expect the mailed glove of free enterprise to ride to rescue...the same free market that cause the problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
> Once they gain it, they will not relinquish it. Already happening here in the US.
Isn't that the slippery-slope fallacy? Decision making in a democracy is always a messy push-and-pull. Slippery slope can be used as justification against ANY group, because in theory they could get carried away. That's human nature, not necessarily any one group or party.
For example, I fear if GOP got full unobstructed power, they'd turn USA into an evangelical theocracy. Left unchecked, they probably would.
Do note that i
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, I think "slippery slope" isn't quite the right description for this scenario.
It's a fallacy where the thing you are actually arguing against isn't really bad, but you need to invent a straw man and unjustifiably tie your straw man to the not so bad thing.
troll [Re:Greens / Communists using this as a...] (Score:3, Insightful)
Greens / Communists (and there is a link between the old USSR and the German greens) will use this as a lever to gain power. Once they gain it, they will not relinquish it.
Troll. There are real world and very serious authoritarian take-overs going on in the world, but what you're worried about is that Greens might institute a carbon tax that could increase your overall tax burden by something approaching one percent? (Yep. 1%. Look at the proposals.)
Bullshit. You're not really worried about Greens taking power, you're just parroting libertarian-sounding talking point that have been fed to you from think tanks funded by oil companies.
If you're worried about authoritarians fi
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Greens / Communists using this as a power lever (Score:5, Insightful)
your post is a really interesting example of intent. Do you intentionally mean to mislead, or do you actually believe the stupid shit you're typing ?
> Greens / Communists (and there is a link between the old USSR and the German greens) will use this as a lever to gain power.
this is a standard ploy. it's mind boggling to me that "communist" can still be used to scare people, and yet it apparently can. However i'm not so sure this isn't a result of conditioning. Tying Greens to communists is a standard trick, tying one thing you want to be "scary" to another thing that is already considered as such.
Also, citations please. There is a kernel of truth here, in that the Greens in Germany have acquired more political clout. However you fail to provide a single fact to support your assertion that i should be afraid of them.
> Once they gain it, they will not relinquish it. Already happening here in the US.
Watch as I engage in whataboutism. The Rightwing in the US is absolutely gaining power and ensuring that they will not have to relinquish it, but you're seriously going to suggest it's the communists that i have to worry about ? WTF....
> Mod me down. Don't care. Your funeral, and you're digging your own graves by allowing it to happen.
ah yes, you sacrifice yourself on the altar of freedom. What exactly is being allowed to happen here ?
> I'm not denying climate change is happening, but think very carefully about who you've voted in, and what they've done to your economy and your > > people -- and I mean you, Europe, primarily. You're years into this nonsense, and now it's showing.
yes, i'm sure Europe is really interested in your opinion. Saying that you don't deny climate change is a very pathetic attempt to dissuade people from thinking your a denialist loon. I do think very carefully about the people I've voted in as a matter of fact, and they are not communists and they are not destroying the economy. The right is very, VERY careful about thinking about how they can make sure the economy only works for the 1%, hence the reason for culture wars.
Also if you "not denying climate change is happening" then you should enlighten us as to what we're going to do about it. However you seem to know the communists and greens won't or something. So you think the right wing will ? the original deniers ? the people who think that pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible is good for the economy, even though in the long run climate change is REALLY, REALLY bad for the economy.
I've lost interest. This is a loony post which is currently sitting an +5 insightful , and should be modded down using a category we don't have yet. i guess flamebait will have to do.
But still, i'm really interested if this shit is intentional , or do we just really have a lot more 4chan members on Slashdot now ? It's really been bad lately.
Re: (Score:2)
this is a standard ploy. it's mind boggling to me that "communist" can still be used to scare people, and yet it apparently can. However i'm not so sure this isn't a result of conditioning.
It may just be conditioning on the part of the boomers who write the shit.
I'm Gen X and these guys were shouting at me in the 90s about how I'm a PINKO RED COMMIE for supporting Democrats, or for being against some war where none of the people involved were communists. It was stupid then, and it didn't sway public opinion, but Vietnam Vets Who Still Hate Hippies would all pat themselves on the back whenever they heard it. But it still didn't make the Vietnam War a popular thing that Americans are glad about
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And I Feel Fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
If shit sucks where you are at then move
Then I suppose you are a big believer in open borders and mass immigration into your country?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure am.
Re: (Score:2)
disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
disgusting.
100 years from now, "disgusting" might be defined as that ignorant era when humans carved up an entire planet into Yours and Mine, and then started killing each other to sustain it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a heavy dose of optimism to believe that those problems will be solved within just 100 years such that the whole mess can be tactfully distilled to a single word. No, I believe human condition is playing the long game -- if we survive.
It doesn't take 100 years to understand just how fucked and harmful pointless warmongering among humans, actually is.
Common F. Sense realized that 1,000 years ago.
IF we survive? How ironic that if we hadn't spent the last few centuries killing each other for Greed and Fucks sake, we'd be surviving and thriving just fine living on other planets by now.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you think that any group of humans who have started a war have ever considered they're doing it pointlessly? They've always had a point ("My dick is smaller than your allegedly virgin daughter" and more consequential points.), and the actual points of wars don't seem to last very well in hindsight. But at the time, the people who order other people to fight and die for their points, do
Re:And I Feel Fine. (Score:4)
You mean the entirety of human history? Or do you think fighting over resources is something new?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Explain to me how it is disgusting to take free land from God, kill the native peoples who live off the land freely, then take it for their own and then charge taxes and fee for the same land they got free. O wait....
Yea, borders should be free and folks like you should be drawn and quartered in the middle of town.
Re: (Score:2)
it's okay, once your city/state/town turns into a favela due to hare-brained idealistic feelgoodery, you can just pull up stakes and move somewhere else (and then push for more of what you fled!)
you're californian, aren't you?
Re: And I Feel Fine. (Score:3)
Do those borders include the front door to where you live? Because if you mean what you say then anyone can just move in with you when they feel like it and without asking, right? Or are you the standard issue left whereby other people have to follow your BS ideology but not you, because you're special?
Re: And I Feel Fine. (Score:2)
They dont. A lot of them work in academic ivory towers or media echo chambers often with rich parents to bail them out from their poor paying non jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
For the rest of us, at most it is cheap entertainment. Do carry on.
libertarian ideal [Re:And I Feel Fine.] (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I suppose you are a big believer in open borders and mass immigration into your country?
Open borders is a libertarian ideal, since libertarians don't believe governments should restrict humans from moving around.
Oddly, most libertarians I know find a way to avoid mentioning that. They are all "governments shouldn't restrict humans, except the humans I don't like, such as the ones trying to cross borders."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You seem to be under the impression libertarians have a globalist philosophy that applies to all humans. Libertarianism is about the freedom of Americans in line with our founding values (but not limited by any inconsistencies with those values found in the implementation). Those rights apply to American citizens, not random humans. Should every nation recognize such rights for their people? Yes. Does that mean ours should convey our rights to non-citizens? Nope.
Our borders should be secured and the restric
Re: libertarian ideal [Re:And I Feel Fine.] (Score:5, Insightful)
> Libertarianism is about the freedom of Americans in line with our founding values
So you don't think non Americans are interested in freedom? Yet in many places they manage to have more of it than Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
I already answered this.
"Should every nation recognize such rights for their people? Yes."
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Big-government authoritarian [Re: libertarian...] (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarianism is about the freedom of Americans in line with our founding values (but not limited by any inconsistencies with those values found in the implementation). Those rights apply to American citizens, not random humans.
So you think liberty should only apply to Americans... and the government can decide who's an American.
You're a big-government authoritarian.
Re:Big-government authoritarian [Re: libertarian.. (Score:4, Insightful)
LIbertarians now believe English Common Law overrules freedom??
Oh, my.
That's not libertarianism of any sort.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not libertarianism of any sort.
Pretzeltarianism
Re:Big-government authoritarian [Re: libertarian.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some libertarians even support a right to own slaves [wikipedia.org] because freedom!
Re: (Score:3)
Open borders? No. Easy legal immigration, yes. This country (the US) was built on immigration and being a melting pot of the best of everything developed throughout the world.
In this country we need to be far less tolerant of illegal immigration and far more permissive of the legal kind. At least individuals looking for a better life rather than corporate imports to dilute the domestic workforce as seen in technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"There's a pretty easy rule to put into place for importing the best workers without diluting salaries - We just need it to be implemented. Imported workers must be paid a minimum of 50% greater than the median salary for the role in question." You still see median tech salaries in $50-65k range while real salaries are well into six figures.
The devil is in the details. They official 'median salary' is always drastically lower than the real wage where they import these workers. They should have to be paid 50
Re:And I Feel Fine. (Score:4, Insightful)
>Open borders? No. Easy legal immigration, yes.
The sky didn't fall in when they implemented open borders and freedom to work and live where you like in Europe.
The predicted wave of dread immigration didn't happen. The restaurants improved though, because of the improved accessibility to staff.
Check the economic downturn in the UK precipitated by the re-closing of the border with Europe.
Annoying and useless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very annoying Slashdot article. The article is about "leading scientists have said"-- no. Please, tell me who, not just "leading scientists". And the source is "From a report" -- wait what report? Issued by who?
The link in the summary is to a Guardian article, where the link is to... another Guardian article. Way down in the article, they tell us that the report they're referring to is a "United in Science" (who the heck is that?) report published in the journal Joule.
put that up front, please, and give us a link to that source, not just the useless Guardian article.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Your points are valid. Please bear them in mind the next time that you compose a submission, then actually submit it in the (almost) sure and certain knowledge that the editors here are unlikely to do anything to "improve" your submission.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very annoying Slashdot article. The article is about "leading scientists have said"-- no. Please, tell me who, not just "leading scientists". And the source is "From a report" -- wait what report? Issued by who?
The link in the summary is to a Guardian article, where the link is to... another Guardian article. Way down in the article, they tell us that the report they're referring to is a "United in Science" (who the heck is that?) report published in the journal Joule.
put that up front, please, and give us a link to that source, not just the useless Guardian article.
Yeah, The Guardian wants to increase traffic to their articles, big deal. Luckily for us, we have wonderful search engines to find the page of "United in Science". On that page, you will find direct links to the report in pdf, as well as some information about who they are:
" This report has been compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) under the direction of the United Nations Secretary-General to bring together the latest climate science-related updates from key global partner organizations
Re: (Score:2)
And more than a little of this is quite reasonably explained by having reached the peak of the solar cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
their perfect correlation to the solar cycle.
Climatic changes massively outstrip any weak signal from solar cycles.
Re: (Score:3)
Quit crying already, we are all in the same boat. Unless you are on the space station.
Ironically enough, those who have never escaped the hell of a Third World don't have a fucking clue as to what a space station is.
Or a boat for that matter.
Maybe gain some perspective before spouting off next time. Those living in the vast richness of first world countries can barely fathom the doom and gloom of those who aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod thread Funny in an unfunny way?
Re: (Score:2)
Whichever one your lil spaceship will take you. If Andy Griffith can build one then you should be able to too.
Re: (Score:2)
So much tears. Yes, if folks are getting sucked out the window on aisle 14 then I suggest you move.
Re: (Score:3)
Bible as evidence climate change isn't real? This is a new level of meta-brilliance. Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The end is coming.. again. (Score:2)
Was the verse about Melchizedek?
Re: (Score:2)
Enoch is clearly truth.
Re: (Score:2)
"Har har! Gore said the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 [politifact.com] but that won't actually happen until around 2040 [wikipedia.org]! What a liar!"
Ok you win. Now let's fix the problem.
Re:Hey folks! We're already dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember back in the 90's when Al Gore said we'd all be dead from global warming in 10 years?
No, I don't remember this because Al Gore said no such thing.
This is a made up fact
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, nothing says I hate Nazi's like, you know acting like Nazi's and dehumanizing your political opponents and those you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmentalists are still cheering the replacement of nuclear power plants with fossil fuels in places like New York [gothamgazette.com] and Belgium [ans.org]. If environmentalists don't think climate change is an imminent "catastrophe", then why should we?
Your "environmentalists" are also known as humans who get paid to say shit.
Try and grasp that fact before blindly believing any of them. Greed is a human disease, and we don't even want to find a cure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Route to where?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPT-3. Also, Slashdot's aging population.
Re: (Score:2)
Not this time, bud. You're expecting a tidal wave and your gonna get a trickle. The supreme court traded the pendulum swing for more babies. We know you're all setting up to cry "Rigged!" too. Not gonna work this time- you blew that nut in 2020.
Re:Hate to break it to them, but it's been obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
My take is that this is pretty much over. Human greed, unwillingness to change and ability for denial seem to make the human race incapable to deal competently with any large-scale event. I mean grown men reduced to hysterics because a piece of cloth scares them? How can you expect people like that to change anything with actual impact about their lives?
So yes, 5C will likely happen. That comes with a very high probability of civilization collapse and gigadeath though. May also be the end for the human race, but that is really hard to predict. Some pockets of nomadic people may just get lucky.