Climate change (because it's still political for some reason)
- Thread starter Pale Rider
- Start date
The Industrial Revolution was just the beginning of a slow apocalypse.
It didn’t have to be though. Capitalism co-opted it.
Humanity *should* be constantly advancing itself for the benefit of everyone. That can be accomplished with clean power and a negligible impact on the health of the environment.
Profit just has to take a back seat which it is *very* loathe to do.
Humanity *should* be constantly advancing itself for the benefit of everyone. That can be accomplished with clean power and a negligible impact on the health of the environment.
Profit just has to take a back seat which it is *very* loathe to do.
On the original site, mousing over the image pops up this:
Once he had the answer, Arrhenius complained to his friends that he'd "wasted over a full year" doing tedious calculations by hand about "so trifling a matter" as hypothetical CO2 concentrations in far-off eras (quoted in Crawford, 1997).
So that's also a clue.
Once he had the answer, Arrhenius complained to his friends that he'd "wasted over a full year" doing tedious calculations by hand about "so trifling a matter" as hypothetical CO2 concentrations in far-off eras (quoted in Crawford, 1997).
So that's also a clue.
The issue is that every "trifling matter in far off eras" are going to be someones problem, even if you yourself don't live to see it.
It was hypothetical to him, it's an existential crisis to us.
It was hypothetical to him, it's an existential crisis to us.
A better question is how they managed to keep this a secret from everyone for over a century. No one else independently found out, or anyone who did was also intercepted and silenced before they could go public with their findings. On a global scale.
Ah, but conspiracies aren't real and anyone who believes in them is a paranoid lunatic, right?
Ah, but conspiracies aren't real and anyone who believes in them is a paranoid lunatic, right?
It was made in 1896 is how they kept it secret. We look at shit from the 1980s and ridicule them for how ******* stupid it was, how do you think we're treating the stuff from almost 150 years ago?
They published it back when, academic circles looked at the time lines, and ignored it because chances are their grandchildren would be dead! Then it was thrown on the pile, and probably only got around to be being digitized about a year before XKCD made a point of it.
They published it back when, academic circles looked at the time lines, and ignored it because chances are their grandchildren would be dead! Then it was thrown on the pile, and probably only got around to be being digitized about a year before XKCD made a point of it.
February on course to break unprecedented number of heat records
Rapid ocean warming and unusually hot winter days recorded as human-made global heating combines with El Niño
www.theguardian.com
I don't think that's it...
Last edited:
Sunny, dry and 16C where I am in England today. England in February. Should be grey skies, humid and bitterly cold. This is all accelerating faster than governments of the world can react to.
FB friend:
Germany has too many solar panels, and it's pushed energy prices into negative territory
This is a business insider article so obviously we get gems like this
“Last year's record wave of solar installations are what's driving Germany's price "destruction" as inventory outpaces consumption.”
This is unambiguously a great thing. **** greedy Capitalists acting like this is some sort of problem.
This is a business insider article so obviously we get gems like this
“Last year's record wave of solar installations are what's driving Germany's price "destruction" as inventory outpaces consumption.”
This is unambiguously a great thing. **** greedy Capitalists acting like this is some sort of problem.
Vermont Becomes 1st State To Force Oil Companies Pay For Climate Change Damage
Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures.
Labour lifts Tories’ ‘absurd’ ban on onshore windfarms | Wind power | The Guardian
Rachel Reeves says she will revise planning policy and decisions should be taken ‘nationally, not locally’
amp.theguardian.com