You must log in or register to comment.
To be fair, in 1912 it was not at all obvious at which scale humanity started to burn everything after 1950.
1&1/10th is indeed a very few centuries.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
And this is when the topic was published by a newspaper.
If memory serves, the fist scientific publications were from the 1880s.It’s a good thing someone noticed this back then, and the world dumped the coal industry. Imagine how fucked we’d be now if this was completely ignored.
The German Federal Public Radio (Deutschland Funk) has a Radio Documentary Series, about particular historical Topics called “Der Rest ist Geschichte”. Mostly academic experts explain the topics from the academic view for “common” people. They made a interesting one about the History of the Knowledge about the climate crisis.
Aus der Dlf App | Der Rest ist Geschichte | Klima und Krise – Seit wann wir von der Erderwärmung wissen https://share.deutschlandradio.de/dlf-audiothek-audio-teilen.html?mdm:audio_id=dira_DLF_15dd044f
Afaik there is no English version :<
Woke. Cancel them. Get politics out of my newspapers.
Aren’t there still people trying to suggest that we still don’t know if climate change is scientifically understood/proven? This is crazy that we knew about this so long ago!
Solé’s fantastic and extremely recommendable book “Phase Transitions” covers this as well. Quoting Janssen et al.: “even when the group is faced with negative results, members may not suggest abandoning an earlier course of action, since this might break the existing unanimity.”
“More generally, the underlying problem here is why complex societies might fail to adapt […]. Even if there is some social perception of risk, short-term thinking often prevails when facing long-term vulnerabilities. Such undesirable behavior is often favored by a combination of incomplete understanding of the problem, together with the misleading view that all changes are reversible.”misleading view that all changes are reversible
That is chilling.
Kind of the opposite in this case no?
hehe :)
Humanity: Hold my pint.
Why did they not print the whole of ‘Affecting’ on a new line, that’s bothering me
Gramma was a toddler.
Because they never account for exponential consumption growth. It was “a few centuries” at current consumption.
While kicking The can down the road, you come across a sign.
BRIDGE OUT AHEAD
What do you do?
- Continue kicking the can, I’m sure it’ll be fine.
- I don’t believe in bridges.
- Even if God let the bridge collapse, which he wouldn’t, I’ll go to heaven if I fall and die, so who cares?
- Pick up the can and go find a dumpster.
- There’s squirrels in my pants! Jump to safety!
Yeah but why did they need to get political about it?/s
$$$
That was probably fairly accurate at that time.
Look at the historical data here:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
BTW, the large recent drop in co2 emissions, covid.
“large”… If only. Barely a drop in the bucket.
Whenever I think about this article, I think about how they could not have possibly known how emissions would grow, and they were perfectly reasonable to frame it this way. And if things stayed at that rate, we would have been able to do something about it so easily when we started getting worried
I never thought I’d say this, but looks like we need more pandemics!
This is actually a thought that some climate deniers have. “Climate change is a hoax to control you, covid was the trial run”.
Unsurprisingly, the people who say that publicly tend to be funded by oil.
Why doesn’t anyone ever think COVID was sent by God to give us a reprieve and a chance to get our act together, which we’re now squandering?
Good news! We’re continuing to shit on our biodiversity safety net.
Only one century has passed since then, so we’re still good. It’s pollutin’ time!
Idk why but captain planet popped up in my head when I read the last sentence.
