Personally I think if China and other AES states agree with this, we should join in as well. Right now I read these articles with healthy scepticism and I am curious on your views. These are the ones that I found interesting. Russia may present an alternate take this December, an interesting time to be alive.

https://techstartups.com/2023/08/31/over-1600-international-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-declaration-dismissed-the-existence-of-a-climate-crisis/

Edit: I shouldn’t have started with such a hollow article. The dismissal of increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts due to warming is not something I support. Here’s something better that shows that the current model fails to explain the strong cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and East Pacific.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.

She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article219438.html

^ Explains that the Russian Academy of Sciences has a different account on climate change that will be presented this year. The IPCC has a monopoly on climate science, the IPCC was founded by Thatcher as a reaction to striking coal workers and is a political organization.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article163379.html Ecology of war

https://www.voltairenet.org/article164791.html Market ecology

https://www.voltairenet.org/article164792.html Financial ecology

  • kadu@lemmy.world
    121·
    1 year ago

    I’m a biologist.

    Ten years ago, if someone came to me with these “oh but here’s one guy saying it might not be man-made” or “oh but the consequences might not be that bad” or “but hey maybe it’s not even true” I’d spend a while trying to educate that person.

    Nowadays? The talking phase is over. No amount of data works. No massive mountains of evidence works for you people.

    Global warming is real, the consequences are dire, people in my field have significantly increased depression and suicide rates, and yes it is fucking man made.

    This isn’t expeculative - this is called the Anthropocene mass extinction event and it’s happening right now - at an accelerating rate.

    • queermunist she/her
      82·
      1 year ago

      It’s not the Anthropocene. Global warming didn’t start hundreds of thousands of years ago when the modern human species evolved. It didn’t start when humans dropped the atomic bomb either, which is the geologic strata that the so-called Anthropocene is supposedly marked. This is a modern phenomenon that was created by colonialism and capitalist resource exploitation and industrialization, but not so modern that it only started within less than 100 years! It didn’t start with automobiles or electricity either. It started with deforesting Turtle Island, which also clearly shows up in the geologic record.

      All this naming convention does is obscure and mystify the true cause of deforestation and carbon emissions and mass extinction. It proposes blaming all humans equally for the destruction of our habitat, when the reality is very few humans are actually to blame.

      I think the capitalocene is much more accurate.

    • FamousPlan101@lemmygrad.mlOP
      1·
      1 year ago

      I am not a full fledged climate skeptic, I want a discussion. That’s why I prefaced it with the title. Sorry for being annoying.

      The world is generally warming I don’t deny that, but what do you have to say to the Russian academy of Sciences saying it’s mostly caused by regional variations in the ozone layer not CO2.

      Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (Definitely not climate deniers) https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

      Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.

      She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.

      I understand that the current theory is a well-regarded mainstream theory but Russia’s theory of climate change attempts to account for these abnormalities. So I wanted to discuss this.