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

  • queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    CO2 emissions as a greenhouse gas create a contradiction between immediate productivity and future productivity. Why would they promote a theory that would hurt economic productivity for an imaginary threat to future productivity? There’s no good reason to invent this theory from nothing when they could have invented a different theory that wouldn’t hurt their own ability to exploit natural resources and produce energy and burn fuel. They could have invented a different lie that wouldn’t hurt their own interests and vassals.

    It only makes sense as real science, because the West is being forced to reckon with a real threat to its own future.

    • FamousPlan101@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They can ignore it while telling other countries to deindustrialize (they already attacked China)

      Also deindustrialization happens under capitalism and it could be useful to justify it.

      • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What would be the benefit to the West for nations like China to deindustrialise? The west lacks the industrial capacity to support itself, let alone the entire world. It also both cannot and will not ramp up production as it would be simultaneously far too costly, and would give far too much labour power to workers for the capitalists’ comfort. So is their ultimate goal just global degrowth? That doesn’t really track.

            • FamousPlan101@lemmygrad.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even the mainstream majority believe that the climate models are wrong as cooling has been measured in the Pacific.

              The Russian theory attempts to account for this.

              This is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

              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. **

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is it useful to justify their own de-industrialization though? To create dissent within their own carbon emitting empire?

        And if they can ignore dissent that is caused by the CO2 conspiracy, why not just ignore dissent caused by attacking China?