BBClink the model's for climate change will have to be redone, the coming disaster isn't walking towards us it is running
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fires-are-political/596776/ Interesting article on the Amazon fires.
For sure, the Brazilian Trump and his cattle rancher buddies are behind them, they are global warming deniers. The important part.
Then there's this, which will get no traction because...reasons: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/amp/
Interesting article. I am generally skeptical about a Forbes article dealing with the environment (since they are, essentially, a business magazine), but this is a good read. Thanks for posting it, @Timon19. The Amazon fires are terrible, just like most major fires are terrible. The fires should be brought under control, like most fires should be brought under control. The Amazon may not be the "lungs of the earth," they are a tremendous source of biodiversity and should be preserved and maintained (and, according to the article, much of the Amazon is being preserved). I will quibble with this comment: “Macron’s tweet had the same impact on Bolsonaro’s base as Hillary calling Trump’s base deplorable,” said Nepstad. So, Macron's tweet was accurate and on point, then?
The publisher is so NOT the point. Michael Shellenberger is a pretty big name in environmentalist circles. Har.
I think you missed the point about my comment on the published. I agree with you that it being a Forbes article is not the point. It is a good article and a good read. Sorry if I was unclear. Glad you thought my comment on the Clinton comment was humorous. [emoji106]
This kind of thing is super common - Greenpeace especially use shock horror because it has more cut through than fact which we know gets ignored The Great Barrier Reef in OZ was a good example where GP blame "coalships" and climate change. Of course coalships have nothing to do with it, and China etc will source & burn the same amount of coal whether supplied by Oz or not. So of course banning coal exports from Oz does nothing to save the reef. Furthermore the official science shows one of the main damages is farming run off which gets no attention. So in the industry you have to put up with this stuff. But in general the whole discussion is not reality based anyway so I get why Greenpeace etc talk nonsense,
If you don't like Forbes. The problem with science and facts, they some times contradict our agenda, the question is how we react when it does. A wise reality check on claims of the Amazon as a meaningful source of oxygen to Earth’s atmosphere, by atmospheric scientist @AirScottDenning[Essay: 850 words]https://t.co/mdBOsGOX0S pic.twitter.com/riLuIGTuyB— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 28, 2019
Interesting if true: JBS Brazil (largest meat company in the world) key facts:✅ supports and funds Bolsonaro & his cabinet ✅ linked directly to deforestation ✅ transnational with subsidiaries in USA and U.K. ✅ on boycott list from indigenous peoples in Amazonhttps://t.co/aM77D10SsB— Bill Smith (@BillSmith445566) August 25, 2019
This is all a dumb framing. I flew over Borneo in 2001 to stay in the rainforest and the logging was shocking. I remember being absolutely stunned at the destruction of pristine eco-system. This crap will continue until every last tree is gone - unless we take a global responsibility to stop it. And yes Brazil should be compensated for that. Science/facts - seriously give me a break. We know the facts. If shock / horror gets traction I am all for it.
It's my cynical view from the trenches. The point is this has been an asymmetric fight. The industry will lie, misinform and use $$ to buy political influence - all in order to protect its margins. The scientific community will publish paper after paper, which will be used to some degree in dry policy circles but will be ignored by the public because there is no money to promote it. So the only choice activists have it to use emotionally motivated marketing techniques to drive public opinion. This leads to a public discourse based on false constructs, but I don't see how else they can do it.
The only reason anyone is even noticing that the Amazon is being destroyed is because shock/horror The obvious problem with "its not so bad" from Neil dGT is then everyone will have permission to go back to ignoring it Which is how the Amazon gets destroyed year on year If activists exaggerate the damage these scumbags are doing - diddums Of course it is annoying in the industry when your clients are accused of doing bad shit that they are actually not doing. Ideally everything would be worked out scientifically on a policy basis and properly regulated .... but yeah - that is never happening
So basically do what Trump does because it works. Got it, but don't complain how people ignore science later on.
But her emails: Methane poses such a threat to our atmosphere that even major oil companies are calling on Trump to tighten regulations — not dismantle them.Yet Trump ignores scientists, expert advisers — even big corporations. His goal is simple: undo everything Obama did, no matter the cost. https://t.co/cwZdKAlixS— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) August 29, 2019
They already ignore the science. That's how come Brazil can destroy the Amazon year on year until the issue finally broke though. Otherwise we are not even talking about this here.
A big problem on this stuff is the cognitive dissonance within government and the voting public. Australia just voted to not do anything about climate change and place it's coal industry first. This is a much more regressive stance than 6 or 7 years ago. The same government just published a report showing the rapid collapse in the condition of the Great Barrier Reef in the last couple of years. This is 5 years further down the track than the period I was talking about when Green Peace were first doing Reef Shock! Horror!! So the point is the government (and voters) ignored the facts for half a decade and now the Reef probably can't be saved. Green Peace were actually very successful in placing the reef issue into the national consciousness. But people simply don't care enough to force politicians to act. So please don't rush to the fainting couch because people might "ignore the science"
It's too late now anyways. The dial will end up landing somewhere between bad and very bad in the end. We'll get all the good stuff (large areas of the inhabited world becoming essentially uninhabitable, food and water shortages, massive climate change induced migration that will make today's stuff look quaint in comparison). Frankly I'm surprised that there are still people holding out hope that the same assholes who have been sitting on their asses for four decades (and more in some cases) will suddenly do a 180° turn because the time is now five to twelve. It's not going to happen. The only thing I am getting some consolation out of is that not all of the useful idiots who helped bring us to this outcome will be able to escape the fruits of their labor.
Greta T has really highlighted the latest dynamic where we are only supposed to advocate for climate change action in a highly scientific adult way Yet the scientists are criticised for being too alarmist, too sure of themselves, too boring, too invisible, too negative. It's almost as it there is no correct way to advocate for action