It’s not simply a climate change. It’s a coined term by the fossil fuel industry. Like BP introduced the individual carbon footprint, this one should also be ignored. It’s a climate crisis.
Calling it climate change implies it is of natural change. It belittles the criticality of the human induced influence. The fossil fuel industry knows exactly why they are calling it climate change and not climate crisis. Global warming is also, as much as climate change, scientifically correct, but let’s be honest. Since when does the industry care about scientifical facts? They use that in ill faith.
I seem to have issues trying to convey my intention when I am highlighting why these industries use the term climate change now.
I try it once more.
‘Climate is changing. It is something that has always happened. It’s natural. Climate change is completely normal.’ That is the implied meaning, especially by fossil fuel industries, which more than often try to shift the blame away from them by either making it a personal issue (carbon footprint) or describing it as a natural occurance. Intentionally ignoring their influence by burning resources and releasing damaging gases, raising temperatures, melting ice, damaging the saline conveyor belt.
It’s called climate change because it’s more than global warming. A lot of things are changing, and they’re all bad. To just say global warming would be ignoring all of the other problems.
Oh they are switching from “Its not real” to “its all over, we can’t do anything, so invest in fossils even more” (the invest part is an exaggeration).
I want to believe that most of those messages are from paid actors (oil industry, authoritarian regimes).
Personally I think it’s far too late. I’m not having children and my friends and family who do are scared; here in Australia there’s no where to go to escape the heat. We will all die here
You know, in many parts of the world dying from decapitation is much more probable. Or just, eh, rapid lead poisoning combined with mechanical damage to your internal organs.
First world panic is something else really. Humans can live in orbit and on Mars FFS. Cooling the living spaces is not an unsolvable problem even in Australia.
Scientists: The average temperature across the world is rapidly approaching the point of no return on the planet becoming uninhabitable and we have no feasible way to avoid it.
I’m mostly talking about the panicking tone of that comment.
Also about feasible ways - the goal is to find an economically feasible replacement for the processes leading to such emissions. Or create an ecofascist world government which will force everyone to behave.
The average of those two is not a goal, as it doesn’t solve the problem.
So - either we make it cheaper and easier for people in Equatorial Africa, Afghanistan etc to use “green” technologies, or we are fucked, unless conquering the whole planet is back on the menu.
Perhaps “feasible” wasn’t the word I was looking for so much as “realistic.” It’s going to be an uphill battle convincing profit-based companies to produce a cheap, green alternative but I’d love to be proven wrong. Short of fascism I do think government nudging of the market through grants etc is something we sorely need to get moving on, because money is the only thing that speaks to these giant faceless corporations.
I’d personally just like some weakening of patent, IP, trademark etc laws. We are at a point when these work for companies too big to not be malicious.
Anyway, the cheap green alternative is called a nuclear reactor. I’ve read there are some smaller, more compact models in testing.
and people say global warming/climate change is not real
It’s not simply a climate change. It’s a coined term by the fossil fuel industry. Like BP introduced the individual carbon footprint, this one should also be ignored. It’s a climate crisis.
Politicians and publications that acknowledge the climate crisis should probably start using that term instead of climate change then.
I wonder if that is used intentionally? Like they would have a reason to make a narrative of denial?
It’s because the “fact” the the fossil fuel industry coined the term climate change is false.
This is the preferred term by scientists, and it has been since before “global warming” became a term.
Calling it climate change implies it is of natural change. It belittles the criticality of the human induced influence. The fossil fuel industry knows exactly why they are calling it climate change and not climate crisis. Global warming is also, as much as climate change, scientifically correct, but let’s be honest. Since when does the industry care about scientifical facts? They use that in ill faith.
No, it does not imply Natural causes. There is zero (implied or explicit) information as to why the change is happening. It is merely stating a fact.
I seem to have issues trying to convey my intention when I am highlighting why these industries use the term climate change now. I try it once more.
‘Climate is changing. It is something that has always happened. It’s natural. Climate change is completely normal.’ That is the implied meaning, especially by fossil fuel industries, which more than often try to shift the blame away from them by either making it a personal issue (carbon footprint) or describing it as a natural occurance. Intentionally ignoring their influence by burning resources and releasing damaging gases, raising temperatures, melting ice, damaging the saline conveyor belt.
Ah yes, that is indeed the case.
It’s called climate change because it’s more than global warming. A lot of things are changing, and they’re all bad. To just say global warming would be ignoring all of the other problems.
Oh they are switching from “Its not real” to “its all over, we can’t do anything, so invest in fossils even more” (the invest part is an exaggeration). I want to believe that most of those messages are from paid actors (oil industry, authoritarian regimes).
Personally I think it’s far too late. I’m not having children and my friends and family who do are scared; here in Australia there’s no where to go to escape the heat. We will all die here
You know, in many parts of the world dying from decapitation is much more probable. Or just, eh, rapid lead poisoning combined with mechanical damage to your internal organs.
First world panic is something else really. Humans can live in orbit and on Mars FFS. Cooling the living spaces is not an unsolvable problem even in Australia.
Scientists: The average temperature across the world is rapidly approaching the point of no return on the planet becoming uninhabitable and we have no feasible way to avoid it.
You: Just crank the AC lmao.
I’m mostly talking about the panicking tone of that comment.
Also about feasible ways - the goal is to find an economically feasible replacement for the processes leading to such emissions. Or create an ecofascist world government which will force everyone to behave.
The average of those two is not a goal, as it doesn’t solve the problem.
So - either we make it cheaper and easier for people in Equatorial Africa, Afghanistan etc to use “green” technologies, or we are fucked, unless conquering the whole planet is back on the menu.
Ah, rereading I now see what your intent.
Perhaps “feasible” wasn’t the word I was looking for so much as “realistic.” It’s going to be an uphill battle convincing profit-based companies to produce a cheap, green alternative but I’d love to be proven wrong. Short of fascism I do think government nudging of the market through grants etc is something we sorely need to get moving on, because money is the only thing that speaks to these giant faceless corporations.
Nudging - yes, grants - no.
I’d personally just like some weakening of patent, IP, trademark etc laws. We are at a point when these work for companies too big to not be malicious.
Anyway, the cheap green alternative is called a nuclear reactor. I’ve read there are some smaller, more compact models in testing.