Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
very good development inside EPA
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/02...
a completely unconstitutional agency that should never have existed in the first place, created by republicans to try to preempt and appease the communists (hint: never do that on any topic at all, they are never satisfied and they will use everything against the people all the times anyway), sees it's staff "at unease" and thinking about leaving.
and that could "hinder" EPA work.
let's hope as many leftists as possible leave the agency and the carcass can't accomplish anything at all other than simply removing existing regulation (nothing of what EPA regulates deserves federal regulation to begin with).
to you climate porn activists, good luck during the trump presidency.
you losing all hope about "fixing climate change" means normal people have hope their livelihoods won't be destroyed by regulations
And so it came out that German green politicians lied to the public and perpetrated a big fraud to justify closing nuclear reactors (still Merkel responsibility though, as she made the final decision afaik)
German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economy and Climate Robert Habeck and his Green Party tricked the German people to shut down all of Germany's nuclear power.
In May, the investigative journalist Daniel Graeber of Germany's Cicero magazine revealed that Habeck's party friends falsified documents and deceived the public to shut down the last nuclear power plants in Germany.
The shutdown was driven by ideology rather than scientific or technical assessments, ignoring expert warnings about the implications for energy security and costs.
Experts within the ministries who advised against the shutdown were either ignored or their reports were altered to fit the narrative of the Green Party.
Habeck and his team instead presented a narrative that nuclear power was unsafe and expensive, despite internal documents suggesting otherwise.
Despite warnings from experts about potential energy shortages, particularly during winter, the decision to proceed with the shutdown was upheld, leading to reliance on older, polluting coal plants.
Emails and internal communications were used to manipulate the narrative around nuclear energy, with decisions being made by party loyalists rather than technical experts.
Even when faced with gas supply issues due to geopolitical tensions, the Green Party resisted practical solutions like extending nuclear operations, opting instead for less sustainable options like floating oil power plants or considering industrial shutdowns.
Daniel Graeber says that 5 out of the 6 nuclear reactors can be restarted, despite the assertions by the Green Party that it would be impossible.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/18753887...
These people are supposedly "the party of science" .
FWIW if the planet was so great , there wouldn’t be massive plants, animals or insects extinction on the way for a while Now …..
Yeah, that's a good point. The Holocene mass extinction event has already happened. 60 million years from now it would be impossible to tell that mammals minus humans. cattle, pigs etc aren't extinct already.
And so it came out that German green politicians lied to the public and perpetrated a big fraud to justify closing nuclear reactors (still Merkel responsibility though, as she made the final decision afaik)
German Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economy and Climate Robert Habeck and his Green Party tricked the German people to shut down all of Germany's nuclear power.
In May, the investigative journalist Daniel Graeber of Germany's Cicero magazine revealed that Habeck's party friends falsified doc
Are they more likely to suffer from health problems due to extreme heat? If millions of people are displaced, how does this affect women who are pregnant? What about access to things like tampons and clean bathrooms? If they're separated from their families, do they find themselves in more vulnerable situations than men? I'm sure there are arguments to be made about men being disproportionately affected as well. If you believe there are differences between the sexes (biologically or culturally), then external events will affect them in different ways.
I can't stand a lot of the woke identity politics stuff — and focusing on gender as it relates to climate change is a bit misguided, if you ask me — but in this case, she may be right.
why? men farm more than women basically everywhere so if farming gets harder because you have to change stuff because of warming, that affects men disproportionately.
which activity women do more often than men are hit particularly hard by climate warming?
keep in mind her claim isn't that "it isn't gender neutral because men suffer more", she claims women suffer more, without providing any actual data about that.
It's internet malpractice to cut that video off before she explains precisely why women are harder hit by weather anomalies.
Have we tried just canceling Climate Change for overt misogyny? Seems like putting Twitter in charge of this would be a hell of a lot easier than dismantling the global economy.
why? men farm more than women basically everywhere so if farming gets harder because you have to change stuff because of warming, that affects men disproportionately.
which activity women do more often than men are hit particularly hard by climate warming?
keep in mind her claim isn't that "it isn't gender neutral because men suffer more", she claims women suffer more, without providing any actual data about that.
The Defiant L's page posted it because it will be seen as an absurd self-own to bring gender into the climate discussion. "Look how ridiculous this woman is for saying climate change has anything to do with gender." It just plays on the emotions of low-resolution thinkers and gives them someone to mock because she's being kind of dramatic. I have no clue what evidence she offered because they only showed an 18 second clip.
The Defiant L's page posted it because it will be seen as an absurd self-own to bring gender into the climate discussion. "Look how ridiculous this woman is for saying climate change has anything to do with gender." It just plays on the emotions of low-resolution thinkers and gives them someone to mock because she's being kind of dramatic. I have no clue what evidence she offered because they only showed an 18 second clip.
It is an absurd take to talk about gender and climate change.
Especially if you start by lying in the worst way possible, because there isn't any climate emergency at all and the concept itself of "climate emergency" is totally made up apocalyptic porn.
But even if some specific subgroup of people in some countries is affected more than others because of climate change, which is plausibly true (even if intensity-wise it isn't a crisis or an emergency at all), it would STILL ve absolutely, utterly indefensible to use it as motivation of anything.
No policy should ever target specific subgroups as if they deserved more helps than others, and the whole "intersectional" approach is morally bankrupt (and illegal everywhere it is illegal to discriminate on gender or race).
In a sense it is illegal to care more about women and minorities than the general population
Stop using plastic straws, become vegan, only walk, and then get exactly the same identical climate anyway.
But at least "you did your part".
It's probably too late for much apart from damage limitation imo. The governments in charge of the biggest polluting countries ie China and the US have to start cutting emissions and investing in renewables more intensely.
A pandemic that wipes out a few billion folks would work
Hottest year on record sent planet past 1.5C of heating for first time
Climate breakdown drove the annual global temperature above the internationally agreed 1.5C target for the first time last year, supercharging extreme weather and causing “misery to millions of people”.
The average temperature in 2024 was 1.6C above preindustrial levels, data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) shows. That is a jump of 0.1C from 2023, which was also a record hot year and represents levels of heat never experienced by modern humans.
Almost 2,000 highly vetted professional scientists (not bureaucrats) signed their names claiming the "climate change" narrative is just a hoax (these ppl are much more qualified to say this than Trump).
The Defiant L's page posted it because it will be seen as an absurd self-own to bring gender into the climate discussion. "Look how ridiculous this woman is for saying climate change has anything to do with gender." It just plays on the emotions of low-resolution thinkers and gives them someone to mock because she's being kind of dramatic. I have no clue what evidence she offered because they only showed an 18 second clip.
Scroll up and look at the sunflowers
Who enjoys sunflowers more, men or women?
Wake up
It is an absurd take to talk about gender and climate change.
Especially if you start by lying in the worst way possible, because there isn't any climate emergency at all and the concept itself of "climate emergency" is totally made up apocalyptic porn.
But even if some specific subgroup of people in some countries is affected more than others because of climate change, which is plausibly true (even if intensity-wise it isn't a crisis or an emergency at all), it would STILL ve absolutely, utterly
Well, I'm not looking to debate whether or not climate change is a threat. I've read where you stand on the issue, and that's fine, but it's not the point I was making. If it does lead to catastrophic weather events, disrupts ecosystems, displaces large populations, causes famines, etc., then it's not unreasonable to think that the sexes will be affected in different ways. That's all I was getting at. I offered a few ways in which women could be more negatively affected than men but left the question open.
And I didn't say anything about caring more about women than men. This has nothing to do with discrimination. Let's say tens of millions of people are displaced and the country or region no longer has the resources to take care of them. If foreign aid money is being spent to help those people, there are some things that women will need that men won't. Factoring in OBGYNs, sanitary products, etc. isn't discrimination against men. Or take an area where there are more women than men working in agriculture and the industry is wiped out. Helping that workforce (both women and men) learn new practices or find other jobs isn't discrimination if it's 70/30 in favor of women. It's just spending money on a workforce/industry.
It's just silly to say that there are differences between the sexes (which there are) and then argue that the effects of climate change (assuming it's a real issue) won't negatively impact them in different ways, and possibly, one group more than the other.
Like I said earlier, I think focusing on gender as it relates to climate change policies is the wrong way to go, but it's not something that has much traction anyway. Defiant L's are giving attention to something that's rarely talked about.
Keep in mind that those people are claiming that the "climate emergency" is ALREADY ongoing lol, which is yet another level of insanity over the debate about long term threats from climate change.
We aren't at the phase of "in 2060 in some areas life will be worse because of warming" and then debating how much worse (with me believing, like peer reviewed science consensus, that it will be a tad worse, and others believing it will be a lot worse).
They are claiming right now in this moment the climate already changed so much as to completely collapse ecosystems. That's not only utterly false, it has no bearing at all with reality whatsoever.
It's like the people claiming thousands of unarmed black men get killed by police every year in the USA when the real number is less than 30 and most of them even if "unarmed" are assaulting someone when they get killed.
The US is more of a reason than India.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
I couldn't of said it any better
