[yor_on]

This one is almost true. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/11/1052171

You have to push up the degree to around four if you use my definitions from 1850. I used to put it to around 2.5 degrees using the definition UN use. The rest is hogwash, unless you change there won't be anything good happening. And you only have one decade to ban. You need to have done it around 2030, all fossils and plastics. You also need to have changed your farming practices, because they're killing your topsoil and waters. You need to be sharing by that point and also introducing real democracies. You don't need more wars, nuclear or not. You need to force this game to change to stand a chance.

[yor_on]

I know, sounds hopeless doesn't it? But it isn't, you can start to do it today, gradually, keeping in mind that no matter how slow it is 2030 will be the end date.

[charles1948]

Don't you think that Humans are not here, merely  to maintain the status quo on Earth.  We're here to transform the Earth!

The Earth has waited for over three billion years for a species such as us to evolve. And now that we're here, the Earth expects something radical from us! 

Not just conserving the existing state of affairs, with its rain-forests, hordes of useless lions, gnus and antelopes, running around eating each other, and rats and pigeons excreting all over the place.

What the Earth wants from us, is a clean-up of the entire planet.  Earth doesn't want to be fuzzed over any more, with  all those disgusting layers of dirty organic mould. 

It wants to be clean. And we are the cleansing agents, evolved by Earth to carry out  the cleansing.

If we weren't,  why would we be here?  We're here to do a job.  So shouldn't we get on with it?



 

[yor_on]

Charles, it wouldn't work. That's not about earth at all, that's about how some people might want it to be but then you need to find another space habitat, one that is restricted to some few algae and other procedures to possibly make it livable..I don't think you would stand that, neither would I.

[yor_on]

BBC  " UK to lift cap on nuclear stockpile"    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920

Yeah

[yor_on]

Bitcoin the money generated from pure green energy.   Electricity.    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56402378

[yor_on]

Another study     https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/15/climate-crisis-recent-european-droughts-worst-in-2000-years

[yor_on]

Then we have this.  " Don't believe hydrogen and nuclear hype – they can’t get us to net zero carbon by 2050 "

Well, it presumes one or the other. That's not how it will work, I can agree on hydrogen, it's the next meaningless 'transition fuel' after 'Natural Gas', instead of 'Natural Gasoline' or 'Natural Oil'.  It doesn't matter if it is blue or green hydrogen. But I don't agree on molten salt reactors. I think we will need them, at the very least under a period, let's say of fifty years. And it will be a mix of what you call renewable energy sources as well as nuclear. One doesn't exclude the other, and even 'green hydrogen' may fall under this.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/16/hydrogen-nuclear-net-zero-carbon-renewables


spelling

[yor_on]

The UK  "  However, campaigners said the government’s green rhetoric was at odds with many recent ministerial actions. The government is embroiled in a row over its support for a new coalmine, while cutting overseas aid, planning new gas-fired power stations and thousands of miles of roads, and cutting taxes on flights. Last week, the UK is also understood to have helped the former Australian finance minister Mathias Cormann, who has frequently expressed hostility to climate action, to be appointed head of the OECD group of rich countries, despite strong opposition from green groups. "

'Fighting' global warming, was it?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/16/uk-government-makes-climate-its-foremost-international-priority

The game protecting itself

[yor_on]

And this is almost funny.   " Fish detectives: the sleuths using ‘e-DNA’ to fight seafood fraud "   if it wasn't needed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/16/fish-detectives-the-sleuths-using-e-dna-to-fight-seafood

[yor_on]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56423536

Yeah, Mr Trump and Mr Putin. Russia wins both ways. No matter who is the president they watch a nation fall apart.

[yor_on]

It's an old maxim. It's always easier for a repressive state to negotiate with another repressive regime, they become more 'trustworthy' than one that isn't. They share the same ideals and beliefs. The repressive ones.

[yor_on]

Thinking of it. The article I linked where it was suggested that Russia would win on USA banning fossils was mostly correct, but from Russia's side there could be a added danger to it, and them, at a longer term. USA banning with the rest of the world starting to take it seriously, like Germany. So, you can see at least one reason for them supporting Mr Trump even though it would mean a harder competition over fossils. And then you have that maxim I referred to above.  Ideals and beliefs, greed, hubris, egoism, real politik and geopolitics.

[yor_on]

Need a laugh?

" Here is the core of the QAnon myth: with the aid of a small group of military intelligence officers called the Q team (one or more of whom is supposedly responsible for writing the drops), President Donald Trump is waging a shadow war against a cabal of Satan-worshipping, child-eating pedophiles who are conspiring to obstruct and overthrow him. The military will arrest them en masse in an event called “the Storm.”

The cabal’s membership has grown in the telling (at first, it was “many in our government;” within a month, any “celebs” who had “supported HRC” might very well be in on it; a few months later, there were too many to fit into Guantanamo Bay; later still, three other “detention centers [were] being prepped”), but it would be fair to say that virtually anyone who’s angered or defied President Trump is considered part of the cabal, along with the usual suspects like financier and philanthropist George Soros. "

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/07/the-making-of-qanon-a-crowdsourced-conspiracy/

[yor_on]

I think you could call people believing in this staunch believers in the game. It's not the game they want to 'overthrow', it's just the 'leadership' of it. A 'revolution' coming from those principles wouldn't change anything, just making it worse. all 'revolutions' build on yourself, instincts and behavior, hierarchies and the herd, education or lack of, ad infinitum. As long as you don't change nothing does.

[yor_on]

It's not restricted to the right spectrum either, you can find it on both sides, with both becoming extremes.

[yor_on]

I don't think there is a 'right way'. But I think a real democracy to be able to cut of the worst extremes of the game.

[yor_on]

And also change the definitions for it. From profits and inequality to sustainability and with it, some equality.

[yor_on]

How do you like headaches? I have one.

"  Thus, our results indicate that the soil methane fluxes in permafrost-affected regions do not constitute an important contributor to the climate–carbon feedback. Here, it should be noted that the net emissions could be even lower as a recent study has indicated that the methane uptake in dry soils could be severely underestimated due to the omission of recently identified high-affinity methanotrophs (Oh et al., 2020), especially under future climatic conditions. In contrast, the soil CO2 emissions are so large that the (terrestrial) Arctic ecosystem turns into a source for atmospheric carbon when temperatures increase beyond 1.75 K (±0.5 K) above pre-industrial levels.

By the end of the 21st century the net ecosystem emissions could increase to up to 2 GtC yr−1, which not only places them on par with present-day land use change emissions but would also substantially reduce the overall terrestrial carbon uptake (Le Quéré et al., 2018).

This is very different from scenario simulations with the standard version of the MPI-ESM1.2 in which the region continues to take up atmospheric CO2 throughout the entire 21st century, with the net uptake increasing from about 0.005 to around 0.015 GtC yr−1 (not shown).

These differences confirm that the non-consideration of permafrost-related processes and the organic matter stored in the frozen soils leads to a fundamental misrepresentation of carbon dynamics in the Arctic. "

https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/1097/2021/

[yor_on]

https://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/4756/global_ice_loss_increases_at_record_rate

“The ice sheets are now following the worst-case climate warming scenarios set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Sea-level rise on this scale will have very serious impacts on coastal communities this century.”