[yor_on]

Getting so tired of this kind of, well, manure.

"One question many will doubtless be asking is whether this inversion is a consequence of climate change The answer is, at least in principle, no. "

It succeeds in two of the least informed objectives. Renaming global warming to climate science, then stating that it isn't.

'in principle'

Stupid   https://theconversation.com/record-rainfall-in-the-south-drought-in-the-north-whats-causing-europes-unusual-spring-weather-257647

[yor_on]

It seems that whoever wrote this has no idea of physics and chaos



let me help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[yor_on]

This one a lot better

https://theconversation.com/how-the-weather-got-stuck-over-the-uk-and-produced-an-unusually-dry-and-warm-spring-255987

[yor_on]

But it doesn't matter, each decade worse than the last. I could say each year, but you as well as I should know by now that f.ex epidemics, wars, economies crashing, beliefs and greed can change this pattern, short time defined.

[yor_on]

But those emissions aren't 'short time', and they are growing

[yor_on]

So while 'climate science' still waver on admitting to less carbon sinks and more carbon sources I don't have that need of being 'objective' with some 100 years visions. I look at decades instead, so much simpler, with a trend that no 'climate science' can deny, no matter how we rewrite it.

[yor_on]

Tough, isn't it?

Being 'objective' and found wrong, time after time

[yor_on]

" Environmentalism is becoming post-western. This is partly because the realities of environmental damage are so stark across much of Asia and Africa. Extreme temperatures and unpredictable rainfall are leading to food insecurity and community displacement. Environmentalism in the African Sahel and south Asia might better be called "survivalism". "

Correct but no news. What he lifts up are human behaviors, nothing more. I offer a lot of labels for those kind of things. And our industrial countries with the largest contribution of green house emission, pollution's and waste, the last ones willing to change a thing about themselves.

You know, the more you have to lose

https://theconversation.com/anti-environmentalism-is-on-the-rise-but-its-full-of-contradictions-256911

[yor_on]

So you will prefer wars before facing reality, won't you

[yor_on]

You can do it, for a while. We still haven't run out of our excesses, or basics, even though they are shrinking. But once you're finished ...

[yor_on]

Well whatever. You do you and I will do me

[yor_on]

So what do we have.

Governments lying to us, knowing that if they took global warming , water, topsoil, forests, pollution, recycling, environment etc, seriously they would have no chance to be reelected, and for those without a 'democracy' getting a revolution.

[yor_on]

So even though you can blame in on governments, it goes all the way back to you

[yor_on]

So it's not just about failed governments

[yor_on]

A global fossil ban done to 2040 would change everything you know as your status quo, and industries, transportation, plastics, pollution's, waste and recycling

[yor_on]

Well, they firstly lies to themselves of course, those governments. Then to you, and you like it. We're all human

[yor_on]

Here's a lie

https://trellis.net/article/greenfin-interview-how-norways-1-trillion-sovereign-wealth-fund-addresses-climate-risks/

[yor_on]

And here's white washing it

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/norway-wealth-fund-tells-companies-plan-climate-transition-2023-09-15/

[yor_on]

There is no 'transition'

What you have is a game of profits, where nothing found unprofitable have a chance

[yor_on]

Neither are you able to split basics from excesses.