Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive):
Well done. It seems your comment was quite positive. I've visited these communities and saw a lot of new members just joined, saying that they have found the community via an HN thread.
No it isn't. Nobody thinks, "even hotter than Hadean??"
It is explicit in the headline this is in the context of modern recordkeeping: hottest month ever recorded.
This is a distracting argument and doesn't add any value. If you read the article, it's clear that it's at least the last hundred years, and, "this study shows that temperature records haven’t just been broken. They have been obliterated"
I didn't read the article, because of a gazillion analytics trackers and popups. But the source is clear:
Data released today show that the European-average temperature for June 2019 was higher than for any other June on record. [...] Data provided by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Union, show that the global-average temperature for June 2019 was also the highest on record for the month. It was about 0.1°C higher than that of the previous warmest June, in 2016, following a strong El Niño event.
My partner and I are going through some anxiety thinking about all of this. We are not having children because of climate change, and are hoping that our friends and family will follow suit. We have decided against any further air travel, given our cats to a friend, and even had some grim conversations about what to do when we are too old to be effective.
I don't know how we can't beat this without removing capitalism or a drastic change and reduction in the lifestyle a lot of the West lives on. When will we hit our breaking point and just say so to the lifestyles that depend on colonialism and exploitation which thrash our planet.
Remember that only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change.
Obsessing with personal lifestyle changes will burn you out and have very little payoff. Sure if public transit or going vegan is easy for ya, then definitely go for it-- but save your energy for political activism imo. Power structures inform lifestyles more than the other way around.
Yea but if American Airlines refuses to fly me to Santornini for vacation to save the planet, I'm going to fly United instead. So who is really responsible for that climate change? Me or the airline? I think it's pretty much me unless they are being wasteful.
And if you just say "shut them both down" then you are pretty much just forcing personal lifestyle changes.
Consumer demand must drive nearly all carbon use right?
That's a very market-centric viewpoint. I agree individuals should reduce their footprint, however govts and corporations are very thirsty for energy-hungry activities (military, infrastructure, not to mention subsidies/corruption) that the people themselves had no say in. Consumers are important, but many other factors drive carbon emissions, too.
Ideally, we'd just have a carbon tax on any emitting behavior, that way govts, corporations, and citizens alike are all incentivized to clean up their act.
> Remember that only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of climate change.
That has to be one of the most misleading statistics I've ever heard. The source of this appears to be here[0], they are assigning all emissions of products to the source company. e.g. the emissions from the gas an individual uses is assigned to the company that pulled the oil out of the ground.
Remember that lifestyles is actually what pull those companies production. It's easy to lower your environmental fingerprint to 5% of the average in first-world countries, if most people do this, the change is just massive
No offense, but we are going nowhere with your mentality
They're correct actually. We've been overcompensating on personal responsibility, but changing personal behaviors won't save us from climate change. It's not enough. We need massive political mobilization and aggressive government action.
What we're talking about is putting a halt to expending political capital on shaming people into being "green," "eco-friendly," or "sustainable" to save "the environment" and instead recognizing that we need drastic action to remove literally billions of people from grave danger. We're not going to ask companies to reduce footprints, we need to decimate the fossil fuel industry as fast as possible or we're cooked.
Also, most of the actions of these companies are heavily subsidized by the government. We tend to overstate market importance and understate government involvement. So while we as individuals have some control via spending habits, we have very little control over what is actually offered in the market. The fact that we can buy phones and computers isn't because of market forces, but decades upon decades of government investment and subsidy. Which if it didn't exist there would be no phones or computers.
So I say, start at the source, at investment and government involvement which will ultimately decide what is available in the markets.
It's convenient to blame someone else and thereby excuse your own behavior, isn't it? I mean, why should you have to sacrifice anything? We all share the responsibility for this, those companies don't exist without people buying their products.
Why should only some of us sacrifice? Aren't we all in this together? We need regulation that will change the carbon output of every single company, government agency, and individual, not the small attempts of a few green-minded individuals in their personal lives. "Personal responsibility" is just a thinly veiled anti-regulation and anti-government position. The only way out of this is government, unless you believe in technological leprechauns and unicorns, which I do not.
I'm not saying regulation isn't necessary, what I'm saying is that it shouldn't be an excuse to continue on as we are. If you're unwilling to sacrifice, and so is everyone else, how do you expect anything to get any better?
I think that if there's significant overlap - or if the top 100 companies by economic output produce a large fraction of total CO2 (say, more than 1/3) then it's just a measure of centralization, not of blame.
There have been very very few, if any, cohorts of humans who have not faced existential dread head on. Whether it was the tribe across the valley that wants to kill you, the barbarians raiding from foreign lands, the meat grinder of trench warfare, plagues that wipe out 60% of your society, burning fire dropped on your head from a warring nation, or just the dull, banal, existential dread of personal tragedy and the fragility of life.
Your ancestors managed to get through it, and have children, and their children managed to solve problems that they couldn't fathom at the time. They didn't just give up. This modern fatalism is pathetic.
The first thing that came to mind reading some of these comments was Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day:
"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive! Today we celebrate our Independence Day!”
To just roll over and say "Meh, screw life and the very instinct of overcoming adversity to survive under any conditions, I'll just concede defeat instead.".....you described it accurately: pathetic.
We are not fundamentally giving anything up if we reduce our energy usage.
All the stuff on the hierarchy of needs - love, accomplishment, community, knowledge, none of it is especially energy intensive. Food and housing are, somewhat, but it's pretty clear that the pendulum in that area has swung too far in the other direction (obesity/mcmansions, etc.)
I think you're right and we'll be just fine. We'll just use less stuff. And stuff will generally be more energy efficient.
I think what will probably happen* is things will get really really bad, then humanity will finally band together, and teams of engineers will put 50-100 year advances of technology to use and figure out how to solve this problem, along the way creating some heroes of humanity that will go down in history.
* This will probably not happen, as forecasts 50-100 years in the future never come true.
I disagree with this assessment. The parent is actually trying to do something to solve the problem. Yes, the problem with the climate problem is that the solution will not look glorious.
Think about more than 1 billions pets in the world, think about all the industry, transports, pollution related to them, think about the damages of outdoor/feral cats to the local fauna
If more people have this in mind, imagine how much pollution can be saved
Seriously, wild life matters much much more, pets have no benefit for the ecosystem, actually a negative impact
It's time to change lifestyles, pets, x-mas, makeup, .. all those unnecessary things
Edit: answering one of your reply, I knew about their pest control effect, they were also used in old Egypt times against snakes. Now 'residential' cats impact mostly birds, lizards, some insects probably, which all is very bad.
But the worse of their environmental impact is from their consumption (their food, healthcare, ..). It's less than of a human, but still significant. I don't know how many tonnes of pets food are produced every year, and how many kilometers of transport they do on average, ...
> It's time to change lifestyles, pets, x-mas, makeup, .. all those unnecessary things
This is a significant oversimplification of a complex subject.
Human life is a lot about things that are, in a way or another, "unnecessary". I'm not in favour of certain forms of pleasure (eg. "makeup"), however, they're part of human culture and they can't be removed in real world.
I have also the suspicion that you assume that a certain type of personality doesn't chase unnecessary things (hint: there are plenty).
At the end of the day, humanity as a whole balances, more or less consciously, the immediate advantages of those forms of immediate pleasure, against action against a perceivedly distant threat (if the perception was of an immediate threat, like, death tomorrow, things would surely change overnight), and chooses the former.
It's hard to say what could realistically shift the balance. Personally, I think the shift will start to happen when things will be considerably bad.
Oh sweet pea, don't forbid yourselves from having children because of climate change. :( Your family can still live a conscious life, and you get to rise the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen!
Children are free to follow suit with whatever life pursuits they desire.
The vast majority of people won't be consciously fighhting the climate and consume vast amounts of resources.
I feel that the excuses for having children when we know the collapse of most ecosystems is essentially inevitable at this point just hide the lack of ethics on the matter.
It's not unethical to have children and no one needs an excuse to have them. Technically speaking, it's literally the only reason there is any life on earth. Don't have them if you don't want them, but this isn't an area where you can dictate someone else's choices.
Parent comment isn't a dictator. He can't 'dictate' whether you procreate or not, but he's arguing that it may be unethical to cause more suffering by doing so.
Agreed. I don’t understand the mindset of not having kids because of climate change. You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet while others who won’t continue on.
When I hear things like that, it sounds to me like giving up and preparing for the end.
And at the same time I take that with what seems like numerous different acts of messaging directed towards guilting people into not having families...and I can’t help but wonder if that message is benign or malicious.
If statically speaking, preparing for the end is the sanest course of action because it does appear to be the most likely scenario within the next 50 years, why wouldn't it be the right mindset?
Because taking the most extreme course of preparation (genetic suicide) does not have as much effect on the end result as staying in the game, accepting one's own imperfection but continuing to try to be a net positive.
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but do we really have to call the decision to not have kids "genetic suicide?" I'm not the sole custodian of my genetics, it's not like I have some freak mutation that's going to save the species. We are largely genetically similar.
> Because if it doesn’t happen then what have you gained? If it does happen than what have you lost?
For those of us who don't have a particularly strong desire to have children this is very much a dealbreaker.
> It just rings like all of the people claiming “end times” for hundreds of years.
The only way that would be the case is if you ignore the evidence that makes the current situation untentable in a way that no other prior instance of history has been.
> With a single scientific advance that would allow rapid carbon capture from the atmosphere
... and reverse the laws of thermodynamics, too!
Recapturing atmospheric CO2 means working to transform from a high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state. That's not going to happen for free.
So you need to have:
1) A fast efficient carbon-capture mechanism.
2) A way to generate lots and lots of power that doesn't itself produce CO2.
You're not describing a "single scientific advance" as much as you're describing dozens or hundreds of major feats of engineering. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I would not bet the planet on it.
Nuclear already accomplishes the power requirements though.
As far as I can tell it’s more about having a working option and then paying for it.
But even if we aren’t betting the planet on it...this is akin to a poker game where all of your money is already in the middle. Folding the hand just means you lose.
There is literally nothing to gain by giving up. Nothing.
The mindset is not bringing more humans into the world to suffer on a planet with too little arable land and potable water left.
> You’re just removing people who will grow up to better protect the planet
It's too late for that. This is a crisis for people who are adults today to address, or it will be too late. The IPCC says we have to cut global emissions by 50% by 2030. We can't wait for your little Jr to grow up and maybe turn out to be an environmentalist.
There is little time to raise 'the most awesome climate change fighters the world has ever seen'. By some indications and projections you'll just be birthing these children to live a short, brutal life.
I'm very curious how someone who holds your beliefs imagines the world will be in 10 years. "Short, brutal life" sounds like you're picturing billions of people roasting to death in the sun or maybe some sort of ecological inspired genocide?
When you visualize the human race on planet earth in 10 years, what are you imagining?
This isn't a snarky question btw, I'm genuinely curious.
A lot of people seem to misunderstand the 12 (now 11) year deadline. It's not that suddenly an apocalypse will occur in 2030. It's that after that point, we'll no longer have any realistic hope of avoiding the worst effects of climate change that will arrive in the following decades and centuries.
Maybe we need to explain it to people like cancer treatment: if we'd caught it early, maybe chemotherapy alone would have been sufficient. Today, we need invasive surgery, plus chemo, plus radiation therapy, and we also need to hope that untested immunotherapy treatments will work.
If we continue to leave it untreated, then our prognosis is very grim indeed. We won't die immediately, but our cancer will be inoperable.
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.
...
The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.
Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″
He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.
Maybe it won’t seem so accurate to you when you realize the baseline in your link is not the 1989 level.
Edit: But you might have a point on the C/F question. I don’t know what Dr. Brown meant. The quoted 9 degrees difference relative to the Ice Age may suggest it’s not Celsius, but even in that case we would barely be at the lower end of the “conservative” range of 0.6-3.9 C rise.
I'm going to assume you've had some sort of vehicle accident in your life.
You know that moment when you can see the inevitable, but you can no longer do anything about it? That's roughly where I see humanity in 10 years. Maybe it will take 15 or 20, but it seems highly likely that we will be passing the point of "oh shit" quite soon. There are too many reports, of too many extremes, too close together. Far too many "sooner than expected", and "more than expected". All the consequences won't be home to roost, but they'll look inevitable... Maybe first phases of normal climate isn't any more needing a new normal or "no such thing as normal", or first signs of farming failures. Comparable to say 1937 appeasing Hitler, it all seems vaguely OK, maybe he's not really that bad, but it's very, very clear where it's going and soon. Some parts of the world will be fully living the nightmare.
If that's the case, we'll also have passed all the easy and affordable routes out that were available when people started talking about it 30 or 40 years ago. Several tipping points may have clearly tipped. All that will be left is emergency drastic action to try and mitigate. Fix or avoid it? Too late. Reverse it? Good luck with those tipping points.
I have children, I dearly want to be badly wrong. This decade's events makes me think I, and the IPCC may be at the optimistic end of things.
Not sure why you are downvoted. I've been thinking about this as well. One individual change probably can't do much but, what I've been trying to do:
- consume less food
- eat more vegetables
- less red meat
- spend less in eating out or buying drinks out
- if I do buy drinks, I try to get paper cup
- stick with boring phone and mac and don't chase shiny toys
- use less plastic
- drink water vs coffee/tea
- use public transportation
- travel just once a year
- use more efficient language (i.e., Rust)
- if I have a home one day I'll be filling it with plants
I agree with you, the important is that everyone reduce their environmental fingerprint (less consumption, this is what pull production and all the pollution)
Our planet could welcome 10 billions 'respectful' persons with a low fingerprint. But it already can't support most of the 3 billions first-world people with very high fingerprint
You can still have one child, and raise him well, in a non-consumerist way
A much faster way of increasing humanity's problems would be to increase governmental R&D funding, e.g. quadruple the US NSF and DoE budgets. That only takes an election or two, plus a year or two for the funding to get transferred to research. Much better than the 25 years for a child to get born, grow up, and decide to go to grad school in an applicable field.
This kind of irresponsible reporting and backpedaling by media and government is, imho, a large part of why the public is so slow to react to climate change.
Imagine how someone who heard Al Gore say that, by 2014, the poles would have no ice, or that glaciers in Montana would be gone by 2020, feels now. Is that person more or less likely to think climate change is an issue that deserves their attention?
That's the problem with using fearmongering and clickbait to generate profits. Every article I found where a scientist spoke about the 2020 date he was careful to note that the numbers were preliminary and only what could happen while pointing to the long trend of warming and the decline in the number of glaciers from 150 to just 25.
Screwing up the bottom of the population pyramid will probably not do the world much good, it needs to be a very gradual ramp down or it will create havok by tanking production in the future to where we might not be able to sustain anything at all.
Wether having that extra thing to worry about beyond climate change is preferable to having a harder time fighting climate change is beyond me.
A BS article for a BS conspiracy blog that reactively attacks any potential point of current climate science.
Just stop, please. Every possible attack they post there just gets overshadowed by the titanic obviousness of climate change.
They attack the collapse of the ice sheets by claiming that Antarctic sea ice coverage increased. Now that's no longer happening. Crickets.
They attack the cause of Antarctic sea ice collapse by claming that temperature flux changes in the Antarctic bed are caused by geothermal activity. Scientists investigate, adjust for this variable, and it's still the fact that the brutal increases in atmospheric and ocean temperature are the cause for the collapse. Crickets.
No, the blog post was just an example of yet another attempt to halt the crucial work towards managing the current climate crisis, not an honest attempt at advancing science.
So far similar efforts has managed to prevent meaningful mitigation actions against climate change for 30 years, so please don't add to the troubles with your disinformation.
> No, the blog post was just an example of yet another attempt to halt the crucial work towards managing the current climate crisis, not an honest attempt at advancing science.
A really unfortunate reality of climate science is that it’s inextricably tied to the work of combatting climate change (if it exists). The normal scientific prices can’t work when any criticism of one set of results can be reframed in political terms.
First, many branches of science have always been inextricably tied to society. That's part of the point of doing (and publicly funding) science.
Second, I honestly can't tell if you wrote "climate change (if it exists)" as a low-effort troll, or if you're actually on the fence about whether the climate is actually changing. Even the most willfully ignorant, contrarian AGW denier must admit that something is changing the climate, right?
> First, many branches of science have always been inextricably tied to society. That's part of the point of doing (and publicly funding) science
Almost none of the branches of “science” tied to society and public policy are actually science. Almost in every are of policy, we are like Noah wandering lost through the desert.
As to the parenthetical, I’m not questioning AGW. I’m questioning whether we have real efforts to avert climate change.
Shutting down discussion is the opposite of the scientific method, but global warming alarmists know their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny so it's their default position to just de-platform anyone who is skeptical.
The asymmetric harm that is possible makes skeptics irrational. The downside if we over correct for climate change is wound down or restructured oil companies, restricted products and production, but in exchange there is a cleaner more technologically advanced global society that has the ability to coordinate to address global scale problems and is on a good path to having the social cooperation necessary to colonize space.
Worst case if skepticism is wrong; civilization collapses as mass extinction creates scarcity and thus violence.
Part of the problem is that many people who are on the right side of climate change support efforts to combat climate change because they’re also in favor of a “global society” and “social cooperation.” If world government isn’t your cup of tea, then the harm isn’t asymmetric. If we’re wrong about climate change, we will have constructed these global, top-down structures that will stamp out what little autonomy and freedom people have left.
> If we’re wrong about climate change, we will have constructed these global, top-down structures that will stamp out what little autonomy and freedom people have left.
We are right about climate change. Full stop. People who consider that not to be the case are lacking in information, because there are literally dozens of independent lines of evidence that back the conclusion and that have been used to model the current state of the climate.
There is no skepticism in denying the current state of climate science.
The top-down structures are in place anyway because there's a ton of other political forces at play. Climate change policies introduce the same degree of cooperation as most international agreements on a myriad of things do already.
It is an intellectually dishonest point, focusing on this extremely narrow aspect of policy while disregarding the last 30 years of global cooperation frameworks.
I think we are probably right about climate change (as to many things), but there is no "full stop" in science. It's worthwhile to read about the state of physics in the late 19th and very early 20th century. People thought physics was "done"--until relativity and quantum mechanics completely upended everything.
The "international agreements" we have in place are not strong enough to address climate change. Not even close. To hit 1.5C we have to have zero net CO2 emissions by the middle of the century: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-ipcc-1-5c-repor.... But under current projections, CO2 emissions will keep going up until the middle of the century: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26252. (China has added more than an entire US worth of CO2 output in the last decade. If India gets up to Chinese levels, much less Western levels, that will add another US or more. The population of africa is expected to double by 2050.)
I am doubtful there is any way to hit any of the IPCC targets, period, but certainly not within any of the international frameworks we have today. Any supra-national political structure capable of actually addressing climate change would be massively more invasive than anything we have today.
> We are right about climate change. Full stop. People who consider that not to be the case are lacking in information, because there are literally dozens of independent lines of evidence that back the conclusion and that have been used to model the current state of the climate.
I think the largest divide is man-made climate change vs not. I agree the climate is changing. I'm not yet convinced we're causing it or we can do anything about it.
Which of these two items are you not convinced of?
1) It's getting warmer because of higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) in the atmosphere.
2) Humans are releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial processes.
Again, the risk is so great and asymmetric that what reason do you have to resist addressing it. Your delay could lead to a literal mass extinction, why are you willing to risk that because your not convinced. I carry health insurance for unlikely risks for exactly the same reason.
Turned it off after the first 15 seconds. Why does a video about climate start with a man putting peanut butter on a statue of a dog? How am I meant to take that seriously
How is it that such a stupid non-political visual gag elicited such a strong emotional reaction that you couldn't even watch the video? Were you actually intending to watch it to begin with?
If it's meant to be a serious discussion of a topic, why does the video need to start with a visual gag? Moreso why such an asinine gag? I cannot take seriously someone who does not take themselves seriously, it tells me maybe they are not thinking through things as critically as they should.
False. Global solutions can come from decentralized market forces if you don’t have corruption hijacking the effort. All countries, except the US are on board and would arguably be moving faster and more aggressively if the US were leading rather than sabotaging efforts. Governments rightful role, whether its local, regional, national, or global is to set the rules of markets so that their natural forces move for an efficient and utility creating end. The market may demand child labor but government on any scale rightly intercedes to short circuit the market drive because it destroys utility (happiness or wellbeing) of the children and, in the long term, society as a whole as the population is less educated, healthy, and equal.
Further, I’d actually argue that most individual autonomy is stripped at the local level. You’re homeowners association can do more to rob you of individual liberty as the UN. In fact, I’d argue the global institutions, in some meaningful ways, have been the biggest drivers of restoring individual liberty. You might not feel it if you live in a market driven democracy; but the facts of development over the last 80 years, the increase liberty globally speak for themselves.
> False. Global solutions can come from decentralized market forces if you don’t have corruption hijacking the effort.
Wrong for two reasons.
1) Market forces will not address things like climate change without government intervention to force externalities to be internalized. For many reasons that have nothing to do with "corruption," governments are disincentivized to force perfect internalization of externalities. In places like China, the government is massively subsidizing infrastructure development (and creating a large resulting carbon impact). In places like the U.S., keeping energy artificially cheap is a key way to keep voters happy.
2) Even if policies were imposed to force externalities to be internalized, there is no reason to believe that market forces will reach an equilibrium on the very short time scales (one or two decades) that we're talking about.
> You might not feel it if you live in a market driven democracy;
To the contrary, I do. But folks talking about a "Green New Deal" that make me nervous about whether I'll continue to live in a market driven democracy.
Actually the vast majority of humanity wants aggressive action on climate solutions but US government subsidizes overwhelmingly go to oil production not clean energy. If market forces were actually able to play out, there would be faster movement than there has been. I say this as someone very much in favor of governmental solutions to problems like health care, climate change, basic infrastructure, education and recognize that markets often fail to address certain types of problems. I am not a small or anti government libertarian by any measure.
I just think we have reached a critical mass of support with most people wanting solutions that if the cynical manipulation of the argument and disingenuous “debate” that is only trying to cast doubt to keep the oil money flowing were to stop the market would act fast.
Do they have emails of thousands and thousands of scientists cherry picking results? Or an email from one scientist? how many scientists are cherry picking? All? Some?
What's your opinion of the recent leaks from oil companies and their own climate studies? Are the oil companies internal scientists also cherry picking?
Thanks for clarifying. I'll be more gentle. However, evidence shows reasoned arguments are hardly going to change people's minds. Turns out emotional arguments win more often. This isn't me being nasty and it's not comparable to climate denial, which is an existential threat. If someone believes in conspiracy theories, I'm not going to entertain them in that way, so I'll have to ignore them instead.
The fact that this site already has climate denial on every single climate article posted suggests it isn't full of the intelligent people we think our community is and no amount of talk that looks smart is going to change that. Turns out climate denial loves to look smart anyway.
The medieval warming period was isolated to the upper Atlantic and not global. The earth is much hotter globally than that time. Also, realclimatescience is a denial blog. I mean look at all that lovely political commentary.
.svg){kind=link}
- https://climateaction.tech/
- https://techimpactmakers.com/
- https://www.tmrow.com/