Climate: Il fait VRAIMENT CHAUD (fka un petit)

[The Anti-Targ]

One thing that all the innovations and advancements over our entire history since fire was made our servant hasn't achieved is a reduction in total energy consumption.

On 4/2/2023 at 7:55 AM, Rippounet said:

Quote

this dire prediction would only come to pass if all technological and socioeconomic progress that has led to historical yield growth suddenly came to a halt.

BTW this kind of key sentence is actually easy to spot because countless articles have used a variation of this argument.

The other key bit of mis-direction in the article was talking about the 1C increase since 1960, then implying the next 1C increase on top of that will have a similar effect rather than a compounding effect.

[Ran]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

he other key bit of mis-direction in the article was talking about the 1C increase since 1960, then implying the next 1C increase on top of that will have a similar effect rather than a compounding effect.

The article does not imply that at all. It merely notes that the IPCC is misleadingly suggesting climate change = absolute decrease in crop yields, and that this misleading has been part of what has driven over-heated accounts of the actual facts. Consider the Washington Post report that he links, written by multiple award-winning science journalist Sarah Kaplan whose beat has specifically been climate change, and yet in there she (and the various editors her writing went through) published this:

Quote

Temperatures will get too high to grow many staple crops

But this is clearly false, as the IPCC's own data shows. Their own predictions, pessimistically slanted as they are by only taking into account direct adaptation and not projecting acting actual advancements that would happen independent of adaptation, still indicate a substantial increase of yield from today, which is quite a feat in a world that has grown too hot to grow many crops!

[ThinkerX]

From back in October of last year...

Dang article is paywalled, so...

-------------------

 

A bit of good news on the climate change front - or more accurately, less horrible news. Global temperatures may only go up 2-3 degrees C by century's end instead of 5 degrees as was feared - a 'downgrade' ('upgrade?') from 'apocalypse' to 'really bad weather.'

Beyond Catastrophe: A New Climate Reality Is Coming Into View - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

You can’t take these projections to the bank. But they have already put us on a different path. The Stanford scientist Marshall Burke, who has produced some distressing research about the costs of warming — that global G.D.P. could be cut by as much as a quarter, compared with a world without climate change — says he has had to update the slides he uses to teach undergraduates, revising his expectations from just a few years ago. “The problem is a result of human choices, and our progress on it is also the result of human choices,” he says. “And those should be celebrated. It’s not yet sufficient. But it is amazing.”

Matthew Huber of Purdue University, the climate scientist who helped introduce the idea of a temperature and humidity limit to human survival, likewise describes himself as considerably less worried than he used to be, though he believes, drawing on inferences from the deep history of the planet, that a future of two degrees warming is less likely than a world of three. “Some of my colleagues are looking at three degrees and going, oh, my God, this is the worst thing ever — we’re failing!” he says. “And then someone like me is saying, well, I used to think we were heading to five. So three looks like a win.”

A very bruising win. “The good news is we have implemented policies that are significantly bringing down the projected global average temperature change,” says the Canadian atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe, a lead chapter author on several National Climate Assessments and an evangelical Christian who has gained a reputation as a sort of climate whisperer to the center-right. The bad news, she says, is that we have been “systematically underestimating the rate and magnitude of extremes.” Even if temperature rise is limited to two degrees, she says, “the extremes might be what you would have projected for four to five.”

[Ran]

46 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

From back in October of last year...

Dang article is paywalled, so...

 

https://archive.is/1ndvr is an archive on the full article. It's in a similar vein to a piece in The Atlantic from 2021.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, it's very good news that we've gone from mad max apocalypse to simply a world filled with 'endless suffering'. I especially appreciate how this is presented as great news and a sign of the wondrous progress that we as a world have made. 

I think it's also interesting how quickly things can change based on current events. A lot of the doom and gloom was based on notable climate change skeptics being in control of major countries and how their policies were changing things; now that that has changed in several key places those projections are improving. But that also means that if that changes back, well, chances are good those projections can change back too. The oversized impact of countries like the US and policies that they have - and the abilities for those countries to reverse course quickly - is a real problem in terms of projection in the future. 

[Ran]

We have endless suffering now, and we had endless suffering before industrialization, and we will have endless suffering if we get to SSP1, and indeed we will have endless suffering if we entirely rollback anthropogenic climate change. Life itself is endless suffering, and yet it both endures and is indeed highly desirable (except if you are an anti-natalist). That sort of emotive language is manipulative bunk.

In actual fact, the IPCC's SSPs all imagine a world with a greater, more prosperous population, with less poverty and less hunger, than the present world. Will it be shit for some people? Probably, because it's shit for some people now, and there has never been a time in history where it was not shit for someone, and there never will be until the last human is dead and gone at which point the shittiness will be a moot point.

I dislike fundamentalism and zealotry, and I certainly dislike having people try and sell me a bill of goods by trying to manipulate me. Accepting that climate change is real, that it should be combatted and that we have the means to do so, is easy enough for me, at least, without believing that climate change has doomed humanity or will unleash unique horrors that have never been known before. 

Catastrophizing just makes people feel bad for no good reason.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

We have endless suffering now, and we had endless suffering before industrialization, and we will have endless suffering if we get to SSP1, and indeed we will have endless suffering if we entirely rollback anthropogenic climate change. Life itself is endless suffering, and yet it both endures and is indeed highly desirable (except if you are an anti-natalist). That sort of emotive language is manipulative bunk.

In actual fact, the IPCC's SSPs all imagine a world with a greater, more prosperous population, with less poverty and less hunger, than the present world. Will it be shit for some people? Probably, because it's shit for some people now, and there has never been a time in history where it was not shit for someone, and there never will be until the last human is dead and gone at which point the shittiness will be a moot point.

I dislike fundamentalism and zealotry, and I certainly dislike having people try and sell me a bill of goods by trying to manipulate me. Accepting that climate change is real, that it should be combatted and that we have the means to do so, is easy enough for me, at least, without believing that climate change has doomed humanity or will unleash unique horrors that have never been known before. 

Catastrophizing just makes people feel bad for no good reason.

Would you prefer that it's framed as MORE suffering that currently? Because that's what they're aiming at.

This reminds me a lot about the debates on US healthcare. For the overall population healthcare is largely quite good, and for many it is absolutely excellent. But that also means that for a minority the healthcare is absolutely horrible. That is what the above is talking about - where hundreds of millions of people, largely in the least prosperous and least contributing to emissions areas - are going to be the most impacted. This is again why a lot of the framing around climate change has been less about the overall effects of the world and instead based on justice.

Now, I get you don't particularly care about making the world more just and are fine with it being less just in the future. That is not, however, 'manipulative bunk', any more than stating that on average things are going to be better is 'manipulative bunk'. This is not catastrophizing things; this is pointing out that for hundreds of millions of people the world is going to get significantly worse for them and will likely involve their premature deaths, with many others having to flee their ancestral homes. For some people that's a pretty big deal! For others not so much. I don't think eliding it is particularly honest, however.

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

 

Now, I get you don't particularly care about making the world more just and are fine with it being less just in the future. 

I'm sorry, but I think that is an outrageous accusation to make against Ran. Where has he said he is "fine with the world being less just in the future?" 

[Werthead]

It should also be noted that the "young people feeling down about stuff" is down to more of a combination of climate change, rising authoritarianism and democratic backsliding, the disruptive impact of AI (ranging from completely disrupting the job market to the possibility of it just killing them outright), the chances of a nuclear war which have risen from the negligible to the at-least nontrivial in just a few years and threats we have not yet even envisaged yet, plus all of it being blasted out of the Internet and 24-hour news continuously. It also doesn't help when you have the slightly-older generation continuously grumbling how everything was so much better in the 1990s and we may have peaked at civilisationing roughly around the time of Batman & Robin, when this is a highly questionable claim at best.

It is true that this is giving rise to "worst case scenarios being presented as inevitable," when they're really not (and the best-case scenarios may be equally likely as the worst, and a somewhat tolerable-to-many median may end up the most likely outcome), but I don't think it's too surprising that people are feeling bleak about the future, and indeed maybe bleaker than they should. But it would also be disingenuous to suggest that we should kick back and be blase about the future instead.

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I'm sorry, but I think that is an outrageous accusation to make against Ran. Where has he said he is "fine with the world being less just in the future?" 

When has he indicated otherwise? When people say things like 'Life itself is endless suffering' and 'Will it be shit for some people? Probably, because it's shit for some people now, and there has never been a time in history where it was not shit for someone, and there never will be until the last human is dead and gone at which point the shittiness will be a moot point.' 

That is not the attitude of someone who is particularly interested in making the world more just. It is an absolute acceptance of that lack of justice, and in fact saying that the benefit of things being better for more people is exactly implying that this is fine. To be clear I don't think that @Ran is advocating or is happy with this outcome, but I don't think he's particularly concerned about it either. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

We have endless suffering now, and we had endless suffering before industrialization, and we will have endless suffering if we get to SSP1, and indeed we will have endless suffering if we entirely rollback anthropogenic climate change. Life itself is endless suffering, and yet it both endures and is indeed highly desirable (except if you are an anti-natalist). That sort of emotive language is manipulative bunk.

In actual fact, the IPCC's SSPs all imagine a world with a greater, more prosperous population, with less poverty and less hunger, than the present world. Will it be shit for some people? Probably, because it's shit for some people now, and there has never been a time in history where it was not shit for someone, and there never will be until the last human is dead and gone at which point the shittiness will be a moot point.

I dislike fundamentalism and zealotry, and I certainly dislike having people try and sell me a bill of goods by trying to manipulate me. Accepting that climate change is real, that it should be combatted and that we have the means to do so, is easy enough for me, at least, without believing that climate change has doomed humanity or will unleash unique horrors that have never been known before. 

Catastrophizing just makes people feel bad for no good reason.

Wouldn't less suffering be preferable?  The part of your post i bolded is the true catastrophizing argument.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

When has he indicated otherwise?

 

8 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Wouldn't less suffering be preferable?  The part of your post i bolded is the true catastrophizing argument.

My point is that the language of the UN report is alarmist and paints a bleak picture of the future when the actual underlying report is not, in fact, as bleak as many take it to be, and indeed we should be hearing a lot more about the things that have gone right to encourage people to continue to do right rather than spend their time wringing their hands and crying out that the end is nigh unless we do [insert random doomer pie-in-the-sky objective]. "Endless suffering" is a completely meaningless term, as I said.  "More justice" or "Less justice" is barely better without knowing what you consider just and unjust. I know what anti-natalists consider just, but it's not the kind of just I (and I suspect most others) would agree with. I don't believe a "degrowth" world is a more just world, for that matter, especially from the point of view of industrializing nations that would like to have the same prosperity that some nations have been enjoying for the past century.

Again: Decade after decade, the reports have been more, not less, positive (1992: it'll be 1.8C by 2030; 2023: It'll be 1.8C by the late 2040s to 2060s), and yet the language grows increasingly hyperbolic because in these times hyperbole appears to be the only thing that people who've rotted their brains online seem to respond to. The needle has in fact been moving in the right direction. I've cited this before, and the religious zealots of these threads laughed at it when I was literally quoting one of the lead architects of the SSPs.

The needle can continue to move in the right direction -- indeed, almost certainly will -- without any need for predictions of doom. I find myself highly suspicious of anyone who feels they need to manipulate the truth to paint the ugliest possible picture, when a more positive and honest approach will remind people that not only are we not doomed, but we've actively been doing things that have improved the outlook and should continue taking those steps to improve the forecasts even further. 

I dare say that no one genuinely knows which particular blend of choices that can be realistically taken is actually going to have the best outcome in measuring "the most just world". But we know a good approximation for what a pretty just world is, and that's one where global prosperity is increasing, hunger is reducing, poverty is reducing, infant mortality is reducing, and life expectancy is increasing. We should aim for that world.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

My point is that the language of the UN report is alarmist and paints a bleak picture of the future when the actual underlying report is not, in fact, as bleak as many take it to be, and indeed we should be hearing a lot more about the things that have gone right to encourage people to continue to do right rather than spend their time wringing their hands and crying out that the end is nigh unless we do [insert random doomer pie-in-the-sky objective].

Personally I consider hundreds of millions of people having to be refugees and entire countries being uninhabitable as a pretty bleak future. That it is not quite so bleak as we thought it might be 5 years ago should I guess be celebrated, but I would caution implying that 'endless suffering' is just the status of things and we should be grateful it's not more than that. 

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Again: Decade after decade, the reports have been more, not less, positive (1992: it'll be 1.8C by 2030; 2023: It'll be 1.8C by the late 2040s to 2060s), and yet the language grows increasingly hyperbolic because in these times hyperbole appears to be the only thing that people who've rotted their brains online seem to respond to. The needle has in fact been moving in the right direction. I've cited this before, and the religious zealots of these threads laughed at it when I was literally quoting one of the lead architects of the SSPs.

Conversely, while the temperatures have not gone quite as bad as we expected the actual effects have been even faster than anticipated. So...yay?

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

The needle can continue to move in the right direction -- indeed, almost certainly will -- without any need for predictions of doom. I find myself highly suspicious of anyone who feels they need to manipulate the truth to paint the ugliest possible picture, when a more positive and honest approach will remind people that not only are we not doomed, but we've actively been doing things that have improved the outlook and should continue taking those steps to improve the forecasts even further. 

This kind of complacent optimism is not particularly helpful any more than complacent pessimism is. A lot of the gains made have been because people have taken the issue seriously - including the US. At least until 2016. We are seeing a lot more signs of governments actively ignoring these things in order to push their own agendas of nationalism and reactionary politics. Pushing back against those things is absolutely crucial to ensure things do move in the right direction. And that does, at times, mean that we need to state things are not going to be great, and they're going to be even worse if we don't stop certain behaviors. 

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

I dare say that no one genuinely knows which particular blend of choices that can be realistically taken is actually going to have the best outcome in measuring "the most just world". But we know a good approximation for what a pretty just world is, and that's one where global prosperity is increasing, hunger is reducing, poverty is reducing, infant mortality is reducing, and life expectancy is increasing. We should aim for that world.

Without knowing what the cost is of that world I don't think we should blithely aim for it. As an example we could kill most everyone in the Global South and improve every single metric you're talking about. That's obviously hyperbole but the point is still solid. Again, same argument can be made in the US health care system, where all of those things are true in aggregate but are especially concentrated in highly inequitable ways. 

Put it another way, Ran. I don't see any of the reports as particularly good. They're better than they could be, but the future where we almost certainly don't have an arctic cap, we don't have coral reefs, we have yearly 100-year floods, we have disaster areas that are uninhabitable, we have immigration enforcement that is the military and keeps hundreds of millions of people out of wealthier countries by force - that isn't a good outcome. It might be the best one we get but I'm not going to think people shouldn't feel doom and gloom for that. And that outcome is the one where we keep doing all that we can. 

[ThinkerX]

'better than they could be' about sums up my current stance.

To that, I would submit that even under Trump, sales of EV's exploded, coal and oil power plants were shut down, and windfarms and solar arrays were built at a record pace. And Trump made a determined, if utterly incompetent effort to kill alternative energy.  Hence, I see these trends - rapidly increasing numbers of EV's, wind turbines, and solar systems becoming highly abundant even if conservatives somehow score a clean sweep in the 2024 election. This is because more and more the driving forces for this transition are economic at both the large and small scales. This transition will continue to make climate issues 'less sucky than they otherwise would be.' 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I am heartened to read from these posts (and subsequently looking it up) that Mother Earth will be granted some reprieve from the human plague around 2100 when our destructive population will settle into a wonderful decline.

Thats the best news ive learned in ages.

[The Anti-Targ]

21 hours ago, Ran said:

The article does not imply that at all. It merely notes that the IPCC is misleadingly suggesting climate change = absolute decrease in crop yields, and that this misleading has been part of what has driven over-heated accounts of the actual facts. Consider the Washington Post report that he links, written by multiple award-winning science journalist Sarah Kaplan whose beat has specifically been climate change, and yet in there she (and the various editors her writing went through) published this:

It sure is implying that. And I take the assertion that the next 60 years will see a yeild growth anything like the previous 60 years with a humongous dose of skepticism. The fertiliser, pesticide, paraciticide and antibiotic revolutions that contributed to that massive yield growth are not so likely to be repeated with the next 60 years of agritech developments. His entire thesis is that the % decrease caused by the next 1C of climate change will be negligible because there will be massive yield growth. Yet he presents no hard evidence to demonstrate that will be the case. He cites the adoption of tractors. So that will certainly lead to yield growth in places where tractors aren't being used. Then he cites gene editing to make crops more resilient while suggesting the IPPC report isn't already taking that into account as an adaptation. His citation of the 2018 FAO report predicting "large future increases in all major crop yields" is misleading at best. It predicts an increase but only a modest one by my reading. That report has almost as much pessimism in it as the IPPC report so to me it is a poor counterpoint to it and does not support his line of argument.

Quote

2018 FAO report:

If food and agricultural systems remain on their current path, the evidence points to a future characterized by persistent food insecurity and unsustainable economic growth.

Agricultural production is limited by the increasing scarcity and diminishing quality of land and water resources, as well as by insufficient investment in sustainable agriculture. Climate change is increasingly affecting yields and rural livelihoods,

These resources are already under pressure (Figure 1.11), and although technical progress has raised productivity, evidence suggests that productivity growth, or at least growth in crop yields, is slowing. Moreover, food loss and waste put unnecessary pressure on land, water and energy resources along the food value chain;

The FAO report projects hope, but only if there is concerted action and not a sit back and wait for solutions to come approach.

[Ran]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It sure is implying that. And I take the assertion that the next 60 years will see a yeild growth anything like the previous 60 years with a humongous dose of skepticism.

Again, the article says nothing about seeing the same year-on-year growth. His point is that despite 1 degree of climate change, the trend has been that technology, investment, etc. has outpaced the impact of global warming by a substantial amount, and there's no reason to think that magically will change.  And indeed, the FAO figure doesn't assume that, as it's worth noting that despite an increase in the global population by 3 billion in their "Business as Usual" scenario through 2050, the amount of people suffering undernourishment/food insecurity will fall as a percentage of the population. And that's only if they just make all the usual "business as usual assumptions", when in fact in general we're somewhere between "Business as Usual" and their projected sustainability path.

I'm not sure where you see the growth numbers as "modest". They seem in line with projections of between .8 and .9% year on year growth in agricultural production. I mean, is it modest compared to 40 years ago? I guess, but the main point is that in all scenarios, from most optimistic to least, there's enough food to sustain not just the current population, but an increased global population as well. This is hard to square with the claims that large swathes of staple crops will be impossible to grow, as WaPo and others reported based on the IPCC WG2's report.

I've seen in responses to Brown's statement one climate scientist at NASA quibble a bit with him about the topic of the IPCC being misleading or not (a similar quibble to what Matthew Yglesias makes here, in the sense that comparing projected baselines seems okay... but note that Yglesias then adds that in some sense, Brown is right, because a whole lot of people actually seem to take the reporting to mean much, much bleaker scenarios than the IPCC is actually projecting presumably because the IPCC and reporters are failing to be clear), but also agreeing that Working Group 2 has not shown the same rigorous standards that Working Group 1 has shown.

 

 

[ThinkerX]

That this happened in the past without human induced climate change is a cause for concern. Should the Antarctic or Greenland glaciers retreat at this rate for even a few months...not good.

 

The conservative commenters are claiming that this is proof human induced climate change is a hoax.

 

‘Scary’ new data on the last ice age raises concerns about future sea levels (msn.com)

 

At the end of the last ice age, parts of an enormous ice sheet covering Eurasia retreated up to a startling 2,000 feet per day — more than the length of the Empire State Building, according to a study released Wednesday. The rate is easily the fastest measured to date, upending what scientists previously thought were the upper speed limits for ice sheet retreat — a finding that may shed light on how quickly ice in Greenland and Antarctica could melt and raise global sea levels in today’s warming world.

[Rippounet]

On 4/3/2023 at 5:13 PM, ThinkerX said:

From back in October of last year...

Yeah, I addressed the points made in that article when you first posted it. And because I've kept doing my research since then, I can even pinpoint the exact place where it's misleading:

Quote

The most conspicuous example was an emissions pathway called RCP8.5, which required at least a fivefold growth of coal use over the course of the 21st century. Because it was the darkest available do-nothing path, RCP8.5 was reflexively called, in the scientific literature and by journalists covering it, “business as usual.” When Ritchie and his doctoral adviser published their research in Energy Economics in 2017, they chose a leading subtitle: “Are Cases of Vastly Expanded Future Coal Combustion Still Plausible?” The world’s current path appears to offer a quite simple answer: no.

This bit is misleading for two reasons. First, it suggests RCP 8,5 is based on the growth of coal use.

That cannot be true because the RCP scenarios are based on far more than just coal:

Quote

The four RCPs are based on multi-gas emission scenarios which were selected from the published literature (Fujino et al. 2006; Smith and Wigley 2006; Clarke et al. 2007; Riahi et al. 2007; van Vuuren et al. 2007; Hijioka et al. 2008; Wise et al. 2009) and updated for release as RCPs (Masui et al. 2011; Riahi et al. 2011; Thomson et al. 2011; van Vuuren et al. 2011b).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z

So it's not just coal. RCP 8,5 is a scenario according to which emissions continue to rise fast. Needless to say, emissions can be of different types, and one must bear in mind that the probability of feedback loops compensating for any possible decrease in human emissions is also on the rise.

Now, are anthropogenic emissions rising? Hell, yes. I think any serious conversation needs to start by acknowledging this simple truth: emissions are still on the rise.

Here's those dangerous anarchists at the IMF stating this, as well as a Washington Post article summing quite a few things up (including coal, but we'll get back to that).

So one decent place to start is, again, to acknowledge that things are still getting worse, not better. The discussion is about how fast things are getting worse (and what i means). "Optimistic" scenarios or viewpoints are based on the idea that things aren't getting worse quite as fast as before, so it's all going to be all right. It's about taking a few encouraging trends and assuming that these trends will accelerate.

BTW, a small parenthesis about RCP 8,5. Indeed, there is a scientific debate over whether this is a pessimistic scenario or not, with Justin Ritchie saying it was always unlikely. But if we want to be fair, it would be wise to point out that other scientists have also deemed RCP 8,5 to be optimistic.

Now let's come back to the idea that "coal use" is decreasing. That is the basis for Ritchie's article and thus for the NYT article after all.
Now if you actually click on the link, you'll notice that Ritchie is really focusing on coal. Two points here. First, coal use is no longer the biggest driver of increasing emissions: it's natural gas and oil.
So the whole idea that we're not on the RCP 8,5 scenario? Yes, it's bullshit. It always was, because it was based on the premise that the main problem was coal. It's not, and it hasn't been in a while. It's an epic scientific strawman.

So what about coal? Coal use is stabilizing. Coal power plants are still being built around the world, in India, and most notably, in China. Therefore, emissions from coal are predicted to barely decrease.
Let me rephrase this: we have not yet managed to achieve a significant decrease in coal-based emissions.
Not even that.
Maybe we will. Things are encouraging, indeed. But we haven't done it YET.

So what about natural gas? Yes, still rising according to the GECF (Gas Exporting Countries Forum). After a contraction in 2022 because of the invasion of Ukraine, the consumption is set to rise again in 2023. BTW, US emissions are rising because of natural gas consumption.
What about oil? Well, let's bear in mind that last year The Guardian revealed gigantic future oil and gas extraction projects called "climate bombs," shall we?

So where the fuck does the optimism come from then? This paper by the IEA.

Let's start by taking what it says at face value: Global CO2 emissions rose less than initially feared in 2022 [...].

Yes, that's literally it. We've had one good year. Now you can buy the title and the headlines in the media, that this was due to renewables, EV... etc, etc, so it's all going to be rainbows and unicorns.
Or you can actually read the fucking report.
It's only 19 pages long (only 13 of actual content!), and it absolutely doesn't say what some people here think it says.
Yes, if you actually read the report with any kind of knowledge on the issue of climate change, it is scary.

Therefore I encourage every single person here to take twenty minutes to read it. Read it. In depth. Try to understand what every paragraph says, and what it means. Look at the numbers and do the maths. Look at some of the links I posted here and draw your own conclusions.
This way, I believe, you will understand how disinformation is spread.

[Zorral]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I encourage every single person here to take twenty minutes to read it. Read it. In depth.

Ever since our Middle East wars debacles, even while they were going on, the exploding of oil wells and so on -- I wondered if/how much all this would be accelerating climate catastrophe and at least damage to the planet's atmosphere.  Wars are bad for the climate as well as everything else.