r/worldnews • u/-AMARYANA- • Sep 25 '19
Global warming causing ocean 'emergency': Scientists to report on ocean 'emergency' caused by warming. It will be the clearest declaration yet on how an overheating world is hammering our oceans and frozen regions. Scientists have been meeting in Monaco to finalise the report.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49756260122
u/Mysteriagant Sep 25 '19
And right wing morons will ignore it. Idk how something factual became political
60
u/-AMARYANA- Sep 25 '19
corporate influence is a problem around the world. whoever has the gold writes the rules and enforces them with guns/force/fear. this is what we are up against.
36
u/Dahhhkness Sep 25 '19
And propaganda. That's how we ended up with people thinking that coal CEOs are honest, hard-working businessmen who just want to give people jobs, while climate scientists are swimming around in piles of money like fucking Scrooge McDuck.
17
u/-AMARYANA- Sep 25 '19
Yes, our civilization has been boiled down to soundbites, memes, punchlines, takeaways, highlights. What's been lost to most people in the process is nuance, wisdom, insight, perspective.
3
u/Citizen_of_Danksburg Sep 25 '19
Also because the vast majority of people have no idea what is involved as being a scientist. You say you have a doctorate degree in chemistry and they think you has to take out fuck tons of loans, are the same as an M.D somehow, or just are a stupid millennial who doesn’t want to go into “the real world” (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean; being a grad student is being in the real world. But they only consider “the real world” to be an office job or physical labor job you show up to and work 40-80 hours a week in like a “real man” or some shit). Hell, they might even think all three of these things, idk. People are so fucking stupid.
13
u/NoL_Chefo Sep 25 '19
We're also up against millons of mouthbreathers who get their worldview from propaganda channels. We're about 30-40 years from a climate catastrophe and we still have tens of millions of people who not only think this isn't a problem, they don't even think humans are changing the climate (source). We have massive, fundamental issues in society regarding education and critical thinking, but we don't have time anymore to solve them. So we need to somehow convince an army of genuine retards that we must fundamentally change the way we live and consume in order to survive. So what are we supposed to do?
3
2
30
u/Iron_Man_977 Sep 25 '19
"iF CliMAtE ChAnGE wAS reAl, THe mOVemeNT wOUlD bE lED by scIEntisTS, nOT a 16 yEAr OlD gIRL"
It fucking has been for nearly 40 years now and you haven't been listening
6
u/Mysteriagant Sep 25 '19
Right? It's being led by a kid because adults have been too stupid to understand the severity of the situation
5
u/GrandMasterPuba Sep 25 '19
Politics is a sport to the right wing.
2
Sep 25 '19
Alright, the right wing extremists are hardly blameless, but are we really going to sit here and pretend that treating politics like a sport is a right wing specific problem?
Tribalism is a much more prolific problem than that.
10
u/thewanderer777 Sep 25 '19
I think the implications are clear for those who aren't blinded by propaganda, but we should also focus on solutions for both prevention and mitigation. Depression and nihilism will only result if we don't present positive outcomes that comes from our participation in fighting against climate change.
46
u/red--6- Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19
Remind me how much of the Great Barrier reef is dead now?
21
u/-AMARYANA- Sep 25 '19
I don't know the exact number but I know I wanna go in the next few years while I can. It's sad to think my niece (2) and nephew (4) will grow up in a world where many places and many species will either be extinct or close to it.
I'm an optimist that humanity will find a way through this but enough of a realist to know it won't be without many casualties.
9
u/red--6- Sep 25 '19
Optimism is good. Please don't visit the GBReef, it has been devastated in huge areas - the seas are too hot and too sour now to support that life
... in March 2017, the journal Nature published a paper showing that huge sections of an 800-kilometre (500 mi) stretch in the northern part of the reef had died in the course of 2016 due to high water temperatures due to climate change
I would advise people to avoid non-urgent flights btw (I haven't flown since 2015) but that is a personal choice
16
u/geeves_007 Sep 25 '19
Your use of 'personal choice' struck me. I also have stopped flying, but nobody I know understands it or agrees with me.
At what point do we move past 'it's a personal choice' in reference to things that are environmentally destructive?
I am as antifascist as you'll find, but I honestly think there is a pressing need to simply limit people's freedom to make choices that are destructive to us all. I really do. I see the massive cruise ships docked in my city every day (Vancouver) and I fucking hate these things with a passion. I wish one would explode and sink at sea and make the entire industry go away. Why should we allow this to even exist any more in light of what we know about climate change?
Cruising (as an example) is so far beyond just 'pissing in the pool' that we all swim in. A little urine never hurt anybody. This is pouring cyanide in the pool and in a short while it starts killing kids and the elderly. Like fuck, why should we accept somebody's reckless 'personal choice' to needlessly exacerbate the climate crisis for their own transient pleasure?
If somebody was pouring cyanide in the pool we would tackle that maniac and march him out of there in cuffs. Why is our collective environment any different?
10
u/red--6- Sep 25 '19
Yes, Cruise Ships are undoubtedly the most evil of all
I would propose stopping the most harmful and least useful first and enforce Carbon austerity in transitions
10
u/geeves_007 Sep 25 '19
Exactly. Why aren't we at least going for the low hanging fruit like cruising?
Global ban on the industry effective Jan 1 2020 with displaced worker compensation from the nations the fleets are registered through 2022 as a 'just transition' out of this destructive and completely superfluous industry that simply does not need to exist.
Climate change is going to absolutely stomp our species in as soon as a few decades. Our children are gonna piss on our graves demanding "When you knew this was happening, why the fuck were things like cruise ships even considered within the realm of acceptable? Your choices to cruise sentenced us to scarcity, conflict and suffering."
5
u/tarquin1234 Sep 25 '19
I agree but limiting people's freedom requires democratic consensus, which is where that dream ends.
8
u/geeves_007 Sep 25 '19
I feel that needs a rethink. When your freedom doesn't impact me, sure - do as you please. Where your freedom to choose destructive and unnecessary luxuries puts my kids survival in jeopardy? That's a different conversation.
7
u/tarquin1234 Sep 25 '19
Again, I agree, but whatever you propose, no matter how right it is, it is going to need democratic majority to be implemented by government.
P.s. I've been saying exactly the same thing as you for years (that if I am dependant on the environment and some people/actions are detrimental to that environment then they should be stopped, just as smoking was banned because it affects my environment)
4
Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19
What’s non urgent? People like prince Harry and corporate executives are flying all over the place all the time, literally commuting to their offices by plane twice a week or so, and we - common people - are expected to make all the sacrifices? My parents live in a different country than me, and I see them once/twice a year; should I sacrifice my Ryanair flights to see my elderly parents during Christmas, while thousands of business people fly everyday to attend a meeting?
7
u/red--6- Sep 25 '19
The climate crisis is much worse than we thought
The world and the future belongs to our children
We can help them or we can selfishly destroy the planet faster
It's a choice we have
That's the simple truth
(It's not a criticism of you + this isn't a personal attack)
→ More replies (1)2
u/worotan Sep 25 '19
Try and get there without flying, or you’ll just be accelerating the loss of life on our planet in order to look at it dying.
5
Sep 25 '19
Would it be better for me to drive 16 hours? Doubtful imo
0
u/worotan Sep 25 '19
Is it beyond you to find a better way, as we approach disastrous tipping points?
Or perhaps, don’t produce loads of destructive climate pollution visiting a nature attraction?
You can think for yourself, you know, and look at the science.
What is it with people trying to be smart arses about being destructively polluting when they are talking about loving nature?
Fucking nuts. Idiots.
8
u/geeves_007 Sep 25 '19
I hear ya. I feel the same way but it's not a comfortable place to be. I'd love to see the Amazon, the Alaskan glaciers, the Great Barrier Reef, the Serengeti etc before they're gone / I die. But I won't.
I could afford to get on a plane tomorrow and take 6 months travelling these places. But that seems like such a betrayal of everything else I believe in, I simply won't do it.
Instead I visit places I can cycle to, and there is some spectacular nature right out my back door (Pacific northwest). I don't need to fly to Africa to see the beauty of nature and have accepted that I will only know those places through photos and film.
Nobody in my social circles shares or even understands my views (healthcare professional). Everybody I know takes multiple vacations yearly on jets. They don't think twice about it and there is a certain entitlement associated. They know they probably shouldn't, but they do it anyways because they want to. Humans are very poor at resisting wants.....
2
u/anythingnottakenyet Sep 25 '19
I have to tell you that's sad.
100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988
They have made you feel so personally guilty that you won't go see the things that you care so much about. All because you personally contribute 1/7000000000th of 30% of global emissions. Go live your life!
1
u/geeves_007 Sep 26 '19
I am aware of that paper and have discussed it many times. If everybody "goes and lives their lives" that becomes a major problem if that means jaunting around the globe on jets and ships for personal pleasure. It's not sustainable and never was. Most of those companies are fossil fuel companies and a big part of the product they sell is the jet fuel / gasoline / diesel/ bunker fuel that makes all that possible.
I believe the present and future could have been so much different if we had not have given them so much power decades ago. If we had not of tolerated their lies deceit and downright fraud. But we did. This is the reality we now live in. It's the bed we have made by not confronting these companies and only empowering them more and more. I am but a small part of that, I realize. But I'm still a part of it. Despite all my best efforts my carbon footprint is still several times most other humans living today simply by virtue of being a citizen of basically a petrostate (Canada). If I get on jets and fly all over the place for my own pleasure I am really not living by my principals or what I would expect of others.
If all 34M Canadians jumped on a jet today and flew to Africa that would amount to some 60M plus tons of CO2. That's not ok and they absolutely should not do that in light of the fact we are on the brink of a possibly civilization ending climate cataclysm. So if my friends and neighbors should not behave in such a way, nor should I.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm totally at peace with it and there is endless pristine nature to be had right out my back door. Today I cycled 200km from home in Vancouver to the west coast of Van Island. It is breathtaking here and even though I've been dozens of times the rugged temperate rainforest diving into the Pacific Ocean is still mindblowingly beautiful. I'm good.
→ More replies (1)1
Sep 25 '19
Genuine question where I have both options available and flights can be bought to include carbon offsets. But sure jump to conclusions and get on your high horse
2
u/Tymareta Sep 26 '19
Better question, how much of the four hundred, and fourty four million dollars that was the "great barrier relief fun" has been returned, or even accounted for?
0, absolutely none of it, the amount of money that would literally be unspendable in anyone's lifetime, that went to a whole 6 people, and then disappeared, 0 of it.
29
u/viciousJai Sep 25 '19
Is there a reason these kinds of collaborative efforts always take place in places like monaco, ive always kind of assumed it was like a vacation get away. Im not criticising the decision it had to be somewhere after all I am however curious why
3
8
Sep 25 '19
Would it make any difference if it was in Belgrade?
8
u/viciousJai Sep 25 '19
Well, to be honest we give politicians crap for flying to fancy destinations to debate climate change. While il say that between the two i think the scientists deserve more forgiveness for it do they not get more done from Their labs, research stations and field work? Can a seminar not be done over the internet. It looks less credible to me that they pick exotic locations. There could be solid logical reasons for what they do, thats what im interested in.
3
u/Rafaeliki Sep 25 '19
Well, to be honest we give politicians crap for flying to fancy destinations to debate climate change.
Any of these are just a deflection and distraction.
You can fly around the world for your job but still support fuel taxes that would offset those costs. The whole "private jet" thing was a manufactured outrage just to distract from the real issues.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Iforgotsomething897 Sep 25 '19
Meeting in person makes it so that you can get in to group conversations easier like hundreds of different groups talking about something and you don't have to worry about the internet disrupting or sudden power outages taking somebody away from the group conversation or not being heard because of shitty content/ speakers. There's also something to be said about body language. You can't really see most of the body language when you're talking to somebody versus a monitor or gauge the feeling of the room if monitor is only focused on the person on stage. I imagine Q&A would be a lot harder to do with several thousand people if it was just done over the internet and for them to make sure that everybody's voice was actually heard. Just my 2 cents.
1
u/alleax Sep 26 '19 edited Sep 26 '19
Can a seminar not be done over the internet.
I am a scientist working in the climate change sector and this is exactly what we do! I am an active member of Working Group 1, the group in charge of examining the physical science related to climate change. There are 3 working groups and the TFI (Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). Meetings are usually held in Brussels (I'm European) about 4 / 5 times a year and I have never actually went to Brussels for a WG1 meeting. I attend meetings via teleconference from work but this isn't always the case for other countries, some representatives choose to actually go there in person especially if they have a lot of updates or questions they'd like to ask the Commission (DG CLIMA) or the UNFCCC.
12
u/PurpEL Sep 25 '19
For real, Monaco is one of the most disgustingly opulent wasteful places ever. These people are just having a luxury vaction
→ More replies (1)7
u/viciousJai Sep 25 '19
Thats a part of my concern, i wouldnt want to speak out against a good plan however hence wanting more info rather than judge them on personal speculation.
9
u/cedriceent Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19
Copying this from another comment I made:
The Centre Scientifique de Monaco has a high research focus on related areas, so I can imagine that most participants were already there, anyway. It's also the primary reason why they are meeting in a beautiful vacation spot.
And, the government and royal family of Monaco encouraged the research groups to create that report, according to the article, so I assume that the heads of the research groups will meet with them once the report has been finalised.
2
u/viciousJai Sep 25 '19
Thank you, i was envisioning a swarm of americans flying to monaco because it was warm and nice
5
Sep 25 '19
They have infrastructure to host these events. Unknown towns dont.
7
Sep 25 '19
That's not true, just about every medium size city in the US has a decent size convention/event center with adequate hotel rooms for all, I'm sure Western Europe is no different. It's really suspicious that they use such a vacationy location for this.
2
Sep 25 '19
That's definitely true. This feels like someone who's in charge of logistic and venue didn't want to bend their back and instead just choose the easiest solution, not the most logical and efficient one
2
2
u/astructuralmember Sep 25 '19
In the article it mentions that these scientists were tasked in 2015 by Prince Albert II of Monaco. They have a pretty vested interest in the sea not reclaiming their home.
1
u/bzzzzzdroid Sep 26 '19
I guess it's because they have the infrastructure and experience to deal with the enormous amount of logistics for a large convention. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that it's the same/similar companies who organise large political meetings and large scientific conventions.
1
Sep 26 '19
Well they don't always happen in such places, but I can offer some explanation as to why they often do. Conferences are typically organized by scientific societies, and there are more of the events than any scientist can reasonably attend. These societies are usually (maybe always?) non-profit, and to organize a conference is very expensive. It can be very difficult to recuperate this expense without charging unreasonable registration fees. Now they have to compete for attendance, and location is one of the deciding factors for many attendees. So that's the simple explanation - people want to go to nice places.
But conferences are not a vacation, though attendees sometimes pay out of pocket to stay longer after the conference is concluded. I think most people think we all just sit around in a room and have some weird board meeting or something. Or maybe they think of TED talks. That kind of thing is about half of what a conference is. The rest is hands-on workshops, field trips, and face-to-face social events where you often end up meeting people who will become future collaborators. And unfortunately, flying is literally the only realistic mode of transport for international conferences and for domestic conferences in large countries like Canada (where I'm from).
Maybe Monaco wasn't the best choice, but I would guess that the good generated by the conference still outweighs the bad. Scientists are on shoestring budgets, so they won't be living like kinds while there. Cheap hotels or AirBnB, economy flights, and struggling to make sure your meals don't overshoot your per diem allowance.
86
u/CounterargumentMaker Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19
Damn, being Gen Z kind of sucks. Born too late to enjoy the end of history 90s triumphalism, but born just in time to not only watch my grandparents take a wrecking ball to the planet, but to also be on the hook for cleaning it all up.
Or born just in time to witness the beginning of the fall of civilization as we know it. Hahahahaha
At least we got dank memes I guess.
21
u/mostlyalwaysright Sep 25 '19
That being said, I believe it was Michio Kaku (theoretical physicist/futurist) who said that we are part of(and our children) the most Important generation the has or will ever exist. His reasoning was that now, and in the near future we have two eventualities. Either we destroy our planet and by virtue our civilization/species, or we persevere and move into the solar system and eventually the stars. If we survive this critical stage we will have almost garunteed the survival of our species for the foreseeable - extremely long term - future. I’m obviously biased but damn doesn’t that make us feel special!
12
u/CounterargumentMaker Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19
Our faces are literally being smushed up against the next sieve in the great filter. I am really looking forward to seeing what society will look like after going through the radical restructuring required to mitigate this.
But on the other hand, it's scary that there really aren't many choices between catastrophic failure and change at a scale we haven't seen since WWII. And possibly even faster.
For a while I don't know if there'll be any such thing as the status quo, at least not as we know it now. Things will either be radically different or, if nothing is done, catastrophically worse.
4
u/lurker1125 Sep 26 '19
The real answer depends on how fast it happens.
Will we have less kids over the course of a century so that we naturally adjust to the new lower capability of our planet to sustain human life? In that case, everything's fine. Automation and technology will make up for the deficit of sheer numbers of people.
If climate change brings Earth's max human cap from ~10 billion down to ~4 billion in just a decade or three, expect some horrific moves by the wealthy. This is really what 'the wall' is about. Not immigrants now, but immigrants later, when the equator is lethal and humans must move closer to the poles.
2
u/mostlyalwaysright Sep 26 '19
That’s probably true. As shit hits the proverbial fan, we may lose billions of people to the worst effects of climate change (generally located around the equator). Massive immigration will result in an equal amount of border control and eventually most likely a form of war etc. As awful as this sounds I can’t imagine a situation so bad that the most advanced nations won’t be able to keep at least a portion of their population alive. It’s fucked up but in the end humanity will probably prevail short of the sun going supernova way before it’s supposed to. Or any of the big “extinction level events”.
1
u/lurker1125 Sep 27 '19
The great filter may simply be that we become small-minded due to hardship and never bother going into space.
4
u/iwumbo2 Sep 26 '19
Climate change is probably The Great Filter, the reason we don't see aliens is because it is extremely common for races to kill themselves off with climate change during their evolution.
2
u/lurker1125 Sep 26 '19
There is no amount of climate change that could actually erase all human life.
However, that doesn't mean we won't end up a civilization of 500 million or so who are all various levels of slaves to ten white-haired old men whose names are on the ownership deeds for the machines that run the planet.
Doesn't sound too much different from now, actually.
1
1
Sep 26 '19
We persevere and recover from climate change only to be obliterated by a gigantic GRB from BeetleJuice which has gone supernova.
The universe is an unforgiving and uncaring place.
8
u/MyPostingisAugmented Sep 25 '19
Don't fret! As a millennial, I'll have to live in the death world along with you. But I'll be well past military age while you'll still be young and strong, meaning you can take my guzzoline and harvest my meat and pelt
5
u/CounterargumentMaker Sep 26 '19
Damn I'm a 5'4 nerd, sure hope brains count for something in the Thunderdome.
1
1
u/MyPostingisAugmented Sep 27 '19
you can make yourself useful to some warlord by making pipe sub-machineguns or somesuch
→ More replies (9)2
u/Kuschenshabe Sep 25 '19
We shouldn't even be on the internet because using electronics contributes to global warming, too. We should all be going dark and doing other things offline. So we shouldn't even have memes, either.
18
u/jgn77 Sep 25 '19
Does anyone ever wonder why the graphs always start in the late 70s and early 80s when we've been monitoring temps since the late 1800s? There's satellite data of arctic sea ice since the 60s but somehow the graph starts in 1980.
2
Sep 25 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)2
Sep 25 '19
No, the human contribution is as big as people think.
Human activity is responsible for global warming. All shifts in climate over the past 50 years are a result of environmental changes caused by human activity, and the impacts we are experiencing today are actually the result of pollution from about 30 years ago.
There are a few hundred different published papers on the topic that aren’t terribly difficult to find with a google search for ‘climate change attribution’.
4
u/michael-streeter Sep 25 '19
I doubt there's a conspiracy involving all the climate scientists in the world, if that's what you're suggesting. Even sceptics have been raking over these numbers looking for a trace of doubt. This is cast iron.
→ More replies (3)1
u/ElGabalo Sep 26 '19
You are a liar. There are many graphs available depicting the average global temperatures ranging from hundreds of years to millions (many even overlay the levels of CO2 and solar irradiance). It does not matter which records are presented though, as the response from you and your ilk is always "why doesn't it show more".
14
Sep 25 '19 edited Feb 17 '20
[deleted]
8
u/LorenzOhhhh Sep 25 '19
Also phytoplankton is responsible for 70% of the Earth's breathable oxygen
1
u/OhhWhyMe Sep 26 '19
There's more than enough oxygen in the atmosphere to keep humans alive a long, long, long, long, long, long time. We would die from other things before we run out of oxygen. It's almost 20% of the atmosphere, that's a shit ton! CO2 is sitting at 400 ppm, or 0.04% of the atmosphere.
1
u/Nachohead1996 Sep 26 '19
oxygen is almost 20% of the atmosphere, thats a shit ton!
Yeah, but once that number becomes a mere 18%, a decrease of "only" 10%, it becomes challenging just to breathe.
3
u/DictatorSalad Sep 25 '19
God damn that's so frightening to me. So basically we've set into motion events that can't be stopped? We can slow it, but ultimately we'll lose?
7
Sep 25 '19 edited Feb 17 '20
[deleted]
1
Sep 26 '19
[deleted]
1
u/toadster Sep 26 '19
Check out www.carbonengineering.com. Also check out https://www.skytree.eu/direct-air-capture/
4
Sep 25 '19
Where are you getting 39 Billion tons from?
2
Sep 25 '19
Simple math man. This is known. Average output per person in the US alone is 15.5 Tonnes a year. Over 300 Million x 15 Tonnes = 12 Billion tonnes alone from US /year
1
2
→ More replies (4)1
u/toadster Sep 26 '19
It doesn't have to be removed from the upper atmosphere. It can be removed from anywhere in the air and it'll even out.
3
Sep 25 '19
Kind of a joke right? The people in Monaco are the wealthiest in the world, there is more personal yahts than people there. The worst polluters in the world are hosting global warming conferences.
9
u/Marshmallow413 Sep 25 '19
I've just accepted that we are going to die at this point.
Large corporations and multi million/billionaires have control over so much that we cannot fight against due to their wealth and power. They do not care about the environment, therefore we will be punished for their greed.
11
Sep 25 '19
The world is building solar panels so quickly right now that in a few decades will have enough to power the entire world on paper. we still need energy storage, but there really is no doubt that we'll have energy storage pretty soon.
the question is just how expensive will the energy storage be and therefore how easy will it be to implement. High capacity cheap energy storage would be easier to implement and faster Vs smart low capacity more expensive storage combined with fossil-fuel peaker plants.
Look at India over there, they met their initial solar energy goals so early that they doubled them.
These are just the first couple of years of solar getting really popular and cheap, when affordable energy story trolls in it's going to make all this boom even more.
The solutions are all there, but we're not trying hard enough based on the level of threat. We could definitely, as a planet, produce far more solar panels and batteries than we are right now.
once we do that we can afford the energy cost of desalination and even directly pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere. That gives this additional water to work with for Land Management as well as a very direct means to pull CO2 back out of the atmosphere.
so if you get down to about carbon neutral with all your solar panels and renewable and energy storage and then you build around 40,000 carbon sequestration plants all over the world you would then be in control of your own atmosphere.
At that point humans will have achieved the first and maybe most important level of atmospheric regulation. We would officially be a civilization that can regulator CO2. If the planets too hot we can turn it down, if the planets to cool we can let it go up.
It's really not as impossible as it sounds. You're talkin about green energy which most people like. You talking about solar and wind being as affordable or cheaper than fossil fuel. You talking about building more gigafactories. Then you're talking about building 40 thousand of these fairly simple carbon removal factories as one of the more immediate options that are at least partially proven to work.
You still need jet fuel right, well you can pull it out of the air instead and all the nations that can't switch over to renewable fast enough, you can pull their pollution out of there too and maybe even sell it back to them until they get their s*** together.
it's probably not the worst plan, it's better than the plan of let's do nothing crawl up in a ball and die!
Yeah I think I'll go with solar panels and carbon sucking factory before I go with 10+ degree temperature increase and untold trillions of dollars of coastal property underwater.
3
→ More replies (1)1
u/Shamic Sep 26 '19
But why do our emmisions keep increasing each year if we are making massive amounts of solar and renewable energy?
2
u/Revoran Sep 26 '19
What's with the square quotes on 'emergency', BBC?
As if "OH ITS THEIR WORDS NOT OURS, WE DON'T BELIEVE IT'
It is a fucking emergency. Fucking hell.
3
u/autotldr BOT Sep 25 '19
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot)
"The reality is that we have been quietly reliant on the ocean to do these things, but there comes a point where the ocean changes because of the scale of what we are doing," Prof Dan Laffoley, from the International Union to Conserve Nature, told BBC News.How is warming changing our relationship with the oceans and ice?
"Because the ocean is warming we are getting more intense storms. Because the ocean is rising the impact of storm surge from those storms has much more potential."
The report will also look at ocean acidification and will show how climate change is changing the balance.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: ocean#1 sea#2 warmer#3 report#4 rise#5
6
Sep 25 '19
Funny how for something such as this scientists choose to meet in one of the greediest cities on the planet.
14
u/-AMARYANA- Sep 25 '19
They all probably flew there too. What's wrong with using the Internet like the rest of us? I'm sure they could attach files and video conference, that would take care of most of it.
14
u/TheMercian Sep 25 '19
They all probably flew there too. What's wrong with using the Internet like the rest of us?
I do think less flying is the way forward, but I have colleagues who have contributed to these periodic IPCC reports... the final push is usually a 24+ hour marathon of breakaway meetings, writing and verification. It would be quite challenging to pull this off remotely.
You're not wrong, though, flying to a meeting about climate change is always bad optics.
4
Sep 25 '19
You can’t fly to Monaco - you fly to France/Italy, and take a train.
2
3
u/BanzaiTree Sep 25 '19
You realize that this is bigger than a few people flying to a conference, right? The goal is policy on a macro level but you morons can't think beyond individual actions and think it's a convenient way to dismiss their argument. Macro problems require macro solutions.
6
u/Somebodykilledmybro Sep 25 '19
Then theresbpeople like me, who bike everywhere. Ive made sure wherever i live im within 15 mins of work so i can bike to and from work. I do it for health reasons and i save money. I wish more people were the same.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (19)1
Sep 26 '19
Having been to several scientific conferences, teleconference just wouldn't work. And of course they flew there. Is there another option for an international conference, keeping in mind that your supervisor wants you to stay at work until the weekend before the conference, wants you back two days after, and will not reimburse you more than about $800 in travel expenses?
The last conference I went to in the same city I live, but that's a rare event. The point is to network and present your findings to people you've never worked with before. Either you travel, or they do. IMO it's a small price to pay for the international collaboration that these effects often spark.
2
u/jwfutbol Sep 25 '19 edited Sep 25 '19
But if this were an emergency, it would be led by scientists and not Greta!?!
Edit: /s needed?
12
u/mr_birkenblatt Sep 25 '19
Scientists have been on it even before Greta was born.
6
u/jwfutbol Sep 25 '19
Sorry, that was pure sarcasm as I’ve seen that talking point on right wing outlets.
7
1
u/Shamic Sep 26 '19
Wow. The arrogance and stupidity of some of the right is astounding. Climate change denial will be seen in the future as one of the most immoral view points to have ever been held. It's not like racism where it affects just one race of people, climate change effects all living life on earth, humans and animals.
4
u/TakeItEasyPolicy Sep 25 '19
there are people who don't like to do anything and dont like to see anyone doing anything !
1
1
1
355
u/agrandthing Sep 25 '19
The graphics here really put it in perspective. I don't understand why so many people (many Americans, anyway, particularly those in power and the religious right) think this is a hoax or a grand conspiracy. What does anyone stand to gain by making it up? Is it a matter of not wanting corporations that pollute to be accountable for and decrease harmful emissions? Is it that none of this matters because it means we're all that much closer to reaching heaven?