How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Iamwhomiam]

.

In brief, I -- and for the most part, many others posting in this thread -- are not posting content "in opposition" to AGW. Speaking only for myself, my position is that AGW is very likely not the sole factor in current climate-related circumstances, and broadly, that there is heavily-funded and monied interests in play promoting AGW for ends that ultimately are counter to human benefit (but certainly profitable for the very few). This is not to say such monied interests render all AGW positions invalid, but there is undoubtedly a tainting and manipulation of earnest pursuits by those with ulterior motives (a theme that repeats itself in just about all other ventures -- across 'industry verticals' -- that offer opportunity to accumulate large sums of money/power/influence).

To frame it as "opposition" and "divisive" is a misrepresentation/misframing.


A number of you need to eventually own up to the extent you've been played, at least in part, by some of these interests.

Yeah, you've been playing us for a long time. and you are indeed divisive, going so far as to condemn any who disagree with you and your vague accusatory and scurrilous comments.

Speaking only for myself, my position is that AGW is very likely not the sole factor in current climate-related circumstances, and broadly, that there is heavily-funded and monied interests in play promoting AGW for ends that ultimately are counter to human benefit (but certainly profitable for the very few).

(My emphasis, Iam.)

It is impossible that AGW could be the sole factor in current climate-related circumstances, when AGW itself is astoundingly multifaceted. Meaningless word salad! Climate-related circumstances!!

One aspect, one component among many other thousands of contributing factors of Anthropogenic Climate Change is measuring every source on earth that is emitting methane and how much methane each source emits.

I see you have no intention of answering my sincere questions, and note the confusion to others that could have been avoided if only you had. I include my questions once again:

.

Classic example of misdirection, or, how the dominant narratives condition many to focus on certain things while ignoring other critical near-term things:

@llsamueljames

Biggest environmental disaster happening going on 60 years

>90% of “climate/environment awareness” you read is a misdirection

The Amazon is not on fire. Polar bears are not drowning. Miami is not going to fall into the ocean.

Every creature on earth is swallowing plastic

@mell0wbr1ckroad
· Dec 15
A baby sea turtle that washed up dead on a beach in Florida, next to the 104 pieces of plastic found in its intestines.

Replying to
@llsamueljames
and
@NgoloTesla

Yes. We banned plastic straws and cheap carrier bags so people could wear plastic masks, take these single use lateral flow “tests” which aren’t even accurate. Makes me angry

@Zereleth
·
It's pretty unregulated in emerging economies, places like China, India and the Philippines notoriously dump industrial quantities directly into the oceans and there's no punishment. Particularly difficult situation in China that protects polluters.

@euronewsgreen
Babies have 15 times more microplastics in their bodies than adults, a new pilot study has found.

Read more
https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/10/ ... arch-shows

@llsamueljames
·
this made the news cycle (on this corner of twitter) when it was published last year

Plasticenta: First evidence of microplastics in human placenta

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33395930/

https://twitter.com/llsamueljames/statu ... 40677?s=20

Please point out for me what the "classic example of misdirection" is that you've referred to, and which are "the dominant narratives" that you feel "condition many to focus on certain things, (what "things?") while ignoring other critical near-term things." Critical near-term things," eh? Considering they are "critical" and "near-term" "things" that most are ignoring, please identify what is "critical;" what timeframe is "near-term"; what are the "things" being ignored by many?

So let's take a look at the tweets you pasted instead of discussing your own thoughts:

Sammuel James wrote:

Biggest environmental disaster happening going on 60 years

>90% of “climate/environment awareness” you read is a misdirection

The Amazon is not on fire. Polar bears are not drowning. Miami is not going to fall into the ocean.

Every creature on earth is swallowing plastic

Plastic has been in use since 1950

>90% of "climate/environment awareness" some read is misdirecting

The Amazon is on fire - right now! Polar bears are drowning after becoming emaciated and no longer have the fat to protect them from the Arctic's frigid waters, or the stamina to endure the long swim now necessary to search for ice from which they can hunt.

Miami is not going to fall into the ocean. The ocean will deluge, then submerge Miami.

Every creature on Earth has a variety of microplastics in its body, and every body of water on Earth is contaminated with microplastics.

Next up we have Ngolo Tesla:

Yes. We banned plastic straws and cheap carrier bags so people could wear plastic masks, take these single use lateral flow “tests” which aren’t even accurate. Makes me angry

A few localities banned single use plastics. No one banned these problematic wastes in order to wear plastic masks. (Personally, I have no idea what a plastic mask is because I've never seen a mask made out of plastic. Resuscitators, sure; face shields as well, but not plastic masks.

Zereleth chimes in, adding:
·

It's pretty unregulated in emerging economies, places like China, India and the Philippines notoriously dump industrial quantities directly into the oceans and there's no punishment. Particularly difficult situation in China that protects polluters.

All nations have lax environmental regulations and rarely are major polluters punished, aside from receiving token fines.
Bribery in developing countries is much less expensive than in developed western countries.

Finally, euronewsgreen posts a link to an article they published:
Babies have 15 times more microplastics in their bodies than adults, a new pilot study has found.

We breathe far more microplastics into our lungs than we ingest in water or foodstuffs. All those soft synthetic fabrics that feels like fleece or velvet. Stuffed animals, for example.

One of my complaints to anti-vaxers is their reluctance to include toxins found in mothers' milk that is passed on to infants while nursing as a contributing factor when a child develops autism after inoculation.

[Iamwhomiam]

Basically, what I am saying is since we cannot know for sure, we should apply the Hippocratic Oath to our efforts to fight global warming. First, do no harm. Wouldn't you agree?

What about the harm that has already been done.

If we'd taken that attitude as a species we'd have acted on AGW 25 fucken years ago.

While it is an apt analogy, I believe stickdog means applying The Precautionary Principle, which is far broader in scope than is the Hippocratic Oath, which all physicians should honor.

The Precautionary Principle
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”
— Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998

edited to add link: https://www.sehn.org/precautionary-principle-understanding-science-in-regulation