For those who want to understand and who have a little time for that, a well-documented study on the origin of “the factory of ignorance” on climate issues, the consequences of which can still be read here.
If anyone here doesn't know it yet, the French oil company Total had measured since 1971 the dramatic consequences of its activities on global warming. A long campaign of media jamming and a war against science have been waged for decades to hide the responsibility of large oil industrial groups.
Magical thinking, according to which global warming is natural, and that science is incapable of demonstrating its anthropogenic origin, is the latest avatar of this perfectly orchestrated disinformation campaign.
For those who are still hesitant to read this study in full, this is what it demonstrates formally.
As early as 1971, the oil company Total had, thanks to its own scientific analyses, models as reliable as those of the IPCC...
Total had thus predicted by calculation and published (in Total information n°47) that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere could reach 400 PPM in 2010. The 2021 analyses confirmed a content of 420 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere.
ExxonMobil carried out modelling in 1977 which predicted that the combustion of fossil fuels alone would lead to an increase in temperatures of 0.2° per decade, which corresponds to the current rate.
But these companies preferred to create doubt about the state of scientific knowledge on the climate by using an opposing discourse and adapted lobbying strategies. Like this one:
Extract of the study :
“Although some declare that science has demonstrated the existence of PEG [potential enhanced greenhouse] climate change today… I do not believe such is the case. We will require substantial additional scientific investigation to determine how its effects might be experienced in the future.” (LeVine, 1989, p. 1)
Thus, the data from contemporary science, detailed in the IPCC reports (and here doubted without admissible arguments), only confirm the accuracy of the predictions of the fossil fuel industry. QED
The reality of global warming, its anthropogenic cause and the IPCC forecasts have been confirmed (since 1971) by the polluters themselves. The world's 20 major oil and gas companies are responsible for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions since 1965.
Well, yes, that is not good. But how about this, are those companies burning all the fossil fuel they produce by themselves? Or are we the users, responsible as well?
Of course, as consumers, we obviously have our responsibilities. There is no question of denying them. But the industry has made historically opportunistic mercantile choices, in full awareness of their long-term harm. The scientific reality of global warming appeared since the 1950s.
The consumption of fossil fuels is one thing. Their extraction conditions is another. The 425 worst carbon bombs on the planet alone, perfectly identified, could destroy the entire fight against global warming. The fossil prospecting should have ended in 2021, for all new projects (to stay under 1.5°). However, the expansion project for largest gas field (TotalEnergies with Nord Field East, between Qatar and Iran) dates from June 2022...
On the other hand, after significant advances by BMW & Toyota, research on the hydrogen combustion engine is making little progress. It is not certain that Europe will accept this hydrogen solution and other green fuels, in addition to all-electric technology. However, the first hydrogen engine dates from... 1799. The first electric car to reach 105 km/h was developed by a Belgian company in 1899. “La Jamais Contente” is still visible at Autoworld of Brussels. The industry has always made historical commercial choices which induce and precede consumer behaviour.
The problem, in my opinion, is that industry and politics are concerned about the climate issue especially with the perspective of creating new markets, such as that of electric cars whose carbon footprint is not fantastic. While a very large part of the global automobile fleet was eligible for adaptation to hydrogen.
We will have to wait for the big oil groups to organize themselves to sell us water (in the form of hydrogen) at the same price as petrol for the combustion engine to once again become an acceptable solution. In the meantime, the climate cause has allowed the automobile industry to justify massive lay-offs.
We certainly need to alter our behaviour. But some drastic reductions in CO2 emissions could also be made by banning cruise shipping, for example. But, instead stop these kinds of stupidities, politics prefer to obliged us buy electric cars.
That for this few examples (among others), that I'm not very optimist on the humans abilities to do something in sense for the climate .
Bro, my french teacher is teaching us about this and is saying "ThE hUmAnS mAdE ThIs AnD ThEy CuT tHe tReEs aNd ThAtS BaD ThEy ArE ToO HuNgRy of MoNeY, AnD ThEy dEsTrOy ThE fOrEsT bY pUtTiNg BuIlDiNgS" but bro, think about it, how do they get money then? what will make them get rich to pay the electricity, and the taxes? Have u thought about this? are they gonna go to the street with 50€ in their pocket and beg to people for money? They wont, and they we say "Dont use the plane too much use the train" ok lets go from pais to russia yay thats very expensive with train compared to plane less expensive, being ecologist is a joke in my opinion.
Brother, I agree with everything you said except the last sentence.
I never said that we should prevent humans from living or working to serve the climate cause. Without being an extremist environmentalist, you can very simply adapt your behaviour without ending up becoming a beggar.
The cynical historical choices of the big polluters I am talking about could have been better without harming anyone. This type of economy does not benefit populations. Quite the contrary.
For example, in my opinion, some political choices made under the pretext of global warming, particularly regarding electric cars, are antisocial. In the sense that it would prohibit the less wealthy from owning a car, without having any effect on global warming, and the rich to treat themselves with new toys.
The problem with transforming everything into a market is that an object costs more in climatic terms for its production than for its use. This purely consumerist vision (transforming everything into a replacement market) is at the origin of the global warming problems that we are experiencing.
In a better world, planes could become less polluting. Governments could stop cutting railway lines or promote the development of river transport, encourage recycling etc. Or, let's dream a little, really change the economic paradigm.
Everything could be managed more intelligently without become punitive. This is called a social project, a Cultural Revolution or a utopia, depending on the political involvement of which one shows oneself capable.
I also think that the hydrogen combustion engine is a possible future, for a set of reasons.
Technologically, this engine already works perfectly. Since the 1960s, individuals (a bit of a DIY enthusiast ) have been able to adapt ordinary production cars to hydrogen combustion. In the early 2000s, BMW developed a V12 that ran on gasoline and/or hydrogen, as well as other exclusive hydrogen models. Toyota recently developed a very efficient three-cylinder hydrogen engine. Etc.
The problem mainly lies in the production of green hydrogen on a large scale. In my humble opinion, it would have been more relevant and effective, in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, to really study this question, rather than forcing motorists to drive cars equipped with a blender engine powered by lithium batteries. Each electric car produced using this technology is an ecological bomb and a bomb in the literal sense, since fatal accidents are increasing. This electric car technology should be banned in the name of common sense and safety. But this is what the law wants to impose on us.
However, hydrogen is also better suited here. Since an electric motor can be powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. This electric solution has the advantage of offering true vehicle autonomy, without recharging constraints. It is by measuring these aberrations that we can judge the scope and real motivations of environmental policies.
In fact (in short), the concept of the lithium electric car will only have a negative impact on the climate. Its area of use, limited to countries capable of setting up the networks necessary for its operation, nullifies its ecological claims. More seriously, the lithium electric car is an illusion and an alibi which masks a frightening and catastrophic reality.
Global warming is a reality. Its catastrophe has already occurred and is ecologically measurable. The anthropogenic cause of global warming is both scientific evidence and ecocide. This crime was perpetrated with the aggravating circumstances of premeditation by the oil and gas industry (see link above). And whatever happens, whatever we change in our behaviours, this industry will deplete natural resources, as long as this is technologically possible and authorized. Thus, the fossil fuels that we do not consume will be consumed by others. As global warming is a global phenomenon, our imposed efforts will be of no use as long as the fossil fuel industry thrives. Consumerism is an ideology before being the engine of our economy.
It is for these reasons that the hydrogen engine will not be considered as a solution, as long as the fossil fuel industry has not adapted to sell us water at a high price. I think science has little to do with it.
yea, but to make the batterry of the electric car it pollutes soo much, so is it worth it? And they dont talk about big boats which polutes way more than 10 cars.
For the electric car, I have already given my opinion in detail. But for boats, you are very far from the reality.
The container ship Antoine de Saint Exupéry, the last flagship of the merchant navy manufactured by France, emits as much CO2 per kilometer as 3,202 cars.
The Icon of the Seas, scheduled for official launch in 2024, will be the largest cruise ship ever built. 365 m long, 250,000 tonnes, 20 floors high, this boat will carry seven swimming pools, 7,500 passengers and 2,350 crew members... Imagine what it will generate in the way of perfectly useless pollution and what ecological disaster it will cause in its wake ?
And these boats also pollute when they are docked, since their engine works to supply them with electricity. For example, ferry traffic alone in the port of Ajaccio (in southern Corsica) multiplies the city's overall pollution by 40...
Container ships are amazingly efficient, the numbers are big so it looks bad but when you consider the amount of stuff that is being moved, it is the best option for transporting goods. The real issue for the climate is not the container ships themselves, but the fact that so many container ships are needed. There is no way that most in the west need to consume as much as they do currently, I am guilty of it too.
Yes, you're right (I gave these figures as an indication for Joe mama1256). Logic would also dictate that it would be better to transport a large quantity of goods on a single recent boat, rather than distributing them among three old floating bins. But all these boats pollute non-stop, from the first day of their commissioning until their dismantling, since they almost never stop.
The question remains of what is being transported. And here, I would like to know too the exact proportion of really useful goods that actually require transport. There is a difference between essential computer components that Westerners do not know how to manufacture and perfectly useless low-end Chinese gadgets that will end up in our trash. We are all guilty. The more the economic system makes us precarious, the more it favors the trade of poor quality goods manufactured on the other side of the planet.
From my point of view, it is easier to rule on large cruise ships which serve no purpose and carry mass tourism which benefits no one. These should be banned from circulation in the name of basic decency.
I would like to return for a moment to this misleading, and fairly generally accepted, notion of collective responsibility for global warming. Because there is a blind spot here.
We owe this perverse notion of responsibility historically to the propaganda of Philip Morris. The international company specializing in tobacco products has continually tried to shift its responsibilities onto consumers. This rhetoric has since been echoed by plastic manufacturers who now claim that the pollution generated by their products is the responsibility of consumers.
It is interesting to note here the blind spot of the English and Dutch versions of Wikipedia on Philip Morris. Here is the text as it appears in French:
(quote from French Wikipedia) Lobbying activity with French institutions
In September 2013, the company was singled out by the French press for its listing of MEPs, particularly French, with a view to approaching them. Le Parisien notes that “these methods seem very effective” and cites the postponement of examination of a directive whose vote could thus be postponed until after the 2014 elections (26,27).
In October 2014, a report revealed the existence of studies financed by Philip Morris International showing the financial benefits of smoking for the State (28).
(quote end)
I am summarizing the matter for those who cannot know it, since it does not exist in their language.
In 2014 Philip Morris published a scientific report showing that advertising menthol cigarettes aimed at adolescents was economically profitable for states. The scientific explanation was this: Menthol cigarettes generate types of cancer that have little impact during the active life. These patients with these cancers ignore each other a long time. These patients therefore cost nothing to public health systems. These cancers also have the advantage of being rapidly devastating. So workers who have contributed to pension funds all their lives die before receiving their pension. QED.
This is at the kind of cynicism we owe the contemporary notion of collective responsibility for the climate. We must never forget it ! Climate scepticism uses the same codes.
Of course, we can all improve our behaviours. With my wife, we began this shift more than 15 years ago. We eat, we move, we consume differently. Our carbon footprint is certainly much better today. But I still sometime have to take 4 planes in 3 days for my professional needs. The land alternative would force me to travel several thousand kilometres in vehicle and 24 hours by boat.
When I hear Jean-Marc Jancovici say that we should be satisfied with 4 plane trips in our entire life, I am not fooled and I am angry. This nuclear lobbyist, who painted himself green to make the climate cause an extremely lucrative business, has no credibility in this debate.
Faced with the threat of global warming, the elites are protecting themselves. They put in place coercive concepts and devices to try to contain popular anger. Beyond global warming, it is our freedoms that are at stake too. All over the world, political regimes are turning towards autocracy.
Let's not feel guilty beyond reason. We are above all the victims of a mercantile system.
I had assumed you were talking about slow natural cycles in temperature.
A giant asteroid might had more impact on earth's temperature than humans but such event is so different from man-made effects, it makes little sense to compare.
It seems like something to bring up to be "technically correct" but it beside that it contributes nothing to discussion.
It is interesting how some people are so sceptical towards science. It is the same science that built the computer you are currently typing on. The same science that landed us on the moon and made all kind of stuff possible. Nobody is doubting science when they need to get their appendix removed. Nobody ever said: "That is all fake science, integrated circuits are not real. I will build my own graphics card."
But when it comes to climate change, suddenly everyone is an expert.
I was talking about only your false statement and I have clearly proven why it is false. This is exactly what the believers in the inevitable prediction of a terrible future in this topic are unable to do. Prove your own statements or prove others' statements false. All I see here are empty theses without any proof in this thread.
In order for us to understand each other, we need to formulate our thoughts correctly. Otherwise, instead of dialogue, you get nonsense.
I've already noticed that you like to substitute your thesis. And to argue with and defeat a straw man that you made up yourself. But why you do it in literally every post you make? Isn't it more interesting to argue with the theses of your opponents? And the fact that you also substitute the thesis of all non-human emissions for less than 0.03% non-human emissions and passed it off as what I'm asking for didn't bother you at all. Well, either you did it deliberately
1. Let's start with the fact that no one has denied the advances of science. Nor has anyone denied global warming in this thread.
2. Theory does not equal practice. Graphs, correlations and predictions of the future do not equal a working and functioning system in reality. Do you know what the Law of identity is? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be talking such nonsense.
3. Doubt is first and foremost what scientists themselves do, and that is why they verify and falsify their claims, hypotheses and theories. Read what scientific scepticism is. But when it comes to climate change, suddenly everyone is an expert. Who know exactly what's going to happen in the future.
But I don't know. If you're such great fortune tellers. Tell me, for example, which lottery ticket to buy to win a lot of money.
There is no man so blind as he who refuses to see.
How do you want these people to access the evidence of reality? They are deaf, proud of it, satisfied with themselves, intoxicated with the scent of their flawed thoughts.
Their scientific culture is as null as their reflective faculties. We cannot judge anything without knowing the difference between a dictionary definition, a philosopher's witticism, a contextual explanation of any position taken at random from Wikipedia. This is the basis. No one can think that way. If those who claim to be scientific skepticism knew what it was, they would spare themselves the ridicule of talking about it.
Cartesian doubt, at the origin of scientific skepticism, led Renée Descartes himself to the evidence of the existence of God. The real meaning of Descartes’ famous quote is: “I think therefore I am, because God made me.” Cartesian doubt was in fact only a disguised ontological proof. But this, undoubtedly, is not clearly explained in Wikipedia. The irony of History here is that Cartesianism, which was only an intellectual integration of Christian biblical fundamentals, which are the product of a loss of meaning of the original text (for short), is also the philosophical alibi of consumerist ideology. The circle is complete.
Scientific skepticism, manipulated by subjects with short ideas, only serves to reinforce pre-existing certainties. Even a thought as weak and devious as that of Descartes was aware of this trap. It is for this reason that Descartes advised against the use of doubt for less fertile minds. Doubt will only produce in them the illusion of being right.
You can present all possible objective data to those who lay claim scientific scepticism without understanding it. They will methodically reproduce the same errors of judgment. They will constantly return to the same insignificant arguments, drowned in their interpretive gibberish. Because that’s what it’s really about: judging science without having the basic means necessary to understand it. Everyone must choose between understanding or being right. For these people, the choice is made before any reflection.
People who lock themselves in denial will stay in denial. They don't try to understand. Their certainties precede and condition all their pseudo analyses. This positioning effectively allows them, you are right, to instantly become experts in scientific data that they did not know yesterday. Because they only seek material to feed their denialist discourse through the distorting prism that constitutes their uneducated prejudices. Like a reverse anamorphosis, which would deconstruct the readable image of observable reality.
These climate sceptics deny the proven catastrophe of global warming. The one that has already happened before their eyes. With its disastrous repercussions on the fauna and flora, and on the fragile balance of current climatic conditions, which are largely based on dominant marine currents whose functioning is threatened.
These people refuse to admit the catastrophe represented by the proven reduction of 70 to 80% of insect populations in Western agro-industrial landscapes. They refuse to consider the human catastrophe represented by the displacement of tens of millions of people around the world due to current global warming, and the millions of deaths already caused. These climate sceptics deny the real threat of the non-replenishment of permafrost, which accelerates global warming to considerable proportions.
" Yes indeed ! But that doesn’t count since it’s natural and not man-made! » Will retort the dunce from the back of the class. “In what proportions exactly? Give me your graphs so I can see them to show you that you are wrong” the donkey in the front row will demand. This is the story of this subject, which will repeat itself again and again.
But denial has a logical basis and a utility. It is a preservation mechanism.
Understanding the phenomenon of global warming that we are experiencing, and becoming aware of its consequences, are in no way gratifying. The actual reality of the disorder and destruction currently underway is dramatically anxiety-provoking. A relevant analysis of these phenomena leads inexorably to the understanding that the force of inertia of our political-economic system will not make it possible to avoid the shock, or even to absorb it. We are obviously heading towards global warming of more than 4° in the very near future.
It is therefore difficult to talk about global warming, because this debate is painful. The objective realism that this debate implies is not very fruitful, in the sense that very few things actually depend on our will and our capacity to act. Most of us have already figured this out.
If the denial of global warming is so widespread among others, it is because it is much more comfortable to accept than the objective reality. Nothing to do here with scientific scepticism.
This objective reality forces us to admit that the catastrophe of global warming is not a collective fantasy fuelled by historical concepts such as apocalyptic thinking. Nor is this catastrophe an anticipation of a science fiction author frozen in cinema iconography.
Yes, global warming is already a disaster for nature and for humanity. Yes, the cause of global warming is undoubtedly of human origin. The cause of global warming is anthropogenic. This current global warming is already irremediably and profoundly changing the world we know. The reason for global warming: or why man has turned a blind eye to his actions until this point, is the result of beliefs. It is on these beliefs that our political and economic ideologies are based. In the absence of being able to act collectively on global warming, this is what we need to understand to move this debate forward.
Global warming is not the cumulative result of isolated and uncontrollable causes. This global warming that we will have to face is the result of a dominant philosophical thought, inherited from Christian biblical fantasies, called Cartesianism.
Thus, it is the ideology of a man, born at the end of the 16th century and its subsequent extensions, which will have led us into the climatic impasse. This thought and the beliefs on which it is based are also at the source of the magical thinking according to which global warming is not anthropogenic, and that its effects would be negligible on nature and on man.
I'm not even going to start reading this longread, because as I said earlier you can't provide arguments and maintain an adequate level of discourse and apparently all you can do is stoop to appeals to personality and\or insults.
This long book is not addressed to you and does not contain any kind of insults or personal appeals. This contextualizes your speech.
Everyone has understood (I hope?), that your intelligence and your remarkable scientific knowledge allow you to scientifically question the current scientific consensus. Because common sense and scientific logic dictates that what is scientifically demonstrated must be deconstructed scientifically. Scientific doubt does not boil down to: “this is not true, because no one have a crystal ball”.
But overall it was amusing to watch a man who presents himself as a philosopher talk rubbish about Occam's Razor. It was clear from the way he put it in out of place that the person did not understand what he was talking about. I even set up one test and purposely gave him the opportunity to break down his argument with the usual deductive arguments. But it wasn't noticed. I didn't expect otherwise, though.
All I'm saying is that people should at least try to follow the rules of argumentation and make deductive arguments, not reduce everything they have to induction. I think anyone who has taken philosophy 101 (or any basic philosophy course) understands the problem of induction and that only deductive arguments are valid.
I urge you all to raise the level of discourse to an adequate level that assumes at least some reasoning behind what you are saying.
Once again, you are deluding yourself and telling yourself stories. Occam's razor is used wisely on hypotheses that are valid, or at least admissible as such. Which was absolutely not the case with your proposal. You don't use a philosophical tool to mash butter on a tablecloth.
Correction: I said I followed a 5-year philosophical course in higher education and made a living from the concept (I didn't say philosophical). I don't claim to be a philosopher.
But I know enough about philosophy (and things in general) to make an objective judgment on your statements, your approximate references and your erroneous intellectual paths.
I repeat it to you for the last time. You are certainly deluding yourself about your abilities. But you will not deceive me.
For those who are still hesitant to read this study in full, this is what it demonstrates formally.
.
Talk to your French teacher about it.
