World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam

submitted by Pis-dur from theguardian.com

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

And the 0.01% elite are using the CO2 scare to take over all energy and all other resources.
But what does Oxfam know?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is an oxfam? Is that like an ox you've entered into a domestic partnership with? I think that's illegal.

[–]RuckFeddit 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

That's weird, Greta didn't mention this at all. I wonder if her boat being gifted to her by the Rothschilds has anything to do with it?

[–]FediNetizen 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Greta's parents themselves are wealthy and connected. There's a reason she was able to get on talk shows and press coverage just for being a teenager opposed to climate change.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

There's a reason she was able to get on talk shows and press coverage just for being a teenager opposed to climate change.

It's because she's a young white woman. White women, particularly middle aged white women, is a very competitive demographic for Republicans. The media knew exactly what they were doing through Greta up as the face of the environmental movement. Middle-aged white women either see their children in Greta or themselves, and they set it up for the right to attack and of course they did. It's a win-win for them, either Greta appeals to the middle-aged white women, or they get appalled by the right-wings attacks on her.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is the lamest reason I've ever seen anyone give.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Life is often disappointing.

Her demographic appeal was definitely a reason she was pushed so hard. The left knew exactly how the right would react to some uppity mental tard and they played that against them.

There's a reason this chick was pushed harder than Malala, it's because middle-aged white woman can sympathize with her more.

[–]SaidOverRed 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I almost called BS but it was too specific to not duckduckgo it. It's funny in a strange way: https://www.rt.com/news/465501-greta-thunberg-hates-you/

[–]RuckFeddit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Something that could be interpreted as a co-incidence or a conspiracy. What do you actually think?

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A bit of both. I find it a bit telling that, they reach of out to and are willing to do what they did, that she accepts while presumably knowing who they are, and that everyone finds this not unusual.

Or hey it could just be lefties buddying up with lefties. I suppose I'd have to have a LOT of access to one or both parties to really be sure. :(

[–]Yin 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

CO2 generated by humans isn't pollution and it has very little impact on climate. And the effect it does have isn't a net negative. So it doesn't matter. But I'll remember it as a claim in case a funny argument arises when I can use it.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

CO2 generated by humans isn't pollution and it has very little effect on climate.

First statement in that sentence would be patently untrue even if the 2nd were true. Higher concentrations of CO2 lead to detectable cognitive impairment.

There's a reason that our most accurate climate models all assume a moderate degree of climate forcing from higher CO2 levels, and that models that assume little forcing from CO2 fail to accurately predict our current warming trend.

It's the same reason that Venus, which has an atmosphere consisting of mostly CO2, is way hotter than Mercury, despite receiving only 40% of the solar energy per unit area that Mercury does.

It's because CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas. And yes, it is a net negative; the slightly higher rates of plant growth don't outweigh the land lost to sea level rise and loss of arable land due to rising temperatures.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The article you linked to is mostly scamming hysteria bullshit. My first statement is 100% true. CO2 generated by humans isn't pollution. I'll let you know if it ever gets to the point of a "cognitive impairment" causing level like in a contained study that wants to scare people with fake prediction models.

It's because CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas

Hardly. Additional CO2 has an exponentially decaying additive effect, not linear, hence why almost all of its temperature influence occurrs from the first 200 ppm and any excess past 300 post-industrial age isn't having a big impact like the fake models wanted people to believe. Additional CO2's impact on climate is minimal and heavily self-regulating with Earth's habitat. Human contribution to it is at most 3%. Earth and humans could stand to benefit from more CO2, but that doesn't sell well for letting globalist criminals "seize the means of production" (globalist-communist policies) through a manufactured doomsday scare.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Venus is a planet in the solar system. It is the object most commonly misidentified as a flying saucer. James Earl Carter, Jr., a President of the United States of America, once thought that he saw a UFO but it was later proven that he had actually seen Venus.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Hey, I have this really unfun thing where I get in immense pain from pressure changes. This Beta shit in the gulf is really fucking my world up right now. BUT once upon 3 or 4 years ago this was just a rare thing. Now it's storm after storm after storm, and it's hard to cope. I plan to go pain management in January and hopefully have them drug me out of my gourd. Not an ideal solution by any means but I can't take these constant storms. The weather has changed. It didn't used to be like this.

On a related note I was wondering if people like me are actually an evolutionary throwback. Before radar and weather satellites it was people like crazy old Musky who let the village know to go to high ground. I dunno, I guess it doesn't matter.

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Climate and weather are always changing.

That's unfortunate. Be lucky you weren't born hundreds of years ago when storms were more violent and temperatures were hotter.

It didn't used to be like this.

Yeah, it used to be worse. You're currently in the most stable period of climate humanity has ever experienced. You have to zoom out of the narrow window called "recorded temperatures" that globalist policy-scammers want you to stay focused in for fearmongering that sells their nation-cucking policy.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I feel like I've become a human fucking barometer and it sucks, but I tell you, this is not normal. You don't want to believe it, fine but go look at all the goddamned storms. They just keep coming one after another. I'm in Texas, we never had so many storms like we are now. I feel them. It used to be maybe a day a month that was bad but it's been almost never ending. Back to back to back.

I'm 40. Maybe if you mean more than 22 years ago that's outside my scope.

[–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not to downplay, but perhaps it's not everywhere else. Perhaps it's you. I am sensitive to them too, if it helps.

The nice thing is that you can check barometric data. It's been recorded for a long while now...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Possibly. I have a barometric app, my phone has a sensor that records it. It's interesting watching it on a plane when descending or ascending. For whatever reason, that doesn't hurt. Might have something to do with being in a pressurized cabin.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

weather is same but you're getting older and your body can't handle the pressure changes the same.

[–]Pis-dur[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is pollution you are disagreeing with thousands of scientists who have way bigger knowledge and experience on this topic than you. Also, changes are already very visible.

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Credible climate scientists ("researchers") don't call CO2 pollution and the ones who do are usually political zealots and quacks. Are you also still under the false impression from the lie about a "97% consensus", which was a fake statistic erroneously surmised from a misleading survey question that didn't actually ask any of the responders to what degree they thought man-made CO2 contributed to warming? Responders to the survey later came out against that fake consensus claim, but globalist media and shitlib retards already got the talking points they wanted. The ends justify the means to them.

Start by reading:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/02/15/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-mocks-97-consensus-it-is-propaganda/

https://www.climatedepot.com/?s=lindzen

He's one of many climate scientists who decided to start telling the truth about the charade and who was subsequently crucified by the usual suspects in globalist media who try to ruin the reputation of anyone who exposes them, considering they literally own mainstream media.

I used to be in the bubble. I know it's hard to break out of the bubble, realizing how much propaganda is coming from the top, whose only goal is to make you think you're "saving the planet" by signing on to nation-destroying policies. It's a sham. The contribution effects of human-made CO2 are very minimal. Earth was already in a short term warming period and it's literally in a cooling period if you zoom out.

[–]Canbot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

So what? Co2 has skyrocketed while global temperatures have not, proving that the graph which showed a correlation between Co2 and temperature does not show a causal relationship.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Co2 has skyrocketed while global temperatures have not

CO2 has gone from an average of 250-280ppm to over 400ppm as of 2016.

Global temperatures have increased by an average of 1C, with the majority of that rise being in the last few decades when CO2 levels and emissions were the highest.

If you believe that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, then show me a climate model that explains the current warming trend we've experienced over the last century that assumes a negligible climate forcing value for CO2.

[–]Canbot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you were interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation you wouldn't be accusing me of thinking co2 is not a greenhouse gas. That is a straw man argument. Stop being a sheep bleeting out propaganda.

Nearly double the Co2 and only 1* temperature change. Not only that but there is a diminishing return on any insulation including greenhouse gasses, meaning that doubling the Co2 again would lead to less than 1* further increase. So your claim that the rise in temperature is entirely caused by the last few bits of Co2, and insinuating that the next few bits will be worse, is utter bullshit. Global temperatures have absolutely not risen mostly "in the last few decades". The global temperature has been rising since the ice age ended. The ice has been receding since the ice age ended.

I don't need to prove an alternative theory to prove that the one you are pushing is bullshit.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you were interested in having an honest and intelligent conversation you wouldn't be accusing me of thinking co2 is not a greenhouse gas. That is a straw man argument.

To be able to have an intelligent conversation would require that both parties actually know what they are talking about, and if you believe that there is no causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, then by definition you believe that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. If you think I was forming a straw man argument and that your actual statement wasn't implying that, then either you don't understand what a causal relationship is, or you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is.

Nearly double the Co2 and only 1* temperature change

You should really learn the actual science before trying to make inferences. Do you know what thermal mass is? I assume not, or at least you don't understand how that would play into the climate. Even if we drastically reduced emissions to the point where we kept CO2 levels at the current 400-420ppm range, we would still see more warming and more sea level rise over the next several decades.

An actual doubling of CO2, which would be well into the 500+ppm range, would result in global temperature averages of +3C as well as massive amounts of sea level rise over the next few centuries, and that would be catastrophic. Not at all trivial.

Not only that but there is a diminishing return on any insulation including greenhouse gasses,

True.

meaning that doubling the Co2 again would lead to less than 1* further increase

Not even remotely true. This is what happens when you build a model based off of bad assumptions.

So your claim that the rise in temperature is entirely caused by the last few bits of Co2, and insinuating that the next few bits will be worse, is utter bullshit.

I would cite this as an actual straw man, but based on what you've already written it's more likely that you just genuinely didn't even understand what I wrote, or how it relates to what you already said.

I was refuting your claim that there isn't a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, and supporting this argument by pointing out that as the difference in current and historic CO2 levels has risen, so has the rate of temperature increase. In a climate system which takes decades to centuries to reach the new equilibrium point, you would expect a higher rate of change as the difference increases while the system is still in a state of flux.

Global temperatures have absolutely not risen mostly "in the last few decades". The global temperature has been rising since the ice age ended. The ice has been receding since the ice age ended.

I was talking about the 140 years of direct observational temperature data we have to work from. In the first 100 years from 1880 to 1980, global temperatures only rose by about 0.5C. In the last 40 years, global temperatures have risen by nearly 1C on top of that.

You know what the difference between global temperatures 40 years ago and global temperatures during the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago are? 5C.

I don't need to prove an alternative theory to prove that the one you are pushing is bullshit.

I wasn't asking you to prove anything. I was asking you to provide a climate model that explains the rising temperatures we're observing and that assumes a negligible value for the forcing of CO2. The reason I was asking you to provide one is because I knew you couldn't, and unsurprisingly you didn't.

By the way, temperatures from the peak of the last ice age rose by about 5C from that peak, but did so during the period from about 20,000 years ago to about 10,000 years ago. That's a 1C increase....every 2,000 years. Global temperatures over the last 10,000 years have been comparatively flat, and a 1C rise over 40 years is absolutely a big fucking deal.

And it's always the same when I talk to AGW deniers. They'll distort the data, throw out red herrings, and act upset when I call them AGW deniers even when that's exactly what they are. Even the racists on this site tend to be more honest with themselves.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you know what thermal mass is? I assume not, or at least you don't understand how that would play into the climate.

It is the ability of a SOLID object to retain heat. It has absolutely fuck all to do with climate change. The temperature is the result of energy in minus energy out. Energy in is solar+nuclear (center of the earth produces heat)+chemical (heat generated by burning fuels and nuclear fission). Energy out is reflected sunlight + blackbody radiation.

You are literally talking out of your ass.

An actual doubling of CO2, which would be well into the 500+ppm range, would result in global temperature averages of +3C

Bullshit. That is simply not true. Every single global warming estimate that has come to pass has over estimated. Every. Single. One. Yet it doesn't faze you sheep one iota. Why not? What would it take to get you to stop blindly believing everything you are told?

so has the rate of temperature increase.

This is something you literally pulled out of your ass. No one ever, in the history of the planet, ever showed any evidence that Co2 concentration controls temperature change in that way. As if it were an accelerator peddle and the temperature would keep going up infinitely so long as the concentration is over a certain amount. That is not how any of this works.

Temperature increase is absolutely not compounding over time, as it would in your theory. In fact there was a measured decrease in temperature for about 15 years since 1997.

If you want to cool the earth reflect more sunlight. Simple. Except it doesn't enrich the people who will control the carbon credit exchanges. It doesn't saddle everyone with new regulations, requiring more government control over everyone's life. It doesn't necessitate government inspections, taxes, and permits. Why is no one ever interested in solutions that don't fuck everyone over?

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is the ability of a SOLID object to retain heat. It has absolutely fuck all to do with climate change.

All mass, regardless of its state, retains heat. The more mass you have, the more energy must be gained to result in the same change in temperature. This is true whether it is a solid, liquid, gas, plasma, or any other state. That you believe the concept of thermal mass has nothing to do with climate change explains why you believed that the ~1C of warming we've experienced over the last 40 years is all there is to it, but it also highlights the fact that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of a lot of the topics we're discussing.

If you still don't understand why I was asking if you understood what thermal mass was, let me explain. Over 90% of the net thermal energy gain since the start of the industrial revolution isn't accounted for in the air or ground, but in the ocean. Having over 20x the thermal conductivity and 250x the mass of the atmosphere, the ocean is where the vast majority of the extra energy ends up, and it will take centuries for ocean temperatures and levels to reach their new equilibrium. But as ocean temps rise, so will the atmosphere. It's not like the earth is just a piece of metal that heats and cools rapidly according to its surroundings.

This is something you literally pulled out of your ass. No one ever, in the history of the planet, ever showed any evidence that Co2 concentration controls temperature change in that way. As if it were an accelerator peddle and the temperature would keep going up infinitely so long as the concentration is over a certain amount. That is not how any of this works.

How could you possibly read what I was saying and interpret it to mean that I was claiming that temperature could increase infinitely when I told you that the result of a doubling of CO2 would be +3C?

Temperature increase is absolutely not compounding over time, as it would in your theory.

You're really far off here bud, and I still don't understand how you're putting together these nonsensical claims. I wasn't saying that the rate of change would compound, I was pointing out that the observed rate of change was higher over the last few decades compared to previous decades, at the same time that CO2 levels are reaching record highs and increasing more rapidly than ever. I pointed this out because what started this whole conversation was your incorrect claim that there is no causal relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature.

In fact there was a measured decrease in temperature for about 15 years since 1997.

1997 wasn't even a particularly warm year. 1998 was, though. In fact, it broke the previous record that was set in 1990. But then next year, 1999 broke that record by a significant margin. The outlier that was 1999 didn't have its record handily broken for about 15 years, but it was broken in several years during that interval . And no, there wasn't a "measured decrease in temperature".

Bullshit. That is simply not true. Every single global warming estimate that has come to pass has over estimated. Every. Single. One. Yet it doesn't faze you sheep one iota.

Anyone can point to alarmist predictions that weren't based on science that of course didn't come true, but if you believe there isn't a wide body of climate science based in real data and detailed models that come up with reasonable predictions, it's just because you've chosen not to familiarize yourself with it.

Do you know what the most authoritative org in this space is? The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, or IPCC. They were formed about 30 years ago, and over the course of several years they analyze all the latest available data and science to compile an "Assessment Report". And so far their future predictions have been pretty accurate. For instance in the 2000s they estimated that we'd average about +0.2C per decade for the next 2 decades. As of 2020 we are averaging...slightly over +0.2C per decade.

If you want to see what the actual state of the science is, check out the AR5 Technical Summary. It's way more detailed than the Policymakers Summary, but it's still fairly accessible to those that aren't professional climate scientists but still want to understand what the state of the science is.

[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, we've seen this establishment wall of text conceptual copy pasta before. This is why people think you're a shill, Fedi.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

The top 1% is quite a lot of people, 70 million plus.

Many people posting here, middle class people who live in the west, will be in that top 1%.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is correct, and that's part of the problem. Although it's not really a problem you can solve at the individual levels. You need to countries of the world to come together and agree to do something about it.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Is a problem of environment as well. You are comparing cold counties where people need heating to survive and lights most of the time to work in the winter to countries with warm temperatures which can get most of the energy they need from the sun with the right investment.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

BuT iTs tHe JeWs!

[–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Matthew Principal. The top 1% pay x huge amount in taxes. The bottom half of crawfish by size don't blah blah blah

[–]RuckFeddit 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I just looked this up and this is an economic study with no economic references, it's literally based on the bible and sociology/psychology professors. Can you post a reference to an economist's opinion of the Matthew Principle?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Dude, if it's in the Bible it's obviously true. 😶

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Don't go all "trump got elected, I'm literally shaking" on me. It's not discussed in econ 101 but it isn't a secret either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

top 1% pay nothing and in fact get money from the govt in form of bailouts

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That's a good counterbalance to the top 1% paying x huge share of y tax. Surely there must be some 'effective tax rate' studies for that cohort that do things like discount "non-profit" "charitable" givings, etc ?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

90%. like in our best economy ever.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    so is high taxes on the rich only good when we have majority white, gotta cut taxes on the rich to 0 since we have 13% blacks and the rich are all jews?

    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]SaidOverRed 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      This... is probably the most rational explanation I've seen for national socialism. I'd heard it before, but putting it more clearly in prereq / competitive terms makes the most sense.

      I think you're right that homogeneity provides the ceiling that the social economics can comfortably fit under. Unfortunately, not only has the tide of social policies gotten higher and higher, we are well past the point of comfort on the ceiling too. Conservatives would prefer high ceilings and low tide (so there is less possibility for mud and waste), but we can respectfully go back and forth with our neighbors about what the right level should be.

      Unfortunately respectful disagreement is exactly what we've lost be trying to play the game of 'I'm not a bigot' limbo everyone is facing. It's not just cancel culture against both of us, they are going after the moderates just like they've been going after their own. But if you speak up and explain to a large community that fled the leftism that they should do some self-examination of their own leftism, they rage like I've never seen before.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      raise taxes on the rich, fuck em. lame weak excuses.