Thanks for this!! Really appreciated.
I’m not an expert on it but isn’t it also BS that they can stick a number of degrees they can lower the temperature by lowering carbon outputs?
Always wondered why nobody can give some good numbers without falling in the “it’s the science” narrative.
I’m definitely not a denier of climate change (that has always happened over the past thousands of years). But I’m convinced this is all for a very big part a marketing stunt to get a lot of money.
Well the so called +1.5 degrees per year number they are talking about is a collective measure of the global average temperature increase. Local fluctuations can be of course much stronger. This is the science part. Now comes the politics. It is convenient to explain the politicians what the situation is using a few number (I mean we all know most of them ain’t well educated anyways). The problem is rather what conclusions they draw from these numbers. It is not science‘s business to tell them what to do in my opinion, because sciences is about unclosing and explaining complex mechanisms, not about dictating people what to do.
Now the carbon stuff. It’s true that if you drastically reduce the CO2 output, the climate would change. The problem is, how are you gonna measure this? There’s not THE CO2 detector 😂 You can only do indirect measurements. So all these CO2 certificates for the industry is complete bullshit 😂
