Bernard Hickey and Cathrine Dyer talk about how climate sceptics amplify research that confirms their own biases into the mainstream and how Aotearoa-NZ's climate sceptics are changing
Yes, and one of them has just set the NZ Military down a path, lacking conscience, which pits New Zealand (in the eyes of the world) as just another country that puts trade ahead of a nation's right to a ceasefire. It also vastly increases the chance of a full scale Northern Hemisphere war, and frankly disgusts me. Oh, and by the way, encouraging war does less than nothing to halt the arms race, a big contributor to runaway climate.
My previous post was a bit full on. I appreciate this forum and find it difficult to explore the wider dimensions of this issue, so emotional the subject, even for scientists. The subject is my personal principal subject.
Among my first papers at uni were Climate, Energy & Resources, Environmental Impact of Humans, Cultural Geography, and Group Communications. This is in the early ‘80s at Santa Barbara, California which had experienced a major oil spill a decade prior. My career would be defined by the subjects.
The strongest evidence-based view I can offer at the close of COP28 & Davos-24 is that we are highly unlikely to solve our many global environmental and humanitarian crises, including climate change, if we do not address unfettered human population growth and an ever increasing and/or desired consumption based lifestyle, along with transition of our energy & resource systems (which are part of the consumption system). These three systems account for the majority of our current at risk planetary boundaries.
Challenging population means challenging religion. Challenging consumption means challenging long-lived growth economic models. We love a villain and we have one.
My daughter calls the class of persons who are described above ‘white Anglo-Saxon dinosaurs’.
Yes, and one of them has just set the NZ Military down a path, lacking conscience, which pits New Zealand (in the eyes of the world) as just another country that puts trade ahead of a nation's right to a ceasefire. It also vastly increases the chance of a full scale Northern Hemisphere war, and frankly disgusts me. Oh, and by the way, encouraging war does less than nothing to halt the arms race, a big contributor to runaway climate.
My previous post was a bit full on. I appreciate this forum and find it difficult to explore the wider dimensions of this issue, so emotional the subject, even for scientists. The subject is my personal principal subject.
Among my first papers at uni were Climate, Energy & Resources, Environmental Impact of Humans, Cultural Geography, and Group Communications. This is in the early ‘80s at Santa Barbara, California which had experienced a major oil spill a decade prior. My career would be defined by the subjects.
The strongest evidence-based view I can offer at the close of COP28 & Davos-24 is that we are highly unlikely to solve our many global environmental and humanitarian crises, including climate change, if we do not address unfettered human population growth and an ever increasing and/or desired consumption based lifestyle, along with transition of our energy & resource systems (which are part of the consumption system). These three systems account for the majority of our current at risk planetary boundaries.
Challenging population means challenging religion. Challenging consumption means challenging long-lived growth economic models. We love a villain and we have one.
Wonderful (albeit disturbing) insights _/\_
Thank you so much for such a concise and insightful analysis!