“There’s no ambiguity about the data,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “So really, it’s a question of attribution.”
Understanding what specific physical processes are behind these temperature records will help scientists improve their climate models and better predict temperatures in the future.
This is not true.
Sorry, but you’ll need to bring evidence for that kind of statement
Like every scientific journal/report/study since back to 20 years ago? And since the current data is so much worse than original models, all of this below is understating the serverity.
Frankly I just think youre a troll, or head stuck in the ground not wanting to face reality.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426332/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426332/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna125187
The opposite is true. If you want to credibly assert that fossil fuel consumption at the point of extraction can be controlled by consumer behavior it is you who needs to bring evidence.
Even discounting that boycotts cannot work without accompanying violence.
When the plastics industry, an industry concerned with the mere byproducts of fossil fuel extraction, realized that public opinion was turning against their products, they created a multibillion dollar campaign to convince everyone that those plastics were fine and would be recycled even though the technology was never available or cost effective for large scale use and all that plastic waste was just getting dumped in landfills and shipped across the ocean to foreign landfills.
That misinformation was the accepted wisdom for thirty years.
That’s what the industry concerned with the unavoidable byproducts of extraction and refinement of fossil fuels did when everyone started to turn against them after literal decades of grassroots propaganda around litter.
They gaslit the world into believing that it was okay to use plastics for packaging because they could be recycled.
Even if you still believe that you and all your friends can change the course of the main event, the most powerful wealth extraction industry ever known in human history, and keep from being turned against each other, made into pariahs, expelled from society and keep the points of your own knives aimed away from yourselves simply by deciding not to buy fossil fuels, what do you think they’re gonna do?
They’ll just load em up in a tanker and send em over to a place where someone will.
And sell you plastic doodads that run on electricity that is still made by burning fossil fuels.
I don’t need to provide evidence that we can’t change the path of the extractive industries with boycotts, I’ve spent my whole life living in the outcome of that reality.
In short, you’re sealioning.
I don’t know what that means.
You made a claim, I said nuh uh, you said prove it, I said you ought to be proving your claim since the entirety of history about your claim in the broadest sense shows the opposite, in the specific sense you’re making it we have an example of your claim being wrong in our living memories and even if somehow your claim were actually true it wouldn’t lead to the result you try to show.
Put up or shut up. Explain how showing people around you that it’s possible to live without fossil fuels will change behavior in aggregate.
So you have no evidence for your position.
If it’s not clear that I have provided plenty of evidence:
You said
I said nuh uh, you said prove it and I said
I showed evidence that boycotts won’t work. Show me evidence that they will.
Yup, youre just a troll
So let’s summarize:
If you had evidence, you’d have shown it by now. But you don’t.
Except I already did provide evidance/links, never claimed you needed to provide evidance (though you never did provide any to back up your claims).
So yeah, above is wildly untrue.
Troll.