Japan Today
environment

Scientists join climate crisis fight

15 Comments
By Pauline CURTET

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


15 Comments
Login to comment

That's what you do if you actually believe in the urgency

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

In a way scientist in fields like climate, ecology, etc. are the ones that more clearly see the global effects of climate change and how dire the situation is going to be very soon. Seeing them so desperately looking for attention to the problem should be a wake up call for everybody.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I'm surprised there's only a handful considering there's a consensus

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I'm surprised there's only a handful considering there's a consensus

Maybe others consider their research a more productive way to change minds, or are contributing in a less visible way (talking with people that make decisions, educating young people at schools and universities, donating money to activist groups, etc.)

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I found it quite interesting how many scientists disagree with the fearmongering: https://climaterealism.com/

Not so interesting when the only evidence they provide is personal opinions, not actual scientific evidence in peer reviewed scientific articles as the standard of science is, which means they are not exactly the best the field has to offer. Making up invalid conclusions based on deeply flawed analysis of the data only helps showing their interest is not in actually finding out what is happening, just pushing what they want others to believe.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Maybe others consider their research a more productive way to change minds, or are contributing in a less visible way (talking with people that make decisions, educating young people at schools and universities, donating money to activist groups, etc.)

It's because there is no urgency, even/especially among governments.

Contrast that with the reactions of govts to covid, which was an actual urgency

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The climate warming is not the problem of the dwellers of the mountains, the shores or the deserts. It is the problem of all of humanity. When the temperature soars to 45, 50, 60, 80, 100 and 200 degrees Celsius, death will engulf the entire planet. It will be a hard, tormenting death, much more awful than a nuclear holocaust.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm not against a balanced approach towards green energy, but I am against draconian measures to attack it that cause human suffering. And I'm concerned that Big Science is cancelling and suppressing the data that does not align with the view they are pushing. I don't think they even fully understand the issue and yet they are calling for huge changes that will hurt many people. The example of Holland closing down dairy farms is one very pertinent example. There is an article on crev dot info entitled "Big science spreading climate disinformation" posted on July 30 that talks about this problem. This site finds what the scientists themselves are saying/writing and posts it so we can see it. It's interesting to see what some scientists, even supporters of climate change, are actually saying.

At the bottom of the article there is a list of other relevant articles to check. It's a tad long, but might be worth

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I found it quite interesting how many scientists disagree with the fearmongering:

https://climaterealism.com/

The above mentioned publication is a financed propaganda horn, aimed at promoting the destruction of the Earth and the annihilation of life.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Fear mongering on steroids!

What data do you have to refute the professionals conclusions?

Deaths caused by natural disasters have actually decreased in the last 80 years.

Decrease of deaths by advances in preparedness (warning systems, evacuation strageties, etc) is not an argument to say the natural disasters are not worse by themselves.

Do you have any source that makes a comparison in the last 80 yeas under the same preventive/mitigating conditions? because if not the conclusion you are making is not valid.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

In my opinion, a lot is being done in the battle to stop global warming. The problem is that what is being done is not yet sufficient to win the battle, and by that I mean that not only have we not reversed global warming, but we haven't even stopped it from getting worse every year.

Nevertheless, the rate of global warming is slowing down. I guess we have to take the good news where we can find it. The question then becomes, is the rate of slowing of global warming sufficient to prevent a runaway heating scenario? It is perhaps likely that nothing short of reversing global warming will preserve the climate that is beneficial to humanity.

I remember reading an analysis of the evolution of the atmosphere of Venus. By one account, when the Sun was 30% cooler, Venus had water oceans and water vapor clouds. In the space of just 200,000 years all the water was gone, and it was firmly on its way to becoming what we see today.

I suspect that Earth' atmosphere, in the event of a runaway warming event, would become sufficiently toxic to human life that we would stop our pollution, and the atmosphere would then self correct. Obviously, it would be preferable, from the viewpoint of humanity, if we could avoid a runaway heating event.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"As an ecologist, you just count deaths. You just count hectares of land burning. It is not possible, we need to stop it before our entire planet collapses."

That is just one opinion of an ecologist because everyone knows that in fact they do more than that. Only the radical ones spread this fear.

Fewer people die from natural disasters nowadays than decades before.

Things are getting better.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

That is just one opinion of an ecologist because everyone knows that in fact they do more than that.

It is not hard to understand this is how this expert feels about his work, why he choose to become an activist. and it is not "just" one opinion but precisely how this experts choose to represent his desperation on the lack of results of publishing his work.

Fewer people die from natural disasters nowadays than decades before.

Things are getting better.

Measures used against disasters are getting better, the disasters themselves not, the scientific consensus is that disasters will increase in frequency and intensity because of climate warming to a degree that can't be compensated by measures.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Unfortunately, in the real world one must work within the confines of the system to change said system. Even if that system is broken. Yelling and screaming isn't going to change the system, typically. A reasonable, defined, implementable step by step process is needed.

Perhaps they have not worked for long or has not tried to push any type of change through in a work environment from a non managerial position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites