Personally I think if China and other AES states agree with this, we should join in as well. Right now I read these articles with healthy scepticism and I am curious on your views. These are the ones that I found interesting. Russia may present an alternate take this December, an interesting time to be alive.

https://techstartups.com/2023/08/31/over-1600-international-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-declaration-dismissed-the-existence-of-a-climate-crisis/

Edit: I shouldn’t have started with such a hollow article. The dismissal of increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts due to warming is not something I support. Here’s something better that shows that the current model fails to explain the strong cooling trend in the Southern Ocean and East Pacific.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

Take, for example, ocean warming. Despite criticisms from climate change skeptics, global climate models have accurately predicted rising average sea surface temperatures, which are extremely important to predicting the intensity of climate change. But observations in recent decades show that changes in sea surface temperatures vary greatly by region. That geographic variation suggests that end of century global warming may be less severe than most climate models suggest. These observations do not invalidate climate modeling, but they do highlight the importance of regular comparisons between climate models and the real-world observations they aspire to reflect.

She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article219438.html

^ Explains that the Russian Academy of Sciences has a different account on climate change that will be presented this year. The IPCC has a monopoly on climate science, the IPCC was founded by Thatcher as a reaction to striking coal workers and is a political organization.

https://www.voltairenet.org/article163379.html Ecology of war

https://www.voltairenet.org/article164791.html Market ecology

https://www.voltairenet.org/article164792.html Financial ecology

  • queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A cold climate petro state like Russia has a lot of incentives to present alternative explanations. They don’t want the world to burn less oil and could do with some more warm weather anyway.

    Also, are we really pretending the West actually bases policies on it’s own climate change science anyway? To present carbon as a conspiracy by the West would contradict the reality that the West continues to emit carbon.

    I’m skeptical.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A cold climate petro state like Russia has a lot of incentives to present alternative explanations. They don’t want the world to burn less oil and could do with some more warm weather anyway.

      Yeah, that’ why I am waiting for some confirmation.

      To present carbon as a conspiracy by the West would contradict the reality that the West continues to emit carbon.

      What’s the contradiction in that? They can emit CO2 while complaining about China doing the same.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        CO2 emissions as a greenhouse gas create a contradiction between immediate productivity and future productivity. Why would they promote a theory that would hurt economic productivity for an imaginary threat to future productivity? There’s no good reason to invent this theory from nothing when they could have invented a different theory that wouldn’t hurt their own ability to exploit natural resources and produce energy and burn fuel. They could have invented a different lie that wouldn’t hurt their own interests and vassals.

        It only makes sense as real science, because the West is being forced to reckon with a real threat to its own future.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          They can ignore it while telling other countries to deindustrialize (they already attacked China)

          Also deindustrialization happens under capitalism and it could be useful to justify it.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            -11 year ago

            How is it useful to justify their own de-industrialization though? To create dissent within their own carbon emitting empire?

            And if they can ignore dissent that is caused by the CO2 conspiracy, why not just ignore dissent caused by attacking China?

    • @TokenBoomer
      link
      11 year ago

      Yeah, climate change will open shipping ports in the Arctic for Russia. I think this is why Trump wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark. (Just a theory)

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        It’ll open a lot of Arctic drilling and mining and fishing opportunities too - I don’t think Russia wholly benefits, but they would be hurt less than almost everyone else which is almost the same thing.