Das ist halt der Brechmittel-Olaf. Der “ich Schlingel hab alles vergessen”-Olaf. Unser Gangster-Olaf aus ner ganz bösen 'hood.

Nein, ich sehe mich nicht als West-Deutscher, aber um ehrlich zu sein fühle ich mich nicht mal Deutsch, sondern einfach Mensch.

Allerdings kann ich sehen, dass es nach wie vor Unterschiede in jeweils Ost und West gibt. Ein klassisches Beispiel wäre die unterschiedliche Bezahlung bei gleicher Arbeit.

Hehe, ich kann das sogar. Aber dennoch ist doch wohl eine Reparatur Garantie besser, wir müssen ja nicht hin. Aber es gibt Menschen, die können das nicht und denen wäre geholfen.

Das ist toll! Aber weil du das jetzt kannst, sollte ich das auch können? Oder was möchtest du damit sagen?

Fear often sits behind anxiety, and there’s been growing attention to climate anxiety. We don’t see that climate anxiety is really widespread among populations, but it is higher among younger people. Often it motivates action. What we found was that there is a positive relationship between climate anxiety and taking action to tackle climate change. Fear can be a motivator in the same way that we were just saying about anger.

This could be interesting to be studied more. All too often I hear “we need to stay optimistic to act” and “doomerism leads to inaction” without anything to back that up.

Decades of optimism about climate change have lead to hardly any action.

Personally I believe the average person needs to worry much more than they do now. While more people know about human made climate change now, most of them do so only superficially and very optimistically.

I think we can use “will” or even “is going to” instead of “might” here without problem.

Also, I don’t wanna hear and don’t care anymore what nations pledge. If governments want my attention, they should deliver active plans and changes in the legislative, not hollow promises.

Now, what I don’t understand, maybe somebody can explain this to me: we are currently at 1.2 °C above the baseline. But several sources say that global dimming is currently cooling somewhat between 0.5 and 1 °C. In other words, if we stop all pollution today, we’d quickly face 1.7 to 2.2 °C above the baseline, so at least the 1.5 target would be already technically breached.

Now my question: Is global dimming modelled in any of these scenarios? Because I still see possible pathways just above 1.5. Or are they modelled but the plan is to reduce GHG but not the pollution that causes global dimming? That’s pretty much the only explanation that makes sense to me.

No

Yes, that could have been written. That there are some people who are readily throw humanity into the biggest crisis for their own profit.

The situation is very dire. There is hardly done anything to improve the situation and there are people who misinform and spread doubt. Scientists and activists get ridiculed and attacked.

That all can be written. I just don’t find the comparison to pre WW2 very matching.

It’s a human decision as it’s humans who can make this decision.

However it’s a decision that only a very small minority of humans can do, most of us have no say in this.

The article compares the years before WW2 to now. How England failed to properly judge the threat from Germany and didn’t get the army ready. As written in an essay by George Orwell. Compared to how we currently fail to realize the threat of climate change.

I don’t know, it doesn’t make much sense to me. Of course there are parallels, like inaction now means bigger problems in future. But that’s pretty much it. I don’t like to compare the climate crisis to war.

Nature isn’t fascist. Earth doesn’t arm up. Yes, disasters get stronger and more common. But this is no war. Nature isn’t expanding and invading neutral countries. We are not fighting and should not fight against our planet, instead we should learn how to live sustainable on it. The climate isn’t the aggressor, it’s simple reacting to our action. Nature doesn’t have ideals nor any agenda, it doesn’t have morality.

And again a very common thing: humanity should not be semantically separated from nature! The two aren’t opposing parties or something, we humans are part of environment, while being dependant on the environment. We can’t save or help environment, when we say so, we merely mean that we don’t harm it.

If we think nature is waging a war against us, we can only lose that war. We need to realize that we are a part of nature and that we harm nature and that we need to stop! We need to do the opposite than fighting, we need to stop destroying!

You mean the Pope who stood up so firmly against sexual abuse in his own house?

Dream on.

No, no, I’ve never said that. I am myself highly worried about many countries going further and further right.

I just thought that maybe there is a either European or international law that prohibits hindering people that help dying people. I’m pretty sure that there used to be a naval code, that sailors must help sailors.

I am not so crazy to think that it would have a high impact, but maybe Europe could threaten cutting financial aid or whatever.

But I see your point. With many countries going racist and with even a European border militia (Frontex), it’s probably only in the interest of Europe to look away.

Imagine a world, where one gets punished for helping dying people.

No need to imagine, we live in that world.

But isn’t there any European legislative that could overrule Italian’s racist government?

Do you have any numbers or studies to support your claim?

I hear that all the time. I am a doomer and long for meaningful action, even if it makes my life harder.

I don’t fly, hardly travel, live very simple without aircon or heating. Don’t eat much meat.

I would love to travel. I enjoy driving, I have a thing for combustion engines. I most times sit out the heat and don’t even turn on the fan. I like the taste of beef, yet never buy it. I do this despite me believing that it doesn’t make much of a difference and it will certainly not save me.

Some rich person will pollute all I save during my life within a few minutes.

For real change, I believe, it must come from politics, not individuals. And forget about company’s responsibility, they clearly don’t care.

I just don’t see this happening. That’s why I believe we won’t make it.

Yet, this realization has only made me restricting myself harder. Before I believed so, I lead a much more polluting way of life. “'Cause someone will figure it out”

I think like this: Knowing everyone must die one day, still in no way it justifies doing bad.

Und morgen im Bayrischen Rundfunk: Autofahren: “Ein Fehler kann tödlich sein!” Gefolgt am Mittwoch in unserem Mittwoch Spezial: Ausfüllen des Asylantrages: “Ein Fehler kann tödlich sein!”

Dass die Welt vom Axel Springer Verlag nicht neutral berichtet ist mir nicht neu. Da sind schon einige Dinge daneben in diesem Artikel!

Das Titel Bild ist natürlich auch top, da wird irgendein Nazi im Verlag gedacht haben, dass er besonders geschickt ist.

Der Anfang ist auch witzig:

Der erste ernstzunehmende Krieg des Jahrtausends wird weder durch Sanktionen noch mit Drohnen und Raketen entschieden.

Und später wieder:

Der erste ernstzunehmende Krieg des dritten Jahrtausends muss also am Boden ausgetragen werden

Afghanistan, Irak, Bürgerkriege in Syrien und Jemen, Rohingya und etliche weitere Kriege sind oder waren wohl alle nicht ernst zu nehmen!

Solche Angriffe auf städtische Ziele führen unweigerlich zu einem Medienecho von der Stärke eines Blitzkriegs.

Da haben wir aber eine schöne Nazi Anlehnung gefunden.

Bedauerlich war auch, dass die Ukrainer den Kampfwert der riesigen, 66 Tonnen schweren Leopard-Panzer, die sie von den Deutschen erbeten, ja erbettelt und schließlich praktisch eingefordert hatten, stark überschätzt hatten.

Was soll dieser Satz? Zeigen, dass die Ukrainer unfähig sind? Dass Deutsche zu weich sind? Ich weiß es nicht, aber ich finde die Formulierung sehr seltsam.

Es gibt also nur einen Weg nach vorn: den Krieg ernsthaft so zu führen, wie es sich für einen nationalen Befreiungskampf gehört.

Mussten die Soldaten, die bisher ihr Leben an der Front ließen sterben, weil sie den Krieg nicht ernst genug genommen haben? Der Autor scheint überhaupt zu wissen, welche Dinge ernstzunehmend sind und welche nicht.

Man, man, man! Immerhin hat man gleich einmal präventiv hinzugefügt, dass der Autor jüdische Eltern hat. Da kann also gar nichts Rechtes im Artikel sein!

Was für ein dämlicher Artikel!

One of the biggest obstacles to avoiding global climate breakdown is that so many people think there’s nothing we can do about it. They point out that record-breaking heat waves, fires, and storms are already devastating communities and economies throughout the world. And they’ve long been told that temperatures will keep rising for decades to come, no matter how many solar panels replace oil derricks or how many meat-eaters go vegetarian. No wonder they think we’re doomed.

I’m so tired of this bullshit. I am a doomer. I believe that our current society will collapse, rather sooner than later.

Why? Because the consensus is “we can still avoid the worst if we all come together now and work together!”. You mean like we did during the global pandemic? The opposite is happening, we are widening our differences and move apart. We fight each other in stupid wars.

I am a doomer. I live a simple life, choose not to fly for holidays, hardly ever drive and avoid things that I believe are bad for climate if I can. If governments would come together to tackle the issue of global warming, I would appreciate it. Even if I would get taxed harder. Or if my food gets rationed. Man, even if I would be called to voluntarily work on a solution. I am longing for action!

I tell you what is one of the biggest obstacles to avoiding climate breakdown: It’s the companies, that sow doubt in science. It’s politicians that divide the people. It’s the climate deniers, who don’t want action.

“Summed up, the industry’s treadmill is speeding up and this will make production growth more difficult than it was in the past,”

And I am darn happy about that! Still shamelessly talking about growth, that’s just crazy.

I want to know how climatologists recommend dealing with depression.

Since I read this more often recently: I don’t think the scientists are the right address for that. Scientists expertise is mostly factual, emotionless calculus and number evaluation. Some might deal with the same fears, just hiding them from the public.

Probably a scientist who has also expertise in psychology would do, though.

But ultimately, I think, the fear’s and depression’s origin comes from the knowledge that the way we live makes the situation only worse. So the only way to get rid of that conflict in the mind would be a meaningful change in the way we live. As that doesn’t seem happen, we can only work to deal with the situation.

Thank you! If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them. If I can’t answer, maybe somebody else can. I read a lot about these things, but I am no scientist or expert.

If you want to take an advise: try to ask differently. Maybe it takes more than a single sentence, maybe admit like “I don’t understand XY, can someone explain…” or something alike.

Your initial post and the second showed that you don’t know but at the same time sounded like you were having doubt in science or didn’t take it seriously. As there are plenty of people who doubt science but at the same time are not open to discussion, you might get down votes instead of answers.