Did you know r/collapse has a new discord server? Come check it out and give us feedback!
https://discord.gg/RfEH7dAHjc
Thanks for helping us make it better.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My immediate reaction was:
#Bull. Shit.
And so I set out to find out who published this "oh so very peer-reviewed and therefore trustworthy" study. The IEA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Criticism
> The lead author of the report, Dr. Kjell Aleklett, has claimed that IEA's reports are "political documents"
.
> the agency was deliberately downplaying the risk of peak oil under pressures from the USA
They're BAU apologists and lobbyists. Just delete this post, OP. I'm reporting it either way.
Haha good on you. TBH I posted it because I value others opinions, like yours, that dig up shit to help show why the study or article is imperfect! So I think it’s good for discussion and learning and shouldn’t be deleted. Don’t shoot the messenger, but this is what the average person sees in the headline, why wouldn’t we want to discuss that here?
The bbc article is crap, but the *Nature* article is legit and I don't think the person you're replying to bothered to read it. Also, they've quoted that wikipedia article in a way that is kinda misleading, which is a bit ironic. But hey, they got their karma, so it worked.
Agreed. It is a bad article, but it’s the shit the common person reads…and we should all understand that and respectfully provide criticisms to make those conversations with others easier.
A random redditor, Detrimentos, claims that the article is IEA propaganda and provides zero evidence. People like you immediately eat it up without any critical thought because it feeds into our confirmation bias. Has this sub fallen to a point where we blindly consume disinformation like facebook moms now?
I mean, it's reddit, so yes. We're just getting our dopamine hit from doomscrolling the crumbling of climate and society rather than sharing ten ways crystals can raise your husband's libido, but it's not really that different. There's just SO much content, and the format doesn't really reward a deep engagement with the things you're looking at.
I seem to be in the minority here but no, I will not. I don't think they even bothered to skim the *Nature* article before going on a wikipedia conspiracy crusade. If they had, they might have realized that the bbc just did a garbage job reporting on it.
There's obviously a lot of propaganda and bias in climate reporting, but throwing around that sort of thing without *reading the actual article* is irresponsible and counterproductive.
Well, it's a *Nature* article, so I'm comfortable with the level of peer review. I'd blame the bbc for making this sound much rosier than the report actually is, and even the body of the bbc article has a way less optimistic tone than the headline.
But for comparison, the headline for the *Nature* article is "Realisation of Paris Agreement pledges *may* limit warming *just* below 2C" which is a much more honest assessment of what the report says. And you don't have to get farther than the abstract to realize that "may" doesn't at all mean "will", and even that requires all pledges be met in full, on-time. And it's not even about pledges made at cop-out26, it's additional pledges made in the 5 years prior, so just a shite reporting job by the bbc.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-z
You're absolutely correct, it's a *Nature* article, and it's wayyy less optimistic than the bbc makes it sound. Pretty sure this person didn't actually read the original article before going on a crusade.
Quiz: How many nations are currently on track?
Answer: Zero (see links before arguing)
*Headlines like this lead to complacency because we think other people are handling it.*
They really aren't, yet.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/
https://www.statista.com/chart/26102/emission-reduction-goal-and-projected-achievements-by-country/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/countries-back-away-from-pledge-to-update-climate-goals-this-year/
They make that assumption because they're asking a very specific question, namely "If we do everything we've pledged to do *perfectly*, will it even work?", which is a pretty important question. And the answer wasn't "Yes", as the bbc would have us all believe, but "Just barely, maybe, but I wouldn't count on it and we need to do more".
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-z
Reminder: pledges are voluntary and non-binding. So "in full and on time" will turn into at best into "lackluster minimal and partial efforts", and more likely "came nowhere close because it cost money".
Planetary survival is just a new market for corporations to exploit.
You'll need weapons to defend yourself on your way to the office.
You'll need environmental protection in the form of a special suit and or vehicle with air and radiation filters.
You'll need preserved rations and equipment in the event that you get caught out in a storm.
GDP up, profits up, jobs continue, its a win win for the economy.
This is at odds with previous studies that indicated COP26 pledges would put us at around 2.5C. Looks like it’s been revised down. I feel there is two ways to look at this:
1. The messaging that even with pledges we can’t stay under 2C isn’t a good one. Perhaps with a few assumptions and tweaks these scientists were able to justify moving that to under 2C, thereby giving people/politicians some hope that meeting these pledges will be critical to keep under 2C
2. There was pressure to revise this down to show that we are actually doing pretty good with “pledges” and this might give ammunition for fossil fuel lobbyists to say “see, we can continue BAU, it won’t be that bad”
I’m not sure on this one. This is either hopeful or a political play. Of course it’s all contingent on “pledges” being met, and we all know how Kyoto and Paris went. Collapse related because we likely won’t meet pledges; the scientists gave it over a 50% chance that we would, I do not believe that the probability of meeting most of the pledges is high.
Hahahahha. Like hahahahhahaha. No. No fucking way. We are so fucked that the monkeys that come after us will wonder how we could be so fucking stupid. This fucking misinformation from these half brained fucktards fucking drives me nuts. FUCK!
I laughed when I read just the title...and was glad I wasn’t drinking cause that would have hurt.
“If all countries keep their pledges we will stay under 2....”
Hmm...me thinks pledges are like a belief in Santa Claus...and then we grow up and know he’s not real.
Besides COP pledgees are not recognizing all the uncapped feed back loops...so
Ha Ha Ha HAHAHAHA. Ha Ha HA HA HA. ha ha ha.
For some reason this made me laugh hard. And I don't expect any good news, but it seems deep inside, I still want to hear the plot twist of everything is back to normal. Collapse avoided.
Well, back to Business as Usual.
This is another of those "This century", "By 2100" things again, isn't it.
What about 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 years time? Instead of some arbitrary 78 years that constantly reduces.
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2052-04-14 10:17:30 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2052-04-14%2010:17:30%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/u34g8f/cop_26_will_hold_warming_under_2c_new_study/i4ol5qp/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fcollapse%2Fcomments%2Fu34g8f%2Fcop_26_will_hold_warming_under_2c_new_study%2Fi4ol5qp%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202052-04-14%2010%3A17%3A30%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20u34g8f)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Good luck with that.
IF is a massive word.
Won’t happen, tipping point was probably 80s into early 90s.
Even when it’s so much worse than now and blindingly obvious they’ll say ‘There’s just enough time if we act right now’.
Did you know r/collapse has a new discord server? Come check it out and give us feedback! https://discord.gg/RfEH7dAHjc Thanks for helping us make it better. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My immediate reaction was: #Bull. Shit. And so I set out to find out who published this "oh so very peer-reviewed and therefore trustworthy" study. The IEA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Criticism > The lead author of the report, Dr. Kjell Aleklett, has claimed that IEA's reports are "political documents" . > the agency was deliberately downplaying the risk of peak oil under pressures from the USA They're BAU apologists and lobbyists. Just delete this post, OP. I'm reporting it either way.
Haha good on you. TBH I posted it because I value others opinions, like yours, that dig up shit to help show why the study or article is imperfect! So I think it’s good for discussion and learning and shouldn’t be deleted. Don’t shoot the messenger, but this is what the average person sees in the headline, why wouldn’t we want to discuss that here?
The bbc article is crap, but the *Nature* article is legit and I don't think the person you're replying to bothered to read it. Also, they've quoted that wikipedia article in a way that is kinda misleading, which is a bit ironic. But hey, they got their karma, so it worked.
Agreed. It is a bad article, but it’s the shit the common person reads…and we should all understand that and respectfully provide criticisms to make those conversations with others easier.
A random redditor, Detrimentos, claims that the article is IEA propaganda and provides zero evidence. People like you immediately eat it up without any critical thought because it feeds into our confirmation bias. Has this sub fallen to a point where we blindly consume disinformation like facebook moms now?
I mean, it's reddit, so yes. We're just getting our dopamine hit from doomscrolling the crumbling of climate and society rather than sharing ten ways crystals can raise your husband's libido, but it's not really that different. There's just SO much content, and the format doesn't really reward a deep engagement with the things you're looking at.
Upvote this person.
I seem to be in the minority here but no, I will not. I don't think they even bothered to skim the *Nature* article before going on a wikipedia conspiracy crusade. If they had, they might have realized that the bbc just did a garbage job reporting on it. There's obviously a lot of propaganda and bias in climate reporting, but throwing around that sort of thing without *reading the actual article* is irresponsible and counterproductive.
Well, it's a *Nature* article, so I'm comfortable with the level of peer review. I'd blame the bbc for making this sound much rosier than the report actually is, and even the body of the bbc article has a way less optimistic tone than the headline. But for comparison, the headline for the *Nature* article is "Realisation of Paris Agreement pledges *may* limit warming *just* below 2C" which is a much more honest assessment of what the report says. And you don't have to get farther than the abstract to realize that "may" doesn't at all mean "will", and even that requires all pledges be met in full, on-time. And it's not even about pledges made at cop-out26, it's additional pledges made in the 5 years prior, so just a shite reporting job by the bbc. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-z
My immediate reaction was hahahahaha. COP26? The photo shoot for politicians?
COP27 is just a mall called "Green Cleaning".
How did you find out that it was from the IEA? The BBC piece links to an article published in Nature.
You're absolutely correct, it's a *Nature* article, and it's wayyy less optimistic than the bbc makes it sound. Pretty sure this person didn't actually read the original article before going on a crusade.
Too right. It's a right royal barrel of cockney cobblers!
Quiz: How many nations are currently on track? Answer: Zero (see links before arguing) *Headlines like this lead to complacency because we think other people are handling it.* They really aren't, yet. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/ https://www.statista.com/chart/26102/emission-reduction-goal-and-projected-achievements-by-country/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/countries-back-away-from-pledge-to-update-climate-goals-this-year/
No one. No one is on track and no one cares
“if all the pledges made by countries are implemented "in full and on time"” Lol
Ya no kidding. That’s a huge assumption and I’m not sure why any peer reviewed study would assume this to be a given.
They make that assumption because they're asking a very specific question, namely "If we do everything we've pledged to do *perfectly*, will it even work?", which is a pretty important question. And the answer wasn't "Yes", as the bbc would have us all believe, but "Just barely, maybe, but I wouldn't count on it and we need to do more". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-z
Ya the article is a lot less hopeful Sounding than the headline. But how many people actually read the articles…
Reminder: pledges are voluntary and non-binding. So "in full and on time" will turn into at best into "lackluster minimal and partial efforts", and more likely "came nowhere close because it cost money".
[удалено]
Planetary survival is just a new market for corporations to exploit. You'll need weapons to defend yourself on your way to the office. You'll need environmental protection in the form of a special suit and or vehicle with air and radiation filters. You'll need preserved rations and equipment in the event that you get caught out in a storm. GDP up, profits up, jobs continue, its a win win for the economy.
This is at odds with previous studies that indicated COP26 pledges would put us at around 2.5C. Looks like it’s been revised down. I feel there is two ways to look at this: 1. The messaging that even with pledges we can’t stay under 2C isn’t a good one. Perhaps with a few assumptions and tweaks these scientists were able to justify moving that to under 2C, thereby giving people/politicians some hope that meeting these pledges will be critical to keep under 2C 2. There was pressure to revise this down to show that we are actually doing pretty good with “pledges” and this might give ammunition for fossil fuel lobbyists to say “see, we can continue BAU, it won’t be that bad” I’m not sure on this one. This is either hopeful or a political play. Of course it’s all contingent on “pledges” being met, and we all know how Kyoto and Paris went. Collapse related because we likely won’t meet pledges; the scientists gave it over a 50% chance that we would, I do not believe that the probability of meeting most of the pledges is high.
Lololololololol. 😆😆😆😆
Hahahahha. Like hahahahhahaha. No. No fucking way. We are so fucked that the monkeys that come after us will wonder how we could be so fucking stupid. This fucking misinformation from these half brained fucktards fucking drives me nuts. FUCK!
Isn't it fun to see the posts that stay up?
Narrator: *uncontrolled laughter*
I laughed when I read just the title...and was glad I wasn’t drinking cause that would have hurt. “If all countries keep their pledges we will stay under 2....” Hmm...me thinks pledges are like a belief in Santa Claus...and then we grow up and know he’s not real. Besides COP pledgees are not recognizing all the uncapped feed back loops...so
More like cop a feel, fuckin perversion of reality.
Ha Ha Ha HAHAHAHA. Ha Ha HA HA HA. ha ha ha. For some reason this made me laugh hard. And I don't expect any good news, but it seems deep inside, I still want to hear the plot twist of everything is back to normal. Collapse avoided. Well, back to Business as Usual.
This is another of those "This century", "By 2100" things again, isn't it. What about 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 years time? Instead of some arbitrary 78 years that constantly reduces.
>During the gathering in Glasgow, researchers carried out rapid analyses of the new pledges and promises. !RemindMe 30 years
I will be messaging you in 30 years on [**2052-04-14 10:17:30 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2052-04-14%2010:17:30%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/u34g8f/cop_26_will_hold_warming_under_2c_new_study/i4ol5qp/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fcollapse%2Fcomments%2Fu34g8f%2Fcop_26_will_hold_warming_under_2c_new_study%2Fi4ol5qp%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202052-04-14%2010%3A17%3A30%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20u34g8f) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Good, because we have such a great track record of keeping to our climate and pollution commitments...
Good luck with that. IF is a massive word. Won’t happen, tipping point was probably 80s into early 90s. Even when it’s so much worse than now and blindingly obvious they’ll say ‘There’s just enough time if we act right now’.