Just one more data center bro

“An important caveat, however, is that the acceleration may prove temporary,” said Beaulieu, who has published on the topic but was not involved in the new study. She added that the strong El Niño of 1998 also produced a period of apparent anomalous warming.

“The relative slowdown that followed was interpreted as evidence of a pause in global warming,” she said. “Continued monitoring over the next several years will be essential to determine whether the accelerated warming rate identified here represents a lasting shift or a transient feature of natural variability.”

It might be temporary. It might be transient. Then again, it might not be. We'd be taking a huge risk by proceeding on the assumption that it will only be temporary. If we're wrong the consequences could be severe. Maybe some people are willing to risk the future on hope, but I don't think that's a wise decision.

You ever hear the saying: hope for the best, prepare for the worst? We're not prepared. Not even close. It's true the worst case scenario isn't likely, but it is possible. And worse case, though not necessarily worst care scenarios are also possible, and more likely. We're not prepared for those either.

Not humanity. It's capitalism and its inherent incentive and demand for more and more profits/growth/consumption regardless of consequences ("externalities"). It's the rich and their extravagant lifestyles and the industries that they've forced upon us.

• https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/10/world-richest-used-fair-share-emissions-2026-oxfam
• https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime
• https://studyfinds.org/worlds-richest-destroying-the-planet/
• https://shunwaste.com/article/how-much-do-the-rich-pollute
• http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/whose-consumption-is-killing-the-planet
• http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/07/08/forget-shorter-showers-why-personal-change-does-not-equal-political-change
• http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

"Much of the response to the global climate catastrophe, in part caused by processes like clear cutting [of forests] and the overproduction of meat, has been individualized through a moralizing of consumer choice. At the grocery store, we are encouraged to bring reusable bags. We are shamed for plastic water bottles. None of these considerations hit at the point of production or social organization at large. It shies away from demanding why water might be bottled and sold, rather than made freely accessible in healthy ways. All of this moralizing operates under the false assumption that our individual choices have the power to shift the tide towards a greener future, without indicting the corporations and the states that support them for their massive projects of resource extraction and production of waste. Our individual buying habits don’t cause the desertification of the planet. Likewise, it is a fallacious argument to say that consumer demand creates these markets, since we are actually limited in our options of what we can buy, not only based on what we can afford but on the corporations’ ever-present interest of increasing profits to the detriment of any other consideration. We can make whatever choices we want at the supermarket without really making any significant change in the overall scheme of things. The effectiveness of boycotts relies on a mass demonstration of refusal, and that massive movement doesn’t currently exist." (from the book "Practical Anarchism: A Guide For Daily Life" by Shuli Branson)

"Many environmental groups argue for restrictions on population, air travel or general consumption, and a change in personal lifestyles. [..] Many proposals [..] involve encouraging ordinary people—who are already facing cuts in their living standards—to further tighten their belts or to spend time and money most of us don’t have to make a series of changes in our lifestyles while the life-destroying chaos of the market system rages around us unabated. An oft-repeated mantra is that the developing world cannot have the same standard of living as the developed if we are to make any progress in slowing down environmental degradation. [..] It is true that less developed countries of the South cannot emulate the consumer lifestyles and type of development of the North to which everyone, without a hint of irony, North and South, is nevertheless constantly taught to aspire. Further capitalist development of the North is quite enough to wreck the planet on its own; were the people of the southern hemisphere to join in and catch up, we would need the equivalent of five planets. The problem [..] is not economic growth per se or population growth, but profit-driven, unplanned growth that in many cases is either socially useless or actively detrimental to humans and the biosphere—the kind of growth that has brought us to the brink of social and ecological disaster. Development and growth must be fundamentally redefined to prioritize real human and ecological needs rather than the priorities of profit and the market." (from the book "Ecology And Socialism: Solutions To Capitalist Ecological Crisis" by Chris Williams:)

Big new WAR oughta help!

Are you sure guys? I think we should run this through some llm a couple thousand times to make sure

"But there's still time to address climate change before it gets too bad if we act now."

I didn't see it in this article, but about 90% of articles about climate change have something to that effect. Given that we are going the wrong fucking way, we aren't going to address this.

A lot of russian refineries and fuel depots have burned in the last few years, as well as a fully loaded LNG tanker.

DRILL BABY DRILL!

Can we give all research facilities a missile launcher? Like under the second ammendment. Their complaints go ignored by government too fucking much.

They trying to catch up after covid cooled thing down?

It’s looking like WW3 so …