New record set for world's hottest day - as scientist warns milestone is a 'death sentence'

au.news.yahoo.com New record set for world's hottest day - as scientist warns milestone is a 'death sentence'

The world has experienced its hottest day on record, according to meteorologists. The average global temperature reached 17.01C (62.62F) on Monday, according to the US National Centres for Environmental Prediction. It comes as the southern US and China have been hit by heatwaves, while temperature...

The world has experienced its hottest day on record, according to meteorologists.

The average global temperature reached 17.01C (62.62F) on Monday, according to the US National Centres for Environmental Prediction.

The figure surpasses the previous record of 16.92C (62.46F) - set back in August 2016.

You're viewing a single thread.

444 comments

Every person living in a democracy can make a difference with their VOTE. Only vote for people who have plans and intentions of bringing change. Vote at all levels, and vote whenever you get an opportunity. Ask what candidates in municipal elections think about the climate emergency. Organize. Talk to doubters. We can do this.
- If voting worked, we would have solved this issue decades ago. You can vote for whomever you want, but at the end, no matter what they promise, they always end up doing nothing at all, because they are elected by using big oil donations.
  Only a self-organized revolution can stop this madness, people in some nations are already blocking oil tankers and oil rigs. We can't win by only voting, you can vote for a day every few years, but we need to fight this everyday. Take turns blocking streets so no oil driven trucks and cars pass, only this will make an effect.
  
  The idea that nonviolent protest works has been the most harmful idea in history
  
  I mean nonviolent protests DO work.
  Non-disruptive DOES NOT work though.
  MLK Jr didn't peacefully sit in a park. They ran boycotts, sit ins, shut down streets, trespassed into white only areas, and drove businesses insane.
  If MLK Jr was your enemy you were going to have a miserable time when he rolled into town.
  Ghandi had people illegally burn documents and basically smuggled salt against all regulations.
  
  MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said "pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness." A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot.
  
  That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense.
  Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged.
  
  See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect.
  
  I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal.
  
  Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man.
  
  Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder.
  
  But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it.
  Surely they teach this distinction in military training?
  
  No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all.
  
  I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder.
  
  That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man.
  
  What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself.
  I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops.
  It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes.
  
  I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls.
  Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation?
  
  Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person.
  
  Oh yeah? Tell that to Gandhi
  
  You are aware that besides Gandhi there was a lot of violent protest?
  Only violent protest makes the demands of the nonviolent acceptable to the ruling class. Without a violent part of a movement, the demands of the nonviolent are always ignored. Which is perfectly logical, because why accept the demands of someone you can ignore without consequences.
  
  Disruption can be non violent
  
  Gandhi was a UK agent and delayed Indian independence by decades. Also he was a pedophile.
  
  Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed
  
  Yup, the only real revolution is a violent revolution.
  
  Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don't confuse the two.
  
  George Jackson would disagree.
  
  And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee.
  
  You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be...
  
  Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution would suggest otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
  
  Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option.
  But I don’t think we have that much time
  
  How much time do you think we have?
  
  In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal"
  Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years
  
  Sounds like history as usual then.
  The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening.
  Personally I’m most worried about starting a family.
  
  And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won't be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry
  
  We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out.
  However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities.
  The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action.
  As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here.
  
  So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry
  
  Both. We need both. Voting matters. Grassroots organization matters. Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy. It is also absolutely not the time to give up on mass organizing at the grassroots. Both, we need both.
  
  Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy.
  No one wants to give up democracy, we just recognize that liberal bourgeois democracy only serves to create an illusion of democratic voice. The only interests taken into account in the so-called modern "democracies" are those of capital, and that is no democracy at all.> Now is absolutely not the time to give up on democracy.
  
  We need direct democracy. What we live in is no democracy at all, they choose for us and then we just pick the worst of two evils.
  
  How the heck do you organize that as quickly and at as large of a scale as is needed for it to have a good chance of working out? ~Strawberry
  
  I don't mean to be a doomer but we can't. We're passed the point of no return. The best we can do is organize so that we can reduce the amount of death from here on out.
  
  I mean working out as in making sure it doesn't get a significant degree worse than it already is? I know we've already passed the point where we can avoid any damage. ~Strawberry
  
  I think it would require some extreme changes to the oil, industry amongst other things. We'd also have to be vigilant that those changes don't disproportionately affect the global south.
  
  Any idea what changes would be needed and what would be required to actually get those implemented? ~Strawberry
  
  I don't know everything we need to do, and/or by what means. I would like to think it can be all done peacefully but we have seen how oil executives will fight tooth and nail to keep their quarterly profit report line going up; so that may not be a viable way. We could all practice consuming less and reevaluating our lifestyles. Putting more thought into whether we really need to consume as much as we do is a good example.
  
  By starting early enough and being persistent. It will take time, but we had this issues for decades and we will have it for decades more. Best time to start a revolution is yesterday, second best is today.
- Honestly voting now is to little too late. The Overton window isn't anywhere near the point of allowing actually meaningful change and the 4-5 year cycle of voting is too slow. If we really want to solve anything, the change should be systemic. Still, voting is important.
  
  Of course voting alone won't do it. We need a lot more. Holding billionaires to account will go a long way as well.
- I think its a statistical loss if we rely on denocracy. The stupid far outnumber the rational.
  
  And the greedy outnumber us both. As long as these companies are lining politicians pockets, they will only act like they're trying.
  
  The "momentarily-embarrassed millionaires" don't help, either.
  
  I think you guys are onto something here! Democracy is not going to work because everyone outside your circle is either evil or stupid. And given you’re saving all of humanity from the thermoapocapypse, it is your mission to destroy democracy and seize control of power! (for the greater good of course not because you’re stupid and evil, because everyone else is stupid and evil and you’re doing it for their own good).
  
  Relying on democracy without participating in democracy is the only way to fail democracy.
  
  You may be underestimating how many stupid people there are.
  
  You may be overestimating the degree to which judging people who disagree with you as stupid grants you license to disenfranchise them.
- Sadly no, show me a political party that the us, china or India could realistically vote for that would substantially reduce emissions in the next 10 years
  
  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/
  
  Now let's see them actually do it, and hold the fascist scumbags trying to do a coup and commit genocide against trans people accountable in a court of law for that matter. ~Strawberry
  
  It can and will. We need to get a bigger majority of political reps to really get everything rolling.
  
  And how do we do that? And didn't the dems already have a majority in congress before the mid-terms? I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but if they did, why didn't they shut down the anti-trans bills then? ~Strawberry
  
  There's a LOT of fascists, so it's going to be a battle. I don't know how anyone can stop the RW from trying to push through bigot legislation other than keeping enough good people in a position to block and building on it. No giving up!
  
  I just wish we could actually get good things to happen, rather than just stop bad things from happening at best, and even then often only temporarily or partially. ~Strawberry
  
  So do I. The fascist RW are a scourge.
- Individual action also works. Its pretty easy to get information about what you can do and show those less inclined that it's not hell to live on the other side. The IPCC has that part as well if anyone is looking for the impact their changes can have: https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-what-does-the-ipcc-mean-by-choice-architecture-and-can-it-change-our-behaviour-12582739
  
  Great link. Thank you!
- Unfortunately, voting doesn't help. Besides there being basically no parties with any real strong climate policies, when you vote a decent sounding one in, they just go back on their promises anyway.
  And even IF we vote in a party that truly brings about radical and positive climate change policies, that's just our one country, a drop in the ocean. The rest of the planet would still drag us down with them, even in that wildly positive scenario.
  I don't mean to be a doomsayer, I just don't see a way out, I wish I did. Voting certainly doesn't solve our problems, climate change or otherwise. The rich ruling class will do whatever they want, regardless.
  
  You're incorrect. Giving up isn't an option.
- Absolute rubbish. People believing that their vote will bring change ensures climate disaster. The system is rigged and if you agree to participate in the system you are part of the problem. Thinking voting can have any meaningful impact highlights that you are unaware of how serious the situation is.
  
  Just want to join your downvotes by backing you up and saying you are right. Belief in the system and that voting is the answer is downright absurd at this point.

444 comments