• DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The thing that really gets me about these ignorant fuckers is it’s not just the indisputable math, it’s that we’ve observed the proof not just in our ecosystem, but on Venus. You can’t even pretend we don’t know how these systems work in at least a general sense.

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Because they never account for exponential consumption growth. It was “a few centuries” at current consumption.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    While kicking The can down the road, you come across a sign.

    BRIDGE OUT AHEAD

    What do you do?

    1. Continue kicking the can, I’m sure it’ll be fine.
    2. I don’t believe in bridges.
    3. Even if God let the bridge collapse, which he wouldn’t, I’ll go to heaven if I fall and die, so who cares?
    4. Pick up the can and go find a dumpster.
    5. There’s squirrels in my pants! Jump to safety!
  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Only one century has passed since then, so we’re still good. It’s pollutin’ time!

    • Dippy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Whenever I think about this article, I think about how they could not have possibly known how emissions would grow, and they were perfectly reasonable to frame it this way. And if things stayed at that rate, we would have been able to do something about it so easily when we started getting worried

    • xthexder
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      “large”… If only. Barely a drop in the bucket.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        This is actually a thought that some climate deniers have. “Climate change is a hoax to control you, covid was the trial run”.

        Unsurprisingly, the people who say that publicly tend to be funded by oil.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      At that level of co2 production, they were probably right about the timetable. What they couldn’t predict is that co2 production would rise so dramatically with automobiles and industry in the decades after that. They were at 7 billion tons a year then. We are over 36 billion tons a year now, over 5 times as much. That has clearly expedited the effects on the climate.

      • EddyBot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        What they couldn’t predict is that co2 production would rise so dramatically

        interestingly enough in the early 1900 there were more electric cars than ICEs in north america

  • micnd90 [he/him,any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 hours ago

    What’s funny about that newspaper excerpt is that it is word-for-word plagiarized from a picture caption in earlier article in Popular Mechanics, March 1912

    The reporter for Rodnen and Otamatea Times must’ve been on tight deadlines!

  • lenuup@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 hours ago

    just could not imagine the scale at which human civilization would escalate. Apart from that, spot on.