People in the climate movement are rarely professional PR folks. Weaponizing their personal faults against the objective subject matter they talk about is disingenuous anyway?
You cannot deduce factual correctness from how "holy" the messenger is.
It maybe would, if people were to read it in the first place.
But they don't: they go to the comments here first and try to get the gist of reactions, in order to save themselves the time to actually read the piece.
You pretend, it wasn't trivial for people to scroll down to the graph. Such things aren't the issue at all.
The reactions you cause with your comment above are.
You're right about the general sentiment acknowledging the seriousness only when you look at the center and left of society. The majority in the US however supports or tolerates the actual political decisions made, contradicting that level of importance.
When you paint people as being "disallowed" from more radical actions, the same question of true importance arises? The current trajectory leads to Armageddon, plain and simple.
My point here thus is about the proper scale on which people place the topic.
It's not a "lifestyle choice" to doom humanity's children to ruin.
Placing responsibility with the irresponsible is a cop-out.
The El Niño reading there corresponds with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapsing.
The result of such a collapse is a complete upheaval of global climate patterns, destroying agricultural production on a civilization-ending scale.
Generally, the actual seriousness of these things is so out of proportions for normal people, they have great difficulty appreciating it properly. Taking their hunches from public postures and stances assumed by "authority" figures on the matter doesn't help.
The economic system itself is incompatible with the physical reality of a finite planet.
The ones steering society choose to crash and ruin everything rather than to jeopardize their positions in power.
That obvious failure in morals and ethics, basic principles of adult responsibility really, is made possible by a lack of rational reflection in the populace.
Objective truth has to take precedence over subjective desires when it comes to existential questions. Currently it does not.
People here are missing that they're not dismantling random things. There is a system to it, the objective of which is far more sinister than mere ideology.
The sensors in question here are crucial to monitor the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
They don't want that monitored because it is currently breaking down.
Not some arbitrary far away time, now.
The science of this gets astroturfed into some nonsense "we don't really know". We do.
But conveniently, now the data to show this to the incredulous won't exist.
You consistently try to re-frame the matter in a factually incorrect way.
While average individuals do have responsibility, theirs is many orders of magnitude smaller. Not only from their personal impact being comparatively minuscule, but because their objective possibilities to make substantial changes is negligible.
It's not "a matter of how you choose the percentage": the distribution is as it is, a "hockey stick" shape. The numbers just help to understand that.
Western people are far from being uniform in their wealth. While generally certainly substantially richer than other parts of the world, their societies nonetheless are wildly uneven in their wealth-distribution. You might want to look at actual data on the subject, your intuition is way off.
You're right on principle in that collective action is needed. But the reality of the matter is, collective action in western societies is captured by the rich. They control the media, the purse and the government effectively.
Your simplistic take is fundamentally wrong. It would take someone in the bottom 99% of the world's population more than 1,500 years to match the personal lifetime carbon footprint of a billionaire.
People in the top 1% can be attributed with 25% of emissions when you take their investments into account also.
But most importantly, they are the ones who actually "steer the boat". They are responsible for the utter lack of proper action against the pollution.
Your "arguments" are precisely the deflection they employ to steer public attention away from them. Notice the utter absurdity of asking the bottom 99% of humanity to take responsibility for what they have absolutely no control over.
Them becoming carbonless would already cut 16.5% of emissions. Together with their investments they are responsible for 25% of emissions.
But more importantly, the reason nothing is happening to cut the systemic reasons for the pollution is due to them.
You present a straw man when you point at simplistic nonsense like "energy is useful". There is no dichotomy "either carbon pollution or we sit in caves". You argue from ignorance.
The impact an individual has on carbon emissions is directly correlated with their wealth. The distribution of which is extremely uneven: as of 2024, the top 1% worldwide possessed as much as the lower 95% combined, 57 trillion US$. That has gotten only worse in the last two years.
It's not about "bad habits", impulse control or whatever, at all.
The idea of average individuals being the relevant actors in global carbon emissions is pure misdirection. They're not, it's systemic with industry being the main culprit and the rich being the ones who benefit from that socialization of pollution costs.
The AMOC shutdown isn't merely "possible" and due "this century" either. The math of the dynamics of complex systems shows the current behavior to be signs of a phase transition in the process of happening. The speed of that shutdown isn't "decades" either, it's more likely just years.
The voices of "experts" telling you it was all some incomprehensible conundrum should deeply worry you. They're either not being honest or they're no experts.
The "shill" phenomenon goes much further than ignorant laypeople.
The AMOC shutdown isn't merely "possible" and due "this century". The math of the dynamics of complex systems shows the current behavior to be signs of a phase transition in the process of happening. The speed of that shutdown isn't "decades" either, it's more likely just years.
The voices of "experts" telling you it was all some incomprehensible conundrum should deeply worry you. They're either not being honest or they're no experts.
American models are restricted from telling you inconvenient truths just as much, you just erroneously assume to know what those truths are in the first place.
Which is of course circular thinking: why would they restrict things you already know about? Why would they do it in such a clumsy and obvious way?
Look at MKULTRA, you know next to nothing about it and much less do you know what they do in that direction now.
For a current psyops, look at www.war.gov/UFO/ and marvel at how they tell you nothing, reinforcing your false belief to already know everything.
There is much more and you know much less about it.
Parachutes don't repeat their motions exactly. This here is a caustic reflection and it does when the object re-assumes the same relative position.
Military aircraft IR systems don't have lenses, so there is no lens flare. The bloom pattern of the "star object" also tells you as much. That's an IR laser aimed at the FLIR pod.
When you concur this is BH, the trail being white means it is below the detection range. That's usually -60°C for the sky. When that trail "cools rapidly", that would mean it had to radiate strongly, which would obviously be visible here. It's also very unusual for such a "smoke trail" to cool below ambient temperatures (that sky, which isn't white).
That trail also obviously tracks the movement of the object. Which should tell you, it cannot possibly be "a flare". The most likely explanation is an infra-red laser aimed at the FLIR pod, screening the actual vehicle responsible.
You cannot deduce factual correctness from how "holy" the messenger is.