/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10340826
>Well one problem is that your image shows the temperature from one ice core in Antarctica, not global temperature. If you look at reconstructions of global temperature you'll see that most of the warming follows the rise in CO2.

Citation definitely needed. Pic rel is a Vostok CO2 compared with a Benthic dO18 proxy that also shows temperature rise preceding CO2 rise.

>What agencies are you referring to?

They're nearly inumerable. As one example, pretty much anyone that is given money through the Green Climate Fund, especially the World Bank.

>>10340841
>How exactly is plastic floating in the ocean contributing to climate change?

The only time I mention "climate change" in my post is in the sentence:
>What I don't like is the idea that governments should be giving a bunch of money and power to international agencies who claim they will use their power to help the world fight climate change.
I avoid the phrase because I fins it very nebulous, as it focuses on global events, and misses important minor events. Obviously, the extinction of a single species isn't included in the term "climate change", yet is still very signifcant.
So plastic in the ocean isn't linked to many of the phenomena under the umbrella "climate change", but it still has negative effect on ocean life. Animals get tangled in plastic, it is as of right now non-biodegradable, and could have a myriad of negative effects that are unexplored.

>What makes you think their effects are more disastrous?

Because it is clear case of ecological destruction that could be stopped by regulating third-world countries more. The effects of emitting CO2 are obviously not directly apprehendable to the people emitting it, but deforestation and plastic pollution clearly are. You can easily see the change in a forest that has been decimated, you can easily see plastic covering streams and beaches. When the effects of the destruction are so clear the impetus to correct them should be greater.