Yes, but the post and the stream didn´t come from a museum official, right?
Best example: Instead of asking the audience, museums ask "about what museums could do to participate in the awareness campaign for climate change."
So they misuse their public authority and reputation for joining the propaganda force. Just disgusting.
@stayoutoftherz What you are saying is so easy and yet complicated. Audiences want a lot of things, so asking them is always dangerous. They are a bit like children, very volatile and easily influenced. However, I agree that audiences have to have rights. Just think about creating free admission to the resident collections that change periodically. The museum could still commission or rent exhibitions on special topics, and ask for an entry fee. I believe the building should be more like a meeting place and less like a sacred vault. Some museums show that the first can be accomplished easily.
Just my two cents on the term propaganda: The word propaganda means the dissemination of political views, worldview or opinions. Climate change is a scientific fact. Not an opinion - the opinion however is how bad it is going to be - there even scientists disagree. What we all should be aware of: It's going to change for the worse as much as we know at present. Some living species will face extinction. But - and here I do agree with you, if we engage on the topic we should be sincere. And not follow the next hype that someone cooks up, because that's where the propaganda starts.
Loving and observing nature is wonderful. Although we, as a species, haven't learned everything about nature and there are still many unanswered questions, it's clear that you don't need to understand, say, the ecosystem of a lake to harm it. Simply dumping sewage into it disrupts the balance. We destroy more than we repair, and this will cost us more than we can imagine. We don't control climate change; we contribute to it through extraction without giving back.
Yes, but it is not right to reinforce restrictions on the way people are living just based on lies and flawed mathematical models and disguised as "science". All the climate models have turned wrong, in South America there is now snow, the first time since 40 years, temperature measures are manipulated, key influencers like the effect of clouds, of the sun cycles and many others are just ignored, all focuses on CO2 while the rain forests are still destroyed. We need environment protection, not climate protection!
Yes, totally agree on environment protection. But what restrictions are you talking about? Nobody is restricted in whatever way. People travel, live their happiest lives and eat, drink whatever they want (speaking of the Global North here). If you refer to "people must start renouncing certain things" - nobody is forcing anyone. And to be fair, we all know that - taking CO2 production - reducing our personal footprint will not save the world, even if everyone reduces their footprint. As long as industry continues to produce more CO2 than can be converted into oxygen by nature, we are facing rising temperatures.
We are destroying resources without knowing what we are destroying - and by we I mean the economy, the producing industry, the G20...
No need to be angry at one policy or the other which tries to change the system, to stop this huge exploitation due to never-ending economic growth. We don't have all the answers, but we certainly agree that something is taking a very wrong turn (in so many ways). So better work together than accuse each other of propaganda and manipulation. Just my two cents.
Just wait a few years, the restrictions will come, it is all planned and prepared. It starts with creating a CO2-focused mindset (which you seem to have already) with e.g. older cars not allowing to downtown of cities anymore, in future maybe all combustion cars are banned to enter. Did you get the Wärmepumpengesetz in Germany? If forces people to certain heating devices which costs many people a lot. Companies are rated by arbitrary ESG-grades and have to comply otherwise they might lose reputation. It makes products more expensive. Governments try to do nudging in many ways, like in China some cities started with a social credit system. The goal is to control people.
PS: There is no causal relationship of CO2 and climate.
Yes, but the post and the stream didn´t come from a museum official, right?
Best example: Instead of asking the audience, museums ask "about what museums could do to participate in the awareness campaign for climate change."
So they misuse their public authority and reputation for joining the propaganda force. Just disgusting.
@stayoutoftherz What you are saying is so easy and yet complicated. Audiences want a lot of things, so asking them is always dangerous. They are a bit like children, very volatile and easily influenced. However, I agree that audiences have to have rights. Just think about creating free admission to the resident collections that change periodically. The museum could still commission or rent exhibitions on special topics, and ask for an entry fee. I believe the building should be more like a meeting place and less like a sacred vault. Some museums show that the first can be accomplished easily.
Just my two cents on the term propaganda: The word propaganda means the dissemination of political views, worldview or opinions. Climate change is a scientific fact. Not an opinion - the opinion however is how bad it is going to be - there even scientists disagree. What we all should be aware of: It's going to change for the worse as much as we know at present. Some living species will face extinction. But - and here I do agree with you, if we engage on the topic we should be sincere. And not follow the next hype that someone cooks up, because that's where the propaganda starts.
Als naturliebender Naturwissenschaftler ist meine Meinung zum Klimwandel diese: https://peakd.com/hive-121566/@stayoutoftherz/re-beesmartblog-sejsn6
Loving and observing nature is wonderful. Although we, as a species, haven't learned everything about nature and there are still many unanswered questions, it's clear that you don't need to understand, say, the ecosystem of a lake to harm it. Simply dumping sewage into it disrupts the balance. We destroy more than we repair, and this will cost us more than we can imagine. We don't control climate change; we contribute to it through extraction without giving back.
Yes, but it is not right to reinforce restrictions on the way people are living just based on lies and flawed mathematical models and disguised as "science". All the climate models have turned wrong, in South America there is now snow, the first time since 40 years, temperature measures are manipulated, key influencers like the effect of clouds, of the sun cycles and many others are just ignored, all focuses on CO2 while the rain forests are still destroyed. We need environment protection, not climate protection!
Yes, totally agree on environment protection. But what restrictions are you talking about? Nobody is restricted in whatever way. People travel, live their happiest lives and eat, drink whatever they want (speaking of the Global North here). If you refer to "people must start renouncing certain things" - nobody is forcing anyone. And to be fair, we all know that - taking CO2 production - reducing our personal footprint will not save the world, even if everyone reduces their footprint. As long as industry continues to produce more CO2 than can be converted into oxygen by nature, we are facing rising temperatures.
We are destroying resources without knowing what we are destroying - and by we I mean the economy, the producing industry, the G20...
No need to be angry at one policy or the other which tries to change the system, to stop this huge exploitation due to never-ending economic growth. We don't have all the answers, but we certainly agree that something is taking a very wrong turn (in so many ways). So better work together than accuse each other of propaganda and manipulation. Just my two cents.
Just wait a few years, the restrictions will come, it is all planned and prepared. It starts with creating a CO2-focused mindset (which you seem to have already) with e.g. older cars not allowing to downtown of cities anymore, in future maybe all combustion cars are banned to enter. Did you get the Wärmepumpengesetz in Germany? If forces people to certain heating devices which costs many people a lot. Companies are rated by arbitrary ESG-grades and have to comply otherwise they might lose reputation. It makes products more expensive. Governments try to do nudging in many ways, like in China some cities started with a social credit system. The goal is to control people.
PS: There is no causal relationship of CO2 and climate.