>

Literally everyone.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot)


"Who could have predicted the wave of inflation that was unleashed? Or the climate crisis and its spectacular impact on our country this summer?" asked the president.
After a long discussion on pensions and the need for the French to work more, Mr. Macron only mentioned the climate crisis once; stating that the "Energy transition is a battle that we must win."
"'Who could have predicted the climate crisis?' Funny, that's one of my favorite sayings to mock politicians who are out of touch with reality," tweeted Gonéri Le Cozannet, a geologist and co-author of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: climate^#1 year^#2 French^#3 President^#4 Macron^#5 >

Actually someone figured it out in 1896. >

Who's that? Genuinely interested. >

They're referencing Svante Arrhenius. From this NASA page:  

In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956. >

Oh wow! We had more than 100 years to mitigate the climate crisis and somehow governments of today still do not have the urgency to change things >

Because that doesn't make money and don't you know I need all of my days to be non-red colored? >

Recycling
Circular economy
Solar panels
Wind mills
Clean tech
Lean tech
Green tech
etc etc…
It really is a shame there’s no business to make in climate change >

Scientists over 100yrs ago. >

Maybe he means WHO (World Health Organization) could have predicted it /s.
Because they provided a formal assessment on Climate Change back in 1996. >

Professor Schellenhuber of Germany founded the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research in 1992, and counseled the then German Minister of Environment directly. If you are very well informed, you might have heard her name before, a physicist with the Name Dr. Angela Merkel. >

I thought she was an organic chemist. >

Well, it's complicated.

Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences
doctorate for her thesis on quantum chemistry >

goddamnit why can't we have a PHD physicist as our president >

Best I can do is Five Time Ultimate Smackdown Champion Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho >

At least he could listen and follow good advice when presented with evidence. >

This was actually my exact response when people compared trump to him. He actually did what I'd want leader to do - recognize when to defer to someone who's more knowledgeable on a topic and then heed their recommendations >

And let's not act like being able to twin fire m60s from the hip doesn't also distinguish the two as well. >

Exxon did research on the subject a while ago but they suppressed the studies and paid scientists to refute the research. 
It could have been predicted and avoided. >

Exxon’s CO2 Greenhouse Effect Report of 1982 >

Yes, that's the study. Thank you >

Svante Arrhenius actually suggested that we should burn coal to prevent the next glacial period ("ice age"). >

Good job then. >

Theodore Fucking Roosevelt predicted it! >

The reason why I bring up Roosevelt is that he wasn't a scientist... and yet it was still as plain as day to him that conservation was necessary and not doing so would create an environmental disaster.
It was plain as day to a man without a scientific background in the first decade of the 1900s.
Macron has absolutely no room to say no one saw this coming when Theodore Roosevelt saw it coming with nothing but his own eyes. >

Svante Arrhenius predicted this in a paper 1896. >

And Greta is standing on his shoulders - he is her ancestor, for the record. >

Not doubting you, just like sources, cause this is cool. >

I didn't find anything on Greta Thunberg's wikipedia page, but she's mentioned on Svante Arrhenius' page near the bottom as a "distant relative". Greta's father is also called Svante. >

Thanks for this doing the looking! >

Everybody. Everybody predicted it for the past 80+ years. >

Longer. Svante Arrhenius predicted this in a paper 1896. >

Nobel Prize-winning Svante Arrhenius. >

Aside from a Nobel-prize winner (they're obviously too smart), who could've predicted the climate crisis??? >

The fucking oil and coal industry knew as late as the 80's that the greenhouse effect was caused by CO2, and they suppressed them knowledge as long as they fucking could. >

They knew earlier than that. They knew as soon as the first climate models started getting generated in the 60's and 70's. 
I think the 80's is when they started to figure out that any movement to address it would also undermine their profits and that's when the PR campaign started to make it seem like it was a questionable thing and not real. >

and they did such a good job people are still denying to this day even with numbers right in the face >

They are still doing a good job. It's not "did" a good job. There are still or at least were up till very recently, opinion pieces about how it "might be man made but we really don't know". 
They used the steve bannon approach and just "flooded the zone with shit". The flood though was a doubtful indifference. >

Svante Arrhenius, the winner of the 1906 Nobel Prize in Chemistry wrote a paper on atmospheric warming due to the increase in C02 released by fossil fuel combustion....in 1896. >

The ~~gaijin~~ kaiju Rodan from the 50s Japanese monster movie of the same name is an ancient dinosaur frozen in ice that is melted by global warming.
Literally been movie plot points for decades. >


gaijin  

Did you mean to write that or did you mean kaiju? >

The movie was Japanese but the monster wasn't so I guess it's technically correct. >

People talk a lot about Japan’s restrictive immigration and naturalization policies, but they usually focus on the human side of the issue. Its effect on kaiju communities gets absolutely no media coverage. >

My entire life I've always heard about how bad the situation is and how it's gonna get worse and still today we have dumbasses pretend like we just learned today that it's a thing.
sigh
I'll legitimately be surprised if world leaders actually do something about it in my lifetime. >

Just prepare yourself for endlessly hearing, "Well, yeah, climate change is happening. But it's too late to do anything about it now."
They'll always come up with excuses for not doing anything, or at least not nearly enough, to mitigate carbon emissions. >

"Yeah, is happening and we're going to reduce emissions in 2040, but for now we are going to keep giving mining and drilling permits and opening new coal and gas plants" >

Then, in 2038: Looks like we're gonna miss our target of 2040 so we're gonna go ahead and push our climate goals to 2065. >

Oh my fucking god yes or the opposite. "Yes this long term solution could be nice, but it doesn't make us reach the short term goal so we're not gonna do it at all" >

Slammed >

Every fucking article these days. >

You just slammed every article out there! >

You just slammed the slamming! >

BAH GAWD, THAT ARTICLE HAD AN EDITOR! >

HERE IT COMES WITH THE CHAIR >

AS GOD AS MY WITNESS, HE IS BROKEN IN HALF >

the oil moguls that covered it up >

Tell me you're clueless without saying "I'm clueless".
Sounds like when Trump said Nobody knew health care could be so complicated. >

Reminded me of when the U.K. ~~Foreign Secretary~~ EDIT: Brexit Secretary, who was an ardent supporter of Brexit, said he "hadn't quite understood" how reliant UK trade in goods is on the Dover-Calais crossing. >

God all these fucktards who pushed Brexit without knowing how stupid it was just piss me off so much. I just want to get them in a room and yell at them for half an hour sometimes it's just so frustrating that people in positions of power don't spend any time to learn anything. >

Oh they know these stuff, they also know that promising £350m per week for the NHS while sticking it to the liberals in Brussels will help them gain more money/power. Whatever happened to that charming fellow with the golden mop for a head anyways? >

That yellow bellied fop ran for the hills with cheese and wine, whilst getting replaced by a lettuce. >

Few nations in the world would have paid up to £30 billion in immediate economic damage for a head of lettuce but I guess that’s just part of the cost of BREXIT ain’t it? I hope the head of lettuce is doing a good job. >

That.. has to be a some kind of miswording or mental flub on his part.
I just don't see how you could possibly get elected and actually truly be that oblivious.
Though, when I think about the average politician.. oh god... oh god it's bad isn't it? >

He got elected only because his opponent was a pro-Putin far right politician >

He had more than one opponent, you know
And nobody really cares (or at least cared then) about the "pro-Putin"  part in France. Foreign policy doesn't factor in in elections like this. >

I know, I myself am a French. I was talking about the last round of the presidential elections (I'm not sure if this is what it's called for non-French people?), that was between him and LePen who is a pro-Putin far right politician. But you are right about the "pro-Putin" part. The French did not vote for her because she is part of the far-right, not because she is pro-putin >

Honestly in the top 4 of first turn results he was the only one not pro Putin. But I doubt this is a huge factor in the results, it's sadly not something many French care about. >

Try Carl Sagan >

Go even further. Ask the Myans, oh wait that civilization died out over a thousand years ago due in part to human made environmental damage. >

I mean it’s the first human cities in Mesopotamia. They irrigated too much for more yield and it caused the salinization of their fields. It’s still infertile there >

When you use a slightly salty river for flood irrigation and a volcano causes a 300ish year long rain drought. Your fields are going to get salty. 
They used barley until the fields became crusty salt flats. >

Basically 95% of climatologists and other earth related scientists for at least 60 years >

He is not the smartest baguette on the basket, is he? >


Le Monde contacted the Elysée, which did not respond or specify the conditions under which the speech was written. It is impossible to know if Mr. Macron wrote this part himself. "Some people may view it as an awkward phrase. He wanted to express that the French people may have felt that some events were happening quicker than scientists had predicted," said Pascal Canfin, an MEP for Macron's party Renaissance. "But the accusations that he is unaware of the situation have no merit."

I think the press is taking it somewhat out of context, and that "He wanted to express that the French people may have felt that some events were happening quicker than scientists had predicted" makes sense to me. I have family members in  France that shared many personal, anecdotal experiences about the drastic changes in climate, while it wasn't at all on the mind of my family and friends in the Netherlands and Germany. >

Except that events are happening very close to what scientists predicted, so even that statement is wrong.
That piece smells like a classic politician cover-up "you're interpreting me wrong, even though the words I said clearly mean something, I'm going to claim after the fact that I meant this other thing" >


Except that events are happening very close to what scientists predicted, so even that statement is wrong.

Read the statement again "the French people may have felt that some events were happening quicker..."
The focus is not on what the scientists were saying, but on what people were thinking. >

Well, seeing as how we knew about it since at least the 50s... >

Its been scientific fact since the 50s, but the dangers of man made climate change was theory as far back as the late 1800s. >

We’re leaving “slammed” in 2022. I’m sick and tired of hearing it >

"Guys, we're slamming slammed, mkay?" >

👀 like every scientist >

SLAMMED, let’s drop that word this year >

There are a lot of words that get used so much in news articles. It's gotten really obnoxious. Maybe we need to hire 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters. >

exxon in the 70's accuratly predicted the current weather and heating patterns.
So they have known for 50 years. >

Literally every single scientist ever since the turn of the 20th century. 
Jeezus. >

Oil companies, for one. Their own internal research confirmed the crisis decades ago, and they’ve been trying to bury it ever since. >

We’ve… we’ve known for a long time >

There were articles about this in the early 1900’s. >

People that died before you were even born… Clearly wealth doesn’t guarantee education. >

I'm French and this sentance was taken out of context. In his speech (full French speech here), he says:
Je repense aux vœux que je vous présentais à la même heure, il y a un an. Qui aurait imaginé à  cet instant, que, pensant sortir avec beaucoup de difficultés d’une épidémie planétaire, nous  aurions à affronter en quelques semaines, d’inimaginables défis : la guerre revenue sur le sol  européen après l’agression russe jetant son dévolu sur l’Ukraine et sa démocratie ; des dizaines,  peut-être des centaines de milliers de morts, des millions de réfugiés, une effroyable crise  énergétique, une crise alimentaire menaçante, l’invocation des pires menaces, y compris  nucléaires ? Qui aurait pu prédire la vague d’inflation, ainsi déclenchée ? Ou la crise climatique  aux effets spectaculaires encore cet été dans notre pays ?  
Which translated in English gives this:
I think back to the wishes I presented to you at this time one year ago. Who would have imagined at that moment that, thinking we would emerge with great difficulty from a planetary epidemic, we would have to face, in a few weeks, unimaginable challenges: war returned to European soil after the Russian aggression set its sights on Ukraine and its democracy; tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, an appalling energy crisis, a threatening food crisis, the invocation of the worst threats, including nuclear ones? Who could have predicted the wave of inflation, thus unleashed? Or the climatic crisis with spectacular effects again this summer in our country?  
Basically he says that no one could have predicted we would have to face these many challenges, and the last phrase about the climate change is the continuity of that thought. Also is in my opinion it is not about the crisis itself but the level of disastrous effect we endured in France in 2022 (the anormal heat and fires).
Edit: just found a comment from a fellow French who explains it better than me >

I speak French too, I don't think that anyone seriously believe that he is a climate change denier. What I find really répugnant is the way that he's trying to absolve himself of any failure to plan, anticipate and mitigate the effects of the climate crisis, while maintaining this air of plausible deniability ("no no it was taken out of context you see, he was just talking about the effects of climate change just this summer , smh those clickbait journalists").
Bref de l'extrême centrisme à la Macron, c'est pas surprenant mais désespérant quand même. je sais pas ça aurait été plus intéressant d'entendre des idées concrètes de solutions pour les année à venir, qu'on parle du changement climatique de cet été ou en général. >

I can still remember the document titled "the inconvenient truth" back in high school. >

I m pretty sure he remembers it....It's just worded weirdly in English >

Context people. 
After everything you've heard from Macron these past few years, which one is seriously more likely:

bad journalism taking quote out of context for click baiting
Macron never heard of climate change. As the leader of one of the most scientifically literate, leftist countries, one which has a far smaller reliance on fossil fuels than most other countries? >

Le Monde is one of France's preeminent newspapers, the equivalent of something like The New York Times or The Guardian. It's not a rag.
Macron may take climate change seriously, but him likening it to the recent surge of global inflation by asking "Who could have guessed it would be this unpredictable" is pretty ignorant given we've had decades of scientific research pointing out exactly how devastating climate change is. >

Ask your wife, she's a teacher. >

Wasn't she HIS teacher? >

Yes. Her grown children are older than Macron himself. >

iirc one of her children was in the same class as him, and talked about him as if he were the ultimate nerd >

What's worrisome is that many of the people i know, who are Christian, specifically mormon, will say things like:
"It's hubris to think that humans could affect the planet negatively when God is in charge..."
"We see the same temperature percentage increase across the solar system, and they don't have humans..."
Rush Limbaugh has been through similar thought processes.
It boils down to "Jesus take the wheel" but he ain't answering >

This is actually only half of the full shittiness of the perspective. It isn't just that they think humans have no control over it, it's that they specifically expect these changes as part of the "end times", meaning that even totally undeniable evidence that it's changing won't actually change their minds at all, because they were never questioning that it's happening, just that it can be avoided. The response is just "well yeah, these are the end times so obviously things are going to start going to shit. Nothing we can do about it!" >

Even the biggest oil and gas companies predicted it 75 years ago you buffoon. 
Tbh I think it’s rather perverse our institutions call for the PUBLIC to eat vegan and stop flying when they do none of it themselves and continually promote frivolous economies of massive debt, spending, and low interest rates. Which just creates bubbles where people value only the present moment, not the future. >

We obviously must appease polluting companies, because there can be no end to the climate crisis unless they emerge with their dignity intact. >

We should allow major polluters one last burst of pollution as we burn their corporate charters.  No decency - no dignity. >

Lot of people getting slammed now a days… >

Well to be fair: Frances CO2 output is pretty darn great for what they are as a nation, thanks to nuclear. >

Anyone tell him about the past 100 years of science pointing to it? >

Every climate scientist for the last 50 years. >

What? No one's giving him the benefit of the doubt? He could just be completely stupid. >

SCIENTISTS. DECADES AGO. >

CAPTAIN FUCKING PLANET, YOU DONKEY!!! >

Considering it was a plot line in movies through the 70s and 80s... I'll go on a limb and say "Everyone" >

Manbearpig has been warning about it for decades it seems. >

That thumbnail looks like it's from the office.
The president of France, invites both his girlfriends out to dinner at the same restaurant, but they don't know the other one is there. Watch hilarity ensue. >

Everyone. Almost every person >

Cue the curb your enthusiasm theme >

He was slammed into the ground with incredible force. He has endured great trauma to the brain and spine. Wow. >

Stop with the word slam in headlines please >

That image looks like a still from The Office >

All the way back in the 1800's they warned about the damaging effects of carbon emissions >

I could, and I just have a bachelor's of Science in Architecture. >

Umm.. scientists could and have been warning for decades?