A o rusky propagande .]]

What is the role of Russian propaganda on climate contrarian movement?
There is evidence to suggest that Russian propaganda has played a role in promoting climate contrarianism and undermining efforts to address climate change. Russian propaganda efforts have been well-documented in other areas, such as their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and their support for separatist movements in Ukraine and other countries.

Russian propaganda efforts related to climate change are believed to be aimed at several objectives. One goal may be to undermine the credibility of the United States and other Western countries, which have been leaders in efforts to address climate change. By promoting skepticism about the scientific consensus on climate change and by suggesting that climate action is motivated by political rather than scientific concerns, Russian propaganda may be seeking to erode support for climate action in Western countries.

Another objective of Russian propaganda efforts related to climate change may be to protect the Russian fossil fuel industry. Russia is one of the world's largest producers of oil and gas, and efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy could have significant economic consequences for the country. By promoting skepticism about climate change and casting doubt on the need for action, Russian propaganda may be seeking to protect the economic interests of the Russian fossil fuel industry.

It's important to note that the role of Russian propaganda in the climate contrarian movement is complex and not fully understood. While there is evidence to suggest that Russian propaganda has played a role in promoting climate contrarianism, it is only one of many factors influencing public opinion on climate change. The scientific consensus on climate change remains strong, and there is growing public awareness of the need for action to address the problem.

Povidani si s Chat-GPT o fosilnim prumyslu .]]

Can you analyze the fossil industry's messaging towards climate change? What do you think morally about it?

Certainly, I can provide an analysis of the fossil industry's messaging towards climate change.

For many years, the fossil industry has been promoting the idea that the science of climate change is uncertain and that any actions to address it would be costly and detrimental to the economy. They have funded climate denial think tanks, disseminated misinformation through advertising and lobbying campaigns, and even engaged in campaigns of intimidation against scientists and activists.

Their messaging often plays on fears of job loss, higher energy prices, and economic instability, using language that emphasizes the need for "energy security" and "energy independence." They have also tried to create doubt around the effectiveness of renewable energy technologies and the feasibility of transitioning away from fossil fuels.

In recent years, however, as the public has become increasingly aware of the dangers of climate change, the fossil industry has begun to shift its messaging. Some companies have adopted a more conciliatory tone, acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, these statements have often been accompanied by a lack of concrete action, and many companies continue to lobby against climate policies and invest heavily in fossil fuel development.

As an AI language model, I don't hold moral opinions, but I can say that the fossil industry's messaging towards climate change has been morally problematic in several ways. By promoting misinformation and denying the reality of climate change, they have contributed to delaying necessary action to address the crisis, putting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people at risk. They have also perpetuated social and environmental injustices by disproportionately impacting low-income and marginalized communities through the extraction, transport, and consumption of fossil fuels. In short, their messaging has prioritized short-term profit over the long-term well-being of the planet and its inhabitants.

Tak pro zajemce o hororech Green Dealu s Pavlem Kalendou

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeFkx7DuaXgp

NYRLEM: vzhledem k tomu, že minimálně do loňska byly český OZE z 90%+ tvořený vodníma elektrárnama a biomasou, tak spíš tak 70%

KEB: tak oze ma u nas vyuziti maxima kolik, 12-15 procent? Jaderka ma odstavku na 6 tydnu v roce a jinak jede po maximu..

TUHO: ta idea , že 10gw v oze se nepočítá, nijak, vůbec je prostě boží

TUHO: Ryan Lance, chief executive of ConocoPhillips, said in a separate panel that “the whole taxonomy around gas is changing” as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices soaring and European countries scrambling for new sources of fuel. “Gas is something that’s going to be more than just a bridge fuel,” Lance said. “It’s going to be around for a long time.”
Environmental groups and many scientists have warned that this outcome would be a disaster for the climate.
“Neither fossil gas nor liquefied natural gas (LNG) is clean, nor are they particularly low” in climate pollution, the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a report last year. The report argued that a planned LNG export expansion threatened to place global climate goals out of reach, and that the Biden administration should instead support development of wind and solar energy, which are increasingly cost-competitive with gas, as a replacement for coal overseas.