This is climate breakdown

[rolexpatek363]

A new series of horror stories from around the world. Food for thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-in-the-water

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...impacts-people

[TRS1]

Oh no!

[Maleg]

More politics and propaganda from you. Trolling the forum for another opportunity for you to pontificate and bloviate. See how smart you are... blech!

[rolexpatek363]

Climate change is science, not "politics"

Climate change denial, virus denial, vaccine scepticism, flat-earth and all the other conspiracy theories are "politics".

Argue the toss with NASA, et al. But Nature doesn't care about your opinion.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

Anyway, you're another one for the ignore list. Bye.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Climate change is science, not "politics"

Climate change denial, virus denial, vaccine scepticism, flat-earth and all the other conspiracy theories are "politics".

Argue the toss with NASA, et al. But Nature doesn't care about your opinion.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

Agree 100%.

Unfortunately these things have become politicized.

Full disclosure, I think both “sides” distort the truth heavily. In different areas / topics… what we need is a move towards open, rational discussion and debate. Online forums typically ban political discussion - as does this one - but what is now considered “politics” is absurdly broad. Closing off these avenues of discussion just increases polarization. Too bad adults cannot act as adults…

Edit: when I say “debate” I don’t mean treating scientists and lay persons as equals. Not all opinions are equally informed. Doesn’t mean scientists are infallible. Far from it - but if discussion around core facts and conclusions from those facts is to be had, it needs to be with reference to credible science… then the debate portion can be on policy. Policy is debatable - trade-offs, sacrifices, etc.

We have conflated the policy discussion with the scientific analysis and conclusions. The absolute worst possible approach. I fear for future generations paying the price.

[rolexpatek363]

"Unfortunately these things have become politicized"

We're currently in the same position that we had with cigarette smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s-70s. Big Tobacco had a lot of money, and politicians everywhere are cheap to buy. Petrochemical dollars are plentiful.

I'm astounded that the USA in particular seems very reluctant to accept the facts, particularly given recent weather events, but there you go!

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

"Unfortunately these things have become politicized"

We're currently in the same position that we had with cigarette smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s-70s. Big Tobacco had a lot of money, and politicians everywhere are cheap to buy. Petrochemical dollars are plentiful.

I'm astounded that the USA in particular seems very reluctant to accept the facts, particularly given recent weather events, but there you go!

It is because the notion of following the science is only selectively applied. It is why I mention polarization and conflation… polarization because if you look at political outcomes a few decades ago, you saw swings between the two parties that you would not see today. Issues dominated.

Conflation is because people confuse and combine the analysis of facts with the determination of policy.

Both sides or the political spectrum in the US (and globally now) stick their fingers in their ears for certain pockets of analysis - and market to their constituencies accordingly. It creates legitimate distrust on both sides - and gets amplified because most people don’t have the ability to cut through the BS.

Democratization of information, amplification and insulation of shoddy analysis… social media is a disaster for effective democracy. Globalized mob mentality…

[AzPaul]

The forum rules are not complicated

[Calatrava r]

We have always had extreme weather events and always will. The fact they have occurred or occur proves absolutely nothing other than weather on earth changes and can be tough at times. The scientists left the carbon discussion a long time ago, when some people now argue whatever happen proves our position.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

The scientists left the carbon discussion a long time ago

Who told you that, and why did you believe them?

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

Who told you that, and why did you believe them?

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Hard to understand where carbon have been declining over the eons to dangerously low levels currently just barely sufficient to sustain plant life. The whole theory started 100 years when a person heated up a beaker of carbon and a beaker of ambient air and the carbon took a tad longer to cool down relative to the plain air. The problem is it means absolutely nothing in the context of the earth and its atmosphere. Carbon has always been one of the sparsest and lowest lying gasses in the atmosphere to have any effect on anything. There is no test anyone can do to create a test and control earth to see what the impact of carbon actually is in the real. There are literally hundreds of other components to the earth's atmosphere all of which play a role. Did you ever wonder why people never ask what role the other 999,600 particles of whatever do the atmosphere. I do every day.

It wasn't that long ago that we were taught, correctly so, that the earth's climate and heat was from the sun and that violent/extreme weather conditions on earth are from sunspot activity which causes uneven heat distribution to the earth. Interestingly, scientists many years ago determined the respective climate on Mars mirrors that of the earth's, most likely due to the fact both planets experience the same disparate heat radiations from the sun at any given time.

There was a time we followed the money. Ask yourself who does these studies, who funds them and who benefits from the agenda. When people say we need to spend X trillions to combat this existential threat, who actually gets that money.

[Krash]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

We have always had extreme weather events and always will. The fact they have occurred or occur proves absolutely nothing other than weather on earth changes and can be tough at times. The scientists left the carbon discussion a long time ago, when some people now argue whatever happen proves our position.

I know. People act as if there weren’t hurricanes or floods 10,000 years ago. It’s laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[V25V]

And lets not completely ignore where these articles are coming from..... can you imagine if a counter argument was posted from FOX, etc and the backlash one would get and it be completely discredited. And do not even try to say that The Guardian is unbiased.....

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by V25V

And lets not completely ignore where these articles are coming from..... can you imagine if a counter argument was posted from FOX, etc and the backlash one would get and it be completely discredited. And do not even try to say that The Guardian is unbiased.....

I think all news sources are pretty much garbage today. They editorialize too heavily and create intentional narratives to cater to their audiences. Nevermind click bait… and all those people who then get their only source from their “side”…

Broken society.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

I think all news sources are pretty much garbage today. They editorialize too heavily and create intentional narratives to cater to their audiences. Nevermind click bait… and all those people who then get their only source from their “side”…

Broken society.

No disagreement there.

[SDGT3]

LOL 😂 the Guardian? I wouldn’t trust them to give me the correct scores from the previous night’s game. And one of the most disingenuous methods of “journalism “ (and I use that word loosely) is anecdotal stories.

Is there climate change? Yes, but it has always existed. To what extent human activity is responsible depends on who is funding the study.

[Easy E]

Cool story

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/...tent-stations/

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by Easy E

Cool story

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/05/...tent-stations/

The Daily Sceptic is Toby Young's climate science denial vehicle together with vaccine misinformation. It's remarkable how frequently some people hold these two beliefs.

99% of scientists in this field the world over agree that human activity is warming our climate with disatrous results.

Even if climate science was somehow a globally-coordinated conspiracy in the scientific community (how?), polluting our environment less has got to be a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Sceptic

Now's the time to complain about Wikipedia!

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/

And NASA!

[VictorGMT]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

99% of scientists in this field the world over agree that human activity is warming our climate with disatrous results.

So obvious.

The scientists like being employed.

They are ostracized, isolated and denied funding if they don't roll with the story.

99% agreement is a feature of cults, not science.

Originally Posted by Krash

We have no idea what hurricane strength was 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. Absolutely no idea at all. So you can’t say they’re getting more severe.

Sure we do. We find ten tree fossils, carbon date them, and get all the scientists to agree that the fossils are 9,978 years old and provide "evidence" indicates that hurricanes were weaker at that time. Peer review each others papers, invite each other to speak, fly private jets to each others conferences. It's a good life and there are people who will really eat it up. In the 70's, talk about the "New Ice Age".

Make a movie about a bad powerpoint in 2000 after losing an election, and "An Inconvenient Truth" says we'll be under water in ten years.

There are people who wake up daily with a sense of dread, and you've given it a name.

The Next Ice Age.

Oops I meant...

Global Warming.

Oops I meant...

Weather.

Oops I meant...

Climate Change.

After twenty years, 100% of scientists got their degrees from you, only a percent or two will escape the orthodoxy.

[Carguy87]

IBTL with my popcorn

[INC]

Is it safe to wear a Rolex in a climate change era?

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by INC

Is it safe to wear a Rolex in a climate change era?

Lol - it would depend on if it’s a diver or not.

[enjoythemusic]

If we move the moon a (relatively) tiny bit further away from Earth, it could help. We should try it.

[Speedbird-1]

Will all the Earths volcanoes have bungs inserted, I wonder.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by enjoythemusic

If we move the moon a (relatively) tiny bit further away from Earth, it could help. We should try it.

What's even crazier is that someone will probably convince people to try that. They are seeding clouds in Dubai and we see where that got them, of course they denied this was the fault of seeding and blamed the disaster on global warming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68839043

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by V25V

What's even crazier is that someone will probably convince people to try that. They are seeding clouds in Dubai and we see where that got them, of course they denied this was the fault of seeding and blamed the disaster on global warming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68839043

If you read the article, it's apparent that cloud seeding had little or nothing to do with the excessive rain in UAE. Parts of Spain near Valencia recently experienced a year's rain in one day.

Hurricanes off the US East coast are gradually ramping up in severity. Unprecedented droughts and widfires are breaking out.

This is not "normal".

[Old Geezer]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

A new series of horror stories from around the world. Food for thought.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-in-the-water

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...impacts-people

Lets talk when the people talking up climate change the loudest with personal carbon footprints as large as cities, give up their yachts, private airplanes, multiple mansions and fleets of vehicles. Until then, I'll enjoy my oversized house and gas guzzling vehicles.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

Lets talk when the people talking up climate change the loudest with personal carbon footprints as large as cities, give up their yachts, private airplanes, multiple mansions and fleets of vehicles. Until then, I'll enjoy my oversized house and gas guzzling vehicles.

Being a hypocrite is different from being wrong.

There is also a difference between understanding the science and formulating a rational policy response.

There are climate change alarmists that do us no favors by painting the picture as both overly bleak and overly certain. I sometimes wonder if those extreme positions (intended to garner attention and wake people up) do more harm than good… or if that is simply how people need to behave. Innate.

It is like when people are staunch supporters of their college team… and behave like fanatics (;-)), even towards other individuals who (rather arbitrarily) support their rival. It is madness - would be amusing if that same tribalism didn’t extend to serious matters too. But it clearly does.

You can oppose certain policies in response to climate change - without denying the science.

[V25V]

[QUOTE=BraveBold;

There is also a difference between understanding the science and formulating a rational policy response.

There are climate change alarmists that do us no favors by painting the picture as both overly bleak and overly certain. I sometimes wonder if those extreme positions (intended to garner attention and wake people up) do more harm than good… or if that is simply how people need to behave. Innate.

It is like when people are staunch supporters of their college team… and behave like fanatics (;-)), even towards other individuals who (rather arbitrarily) support their rival. It is madness - would be amusing if that same tribalism didn’t extend to serious matters too. But it clearly does.

You can oppose certain policies in response to climate change - without denying the science.[/QUOTE]


My personal issue is the supposed “science”. You have supposed know it alls on both sides of this, so which science to choose to support dictates what you believe. And most times, one side never reads the others. Hence seeding the clouds; some scientists came up with that stupid idea and then later blame it on climate change when it backfires. They use their “science” to support their argument and that’s all those in their camp read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[gamingdoctor]

Really unfortunate that this has been politicized. There are no "two sides" in science, there is only the science.

Maybe a better approach is to post actual data/research papers instead of news sites. Of course there is bias in research papers, although that should be up to the authors and the reader to determine. You can choose to accept or reject the hypothesis based on how the information is presented.

For what it's worth, compared to the covid vaccine where there were conflicting opinions among many scientists across the world, the vast majority of scientists seem to entertain there is a measure of global warming occurring.