Going to be another brutal summer for much of the US it appears...

[Scaramouche]

Hi Back in the Game,
"For the people who don't want to believe it, all I can say is that your ignorance on the matter will not change the outcome."And can I say neither will your "Profound Knowledge".

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Hi Back in the Game,
"For the people who don't want to believe it, all I can say is that your ignorance on the matter will not change the outcome."And can I say neither will your "Profound Knowledge".

That's true, but it isn't my knowledge, it's simply science and the truth and honestly a lot of it is common sense.

Doesn't take a genius to know it's not normal to turn on the news and see every region in the country experiencing a different kind of record type of event all at the same time.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

This is even more absurd on a global scale...a difference of almost 2C in some cases is astronomical in terms of being that much higher than the previous warmest temperature.

It would be like the someone breaking Wayne Gretzky's goal record in hockey by like 500 goals or LeBron James point record by like 15,000 points. It's just not even imaginable...to the point scientists are literally terrified of what they are seeing.




And 2024 is already starting out on a banger, setting new global record high temperatures in every month so far this year thru April and undoubtedly in May again with how abnormally hot it's been in many places throughout the world...

Been on a nearly 1 year streak of new world record warm months since June of last year. Doesn't look like it's about to end anytime soon either.




The last time earth was this warm was at least 125,000 years ago and likely longer...IMO, if we aren't careful we are going to cause our own extinction and it likely will come far quicker than what they expect, similar to how it's starting warm faster and faster and much quicker than they thought it would.

Humanity's best hope is for more advancements on Carbon Capture and Storage(CCS) and Direct Air Capture(DAC) technologies on a massive global scale. Some of the technologies that have come to light over the last decade are extremely promising, the issue is ramping them up to a global scale to even put a dent in ever increasing greenhouse gas emissions that keep occurring, in no small part due to places like China and India that burn more coal than the rest of the world combined and in large part have no emissions standards, polluting the atmosphere far more than coal burning in other countries would. China and India alone account for about 65% of the world's coal burning, at over 5.35 Billion Metric tons per year. The US, in comparison uses 480 million metric tons a year but that number continues to drop every year.

However, one silver lining is that China is also by far the leader in renewable energy especially in Solar, but also in wind and hydro as well, so they are making progress, just not as rapidly as needed.

Human Adaptation to Heat Can’t Keep Up With Human-Caused Climate Change

Human are remarkably well adapted to survive the heat. But now the heat is outpacing our ability to adapt

time.com

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Back in the Game,
We have had all this out in our Parliament very recently,a Tasmanian Politician created a furore by stating it was 4 degrees Centigrade hotter 100.000 years ago,she quoted Al Gores book,"An Inconvenient Truth" and Tim Flanneries publication "The Weather Makers"...Though they Don't like it the fact checkers admitted that ice cores taken by British Scientists in Antactica,showed that it was indeed 3-5 degrees hotter down there 110.000 years ago.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Hi Back in the Game,
We have had all this out in our Parliament very recently,a Tasmanian Politician created a furore by stating it was 4 degrees Centigrade hotter 100.000 years ago,she quoted Al Gores book,"An Inconvenient Truth" and Tim Flanneries publication "The Weather Makers"...Though they Don't like it the fact checkers admitted that ice cores taken by British Scientists in Antactica,showed that it was indeed 3-5 degrees hotter down there 110.000 years ago.

OK great, so it's now only the hottest in 110,000 years then. That really showed them!

They also showed an absolutely unprecedented increase in both Carbon Dioxide and Methane levels rapidly rising since the industrial revolution that have far far outpaced anything ever seen in the last 800,000 years. Not 110,000 years...800,000, over 7 times longer.

Guess what follows rapidly increasing CO2 and Methane levels?

Yup...you guessed it...rapidly rising temperatures...the rate of which increases in proportion to the increase in those gases.

See how easy common sense is...It's really not that hard is it?

Seems like something even you could get the hang of pretty quickly with enough urburying of your head out of the sand. Just pull it out and take a look around once in a while...

Like Ferris Bueller said 'Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.'

Just a thought...just a thought...maybe you could even do a Fandango...for Galileo? If Bizmillah will let you go that is...

 

[BackInTheGame78]

How do you know this data is true?

I can find you charts to prove anything.

The wage gap has plenty of charts but is it factual?

You are right...it's all lies. These scientists are part of a global conspiracy to get you to believe that it's waaaayyy hotter than it actually is...

This would be like asking how do you know anything is true? Temperatures have been recorded since at least the late 1800s and they have gone back and been able to use carbon rings and other scientific ways of measuring temperatures over the past times to know this data for time periods prior. Unlikely on a day to day basis or even a year to year basis for time farther back but over a generalized time period, they know what conditions were like.

I mean how hard is it to plot those on a graph and connect lines?

The ice core samples they took from Antartica glaciers and was referenced in the same study Bohemian Rhapsody referenced but conveniently left out that part which didn't fit his narrative he wants to try and create. Basically one that makes no sense unless you only look at a tiny sliver of the data and ignore the other 99.5% of it that doesn't fit.

So unless you are claiming their methods to not be valid or they are simply lying about the data they are getting, it's kind of like driving down the road and trying to spit out your window and asking how do you know you keep getting it back in your face because you are driving? Then it's like you would try and come up with every other possible reason why outside of you driving into it.

At what point is it just common sense? The arguments against it increasingly make no sense and are seemingly only being done to try and take a contrarian point of view just because with no basis in any reality.

Like, I am way too cool to believe in any of this and because everyone else is saying it and all the data points towards it, I'm just going to believe the opposite. For no real reason, just because I want to be different and believe what I want to believe.

I mean it happens. People die in hurricanes and tornadoes all the time even when they are warned about them because they don't believe it's going to happen and they have it sitting right in front of their faces on the radar screen and getting warnings constantly on every radio and TV station and blaring sirens and they still don't believe it. So it definitely doesn't surprise me that people want to pretend this away too when it's not quite so urgent or impending doomlike so to speak.

Most of the time they find out the hard way that it wasn't very pretend tho...or their next of kin do if they can even locate the body to bury it. Other than that they just don't know what happened cause they are never seen again. I mean maybe they magically teleported somewhere else and didn't tell anyone. Anything is possible right?

Sounds pretty absurd doesn't it? But that's what people are doing. At this point arguing against it, you might as well be saying you can travel across country faster on foot than by car and refuse to believe different no matter what evidence is put in front of you.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Back in the Game,
"You are right...it's all lies. These scientists are part of a global conspiracy to get you to believe that it's waaaayyy hotter than it actually is"....Well they certainly wont get another research grant from the CCP if they don't!

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Back in the Game,
I like your Messianistic style,I too believe the world is doomed,we are heading into an Ice Age....In fact this morning I threw open my upstairs window and shouted out to the great unwashed,"Repent you rotten lot you're all doomed!"

 

[BaronOfHair]

Most of my friends came from pretty good homes where authority could be trusted

Same here. I was born and bred in North Korea, where our delicate ears were assiduously protected, from any intel which might have shattered our illusions

 

[Scaramouche]

Most of my friends are very much in Agreement with the scientific consensus.

We got talking about this and I think it may stem from our career and life experiences.

Most of my friends came from pretty good homes where authority could be trusted. Sadly can’t say the same.

Secindly most work in academic or government jobs. I work in sales and work closely with the exec. I know how smoke and mirrors the world actually is.

This may cloud my judgement. I struggle to understand how others don’t automatically run a heavy filter on anything they’re told.

I may well be paranoid. I might be the one work the issue. On the other hand, through history often being paranoid is the right move.

We might be talking in 50 years about “the greatest scam of all time”. You never know.

Hi Fruitbat,
You are certainly not paranoid....Take a squizz at https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-failed-climate-predictions Couple of months ago some Clown in our Greens Party wanted to put bags on the back end of our Sheep and Cattle LOL....You can imagine the hilarity this caused in my local Boozer!

 

[BaronOfHair]

Not sure if a blessing or a threat for you guys in the US given the average weight of the average woman there.

Time to obliterate another long standing myth

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

Climate change is a hot topic, and both sides have strong opinions. Most scientists agree that human activities, like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, cause global warming. They point to all the data showing rising carbon emissions are linked to higher global temperatures. This camp worries about severe impacts like frequent and intense natural disasters, rising sea levels, and messed-up ecosystems. They push for significant changes, like switching to renewable energy and cutting down on carbon emissions, to prevent a climate catastrophe.

On the flip side, some folks think the current climate changes are part of the Earth's natural cycles. They argue that the planet has always gone through warming and cooling phases, like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. These skeptics also point to solar cycles, variations in the sun's energy output, as a significant factor in climate change. They even note that other planets, like Mars, are warming, too, and obviously, there are no SUVs on Mars. This suggests that solar factors might play a more significant role than we think.

Regarding government and climate information, some people believe that the information might be controlled or exaggerated to push specific policies. This doesn't necessarily mean there's a grand conspiracy, but more that political and economic interests can shape how climate data is presented. Trust and transparency in scientific research are crucial to ensure people understand and accept the facts. The Internet's global reach and scientists' ability to post their findings independently make controlling said information much harder. One should also consider the source one reads: is the person screaming conspiracy also a flat earther? Someone who has visited the Grassy Knoll for fun? Do they think we filmed the moon landing in a Warner Brothers set? Do they host huge conspiracy websites? Food for thought.

Ultimately, balancing human and natural factors is important when discussing climate change. Acknowledging the complexities and uncertainties can help create a more nuanced and balanced view. We can work towards effective and widely supported solutions by considering all angles and promoting open, evidence-based discussions.

Always, always, always say, "Cui bono?" who benefits? In the case of Internet whackjob sites, they're doing it for traffic and clickbait because they make a lot of money from those clicks and eyeballs; the more sensational the story is, the better. Who would benefit from trying to marginalize global warming? Energy companies - why? Fossil fuels, if we regulate emissions, pay more for CO2 scrubbers, and have to develop cleaner technology to meet standards - who benefits if the information about our CO2 emissions is marginalized? Multinational corporations have better bottom lines - money, money, money.

Always approach this kind of shyte from both angles. Most people are stuck in conformation bias hell, reading the same rage bait day in and day out. Think about that for a minute. It's both sides of the argument.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Climate change is a hot topic, and both sides have strong opinions. Most scientists agree that human activities, like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, cause global warming. They point to all the data showing rising carbon emissions are linked to higher global temperatures. This camp worries about severe impacts like frequent and intense natural disasters, rising sea levels, and messed-up ecosystems. They push for significant changes, like switching to renewable energy and cutting down on carbon emissions, to prevent a climate catastrophe.

On the flip side, some folks think the current climate changes are part of the Earth's natural cycles. They argue that the planet has always gone through warming and cooling phases, like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. These skeptics also point to solar cycles, variations in the sun's energy output, as a significant factor in climate change. They even note that other planets, like Mars, are warming, too, and obviously, there are no SUVs on Mars. This suggests that solar factors might play a more significant role than we think.

Regarding government and climate information, some people believe that the information might be controlled or exaggerated to push specific policies. This doesn't necessarily mean there's a grand conspiracy, but more that political and economic interests can shape how climate data is presented. Trust and transparency in scientific research are crucial to ensure people understand and accept the facts. The Internet's global reach and scientists' ability to post their findings independently make controlling said information much harder. One should also consider the source one reads: is the person screaming conspiracy also a flat earther? Someone who has visited the Grassy Knoll for fun? Do they think we filmed the moon landing in a Warner Brothers set? Do they host huge conspiracy websites? Food for thought.

In the end, it's important to balance human and natural factors when discussing climate change. Acknowledging the complexities and uncertainties can help create a more nuanced and balanced view. By considering all angles and promoting open, evidence-based discussions, we can work towards effective and widely supported solutions.

Always, always, always say, "Cui bono?" who benefits? In the case of Internet whackjob sites, they're doing it for traffic and clickbait because they make a lot of money from those clicks and eyeballs; the more sensational the story is, the better. Who would benefit from trying to marginalize global warming? Energy companies - why? Fossil fuels, if we regulate emissions, pay more for CO2 scrubbers, and have to develop cleaner technology to meet standards - who benefits? Multinational corporations.

Always approach this kind of shyte from both angles. Most people are stuck in conformation bias hell, reading the same rage bait day in and day out. Think about that for a minute. It's both sides of the argument.

"Climate Change" in and of itself means nothing. The question that's truly a point of contention is: "Are we hurdling towards The Apocalypse, or is this-like so much else in life-a problem which defies "solution", and lends itself only to reduction?"

The weight of the evidence indicates the latter. While it's definitely wise for us to find alternatives to fossil fuels(For a wide variety of reasons, not all of them environmental), the sea levels are going to rise a bit. That's handled by building sea walls and living further inland

 

[Pierce Manhammer]

I'm not taking sides. I think the extremes, in this case, are, in fact, extremes—the real story most likely lies somewhere between the two camps. Do greenhouse gases accelerate things? Yes, it's scientifically proven. Is Mars warmer? Yes, it is, its scientifically proven. Both processes are causing the temperature fluctuations we are seeing. And each camp has its own reasons to bolster the stories.

 

[BaronOfHair]

I think the extremes, in this case, are, in fact, extremes—the real story most likely lies somewhere between the two camps

My sentiments exactly

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Nobody would be sceptical if this was a benign scientific point.

The climate movements comes in a package with the restructuring of our social order. Stronger state control, travel restrictions, rationing etc.

It would be common sense not to question that.

The records we have stretch back an insurmountable small period in this planets history.

Have you considered the counter-arguments? Did you read the hack from the university of east anglia?

Here’s an example

“Arctic Summers Ice free by 2013” BBC arrival 2007. Picture of sad polar bear as usual.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

news.bbc.co.uk

To me, seeing the above, which was apparently based on sound scientific theory, noting it’s a crock of shyt it would be lacking in common sense to not assume all future studies might be a crock of shyt too!

genuinely, I don’t feel it’s any warmer now than my youth. What I have noted is now when it’s 28 degrees the BBC put it as dark red with an alarm logo next to it as opposed to darkish orange. I thought climate wasn’t weather? When it’s unseasonably cold, this is what they say. “Climate isn’t weather, dummy” but as soon as it’s hot out comes the global warming alarm.

There is scientific data and then there is human nature. Every commercial has “proven scientific results” on how this supplement will give you 200% mass gains and a six pack in 2 weeks.

It is also easily possible that it’s true.

There is usually more going on with these things than meets the eye.

The major governments of this world tested LSD, and radiation on its populations just 60-70 years ago. It does make me chuckle how we all know this, but everyone is convinced today if the TV, or an organisation with a big, impressive name and well designed logo says it then it must be true.

A healthy level of scepticism is required for any one or any thing demanding we give up our right to travel, to eat meat and have basic freedoms, and you will feel pretty stupid if you gave all that up on the basis of something you read which had the badge of authority pinned on it.

This is absolutely pivotal. If we accept the principles you fed ribe, our children are walking into a prison, an absolute shyt show and none of the freedoms we had. So we have to be absolutely sure when we are packing them off to climate prison that we as parents aren’t having the wool pulled over our eyes.

Well here is the thing. It's been shown over and over again that what you "remember" starts losing accuracy the longer it is since you've had the memory even to the point where you may think you remember things that didn't happen.

But even so... let's say that you distinctly remember it being very hot when you grew up a few times. Would it be easier to remember it when it got very warm once a summer so that when it happened very infrequently it made a significant impression or would it be easier to remember something when it happens 10 times a summer so that it becomes normal and is no big deal that it happens?

In other words, it would make sense that you remember it more because the impression it made them was because it was so out of the ordinary when it happened versus now when it is becoming the norm rather than the extreme and you just kind of tune it out.

But you can easily verify that this wasn't the case by going back and looking at temperature records for that period of time.

Since 1884, 5 of the top 10 warmest summers in the UK have occurred since 2003.

2018 being the warmest summer ever recorded.

I'm not sure how old you are so maybe that puts you in the timeframe of when you were growing up.

Either way, you can see the frequency is increasing as 3 of the top 10 have occurred in the last 5 years. Within the next 20 years it's likely all of these will be displaced at some point again.

Characteristic	Average temperature in degrees Celsius
2018	15.76
2006	15.75
2003	15.74
2022	15.71
1976	15.7
1995	15.62
1933	15.38
2023	15.35
1899	15.29
1947	15.29

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Fruitbat,
You mention Greenland....It was discovered by Eric the Red a Viking Adventurer in 983AD....It was green and grassy during the Summers and early Norwegian settlers husbanded Cattle and Sheep even grew barley....But it got colder and the settlement folded....But the good news is that it's warmed up and there's grass again.

 

[SW15]

The planet goes through naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles. This is a warming one. Human behavior has a limited effect on this. Additionally, while wimps in Western nations worry about burning fossil fuels, China continues to burn fossil fuels.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Climate change is a hot topic, and both sides have strong opinions. Most scientists agree that human activities, like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, cause global warming.

Pierce, there is no “both sides” on anthropogenic climate change. It is settled science. Either one accepts the fact or they don’t. Disagreement is like saying one disagrees with 2+2=4.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

The planet goes through naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles. This is a warming one. Human behavior has a limited effect on this. Additionally, while wimps in Western nations worry about burning fossil fuels, China continues to burn fossil fuels.

There is literally almost no credible person who claims humans have had "limited effects" on this. In fact, virtually all of them now claim that we are the main cause of it.

The estimate is over 99%(some studies are at 99.99%) that humans are the cause of this and it is very improbable that for 799,800 years the earth stayed within a certain range of CO2 and Methane levels in terms of rates increasing and decreasing but then at the exact start of the Industrial Revolution it started going parabolically upward in a way that had neve happened in the previous 799,800 years of known ice core samples.

Now, are you claiming this is just coincidence? If so, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Contrarian opinions are fun because you don't have to "be like everyone else", but in this case they are simply wrong and to be perfectly blunt, stupidly wrong when looking at the mountain of evidence and trying to find a single nugget weighing an ounce that goes against the other ton of evidence to the contrary. It's honestly ridiculous.

It's OK to accept it, really...I promise the only one that would have a hard time dealing with it is contrarian's egos because they have to admit they have been wrong.