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

[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

 

[Fruitbat]

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

Yes, the climate is warming.

It’s common knowledge the UK was very cold in the 1800s but that’s not the case in the medieval warm period

Any comment on the “Arctic Summers ice free by 2013” article?

I have little faith trusting climate scientists when the predictions they make have been shown to be demonstrably false.

I have to accept a 15 minute city and have my travel restricted and diet changed by these guys? Really?

I’ve tried to book a cruise from Greenland to Japan but they seem to avoid the arctic.

The scientist in question was either a liar, or not a very good scientist. Either way, I am not ever going to be fully bought in to the things they claim. History is resplendent with examples of scientists, engineers and technicians overconfident in their abilities. Air travel was touted as safe even when the first commercial jet, the comet, had serious design flaws.

“but we’ve looked at the data. These aircraft cannot have crashed”

Thalidamide was a safe drug. “but we did the tests, the data showed it was safe”

Currently we have AI, which of course, yet again is safe. Until it isn’t.

I have very little faith in “experts” and never will.

lots of people have “trusted the science” and ended up dead. All of the Nazis theories were “backed by science” (I apologise for invoking Godwin’s law)

There are good reasons to embrace green tech, many, many reasons. Pollution is a bad thing.

I do not buy all the doomsday BS.

 

[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.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

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.

I mean there is always a chance that something that never happened a single time in the other 799,800 years of data happens all the time now tho in the last 200 years of data isn't there?

 

[Fruitbat]

There are multiple opponents to the “consensus” but Google now doesn’t let you access them. Merely a long list of how all counter claims are false.
Tells you everything you need to know.

I still haven’t had any kind of answer to the 2007 article saying the arctic was ice free 11 yeats ago.

The leading climate scientists of their day wrote to Nixon in the 70s warning of an ice age coming.

They would have said it’s “settled science” .

We can all retain are own opinions on this issue. I am happy enough not bending over for what CNN and the main agencies tell me. You’re more than welcome to jump in Greta’s hippy wankfest and work toward global tyranny ;-)

 

[BaronOfHair]

There is literally almost no credible person who claims humans have had "limited effects" on this

Are there figuratively credible folks who contest this notion?

 

[BaronOfHair]

There are multiple opponents to the “consensus” but Google now doesn’t let you access them

Nah, they're still findable

 

[EyeBRollin]

We can all retain are own opinions on this issue. I am happy enough not bending over for what CNN and the main agencies tell me. You’re more than welcome to jump in Greta’s hippy wankfest and work toward global tyranny ;-)

Anthropogenic climate change is not an opinion. That means what you or anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant. You disagreeing does not change the fact that the earth is warming due to human action.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Anthropogenic climate change is not an opinion. That means what you or anyone else thinks about it is irrelevant. You disagreeing does not change the fact that the earth is warming due to human action.

The very act of declaring something a fact is itself an opinion

 

[All_Kindz_Of_Gainz]

You disagreeing does not change the fact that the earth is warming due to human action.

You username should be EyeBJocking, cause you got too many jokes bruh

 

[EyeBRollin]

The very act of declaring something a fact is itself an opinion

No it does not. Gravity is a fact. You accept what happens if someone jumps off a bridge. Are going to dispute that too?