Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

The BBC is dreadful. In that segment we are treated to the insightfulness of Ascia Alshammiri a "social media influencer".

It really is a religion, a-rapture like cult.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A simple reason why not to add the 'd' to Climate Change and form a past tense:
It's not over yet! Expect climate to continue changing. (Where's the :gak: emoticon? )

Not long ago, ignorant redneck Americans had a standard punchline: Whenever the weather turned cold, or there was snow, they'd say "More of that global warming, chortle chortle!"

My guess is that most of them have stopped that chortling by now.

These same people are still mocking the Pandemic that killed over 600,000 Americans.

The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand

The Lethal Lockdown reduced auto emissions to the only level at which viruses can survive. "Pollution," a dishonest word taken from an ancient superstition, had prevented all pandemics for 100 years. Primitive degenerate nature-worshipers are responsible for all these deaths. For corona, they deserve a crown of thorns.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I’ll rephrase:

I find it intellectually dishonest argumentation for people to claim that climate scientists are wrong in saying anthropogenic climate change is real by pointing out that climate scientists say that the climate has been variable in the past.

Either you believe climate scientists or you do not. You don’t get to only believe in the science that supports your political position.

The climate "scientists" (most are actually activists) cannot be trusted. They too have been politicized and corrupted. Gavin Newson is yet again banging on about wildfires, drought and climate change. He's a fucking moron.

Your state is a tinderbox. You've already had one town basically burned down.

Farmers are ripping out almond trees because they don't have enough water for them.

You think that's a nothing?

But the climate scientists that can’t be trusted tell us that climate always changes so that explains the current situation. They can be trusted to get that part right but can’t be trusted to get the part right that goes against the right’s current political climate. How about them cherries?

With Your Confused Logic, You Can't Handle Anyone Who Thinks the Greens Are Deadlier Than the Unabomber

You're not being logical or realistic at all. In what fantasy does someone have to be right about everything he claims to know? Or else, through some twisted thought process, we have to reject everything he says? No wonder these people hedge everything they say if they have your irrational case-closed aggression to contend with.

Besides, there are some scientists who agree that there's nothing to worry about and others who worry about everything, especially their funding from a government that wants to control our lives through this scheme. An anti-GreenParty government might take its place. They worry about that more than they worry about the future of life on this planet. It's not just the oil companies who write propaganda in their own self-interest.

Your trick logic groups the two opposing groups together. So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."

 

[steve_bank]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

 

[skepticalbip]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."

You don't get my point, I guess. My point is that the detractors agree with climate scientists who say that the climate has varied over the past thousands of years and use that as their evidence that the current change of climate is consistent with this past history and therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

There are another group of climate scientists who say that the current usage of fossil fuels is leading to a change in climate that is inconsistent with this past history. Yes, they may not be the same exact group of scientists -- though it has not been presented by their detractors that they are not the same group or have some amount of overlap.

But the foundational science, the physics and chemistry, between the study of historical and current climate change is not different. If the detractors were willing to come forward with actual scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change it might be worthy of debate. But when they say "the climate has always been changing" as their evidence that doesn't meet the mark.

Perhaps I tried making my point too succinctly and you couldn't follow the logic. I just find it interesting that the detractors seem to have no problem with the physics and chemistry that lead to a conclusion they agree with politically but then have a big problem with the very same physics and chemistry when it leads to a conclusion that they find politically inconvenient.

So, no you don't have to automatically agree with "two sides" of climate scientists, but you do have to have a good reason for disagreeing with one side while agreeing with the other. It can't just be political expedience. That's not how science works.

 

[steve_bank]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.

 

[steve_bank]

So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."

You don't get my point, I guess. My point is that the detractors agree with climate scientists who say that the climate has varied over the past thousands of years and use that as their evidence that the current change of climate is consistent with this past history and therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

There are another group of climate scientists who say that the current usage of fossil fuels is leading to a change in climate that is inconsistent with this past history. Yes, they may not be the same exact group of scientists -- though it has not been presented by their detractors that they are not the same group or have some amount of overlap.

But the foundational science, the physics and chemistry, between the study of historical and current climate change is not different. If the detractors were willing to come forward with actual scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change it might be worthy of debate. But when they say "the climate has always been changing" as their evidence that doesn't meet the mark.

Perhaps I tried making my point too succinctly and you couldn't follow the logic. I just find it interesting that the detractors seem to have no problem with the physics and chemistry that lead to a conclusion they agree with politically but then have a big problem with the very same physics and chemistry when it leads to a conclusion that they find politically inconvenient.

So, no you don't have to automatically agree with "two sides" of climate scientists, but you do have to have a good reason for disagreeing with one side while agreeing with the other. It can't just be political expedience. That's not how science works.

Nicely put.

 

[skepticalbip]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.

I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In California we had some heavy rain over the weekend which eventually made its way down to the LA area on Monday. The moron Newsom says, and I paraphrase, "If you don't believe the science, believe your own eyes. The wets are getting wetter." He's a idiot and he thinks everyone else is an idiot. Rain is now climate change, what a moron.

It really is a religion, a rapture like-cult.

Meanwhile, it is a catastrophic 63f on the West Side.

The warmer the climate the more energy driving weather and the more extreme it will get.

 

[steve_bank]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.

I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?

Opinionated people interpret 'climatology' as they please.

One of the things the Univ Wash is predicting among other things the Columbia River drawing down due to reduced snow packs and spring melts. Eastern Wash and Oregon agriculture depends on it.

You are ignoring what is being said, climate change is upon us. From a report today loss of glaciers on Kilimanjaro is affecting food production. Here in the PNW higher river temperatures is killing salmon. They suffocate from low O2. Salmon is a major source of pertain. Rising water temperatures are killing coral reefs, the nurseries at the bottom of the ocean food chain.. Heavy rains suppress bee pollination and crop yields, also recent reporting. Everything is connected. There is a growing list of small things. But hey, everything appears fine in my neighborhood and there is food in the stores, so what is the big deal? Right?

Do you know where the O2 you breathe comes from?

And again exactly what science and how are they misinterpreting and misrepresenting? If you do not understand the basis of ocean currents you can read all the 'journals' you please. Be specific.

The COVID crisis has clearly shwn te fragility if our food supply chain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.

I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?

How many papers need to be read to observe the climate has warmed, has become a bit more unpredictable, with higher magnitudes of severe storms. Didn't we reach record high temps for continents in Europe and North America this summer? Previously unrecorded levels of flooding occurring in Europe, North America, and Asia. Nearly exhausted the alphabet with Hurricanes in the Atlantic again this year.

As the OP title indicates, this isn't Change, it is past tense. We just aren't sure where this is leading, what thresholds or tipping points might be passed. It could be quite bad or it could just be a pain in the ass. Yes, looking at news articles about science is dumb. The media is comprised of liberal arts majors who are not that knowledgeable about what they right about and are pressured for clicks.

 

[TSwizzle]

Absolute nonsense driven by climate fear propaganda churned out by the likes Teh Grauniad and the BBC. The earth's climate is not static, it fluctuates over time. There has been an imperceptible warming trend that has shown little impact. Every single major weather event is blamed on "the climate crisis".

It's a religion.

Speaking of which, here's a well known and highly respected spokesperson in religious matter lecturing on the "climate crisis";

[quote
Pope Francis has urged world leaders to take “radical decisions” at next week’s global environmental summit in a special message recorded for BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day.

Leaders attending the Cop26 conference in Glasgow must offer “concrete hope to future generations”, the pontiff said.[/quote]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/29/pope-francis-world-leaders-climate-action-cop26

A rapture_like cult.

 

[skepticalbip]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.

I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?

How many papers need to be read to observe the climate has warmed, has become a bit more unpredictable, with higher magnitudes of severe storms. Didn't we reach record high temps for continents in Europe and North America this summer? Previously unrecorded levels of flooding occurring in Europe, North America, and Asia. Nearly exhausted the alphabet with Hurricanes in the Atlantic again this year.

As the OP title indicates, this isn't Change, it is past tense. We just aren't sure where this is leading, what thresholds or tipping points might be passed. It could be quite bad or it could just be a pain in the ass. Yes, looking at news articles about science is dumb. The media is comprised of liberal arts majors who are not that knowledgeable about what they right about and are pressured for clicks.

You apparently haven't actually read my posts. Yes, global temperatures have risen and the science of climatology is working hard at trying to develop ever more reliable modeling to better understand. Currently there are a few dozen different models, all successful to a degree but don't give the same long term predictions;. There are still unknowns, evidenced by the fact that the models vary and all the models have predicted greater warming than actual measurements.... but there is warming.

What I am ranting against is all the hyperbolic bull-shit presented as "science" like, for one example, SB linking a video by a social media "influencer".

 

[TSwizzle]

It was worse than that, it was the BBC that quotes the influencer. The BBC has zero credibility.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, somehow, if we agree with one side we have to agree with the other, since they are both officially called "climate scientists."

You don't get my point, I guess. My point is that the detractors agree with climate scientists who say that the climate has varied over the past thousands of years and use that as their evidence that the current change of climate is consistent with this past history and therefore there is no such thing as anthropogenic climate change.

There are another group of climate scientists who say that the current usage of fossil fuels is leading to a change in climate that is inconsistent with this past history. Yes, they may not be the same exact group of scientists -- though it has not been presented by their detractors that they are not the same group or have some amount of overlap.

But the foundational science, the physics and chemistry, between the study of historical and current climate change is not different. If the detractors were willing to come forward with actual scientific arguments against anthropogenic climate change it might be worthy of debate. But when they say "the climate has always been changing" as their evidence that doesn't meet the mark.

Perhaps I tried making my point too succinctly and you couldn't follow the logic. I just find it interesting that the detractors seem to have no problem with the physics and chemistry that lead to a conclusion they agree with politically but then have a big problem with the very same physics and chemistry when it leads to a conclusion that they find politically inconvenient.

So, no you don't have to automatically agree with "two sides" of climate scientists, but you do have to have a good reason for disagreeing with one side while agreeing with the other. It can't just be political expedience. That's not how science works.

Nature Is a Crime Against Humanity; It Has No Eminent Domain

You're so desperate to belong to the Little Green Men's cult that your loneliness outside it makes you slide into more slippery logic in defending your security blanket.

Science works against nature, so any group that is offended by the fact that auto emissions don't naturally occur in our atmosphere feel that it is some sacrilege to their Gaia goddess, who will punish us severely for that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Watched reporting on Kuwait on BBC America.

Daytimes temperatures are reaching 50c. I worked in temperature screening rooms at 55c. I could take it for maybe 20 minutes. Could not touch anything without gloves.

Conclusion from the report Kuwait and the region is heading towards being uninhabitable.

It is not apocalyptical as in a movie, but it is apocalyptical in terms of how we are being affected right now.

What day was that? I just checked Kuwait temperature for today and the high was 85F (29.4C)... pretty much normal. Maybe you saw something like is popular for weather people of frying an egg on the sidewalk which I have seen every summer for the last several decades.

You seem to misunderstand what climatology models are predicting. They don't say that where you live things will become scorching... what they say is that the global temperature will become more uniform with very little (if any) increase at the equator and much more increase at the poles..

bbc news video kuwait heat - Search Videos

www.bing.com

That is not a news report... That is advocacy journalism. If it was presented as news then you should pen a nasty letter to BBC. That is the kind of advocacy that hurts the science of climatology because it distorts reality and is intended to evoke an emotional rather than reasoned reaction. Reasonable people can check the veracity of the "report".

More handwaving on your part.

You obviously lack the most basic physics, Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics at the freshman or sophomore level, to have any discussion . All you do is decry media reporting, like conservative media figures aka Tucker Carlson et al.

Yu are looking for reasons to believe there is nothing to worry about and its business as usual, like many conservatives.

Let's start off with some basics.

Do you understand how ocean currents are created and what the effects of those currents have on crops and weather on Europe and North America? On commercial fishing? Do you understand what would happen if the water got warm enough to stall those currents?


Can you discuss without referring just to media reporting as you criticize others for?

It is hardly "hand waving". Have you ever actually read any science journal papers on climatology? If so, it doesn't show in your posts.

Reasonable people can distinguish between news reports and advocacy journalism... just as they can distinguish the difference between the content of the op-ed page of a newspaper and news.

It is painfully obvious 'reasonable people' can not distinguish fact from falsehood.

Witness the anti-vaccine falsehoods that are believed by many.

The reasonable person argument is just another common tactic to attack scince i genral when one chooses to avoid an objective conclusion.

Again. do you know how the ocean currents which have large scale effects on climate are formed? Invoking 'have you read scientific journals' is just more handwaving and misdirection. I sent my life in a science based competitive environment and have seen most if not all of the tactics that are used in place of a lack of technical knowledge. You are not using any tactic I have not seen before.

To understand climate change all's I need is fundamental science in the form of thermodynamics and mechanics which I applied for around 30 years. I do nor need low level details like the chemistry of greenhouse gasses to reach a conclusion.

When a technical or science issue comes up outside my experience I will go with the majority of scientists and respected institutions.

Be specific, on what are you basing your assertions and thinking? The Guardian OP eds?

I do not read popular news reporting on climate on ether side of the issue.

I am not attacking science. I am defending science by pointing out that the advocacy journalists are not talking about the science but their misunderstanding of it and their fear. My assertions of what climatology actually says is based on decades of reading scientific journal papers on climatology research. I first became interested in climatology in about 1980 when the "crisis" (in the popular media) was "THE COMING ICE AGE". A friend gave me a copy of the book by that title (which stressed how bad the crisis was) he had read because of the media panic mongering over the "issue". The "expose" read like nonsense to me so I began reading actual science papers to find what the science actually said.

I'll ask you again, have you ever actually read any science journal papers concerning climatology? Or are your opinions based on videos like you linked by a "social media influencer"?

How many papers need to be read to observe the climate has warmed, has become a bit more unpredictable, with higher magnitudes of severe storms. Didn't we reach record high temps for continents in Europe and North America this summer? Previously unrecorded levels of flooding occurring in Europe, North America, and Asia. Nearly exhausted the alphabet with Hurricanes in the Atlantic again this year.

As the OP title indicates, this isn't Change, it is past tense. We just aren't sure where this is leading, what thresholds or tipping points might be passed. It could be quite bad or it could just be a pain in the ass. Yes, looking at news articles about science is dumb. The media is comprised of liberal arts majors who are not that knowledgeable about what they right about and are pressured for clicks.

You are being both incorrect and dishonest. A typical example of the Trustfundie Treehuggers Kaczynskian cult's overblowing the significance of an event is the recent New York hurricane. The purposely omitted background is that it also happened in the 1930s. when the level of civilization's byproducts weren't enough to qualify for scare-story material. It also happened in the 1700s, when there were fewer people and no scary gases. Back then, I'm sure that the Puritan alarmists, your kind of guys, called it the wages of sin or the work of the devil:

Sermon of a God (or Gaia) Salesman

Pray
Then pay
That's the way
To make my day

 

[TSwizzle]

More claptrap from the BBC;

Eco-friendly sex: What is it and how does it impact on climate change?​

BBC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Absolute nonsense driven by climate fear propaganda churned out by the likes Teh Grauniad and the BBC. The earth's climate is not static, it fluctuates over time. There has been an imperceptible warming trend that has shown little impact. Every single major weather event is blamed on "the climate crisis".

It's a religion.

Just because there are natural fluctuations doesn't mean all fluctuations are natural. And what has happened naturally doesn't mean it's harmless--the hottest times in Earth's history would be catastrophic to humanity, the coldest we just might be able to survive with technology, otherwise it's certain extinction.

 

[Politesse]

A simple reason why not to add the 'd' to Climate Change and form a past tense:
It's not over yet! Expect climate to continue changing. (Where's the :gak: emoticon? )

That was my first thought as well, but you beat me to it. There's nothing past tense about this situation, except perhaps that the changes already experienced are irreparable.