Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

More bollocks funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Little surprise that an idiot like you swallowed it.

Proof?

Throughout this thread every time you or another idiot posts big oil propaganda. Try reading it.

So,no proof?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

More bollocks funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Little surprise that an idiot like you swallowed it.

Proof?

Throughout this thread every time you or another idiot posts big oil propaganda. Try reading it.

So,no proof?

Are you retarded?

I said "Try Reading it".

Every single time you or one of the other idiots has posted some pseudoscientific babble from some fossil fuel funded fucktard, it has been debunked. Ergo, all the proof you need is already in this thread.

Because you simply cannot argue against science with mumbo fucking jumbo you moron.

32 degrees in London today, same as Chiang Mai.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

32 degrees in London today, same as Chiang Mai.

That's not change Bob. That's equality.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

32 degrees in London today, same as Chiang Mai.

My daughter visited London over the weekend. She said London is just too hot. She visited before, it was in October and even then it was hot.

The highest-ever temperature in Britain has been recorded, weather forecasters said.
A temperature of 37.4C (99.3F) was recorded at Heathrow around 1.30pm, the London Weather Centre said.

This breaks the previous record temperature, recorded at Cheltenham in August 1990.

Sizzling UK records hottest day ever | Daily Mail Online

Nearly a third of the world’s population is now exposed to climatic conditions that produce deadly heatwaves, as the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere makes it “almost inevitable” that vast areas of the planet will face rising fatalities from high temperatures, new research has found.

Climate change has escalated the heatwave risk across the globe, the study states, with nearly half of the world’s population set to suffer periods of deadly heat by the end of the century even if greenhouse gases are radically cut.

“For heatwaves, our options are now between bad or terrible,” said Camilo Mora, an academic at the University of Hawaii and lead author of the study.

High temperatures are currently baking large swaths of the south-western US, with the National Weather Service (NWS) issuing an excessive heat warning for Phoenix, Arizona, which is set to reach 119F (48.3C) on Monday.

The heat warning extends across much of Arizona and up through the heart of California, with Palm Springs forecast a toasty 116F (46.6C) on Monday and Sacramento set to reach 107F (41.6C).

The NWS warned the abnormal warmth would “significantly increase the potential for heat-related illness” and advised residents to drink more water, seek shade and recognize the early symptoms of heat stroke, such as nausea and a racing pulse.

Mora’s research shows that the overall risk of heat-related illness or death has climbed steadily since 1980, with around 30% of the world’s population now living in climatic conditions that deliver deadly temperatures at least 20 days a year.

The proportion of people at risk worldwide will grow to 48% by 2100 even if emissions are drastically reduced, while around three-quarters of the global population will be under threat by then if greenhouse gases are not curbed at all.

“Finding so many cases of heat-related deaths was mind blowing, especially as they often don’t get much attention because they last for just a few days and then people moved on,” Mora said.

“Dying in a heatwave is like being slowly cooked, it’s pure torture. The young and elderly are at particular risk, but we found that this heat can kill soldiers, athletes, everyone.”

The study, published in Nature Climate Change, analyzed more than 1,900 cases of fatalities associated with heatwaves in 36 countries over the past four decades. By looking at heat and humidity during such lethal episodes, researchers worked out a threshold beyond which conditions become deadly.

This time period includes the European heatwave of 2003, which fueled forest fires in several countries and caused the River Danube in Serbia to plummet so far that submerged second world war tanks and bombs were revealed. An estimated 20,000 people died; a subsequent study suggested the number was as high as 70,000.

A further 10,000 died in Moscow due to scorching weather in 2010. In 1995, Chicago suffered a five-day burst of heat that resulted in more than 700 deaths.

However, most heat-related deaths do not occur during such widely-covered disasters. Phoenix, for example, suffered an unusually hot spell last June that resulted in the deaths of at least four people. Hyperthermia, an excess of body heat, can lead to heat stroke and a potential inflammatory response that can kill.

Mora said the threshold to deadly conditions caries from place to place, with some people dying in temperatures as low as 23C. A crucial factor, he said, was the humidity level combined with the heat.

“Your sweat doesn’t evaporate if it is very humid, so heat accumulates in your body instead,” Mora said. “People can then suffer heat toxicity, which is like sunburn on the inside of your body. The blood rushes to the skin to cool you down so there’s less blood going to the organs. A common killer is when the lining of your gut breaks down and leaks toxins into the rest of your body.”

Global warming is a potent instigator of deadly heat, with research from University of California, Irvine this month finding the probability of a heatwave killing in excess of 100 people in India has doubled due to a 0.5C increase in temperature over the past 50 years.

“The impact of global climate change is not a specter on the horizon. It’s real, and it’s being felt now all over the planet,” said Amir AghaKouchak, UCI associate professor and co-author of that study.

“It’s particularly alarming that the adverse effects are pummeling the world’s most vulnerable populations.”

Elevated temperatures and dry conditions have been exacerbated by the clearing of trees, which provide shade and cooling moisture, in urban areas. Mora said that while adaption such as government heat warnings and the increased use of air conditioning has helped reduce deaths, this was not a viable long-term solution.

“The heat means that we are becoming prisoners in our own homes – you go to Houston, Texas in the summer and there’s no-one outside,” he said.

“Also, the increased use of air conditioning means that electrical grids fail, as has happened in New York City, Australia and Saudi Arabia. We need to prevent heatwaves rather than just trying to adapt to them.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change

Originally Posted by chassamui

It makes perfect sense, unless you are funded by big oil and gas.

As has been proven time and again in this thread yet they keep coming back citing the same debunked gibberish they cited the last time.

Originally Posted by chassamui

If that were the case you would be able to produce plausible statistical analysis in support of your rather wild claims.

Most likely we will see some junk science linked back to the "climatedepot".

Originally Posted by chassamui

As you are unable to do so, it just means you are a rather pathetic mumbling dick.

Nail meet hammer.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by longway

Knob's sentence doesn't even make any sense, but that would be about par for the course from a narcissistic buffoon with his head up his ass.

The question is not about climate change, but whether the projections of catastrophic climate change are valid or not. It is portrayed that the consensus on the projections of catastrophic climate change among the scientific community researching this topic is 97%. This is simply not true, and is propaganda.

It makes perfect sense, unless you are funded by big oil and gas. If that were the case you would be able to produce plausible statistical analysis in support of your rather wild claims.
As you are unable to do so, it just means you are a rather pathetic mumbling dick.

I thought that was a given.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by longway

Knob's sentence doesn't even make any sense, but that would be about par for the course from a narcissistic buffoon with his head up his ass.

The question is not about climate change, but whether the projections of catastrophic climate change are valid or not. It is portrayed that the consensus on the projections of catastrophic climate change among the scientific community researching this topic is 97%. This is simply not true, and is propaganda.

It makes perfect sense, unless you are funded by big oil and gas. If that were the case you would be able to produce plausible statistical analysis in support of your rather wild claims.
As you are unable to do so, it just means you are a rather pathetic mumbling dick.

What are the wild claims I have made?

The only thing I have pointed out is that the 97% consensus claim is propaganda, as the vast majority of papers used, over 99% or them, do not support the hypothesis of man made catastrophic climate change.

I don't know what its like in your world as i dont have my head up my ass, but its not me who is making the wild claims.

Up to this point I am the only one who directly addressed what was put to me, I checked it out and found out it was bs. I posted the link, none of you have even attempted to address the point I raised.

So obviously it must be you and your silly little mates who are the mumbling dicks.

Oh look, a Trumptard who is also a climate denialist.

In other breaking news: 'Water, "it's wet" Says Science'.
Fox News: 'No it's Not!'

Originally Posted by longway

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by longway

Knob's sentence doesn't even make any sense, but that would be about par for the course from a narcissistic buffoon with his head up his ass.

The question is not about climate change, but whether the projections of catastrophic climate change are valid or not. It is portrayed that the consensus on the projections of catastrophic climate change among the scientific community researching this topic is 97%. This is simply not true, and is propaganda.

It makes perfect sense, unless you are funded by big oil and gas. If that were the case you would be able to produce plausible statistical analysis in support of your rather wild claims.
As you are unable to do so, it just means you are a rather pathetic mumbling dick.

What are the wild claims I have made?

The only thing I have pointed out is that the 97% consensus claim is propaganda, as the vast majority of papers used, over 99% or them, do not support the hypothesis of man made catastrophic climate change.

You haven't pointed it out though, have you, you've merely tried to state it as a fact, when in reality virtually every attempt to discredit it uses biased criteria or, more often, just bullshit.

I would suggest a review of this page might help.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm

or this one

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Whilst there may be a a margin of error, it is indisputable that the vast majority of scientists are convinced that we are influencing climate change. I think you'd have to be an idiot to assume otherwise, since the science is so obvious.

However, it is fair to say that the exact extent of mans interference is harder to pinpoint; is that really a valid reason to simply ignore it?

There is quite simply no substantive or credible argument against the scientific facts supporting mans influence on the climate.
Those who foolishly debate against such overwhelming scientific proof, do so only because of fear. They are afraid that big business, as the primary cause, will be ordered to pay for mitigation at some point in the future.
The major worry for those who actually understand the causes, is that the two countries set to carry the greatest mitigation costs, China and the US, are entrenched in their refusal to accept the science, and represent a diffident majority of the worlds trade.

Originally Posted by chassamui

the two countries set to carry the greatest mitigation costs, China and the US, are entrenched in their refusal to accept the science, and represent a diffident majority of the worlds trade.

Not that I disagree with your assessment, but I'd just like to point one of those countries can at least still claim to be part of the Paris Accord (the sarcasm smiley would be superfluous).

Recent

No disrespect SL. The deniers won't even see this. They can't see the wood for the trees and they will still be blind even when all the trees are gone.

It is a curious case of willful-blindness isn't it.

Because you have to perform some pretty impressive logic gymnastics to convince yourself that scientific consensus is wrong but that bloke writing that blog with links/funding to an oil Co. is right and that, somehow, it's all a conspiracy to make money by not polluting shit and all the cash will flow to left-wing scientists and not the aforementioned profit-driven oil Co's.

Originally Posted by longway

What I am disputing is the the propaganda that CATASTROPHIC man made climate change has a 97% consensus among researchers in the field

No, what you're doing is being specious and spurious and trying to muddy the waters.

Originally Posted by longway

What I am disputing is the the propaganda that CATASTROPHIC man made climate change has a 97% consensus among researchers in the field.

Not sure who is leading who here? If you, and big oil/business continue to deny anthropogenic warming, it will BECOME catastrophic for all, from the third world hunter gatherers to the CEO's of head in the sand businesses.
It's a coherent and very real warning. Ignore it at everyones peril.

^ Well you mumbling dick, I am not denying man made climate change, nor is there any scientific consensus that it will become catastrophic, so go mumble your strawman arguments and wild claims to someone else.

This shouldn't be such a contentious issue as the main body of scientific evidence has already concluded that man-made climate change is a reality.

Here is my point: for sake of my argument, let's assume that man-made climate change is an indisputable fact... and we endeavor to make changes to lesson our carbon footprint on our planet (electric cars, move away from animal farming for food, back to agricultural farming, etc, etc)

Then in 10-20 years we discover that we were wrong, man-made climate change was a hoax!

So what? as a result we have adopted cleaner, much more sustainable forms of energy and farming - and out planet is much healthier as a result...

Win - win, no?

To my mind, it's just not worth the gamble.. let's err on the side of caution as the stakes are just too high to be wrong.. we are gambling with our own extinction.