Italy’s ‘once in a century’ deadly floods are linked to climate crisis, researchers say

[placeholder]

30 minutes ago, thaipo7 said:

Why are Gretta and AOC experts on Climate Change while scientist's views are blocked to the public unless it agrees with the Democrat Party line?

Who said these people are experts on the Climate change? Obsessed much?

So, for this alleged blocking to be the case, there would have to be a conspiracy on a massive scale to accomplish that. Please share with us the evidence that this is the case.

 

[placeholder]

Just now, BenStark said:

Yeah because they closed the nuclear reactors and the coal fired plants, leaving hydroelectric as only option.

 

Even windmills the greenies protest against

Coal plants are being closed because they aren't economically competitive. They are also a huge public health hazard with the costs incurred by their pollution paid for by others. As for nuclear reactors, they typically incur huge cost overruns when they are being built. And virtually all defunct nuclear plants which have had to be shut on account of their age, haven't managed to find any takers to dispose of spent fuel rods.

[radiochaser]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

What is it about human-caused climate change denialists that apparently makes them incapable of understand the concept of rates. If you were offered 2 equally safe savings accounts, one that offerd 1% interest and another that offered 10% interest, I guess it would be a matter of indifference to you which account you would chose. After all, both are increasing, so rates are irrelevant. John Paulos, a mathematician, coined the word "innumeracy". Basically it's the equivalent of illiteracy but applied to math. The rates at which glaciers are melting and global average temperature is rising are unprecedented for hundreds of thousand of years. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Still, what caused the global climate changed that caused the ice age to disappear?   

For that matter, what was it that caused the global temperature to drop so low, that there was a Glacial period in which ice in the northern pole migrated down south into Canada and the northern part of the United States?   

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by radiochaser

[placeholder]

7 hours ago, radiochaser said:

Still, what caused the global climate changed that caused the ice age to disappear?   

For that matter, what was it that caused the global temperature to drop so low, that there was a Glacial period in which ice in the northern pole migrated down south into Canada and the northern part of the United States?   

 

I guess I should be flattered that you would ask me, an anonymous member of aseannow.co for the answer to this question rather than consult the numerous resources that are available on the internet. Still, rather than have you be possibly misinformed by me,  I decided for the sake of your education to google for an answer to this question: What causes ice ages? I came up with an authoritative link that explains what causes ice ages. (And just to be precise, we are still in an ice age.)

https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/PSA_ice_ages.pdf

 

However, the fact that we are in an interglacial period of the current Ice Age, has nothing to do with current accelerated rate of change. An issue which you addressed with one word: "Still"

[radiochaser]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I guess I should be flattered that you would ask me, an anonymous member of aseannow.co for the answer to this question rather than consult the numerous resources that are available on the internet. Still, rather than have you be possibly misinformed by me,  I decided for the sake of your education to google for an answer to this question: What causes ice ages? I came up with an authoritative link that explains what causes ice ages. (And just to be precise, we are still in an ice age.)

https://gml.noaa.gov/education/info_activities/pdfs/PSA_ice_ages.pdf

 

However, the fact that we are in an interglacial period of the current Ice Age, has nothing to do with current accelerated rate of change. An issue which you addressed with one word: "Still"

I have consulted numerous resources on the internet and one thing that I find in doing so is, that despite the claim that it is "settled science", the science is not settled.   

What I do find is that there are numerous claims that seem to blame human kind as the primary cause of global warming, or climate change or what ever is the favored term of today. 

Yet I also find accounts written by climatologist that say there are no one reason for global cooling/global warming/climate change.  

And that link, I read that one too, before you posted it.    But, I wanted your opinion on the reason.  

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

I have consulted numerous resources on the internet and one thing that I find in doing so is, that despite the claim that it is "settled science", the science is not settled.   

What I do find is that there are numerous claims that seem to blame human kind as the primary cause of global warming, or climate change or what ever is the favored term of today. 

Yet I also find accounts written by climatologist that say there are no one reason for global cooling/global warming/climate change.  

And that link, I read that one too, before you posted it.    But, I wanted your opinion on the reason.  

Why won't you share any of these numerous sources so us uneducated people can learn.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, radiochaser said:

I have consulted numerous resources on the internet and one thing that I find in doing so is, that despite the claim that it is "settled science", the science is not settled.   

What I do find is that there are numerous claims that seem to blame human kind as the primary cause of global warming, or climate change or what ever is the favored term of today. 

Yet I also find accounts written by climatologist that say there are no one reason for global cooling/global warming/climate change.  

And that link, I read that one too, before you posted it.    But, I wanted your opinion on the reason.  

You can find support for virtually any belief you hold on the internet and accept it thanks to something called confirmation bias. The fact is that, as the simultaneous cooling of the upper atmosphere and warming of the troposphere shows, the science is settled on this question. And please spare us the cliche that the science is never settled. The example that denialists routinely introduce is Newton's theory of gravitation vs. relativity. The fact is that Newton's theory is accurate enough to steer a spaceship to Pluto. And no one is retreating to pre-Newtonin physics to explain the motion of heavenly bodies.

[radiochaser]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Why won't you share any of these numerous sources so us uneducated people can learn.

We have been through that before. 

[radiochaser]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You can find support for virtually any belief you hold on the internet and accept it thanks to something called confirmation bias. The fact is that, as the simultaneous cooling of the upper atmosphere and warming of the troposphere shows, the science is settled on this question. And please spare us the cliche that the science is never settled. The example that denialists routinely introduce is Newton's theory of gravitation vs. relativity. The fact is that Newton's theory is accurate enough to steer a spaceship to Pluto. And no one is retreating to pre-Newtonin physics to explain the motion of heavenly bodies.

Confirmation bias goes both ways, right?   
Please spare us the cliché that the science is settled.  
I never denied that there is or is not global warming/cooling/ climate change.   
When did gravity and relativity creep in?
Is the conversation going to move to the argument of the earth is flat, no it isn't?

Edited May 23, 2023 by radiochaser

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

We have been through that before. 

so, because you're not allowed to post links to BS we have to endure repeated insistence that there is science but without links? You're likewise not permitted to claim a fact (that there is science supporting your theory) without posting any links. And since you can't / won't, don't post BS claims.

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Confirmation bias goes both ways, right?   
Please spare us the cliché that the science is settled.  
I never denied that there is or is not global warming/cooling/ climate change.   
When did gravity and relativity creep in?
Is the conversation going to move to the argument of the earth is flat, no it isn't?

Of course, you didn't deny that there is  "global warming/cooling/ climate change" Denialists just claim that the current rapid warming trend isn't tied to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because the climate is always changing. This is a typical denialist ploy. They believe that semantics trumps science.

Newtonian physics and relativity creep in because denialists claim that the science isn't settled. It is settled. The public only has the impression that it isn't settled because the fossil fuel industry has been doing its best to propagandize otherwise.

[radiochaser]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Of course, you didn't deny that there is  "global warming/cooling/ climate change" Denialists just claim that the current rapid warming trend isn't tied to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because the climate is always changing. This is a typical denialist ploy. They believe that semantics trumps science.

Newtonian physics and relativity creep in because denialists claim that the science isn't settled. It is settled. The public only has the impression that it isn't settled because the fossil fuel industry has been doing its best to propagandize otherwise.

Why the continual labeling of "denialists"?   
Why the rationalization of who or what I believe to fit your narrative? 
Is it because I don't want to buy into the general propaganda?  I won't go along to get along?  I should believe as you believe? 
I cannot have beliefs, thoughts, or ideas of my own? 
When did I say that there is no green house gases?    
And are you not using semantics of your own, to fit your own narrative?
Did Newton define the final science and nothing has been discovered, explained, defined, developed, etc. since his death?
You mentioned Pluto.   Wasn't that a planet at one time and was down graded to a lessor body?  I remember that upset some people.  But, it is what it is. 


 

[radiochaser]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

so, because you're not allowed to post links to BS we have to endure repeated insistence that there is science but without links? You're likewise not permitted to claim a fact (that there is science supporting your theory) without posting any links. And since you can't / won't, don't post BS claims.

Again, we have been down that road before!   

Are the final arbiter that has the authority to say what is and is not BS?

[ozimoron]

26 minutes ago, radiochaser said:

Again, we have been down that road before!   

Are the final arbiter that has the authority to say what is and is not BS?

Credibility of the evidence or lack thereof. Peer review, lack of widespread criticism, etc. There are many ways to reasonably deduce the credibility of a source. That is the process applied on this board to declare the sites to which you allude as unacceptable.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, radiochaser said:

Why the continual labeling of "denialists"?   
Why the rationalization of who or what I believe to fit your narrative? 
Is it because I don't want to buy into the general propaganda?  I won't go along to get along?  I should believe as you believe? 
I cannot have beliefs, thoughts, or ideas of my own? 
When did I say that there is no green house gases?    
And are you not using semantics of your own, to fit your own narrative?
Did Newton define the final science and nothing has been discovered, explained, defined, developed, etc. since his death?
You mentioned Pluto.   Wasn't that a planet at one time and was down graded to a lessor body?  I remember that upset some people.  But, it is what it is. 


 

That you call the overwhelming scientific consensus propaganda says it all.

Sure, you can believe whatever you like. You can believe that the moon landing didn't take place. You can believe that evolution is a fraud and the universe and everything in it was created about 6000 years ago. But such opinions are based entirely on belief and not on valid evidence.

Edited May 23, 2023 by placeholder

[radiochaser]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

That you call the overwhelming scientific consensus propaganda says it all.

Sure, you can believe whatever you like. You can believe that the moon landing didn't take place. You can believe that evolution is a fraud and the universe and everything in it was created about 6000 years ago. But such opinions are based entirely on belief and not on valid evidence.

Are you claiming that I believe the moon landing did not occur?  That I believe evolution did not happen? 
Now, who is giving out opinions that are not based on valid evidence?  

[placeholder]

 

5 hours ago, radiochaser said:

Are you claiming that I believe the moon landing did not occur?  That I believe evolution did not happen? 
Now, who is giving out opinions that are not based on valid evidence?  

My reply was in response to this:

 

"I cannot have beliefs, thoughts, or ideas of my own? "

 

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you like no matter how scientifically questionable your beliefs may be. You are even entitled to call the overwhelming scientific consensus "propaganda". It's irrational, but irrationality isn't impermissible.

Edited May 23, 2023 by placeholder