Climate records tumble, leaving Earth in uncharted territory - scientists

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, candide said:

I made the claim that right-wing governments, outside the U.S., often supported environmental policies, a claim you found idiotic. 

A claim (among others) that you did not support. 

[Willy Wombat]

1978

 

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Don’t be daft; politics in the United States (and elsewhere) runs on corporate money. Somebody mentioned Scott Pruitt earlier; when he was attorney general of Oklahoma, fossil fuel industries fed him $215,000, and he sued the EPA at least fourteen times. When Trump won the presidency, he made Pruitt head of the EPA. Such information is available everywhere.

I was responding to someone that falsely claimed: "The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing."

 

One would have to be super, ultra daft to think your post supports the claim. 

 

 

[ChaiyaTH]

Yet they still have to break the record in 1976 in Netherlands, there isn't a trending line at all for it to be more significant hot / hot longer. Only thing that changed seems that we have more often a summer with 5 days in a row 25+ celcius and 2 days 30-32, as if anyone complains about that.

 

They said in the news that we should not eat spicy food if it is too hot too. Thais laughing for sure.

Edited July 25, 2023 by ChaiyaTH

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Willy Wombat said:

1978

 

This was produced back before we had science...

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

This was produced back before we had science...

What Journal was it published in?

[Yellowtail]

Just now, placeholder said:

What Journal was it published in?

Ladies Home

[Cory1848]

30 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

It's funny how easy it is to manipulate people by altering their perception of reality.

Saturate the news with climate change and people will see climate change everywhere.

Saturate the news with racism and people will see racism everywhere.

Saturate the news with terrorism and people will see terrorism everywhere.

Saturate the news with toxic masculinity and people will see toxic masculinity everywhere.

Saturate the news with civilization collapse and people will see civilization collapse everywhere.

Saturate the news with toxic immigration and people will see toxic immigration everywhere.

Saturate the news with whatever and people will see that whatever everywhere.

 

Let's be clear here. I'm not saying global warming isn't real or dangerous.

My comment is merely about how information is being weaponized to influence people's minds on every single topic imaginable (whether it's for good or bad reasons).

I find it terribly boring and excruciating after a while.

Well, yeah, assuming that consumers of news are empty vessels incapable of rational thought, or of distinguishing between what’s real and what’s not. Given the number of people worldwide who say they get most or all of their news from social media (or from bloggers living with their mothers and selling herbal remedies on the side), there’s certainly reason for concern.

 

Your list of examples includes everything from very real existential threats to festering problems to nonissues. I’d like to be optimistic and believe that there are still enough people who can tell the difference.

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Yet they still have to break the record in 1976 in Netherlands, there isn't a trending line at all for it to be more significant hot / hot longer. Only thing that changed seems that we have more often a summer with 5 days in a row 25+ celcius and 2 days 30-32, as if anyone complains about that.

 

They said in the news that we should not eat spicy food if it is too hot too. Thais laughing for sure.

The previous high temperature heat record 38.6 °C (101.5 °F), set in Warnsveld in 1944, was broken on 24 July in Eindhoven (North Brabant) where the temperature reached 39.3 °C (102.7 °F).^[69] The following day, 40.7 °C (105.3 °F) was measured in Gilze-Rijen (also North Brabant).^[44][70][71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_heat_waves

 

[ChaiyaTH]

Just now, placeholder said:

The previous high temperature heat record 38.6 °C (101.5 °F), set in Warnsveld in 1944, was broken on 24 July in Eindhoven (North Brabant) where the temperature reached 39.3 °C (102.7 °F).^[69] The following day, 40.7 °C (105.3 °F) was measured in Gilze-Rijen (also North Brabant).^[44][70][71]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_heat_waves

 

As mentioned above, the data from before 70's not really count, if you look at the data before that, there is even one at around 1900. But yes, it are obviously patterns of hotter and colder periods, in longer history of earth. Climate change is real but natural, that's the entire game they abuse.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

As mentioned above, the data from before 70's not really count, if you look at the data before that, there is even one at around 1900. But yes, it are obviously patterns of hotter and colder periods, in longer history of earth. Climate change is real but natural, that's the entire game they abuse.

Someone else who wants to substitute semantics for science. What is it about so many of you denialists that you don't seem to understand the significance of the rate of change?

[Rimmer]

Unattributed out of date and unaproved source posts also cut and paste graphics have been removed also replies

[Jacques Clouseau]

2 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

I’d like to be optimistic and believe that there are still enough people who can tell the difference.

I'm not optimistic at all. News has become a constant stream of non-hierarchical information. Too much data kills data. People don't have enough time to process what they've been exposed to. Already the next wave of nudging hit them. I can feel it with myself sometimes. Information overload / burnout. And I don't even have a social media account. Anyway... :)

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'd say

Anyone with a shred of common sense.

Anyone that wants a modicum of personal choices.

Anyone that believes in freedom.

Anyone that wants a reliable grid.

Actually, solar power on roof tops doesn't need a grid. It doesn't get more reliable than that.

 

45 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

It's funny how easy it is to manipulate people by altering their perception of reality.

Saturate the news with climate change and people will see climate change everywhere.

Saturate the news with racism and people will see racism everywhere.

Saturate the news with terrorism and people will see terrorism everywhere.

Saturate the news with toxic masculinity and people will see toxic masculinity everywhere.

Saturate the news with civilization collapse and people will see civilization collapse everywhere.

Saturate the news with toxic immigration and people will see toxic immigration everywhere.

Saturate the news with whatever and people will see that whatever everywhere.

 

Let's be clear here. I'm not saying global warming isn't real or dangerous.

My comment is merely about how information is being weaponized to influence people's minds on every single topic imaginable (whether it's for good or bad reasons).

I find it terribly boring and excruciating after a while.

Funny isn't it how information raises peoples' awareness?

[ozimoron]

41 minutes ago, swerve said:

(Sarcasm alert) Oh no, we're all going to die tomorrow from this climate emergency.  

Maybe not tomorrow but talk to your kids or their kids about that.

[Cory1848]

12 minutes ago, dhupverg said:

Nobel prize winning physicist says there isn't a climate crisis and the IMF cancels his speaking engagement.  

 

"After Nobel Prize Scientist Declares ‘There Is No Real Climate Crisis’ – He is Abruptly Canceled for IMF Climate Talk: Claim"

 

The nobel prize winner says it's “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/07/nobel-prize-scientist-declares-no-real-climate-crisis/

John Clauser, the scientist you’re referring to, is a researcher in quantum mechanics, not climate science. Bob Dylan won a Nobel Prize in 2016, but I wouldn’t necessarily trust what he might have to say about climate change either. And while Clauser’s invitation to speak was indeed withdrawn as you state, I would steer clear of the Gateway Pundit, which is your source, as it’s primarily known for spreading disinformation.

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

I'm not optimistic at all. News has become a constant stream of non-hierarchical information. Too much data kills data. People don't have enough time to process what they've been exposed to. Already the next wave of nudging hit them. I can feel it with myself sometimes. Information overload / burnout. And I don't even have a social media account. Anyway... ????

I see, too much information is a bad thing now? That's always been the Republican thought process.

[Cory1848]

16 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

I'm not optimistic at all. News has become a constant stream of non-hierarchical information. Too much data kills data. People don't have enough time to process what they've been exposed to. Already the next wave of nudging hit them. I can feel it with myself sometimes. Information overload / burnout. And I don't even have a social media account. Anyway... ????

I don’t disagree … Social media has a way of shortening one’s attention span, and over the long term that will be devolutionary. AI is likely to just speed up this process. However, it’s encouraging to see some people here relying on actual science and citing actual climate scientists; it’s possible, with an educated effort, to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak …

[Jacques Clouseau]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I see, too much information is a bad thing now? That's always been the Republican thought process.

I'd be glad to debate whatever you want to debate here but there's really no point if your idea of a debate is to use sophistry such as feigned ignorance or guilt by association.

[Cory1848]

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I was responding to someone that falsely claimed: "The richest people are related to the fossil fuel industry and they get richer by bribing right wing politicians to do nothing."

 

One would have to be super, ultra daft to think your post supports the claim. 

 

 

I have no idea who the “richest people” are but would trust whatever Forbes says, whose lists some people have cited here. I do know that fossil fuels remains an immensely profitable industry. And the fossil fuel industry getting richer by bribing right-wing politicians (via campaign contributions) to do nothing to regulate their industry, is simply how it works. In like manner, other industries bribe other politicians to do their bidding. This is not privileged information.

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

I'd be glad to debate whatever you want to debate here but there's really no point if your idea of a debate is to use sophistry such as feigned ignorance or guilt by association.

I've been debating this issue here for months now, if not years. Welcome to the party.

[Jacques Clouseau]

6 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

However, it’s encouraging to see some people here relying on actual science and citing actual climate scientists

Yes and no. People tend to make no difference between climate science and climate research. Climate research is an ongoing speculative process. When idiots use climate research to make a scientific point, it amounts to manipulation imo.

 

I see three categories of people in this debate about the future of our world: climate change deniers, climate change alarmists and those who think the future is going to be different but not catastrophic (name them as you please). Who is right and who is wrong? It's pretty clear that deniers are wrong but scientists are divided about what the future is really gonna look like. Nobody really knows. We know it's gonna be challenging, costly, etc... but worse case scenarios aren't for sure.

 

The article is pretty honest about this by the way: it honestly states that it's mainly about fear, that climate and weather shouldn't be mixed up, etc... But still I think it's a way of nudging people using their natural negativity bias. Journalists should talk about science not scientific research. I'm all for telling people what global warming is and how it works, I'm against telling them that the future is doomed. Unfortunately most of the time this is the kind of information that is being spread.

 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I've been debating this issue here for months now, if not years. Welcome to the party.

You're not debating. Not with me anyway.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

A claim (among others) that you did not support. 

And I gave an example (UK).

Other examples are the right-wing governments which  ratified the Paris agreement, or the European right-wing governments which voted EU policies at the Council.

 

Precision: By right-wing I consider conservative parties such as the Tories. Extreme right-wing parties are another story.

Edited July 25, 2023 by candide

[Cory1848]

20 minutes ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

Yes and no. People tend to make no difference between climate science and climate research. Climate research is an ongoing speculative process. When idiots use climate research to make a scientific point, it amounts to manipulation imo.

 

I see three categories of people in this debate about the future of our world: climate change deniers, climate change alarmists and those who think the future is going to be different but not catastrophic (name them as you please). Who is right and who is wrong? It's pretty clear that deniers are wrong but scientists are divided about what the future is really gonna look like. Nobody really knows. We know it's gonna be challenging, costly, etc... but worse case scenarios aren't for sure.

 

The article is pretty honest about this by the way: it honestly states that it's mainly about fear, that climate and weather shouldn't be mixed up, etc... But still I think it's a way of nudging people using their natural negativity bias. Journalists should talk about science not scientific research. I'm all for telling people what global warming is and how it works, I'm against telling them that the future is doomed. Unfortunately most of the time this is the kind of information that is being spread.

About the future being “doomed,” one factor is that global warming seems to be happening more rapidly, at least as measured over the past two years or so, than expected. I’m not a scientist but think there’s solid evidence to back that up. And while you might argue that the news is filled with hysterical accounts of tourists fleeing Rhodes, and 120-degree temperatures in Phoenix, and half of Pakistan being under water, and that such stories help sell newspapers, that doesn’t mean that the events aren’t actually happening, with greater volume, frequency, and intensity than before, and killing lots of people.

 

So I’m willing to buy into a little “gloom and doom” talk if it frightens people into voting for public servants who will regulate the fossil fuel industries, help fund alternative energy sources (which can also be profitable), press for global cooperation, etc. I’m sorry if that sounds naïve, but I see these as common sense initiatives, and a little optimism helps me sleep at night!

[candide]

1 hour ago, Jacques Clouseau said:

It's funny how easy it is to manipulate people by altering their perception of reality.

Saturate the news with climate change and people will see climate change everywhere.

Saturate the news with racism and people will see racism everywhere.

Saturate the news with terrorism and people will see terrorism everywhere.

Saturate the news with toxic masculinity and people will see toxic masculinity everywhere.

Saturate the news with civilization collapse and people will see civilization collapse everywhere.

Saturate the news with toxic immigration and people will see toxic immigration everywhere.

Saturate the news with whatever and people will see that whatever everywhere.

 

Let's be clear here. I'm not saying global warming isn't real or dangerous.

My comment is merely about how information is being weaponized to influence people's minds on every single topic imaginable (whether it's for good or bad reasons).

I find it terribly boring and excruciating after a while.

To remain on the topic of the OP: of course, activists are in propaganda mode. However, it is unlikely that environmental issues such as climate change will improved without the participation of people. So It's not necessarily a bad thing if the media are a bit too alarming.

Having said that, even the more cautious scientific forecasts are alarming enough. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by candide

[Ben Zioner]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:07 AM, Cory1848 said:

One immediate neighbor

Was  your neighbour's brother, in your original tale. 

 

Hope  you won't die grief stricken too...

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, candide said:

And I gave an example (UK).

Other examples are the right-wing governments which  ratified the Paris agreement, or the European right-wing governments which voted EU policies at the Council.

 

Precision: By right-wing I consider conservative parties such as the Tories. Extreme right-wing parties are another story.

So, anyone to the right of Friedrich Engels is an extremist, got it. 

[Cory1848]

11 minutes ago, Ben Zioner said:

Was  your neighbour's brother, in your original tale. 

 

Hope  you won't die grief stricken too...

Yes, it was a neighbor’s brother, and thanks for asking. It was heat stroke, and apparently he was perfectly healthy, so it was quite a shock -- six hundred people at the funeral! It’s been really hot here (Chiang Mai), but I don’t have to work outside like a lot of my neighbors do, so can’t really say how it feels doing manual labor or how it differs from a couple of years ago.

[Yellowtail]

I think the problem with the alarmists is that most of the people claiming science science science barely seen to understand arithmetic. 

 

I have never claimed the Earth was not warming, or that human activity is not impacting the climate, I have in fact stated the opposite any number of times, yet I am called a denialist. 

 

 

 

[Jacques Clouseau]

3 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

About the future being “doomed,” one factor is that global warming seems to be happening more rapidly, at least as measured over the past two years or so, than expected. I’m not a scientist but think there’s solid evidence to back that up. And while you might argue that the news is filled with hysterical accounts of tourists fleeing Rhodes, and 120-degree temperatures in Phoenix, and half of Pakistan being under water, and that such stories help sell newspapers, that doesn’t mean that the events aren’t actually happening, with greater volume, frequency, and intensity than before, and killing lots of people.

 

So I’m willing to buy into a little “gloom and doom” talk if it frightens people into voting for public servants who will regulate the fossil fuel industries, help fund alternative energy sources (which can also be profitable), press for global cooperation, etc. I’m sorry if that sounds naïve, but I see these as common sense initiatives, and a little optimism helps me sleep at night!

Agreed. Those events are indeed taking place and the consequences will indeed get worse IF nothing is done. But that doesn't mean the end of the world is coming. Cities are suffocating because they were unintentionally build to trap heat. Wildfire are getting out of control because not enough money is allocated to maintenance/prevention. The same is true for Pakistan - if that country had decent infrastructure it wouldn't get hit so hard every time. The Netherlands should already be under water. How come are they not ? And of course people dying is directly linked to the mismanagement described above.

 

"Doom and gloom" simply doesn't work imo. Human nature is the way it is. If not enough people care, not enough people care. Scaring everybody isn't gonna lead to any desirable outcome. Fear is usually a bad advisor. Plus as long as global capitalism isn't reformed, it is pointless to try and convince people to change. When you're struggling to make ends meet, you usually don't have your mind set on abstract long-term goals - it is true in the West but even more so in developing countries.

 

Don't misunderstand me: I do feel you but I also do think you might be a bit naive (to use your own words).

I might be biased though :)

 

By the way, thank you for not trying to frame me as an <deleted> just because I don't share the views of political ecology and prefer a more holistic approach of the problem