Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Tippaporn]

54 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

These, 'thought to be' statements, are often simply made up. They are not challenged by the MSM, and are gradually - through constant reinforcement of the same, unopposed, narrative - etched into people's minds. . It's in the schools now. The farmer - and the cow - is now being demonised. As is any free-thinker, who happens not to agree with the GW/CC absurdity.

 

Mr Assange once said; '''The most effective weapon leaders have, is keeping the people in ignorance.'''

I would clarify so that it's more specific.

"The most effective weapon leaders have, is keeping the people in ignorance of their deceptions.''
 

Once people are aware then the deceptions no longer work.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just like 0James0, when confronted with hard facts you resort to generalizations.

What you quoted me on was not generalising, placeholder.  Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word.

generality

an indefinite, unspecific, or undetailed statement:

 example - to speak in generalities about human rights.

That post was very specific in calling out the deceptive tactics used by people in order to fool others and to call them out on their tactics and show how they use fallacious logic to make their points.

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just like 0James0, when confronted with hard facts you resort to generalizations.

Here's another "tell" as to whether you're dealing with disingenuous people.  For any given post they never address the critical points made because they know damn well where that would ultimately lead.  They'll cherry pick what they want to reply to.  What's safe for them to reply to.  In this particular instance you failed to addressed anything in my post.  Do you find that fact interesting?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:49 PM, Danderman123 said:

What you don't get is that scientists uncovered the mechanisms driving increased temperature.  

 

Because you are ill-informed, you are focused on predictions, which are the output, rather than the process of making the predictions.

 

You don't seem informed sufficiently to make an educated critique of the science.

 

Do you agree that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm over the last 40 years?

and perhaps you can inform us how anything we are currently doing will reduce that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere to make a difference?

If not, what difference does it make how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?

[Bkk Brian]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What you quoted me on was not generalising, placeholder.  Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word.

generality

an indefinite, unspecific, or undetailed statement:

 example - to speak in generalities about human rights.

That post was very specific in calling out the deceptive tactics used by people in order to fool others and to call them out on their tactics and show how they use fallacious logic to make their points.

Actually the points we provide are backed up by credible links, all you provide is misinformation based on pure rants. Try backing up your posts with more than false generalities.

 

Belief is not enough

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and perhaps you can inform us how anything we are currently doing will reduce that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere to make a difference?

If not, what difference does it make how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and perhaps you can inform us how anything we are currently doing will reduce that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere to make a difference?

If not, what difference does it make how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?

Let me answer your second question first. The amount of excess CO2 in the atmosphere is the driver for global warming.

 

Keep in mind that there is a lag between dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and warming, primarily because the ocean is a big CO2 reservoir. But the ocean releases CO2 as levels rise, and so CO2 cannot be trapped in the ocean indefinitely.

 

Your first question is mitigation, which is outside the scope of this topic. But, we never get real mitigation if people don't agree there's a problem.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Still up to your old tricks, eh placeholder?

Climate change denier:  White.
placeholder:  False!

Climate change denier:  Black.
placeholder:  False!
Climate change denier:  Colorless.
placeholder:  That's false, too!

 

Still not interested in actually learning anything?  Just parroting what you've been told by your side.  Parroting because you are not yourself actively involved in any climate change studies or research.  All of your information comes from one side of the debate and that side is beyond fallible.  Your side is 100% right all of the time and the other side is 100% wrong all of the time.  Seriously, do you call that a real world?  Or a make believe world?

Do you have any data that disproves the Global Warming hypothesis?

 

Can YOU explain why the Stratosphere is cooling?

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

These, 'thought to be' statements, are often simply made up. They are not challenged by the MSM, and are gradually - through constant reinforcement of the same, unopposed, narrative - etched into people's minds. . It's in the schools now. The farmer - and the cow - is now being demonised. As is any free-thinker, who happens not to agree with the GW/CC absurdity.

 

Mr Assange once said; '''The most effective weapon leaders have, is keeping the people in ignorance.'''

Well, that's ironic. The global warming critics here are largely ignorant of science. Not that ignorance stops them on their mission to sow doubt about global warming.

 

This ignorance is typified by an inability to provide any data contradicting the Global Warming hypothesis. Instead, the Deniers post doubts about science.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

I would clarify so that it's more specific.

"The most effective weapon leaders have, is keeping the people in ignorance of their deceptions.''
 

Once people are aware then the deceptions no longer work.

Your internet friends have deceived you.

 

The way it works is the oil companies hire internet trolls to send out misinformation about science. Some of their output has fooled you into believing that science is wrong.

[Danderman123]

43 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's another "tell" as to whether you're dealing with disingenuous people.  For any given post they never address the critical points made because they know damn well where that would ultimately lead.  They'll cherry pick what they want to reply to.  What's safe for them to reply to.  In this particular instance you failed to addressed anything in my post.  Do you find that fact interesting?

The critical point is that the Global Warming hypothesis is the best explanation for the current warming.

 

What have you got besides vague accusations and onsults?

[placeholder]

55 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What you quoted me on was not generalising, placeholder.  Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word.

generality

an indefinite, unspecific, or undetailed statement:

 example - to speak in generalities about human rights.

That post was very specific in calling out the deceptive tactics used by people in order to fool others and to call them out on their tactics and show how they use fallacious logic to make their points.

It wasn't specific at all. If it was specific it would predictions or evidence from climatologists that  would justify the accusations you made about tactics. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything. But you know that they're offering nothing when they don't back it up with specific examples.

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's another "tell" as to whether you're dealing with disingenuous people.  For any given post they never address the critical points made because they know damn well where that would ultimately lead.  They'll cherry pick what they want to reply to.  What's safe for them to reply to.  In this particular instance you failed to addressed anything in my post.  Do you find that fact interesting?

I failed to address anything in your post because you just offered accusations, not evidence. Without specific evidence, accusations are empty. 

[Tippaporn]

29 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I failed to address anything in your post because you just offered accusations, not evidence. Without specific evidence, accusations are empty. 

Why is it that other posters understand quite well exactly what I'm talking about and yet it's Greek to you guys and you pretend to misinterpret or not understand?

Here's evidence for ya.  I asked Bkk Brian numerous times to answer the simple question of whether or not consensus equates truth.  He claims to not have remembered any of the multiple posts nor remembering my asking him the question straight up.  I reposted the entire exchange which showed I did ask him straight up numerous times.  His reply?  He still refuted that I had asked him numerous times.  Even asking me if I had asked him straight up else he wouldn't have known I wanted his answer was disingenuous.  Unless one wants to claim they don't understand plain English.

Check it out and see if it's an empty accusation.

Do you understand what's going on here with you people?  I do.  And so do many others.  But do continue to play your games.  Just remember, I'm more than hip to them.  Face it, the jig  is up.
 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why is it that other posters understand quite well exactly what I'm talking about and yet it's Greek to you guys and you pretend to misinterpret or not understand?

Here's evidence for ya.  I asked Bkk Brian numerous times to answer the simple question of whether or not consensus equates truth.  He claims to not have remembered any of the multiple posts nor remembering my asking him the question straight up.  I reposted the entire exchange which showed I did ask him straight up numerous times.  His reply?  He still refuted that I had asked him numerous times.  Even asking me if I had asked him straight up else he wouldn't have known I wanted his answer was disingenuous.  Unless one wants to claim they don't understand plain English.

Check it out and see if it's an empty accusation.

Do you understand what's going on here with you people?  I do.  And so do many others.  But do continue to play your games.  Just remember, I'm more than hip to them.

That is your idea of scientific evidence? And Bkk Brian didn't answer it to your satisfaction? 

I answered it too. And I pointed out that it's ridiculous. What counts is where the scientific evidence stands. At this point there are thousands and thousands of highly technical studies. These studies progressively build on earlier work. If these were false, there would have to be a gigantic conspiracy at work. I wouldn't put it past you to allege that.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that for the current model to be overthrown, someone has to offer a better predictive one. So far, the models offered by denialists have failed.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

"Health experts say it has thrived on the continent in part because of climate change, with warmer weather shortening the incubation period for its eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests."

 

Which happens to be factually correct. 

Do you really not understand that "Health experts" is a completely subjective term? It could be anyone the writer considers (or pretends to consider) a health expert. And they can ask as many "experts" as they like until they get the quote they want. 

 

There is absolutely NO accountability. 

 

And NOW it's fine for non-climate scientists to comment on climate change? 

 

What is factually correct is that the writer made a comment that may or may not be true, but that only a fool would consider factual.  

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why is it that other posters understand quite well exactly what I'm talking about and yet it's Greek to you guys and you pretend to misinterpret or not understand?

Here's evidence for ya.  I asked Bkk Brian numerous times to answer the simple question of whether or not consensus equates truth.  He claims to not have remembered any of the multiple posts nor remembering my asking him the question straight up.  I reposted the entire exchange which showed I did ask him straight up numerous times.  His reply?  He still refuted that I had asked him numerous times.  Even asking me if I had asked him straight up else he wouldn't have known I wanted his answer was disingenuous.  Unless one wants to claim they don't understand plain English.

Check it out and see if it's an empty accusation.

Do you understand what's going on here with you people?  I do.  And so do many others.  But do continue to play your games.  Just remember, I'm more than hip to them.  Face it, the jig  is up.
 

You are wildly off topic.

 

We are talking about Climate Change here.

 

If you have data disproving the Global Warming hypothesis, please share it.

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why is it that other posters understand quite well exactly what I'm talking about and yet it's Greek to you guys and you pretend to misinterpret or not understand?

Here's evidence for ya.  I asked Bkk Brian numerous times to answer the simple question of whether or not consensus equates truth.  He claims to not have remembered any of the multiple posts nor remembering my asking him the question straight up.  I reposted the entire exchange which showed I did ask him straight up numerous times.  His reply?  He still refuted that I had asked him numerous times.  Even asking me if I had asked him straight up else he wouldn't have known I wanted his answer was disingenuous.  Unless one wants to claim they don't understand plain English.

Check it out and see if it's an empty accusation.

Do you understand what's going on here with you people?  I do.  And so do many others.  But do continue to play your games.  Just remember, I'm more than hip to them.  Face it, the jig  is up.
 

Actually before you started getting pedantic about a term I had already addressed that with you: Post link

 

[Yellowtail]

42 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Well, that's ironic. The global warming critics here are largely ignorant of science. Not that ignorance stops them on their mission to sow doubt about global warming.

 

This ignorance is typified by an inability to provide any data contradicting the Global Warming hypothesis. Instead, the Deniers post doubts about science.

I was a STEM major, you? 

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you really not understand that "Health experts" is a completely subjective term? It could be anyone the writer considers (or pretends to consider) a health expert. And they can ask as many "experts" as they like until they get the quote they want. 

 

There is absolutely NO accountability. 

 

And NOW it's fine for non-climate scientists to comment on climate change? 

 

What is factually correct is that the writer made a comment that may or may not be true, but that only a fool would consider factual.  

Your argument was to attack the messenger, ie the media outlet. Its also mentioned here:

 

Paris fumigates for tiger mosquitoes as pest spreads in Europe

Health experts say it has thrived on the continent in part because of climate change, with warmer weather shortening the incubation period for its eggs while winters are no longer cold enough to kill off the pests.

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-paris-fumigates-tiger-mosquitoes-pest.html

 

Is the writer of this outlet also pretending?

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

The article was not by an "expert", it was by a for profit news agency.

 

That you do not understand that explains a lot. 

If you can prove that the article is lying, share that proof with 

 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

From the article:

"Specifically, we hypothesize that cool rearing temperature of immature stages (1) buffers against life-shortening effects of warm holding conditions of adults and (2) reduces rates of dengue-1 virus infection and dissemination of adults."

"Hypothesize" isn't even at the level of theory.  It's a guess at this stage.

Aside from the question of how warm weather affects tiger mosquitoes the "given" is that the warm weather was itself due to "climate change."  It's all deceptively implied.

Now let's all sing together, "We believe in climate change . . . "  For it truly is only a belief.

More confused thinking from you. It's one thing to hypothesize that the spread of these insects is due to climate change. That says nothing about the validity of ACC. Please, share with us a  model of the climate that has better predicted its course than the current model.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I was a STEM major, you? 

What don't you understand about the fact the personal claims here are unverifiable and therefore useless.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you really not understand that "Health experts" is a completely subjective term? It could be anyone the writer considers (or pretends to consider) a health expert. And they can ask as many "experts" as they like until they get the quote they want. 

 

There is absolutely NO accountability. 

 

And NOW it's fine for non-climate scientists to comment on climate change? 

 

What is factually correct is that the writer made a comment that may or may not be true, but that only a fool would consider factual.  

You don't know for a fact that it was a non science experts. There are epidemiologists who work in the field of climatology to study how climate change affects habitat.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You don't know for a fact that it was a non science experts. There are epidemiologists who work in the field of climatology to study how climate change affects habitat.

You don't know for a fact that it was a science experts. There are education majors who work in the field of climatology to study how climate change affects habitat, and we all know about them...

 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

You don't know for a fact that it was a science experts. There are education majors who work in the field of climatology to study how climate change affects habitat, and we all know about them...

 

 

I don't know for a fact that it was nor do you know for a fact that it wasn't. Which runs counter to this:

"And NOW it's fine for non-climate scientists to comment on climate change?" 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You don't know for a fact that it was a science experts. There are education majors who work in the field of climatology to study how climate change affects habitat, and we all know about them...

 

 

Are these not experts?

 

Temperature and Dengue Virus Infection in Mosquitoes: Independent Effects on the Immature and Adult Stages

Temperature is regarded as one of the most important abiotic environmental factors affecting biological processes of mosquitoes, including interactions with arboviruses. Seasonal and geographic differences in temperature and anticipated climate change undoubtedly influence mosquito population dynamics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592531/

 

Or

 

Mosquito and Tick Diseases 101
Here's what you need to know about the vector-borne diseases now increasing with climate change—and how to protect yourself.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/mosquito-tick-diseases-101

 

or

 

Previous studies have shown that dengue viruses are transmitted between 30° north and 20° south latitudes, and frosts and sustained cold weather kills adult mosquitoes and overwintering eggs and larvae.2 Warming can certainly influence the occurrence of dengue epidemics, as was observed in Mexico during the unusually warm summer of 1988 when the infection reached an altitude of 1700 metres.3

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)60169-9/fulltext

 

Have you ever thought that the health experts mentioned may have read one of the numerous studies on this?

 

 

[Danderman123]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I was a STEM major, you? 

So, why is the Stratosphere cooling?

[Danderman123]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You don't know for a fact that it was a science experts. There are education majors who work in the field of climatology to study how climate change affects habitat, and we all know about them...

 

 

Do you have any doubts that warming climate allows some pests to move northwards?

 

Can't you just admit that without engaging in your usual foodfight about credentials?

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That is your idea of scientific evidence? And Bkk Brian didn't answer it to your satisfaction? 

I answered it too. And I pointed out that it's ridiculous. What counts is where the scientific evidence stands. At this point there are thousands and thousands of highly technical studies. These studies progressively build on earlier work. If these were false, there would have to be a gigantic conspiracy at work. I wouldn't put it past you to allege that.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that for the current model to be overthrown, someone has to offer a better predictive one. So far, the models offered by denialists have failed.

Only a fool would claim that the future can be accurately predicted.  So far none of the dire predictions made by climate change believers have panned out.  Neither did they pan out when it was global cooling.  It's a fraud.

". . . didn't answer it to your satisfaction?"

What in blazes are you talking about?  I either did ask him numerous times or I didn't.  I did and he refuted that I did despite the hard evidence I gave him.  How can you even put it in terms of "to my satisfaction?"  It highlight the fact that it's a matter of character.

No, there is no gigantic conspiracy and no one is claiming that.  What is being claimed is that the entire climate change issue is for money - and lots and lots and lots of it, and for control.  Even now they're attempting to ban cars, gas appliances, the consumption of meat, gas powered lawn equipment, short haul flights and institute eating bugs, 15 minute cities, climate change lockdowns, and what you can or cannot buy based on the amount of CO2 used to create a product.  If you don't have the carbon credits then you can't purchase it.  I don't know about you but I have no intention of living in the dystopian and tyrannical world that the climate change believers are attempting to create.  I'll fight you to the bitter end first

Check out C40 cities and the wonderful plans they have for us in the fight to ward off climate change.  If you're in favour of unelected elites decreeing how the rest of the world is to live in every aspect of their lives then I don't know what to tell you.  Because as we saw these overlords over and over again during Covid lockdowns flaunting the very diktats they were imposing on the rest of society you can be damn sure that they won't change their lifestyles on bit by living the way they want to enforce others to live.  Rules for me and rules for thee.

All for a fraud.

None of the climate change "deniers" are in favour of destroying our world in the multitude ways that we do and many live their lives respecting the earth but despite that fact most climate change believers accuse them of not caring for our earth.  I don't see any of you guys complaining about any of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/04/21/climate-change-policy-examples-list/

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Only a fool would claim that the future can be accurately predicted.  So far none of the dire predictions made by climate change believers have panned out.  Neither did they pan out when it was global cooling.  It's a fraud.

". . . didn't answer it to your satisfaction?"

What in blazes are you talking about?  I either did ask him numerous times or I didn't.  I did and he refuted that I did despite the hard evidence I gave him.  How can you even put it in terms of "to my satisfaction?"  It highlight the fact that it's a matter of character.

No, there is no gigantic conspiracy and no one is claiming that.  What is being claimed is that the entire climate change issue is for money - and lots and lots and lots of it, and for control.  Even now they're attempting to ban cars, gas appliances, the consumption of meat, gas powered lawn equipment, short haul flights and institute eating bugs, 15 minute cities, climate change lockdowns, and what you can or cannot buy based on the amount of CO2 used to create a product.  If you don't have the carbon credits then you can't purchase it.  I don't know about you but I have no intention of living in the dystopian and tyrannical world that the climate change believers are attempting to create.  I'll fight you to the bitter end first

Check out C40 cities and the wonderful plans they have for us in the fight to ward off climate change.  If you're in favour of unelected elites decreeing how the rest of the world is to live in every aspect of their lives then I don't know what to tell you.  Because as we saw these overlords over and over again during Covid lockdowns flaunting the very diktats they were imposing on the rest of society you can be damn sure that they won't change their lifestyles on bit by living the way they want to enforce others to live.  Rules for me and rules for thee.

All for a fraud.

None of the climate change "deniers" are in favour of destroying our world in the multitude ways that we do and many live their lives respecting the earth but despite that fact most climate change believers accuse them of not caring for our earth.  I don't see any of you guys complaining about any of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/04/21/climate-change-policy-examples-list/

Only a fool would claim that the future can be accurately predicted.  So far none of the dire predictions made by climate change believers have panned out.  Neither did they pan out when it was global cooling.  It's a fraud.

 

Yet, The IPCC has also concluded that climate change is already having a significant impact on the planet. These impacts include rising sea levels, melting glaciers, more extreme weather events, and changes in agricultural yields. These impacts are expected to become more severe in the future if we do not take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.