Global Climate Changes

[Deeeefense]

Even though “Climate Change” is the new buzzword rather than “Global Warming”, I find it kind of funny people don’t realize India and China aren’t going to do anything to effectively change their energy practices. They’d rather we suffer economically so they can virtue signal. Maybe in 10 years we can celebrate all the doomsday predictions by meeting up and going skiing on Kilimanjaro.

You are right to point to China and India as the major culprits in fossil fuel combustion, especially China that needs all the energy they can muster to serve the growing economy, but somewhat to the credit they are spending 100 Billion a year on alt energy development. They just need energy period. With the coming boom in AI based systems in manufacturing and services , plus the increase in EVs world wide the demand for electric power is going to increase substantially. Here in the US we will need all the energy sources we have and can add including alt energy sources but also the new nuclear technology.

Also for clarity, Global Warming is what is occurring, Climate Change is the result of Global Warming.

 

[Bill Cosby]

I wonder how much of my tax dollars were funneled through USAID to the “climate scientists” tasked with providing support for the man made global warming narrative.

 

[GJNorman]

I wonder how much of my tax dollars were funneled through USAID to the “climate scientists” tasked with providing support for the man made global warming narrative.

Yes, the climate scientists have all the money. Not the oil tycoons.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Yes, the climate scientists have all the money. Not the oil tycoons.

You mean climate science isn’t as lucrative as the oil business, and therefore the climate scientists are solely dependent on sources of revenue that aren’t supported by markets? And if climate scientists aren’t being granted money by governments to get conclusions that support more government, they wouldn’t have any money at all?

Yeah they’re probably totally independent.

 

[wkycatfan]

The goal of global warming/climate change movement is to establish a world regulating body and redistribution of wealth. You can do the math from there. It has nothing to do with changing the climate.

 

[cole854]

Yes, the climate scientists have all the money. Not the oil tycoons.

$150B + wasn't enough for the tree huggers last year? What did you all spend it on?

 

[GJNorman]

$150B + wasn't enough for the tree huggers last year? What did you all spend it on?

7 trillion for subsidies in fossil fuels
-150 billion for renewables

Oil wins by 6,850,000,000,000


In 2022, global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion, which was a record high. This was equivalent to 7.1% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP).

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Not one person is communicating on the thread without oil. As a product, it has probably saved more lives over history than any other product. Demeaning it is foolhardy and ignorant.

Without oil subsidies, one estimate for gas prices is $12.75 per gallon. Try and guess the harm that would do in this country. 🤦‍♂️

 

[cole854]

7 trillion for subsidies in fossil fuels
-150 billion for renewables

Oil wins by 6,850,000,000,000


In 2022, global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion, which was a record high. This was equivalent to 7.1% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP).

You didn't answer the question. This has nothing to do w/ oil.

 

[GJNorman]

You didn't answer the question. This has nothing to do w/ oil.

For starters, liquid green hydrogen plants at about 12 locations around the country for around 1.5 billion in loans that will be paid back. 1000s of jobs created

 

[GJNorman]

Climate change target of 2C is ‘dead’, says renowned climate scientist

Prof James Hansen says pace of global heating has been significantly underestimated, though other scientists disagree

www.theguardian.com

 

[megablue]

Just released … 02/04/25

Temperatures at north pole 20C above average and beyond ice melting point

Scientists say unusually mild temperatures linked to low-pressure system over Iceland directing strong flow of warm air towards north pole

www.theguardian.com

 

[GJNorman]

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286701/trump-neil-jacobs-noaa-sharpiegate-misconduct

Sharpie gate crony to head our NOAA

I guess Claude Bassett wasn’t available

 

[megablue]

Here is an AI Overview ... fwiw:

"To argue against a scientific consensus held by 99% of scientists, you would need to present extremely strong evidence and well-supported counterarguments, likely focusing on scrutinizing the methodology, data analysis, or potential biases within existing research, while also acknowledging the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the majority view; essentially, you would need to demonstrate a significant flaw in the current scientific understanding that hasn't been considered by the majority.

Key points to consider:

• Challenge the data:
  Analyze the existing data closely, looking for potential errors in collection, interpretation, or statistical analysis.
  
  
• Highlight methodological issues:
  Question the research design, experimental setup, or sampling methods used in key studies.
  
  
• Present alternative explanations:
  Offer a well-supported hypothesis that could explain the observed phenomena differently than the prevailing theory.
  
  
• Cite credible dissenting research:
  If there are a small number of studies that contradict the consensus, present them carefully and explain their significance.
  
  
• Engage in respectful debate:
  Acknowledge the vast majority of scientific opinion and focus on constructive criticism, not personal attacks.

Important considerations:

• Burden of proof lies with the minority:
  When arguing against a strong consensus, the onus is on you to provide exceptionally robust evidence to overturn the established view.
  
  
• Consult experts:
  Seek advice from qualified scientists in the relevant field to ensure your arguments are scientifically sound and well-informed.
  
  
• Be aware of potential biases:
  Recognize your own potential biases and actively work to avoid cherry-picking data or misrepresenting information."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--- Carl Sagan

 

[Caveman Catfan]

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/05/nx-s1-5286701/trump-neil-jacobs-noaa-sharpiegate-misconduct

Sharpie gate crony to head our NOAA

I guess Claude Bassett wasn’t available

I am glad you repeatedly confirm that this is just a political issue for you. Dismissed.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Here is an AI Overview ... fwiw:

"To argue against a scientific consensus held by 99% of scientists, you would need to present extremely strong evidence and well-supported counterarguments, likely focusing on scrutinizing the methodology, data analysis, or potential biases within existing research, while also acknowledging the overwhelming body of evidence supporting the majority view; essentially, you would need to demonstrate a significant flaw in the current scientific understanding that hasn't been considered by the majority.

Key points to consider:

• Challenge the data:
  Analyze the existing data closely, looking for potential errors in collection, interpretation, or statistical analysis.
  
  
• Highlight methodological issues:
  Question the research design, experimental setup, or sampling methods used in key studies.
  
  
• Present alternative explanations:
  Offer a well-supported hypothesis that could explain the observed phenomena differently than the prevailing theory.
  
  
• Cite credible dissenting research:
  If there are a small number of studies that contradict the consensus, present them carefully and explain their significance.
  
  
• Engage in respectful debate:
  Acknowledge the vast majority of scientific opinion and focus on constructive criticism, not personal attacks.

Important considerations:

• Burden of proof lies with the minority:
  When arguing against a strong consensus, the onus is on you to provide exceptionally robust evidence to overturn the established view.
  
  
• Consult experts:
  Seek advice from qualified scientists in the relevant field to ensure your arguments are scientifically sound and well-informed.
  
  
• Be aware of potential biases:
  Recognize your own potential biases and actively work to avoid cherry-picking data or misrepresenting information."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
--- Carl Sagan

Oh gosh! Thanks for asking AI.

99% of scientists believe what, exactly.

 

[megablue]

Oh gosh! Thanks for asking AI.

99% of scientists believe what, exactly.

"There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 "

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems to me that global warming being created by human activities is no longer in serious debate. However, it further appears that there is no consensus in the scientific community about how effective ways to combat this change and its effects can/will be. I won't be around to know the answer, but younger folks certainly will. Hopefully, combating global warming and climate change is not a lost cause, but it certainly might be. Also, as a side note, to my view, it will only be a matter of time before homo sapiens become extinct and join the more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth that are extinct.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

"There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11  and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 "

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems to me that global warming being created by human activities is no longer in serious debate. However, it further appears that there is no consensus in the scientific community about how effective ways to combat this change and its effects can/will be. I won't be around to know the answer, but younger folks certainly will. Hopefully, combating global warming and climate change is not a lost cause, but it certainly might be. Also, as a side note, to my view, it will only be a matter of time before homo sapiens become extinct and join the more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth that are extinct.

There is a lot of debate within the post you presented. But, given your last line, there is no reason to hash this out and dig out the gross generalizations and spin. Good luck!!

 

[Fadhi]

" However, it further appears that there is no consensus in the scientific community about how effective ways to combat this change and its effects can/will be. I won't be around to know the answer, but younger folks certainly will. Hopefully, combating global warming and climate change is not a lost cause, but it certainly might be. Also, as a side note, to my view, it will only be a matter of time before homo sapiens become extinct and join the more than 99% of all species that have ever lived on earth that are extinct.

There is a consensus. Climate change will be combated not with what's good for the planet but what will enrich the already wealthy.
That is and will always be the main issue.

 

[megablue]

Here is a very recent 9:45 video with an interesting perspective on Climate Change, if interested ... THE NEW NORMAL !!

 

[Pelosigalore]

Here is a very recent 9:45 video with an interesting perspective on Climate Change, if interested ... THE NEW NORMAL !!

View embedded media

Wouldn’t it be better for the environment if NDT didn’t travel everywhere to give speeches? And if he would just go off the grid? Start riding your horses and bikes everywhere and get back to me.

 

[megablue]

Wouldn’t it be better for the environment if NDT didn’t travel everywhere to give speeches? And if he would just go off the grid? Start riding your horses and bikes everywhere and get back to me.

His perspective was not the prevention of, but the adaptation to climate change that is occurring.

 

[BigBlueDave]

His perspective was not the prevention of, but the adaptation to climate change that is occurring.

Why would ndt own a $1.75m home that sits at 50' above sea level in East Hampton, NY?


Surely he knows the danger he's put himself and his family. He must be a real risk taker in the new normal.


NDT has something for sale and you are his best customer.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I love when NDT attempts to distinguish the warming of the earth historically as “naturally” warming. Made me smile.

I also love that they are pushing city “stability zones.” I just heard Kenny Loggins belting “I went to stability zone!”

Beyond the science and conjecture, NDT always comes off as an asshole. He is really hard to watch. He is not hear to debate, but he has a snarky voice for those who don’t lap it up and live in fear. 😆

 

[LordEggForgotHisPassword]

I hate winter.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

This is not happened in recorded history = climate change caused this.

The new “science”

 

[Pelosigalore]

It’s hot-climate change, it’s cold-climate change, solar storms-climate change, El Niño-climate change, tornado-climate change, coldest January in 20 years-climate change, liberals that complain about climate change, but fly private planes around the world-climate change, posters here that claim man made climate change, but still use their fossil fuel powered computers- climate change, politicians that make policy about climate change, but build a third home on the beach, climate change, Taylor Swift has 2 private jets-climate change.

 

[megablue]

Released this morning:

Scientists have a new explanation for the last two years of record heat — The Washington Post

Rising temperatures are fueled, in part, by declining cloud cover — which could be a potential climate feedback loop.

apple.news

 

[megablue]

If interested, The AMOC may go AMUCK in the next several decades, some say ... a chilling proposition for northern Europe:

 

[BigBlueDave]

You forgot to state, "if interested."

 

[megablue]

You forgot to state, "if interested."

That's great ... I like it !! Gave me a lift !! I didn't want the intro to be two (2) lines, but it fits ... duly-edited. STAY UP !! 😎

 

[GJNorman]

That's great ... I like it !! Gave me a lift !! I didn't want the intro to be two (2) lines, but it fits ... duly-edited. STAY UP !! 😎

Mega blue you’re my boy, blue!

 

[megablue]

Mega blue you’re my boy, blue!

Just being real ... I share what I think is interesting and worthwhile, in the spirit of what I see this community is designed for.
Of course, opinions vary and what I find interesting may have zero appeal to others. That's why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors !!

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Just being real ... I share what I think is interesting and worthwhile, in the spirit of what I see this community is designed for.
Of course, opinions vary and what I find interesting may have zero appeal to others. That's why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors !!

The whole issue was created for political debate and division. It’s not as if we have the power some pretend we do.

Excuse me while I jet off to some climate conference.

 

[megablue]

Because there are people around the world who do not think climate change is happening, or caused by human activity, it begs the question as to what surveys show. There are MANY out there, as a google search will indicate. For starters, here are some highlights from an International Public Opinion survey, conducted in 2022 at the Yale School of the Environment:

The survey collected responses from 108,946 Facebook monthly active users (18+). Responses were collected from 192 countries and territories worldwide, including 107 individual countries and territories and 3 geographic groups comprising 81 additional countries and territories (for a total of 110 “areas included in the reporting), as well as 4 additional territories that are reported with France or the United Kingdom. Interview dates: March 25 – April 14, 2022. The Yale research team was supported by the MacArthur Foundation and the 11th Hour Project.

Climate Change Knowledge, Beliefs, and Engagement:
● Knowledge about climate change: Respondents in Finland (92%) and Hungary (90%) are the most likely to say they know “a lot” or “a moderate amount” about climate change. In contrast, respondents in Benin (34%), the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Haiti (all32%) are the most likely to say they have “never heard of” climate change.
● Climate change is happening: Respondents in Hungary (96%), Portugal (95%), and Costa Rica (94%) are the most likely to think climate change is happening, while respondents in Laos(67%), Haiti (67%), and Bangladesh (70%) are the least likely.
● Climate change is human-caused: Respondents in Spain (65%), Sweden (61%), and Taiwan(60%) are the most likely to think that climate change is mostly caused by human activities, while respondents in Indonesia (18%) and Yemen (21%) are the least likely.
● Hearing about climate change in daily life: Respondents in Sweden and Germany (both 66%)are most likely to say that they hear about climate change in their daily life at least once a week, while respondents in Yemen (7%), Algeria, and Cambodia (both 9%) are least likely.

Excerpted for the United States from page 33:
83% believe climate change is happening
11% do not believe climate change is happening
6% don't know if climate change is happening

Excerpted for the United States from page 39:
42% it's caused mostly by human activities
35% it's caused about equally by human activities and natural causes
15% it's caused by natural changes in the environment
5% no cause, because climate change isn't happening
3% no response

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/international-public-opinion-on-climate-change-2022a.pdf

_________

What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change

Two-thirds of Americans say the United States should prioritize developing renewable energy sources over expanding the production of fossil fuels.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Oh … no.

 

[GJNorman]

India already exceeding key climate targets, can grow faster using clean energy: UN climate chief

He said from melting glaciers in the north, to stronger storms and cyclones, and food insecurity, India’s unique geography and huge population means huge numbers of people are vulnerable to climate impacts.

www.deccanherald.com