climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Strekke]

I have looked at some of the evidence posted by foilholio a few pages back, did research on the credibility of his sources, and both foilholio and MM started flippin' shit for me accusing their sources of being biased/linked to fossil fuel industry. They called my sources that analyzed their sources biased/untrustworthy. We can keep going around in circles, every lunatic with a tinfoil hat these days can start a blog and post / reinterpret scientific works to fit their agenda, so we can all find "evidence" that supports both sides. It's therefore a pointless discussion so I stopped responding, and imo this topic for the last few pages has been a circle jerk of the sceptics/deniers backing up each other's statements. It is a good example of how the internet has given a voice to certain individuals with certain views that are now able to unite and post them everywhere, being the "loudest" group and finding confirmation of their opinions/existence, feeding their confidence that they are not alone and they are right and everyone who disagrees must be wrong/is part of the deep state conspiracy/etc. Not all the stuff posted by them is total worthless bs btw, there are some interesting points raised by foilholio, such as previous warming periods, but even that data is often spun to meet their argument. I have researched these arguments and have found sources pointing out that they are not applicable to today's GW. So as said before, anyone can find anything online, so we can all keep posting stuff to fit our agenda. The only real data to support the arguments would be to post entire studies and analyse them paragraph by paragraph, but as stated by Pemba, would be a lot of work just to win an online argument...

Another thing that really bothers me about the scepticts/deniers group is the constant referring to politics. Posting pro-Trump memes and accusing people of being Marxists/leftists solely based on this scientific discussion in my opinion proves that they have a political agenda of their own, maybe even subconsciously, and are therefore biased themselves. So I see no point in arguing with them, especially the one that is a total Trumptard (looking at you, MM!).

In any case, I have explicitly stated no one here can claim they have the absolute truth, so I don't claim to have it either.

So I base my opinion on the facts and my own observations:
- the vast majority of scientists, that have dedicated their lives/careers researching this topic (unlike us), agree that AGW is real and is happening and that we should act ASAP. I trust the vast majority because they definitely have more expertise than us.
- personal experiences in the field / work / travels through the world have shown me that the climate is definitely changing fast, and is impacting us negatively, both on land and in water.
- regardless of GW, the world is in a bad state and humans are wrecking havoc on the environment - travel the world a bit and see what's going on in terms of deforestation, pollution, plastic soup in our ocean, etc. Or look at some nature documentaries (e.g. Seven Worlds One Planet).
- the media / documentaries / articles etc. all have actual footage of these changes and of natural disasters happening
- the fossil fuel industry is extremely powerful, and spends millions of dollars of dollars each year on influencing the climate change debate in their favor - in today's world, it's all about the money, and money talks.

So for me this boils down this debate to the fact that there are 2 scenarios: 1. AGW is real and is happening; 2. AGW is "fake news".
As I have stated a few posts back, what seems more likely to you? The first one, which matches the majority of scientists' views, is supported by my own findings and actual footage and the media, and is being influenced by rich powerful industries with a proven track record of lobbying in their favor? Or the second one, where a "leftists/Marxists" deep state has created a worldwide conspiracy including almost all scientists/universities + media is producing false scientific information and fake footage to scare us and control us all?

Lastly, innovative green/renewable technologies and moving away from polluting industries/fossil fuels is a good thing, both for our general health and the environment, regardless of whether AGW is real or not. So yes, I believe in AGW and believe we should act now, and I disagree with deniers/sceptists that oppose this change.

[prop_joe]

So for me this boils down this debate to the fact that there are 2 scenarios: 1. AGW is real and is happening; 2. AGW is "fake news".
As I have stated a few posts back, what seems more likely to you?

The first one, however, the second one's probably closer to the truth from the evidence i've seen regardless of how ridiculous it sounds. Humans conspire and manipulate, it's what we do and have always done and I doubt will ever change. Just think about some of the absolute total nutcase sci fi mad sh*t that's been pulled off in the past that we absolutely 100% know happened, manipulating people over something they know little about for power/control is hardly a stretch. Throughout history we've screwed with each other over bullsh*t, i'm just not convinced yet that this time is any different.

[Strekke]

So for me this boils down this debate to the fact that there are 2 scenarios: 1. AGW is real and is happening; 2. AGW is "fake news".
As I have stated a few posts back, what seems more likely to you?

The first one, however, the second one's probably closer to the truth from the evidence i've seen regardless of how ridiculous it sounds. Humans conspire and manipulate, it's what we do and have always done and I doubt will ever change. Just think about some of the absolute total nutcase sci fi mad sh*t that's been pulled off in the past that we absolutely 100% know happened, manipulating people over something they know little about for power/control is hardly a stretch. Throughout history we've screwed with each other over bullsh*t, i'm just not convinced yet that this time is any different.

Do you have anything specific example in mind?

In any case, I totally agree that manipulation of the people over power/money has happened in the past and is happening today still. I just think it is in this case the very powerful fossil fuel industry that's behind it - if AGW is real, then the sources that are posted here by the skeptics/deniers here is exactly the misinformation this industry would spread to manipulate the people and their opinion, and instigate doubt on whether AGW is real. Just as is happening here in KF., info is available supporting both sides. So which one is true, and which one is fake propaganda? There definitely is something fishy going on in this debate. So we totally agree on manipulation by powerful players. We just disagree on who is behind it. And since some of the sources from the deniers posted here are linked to fossil fuel industry (go back a few pages and see my posts with actual pdf documents showing funds donated by major fossil fuel players to the quoted anti-climate change blogs), I go for scenario 1. Also, I still don't understand who would be behind scenario 2, and who would be able to keep such a major conspiracy with so many people involved under wraps? And what would be the gain? Do you honestly believe in a Marxist Deep State trying to control the world?

[marlboroughman]

Total Australia burnt area

MM approved data, you can take it to the bank.

[marlboroughman]

“The effects of climate change have not yet been detected in Australian fires, but changes underway suggest that (those effects will be detectable as early as the 2040s) . If so we should expect, more and more intense fires, and respond accordingly.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielk ... 97545944f9

[prop_joe]

Do you have anything specific example in mind?

How about Epstein? There's a nice smack bang in your face one right there!

[Strekke]

“The effects of climate change have not yet been detected in Australian fires, but changes underway suggest that (those effects will be detectable as early as the 2040s) . If so we should expect, more and more intense fires, and respond accordingly.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielk ... 97545944f9

From the same article and quoted scientific sources:

First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds.” Overall, th​e 57 ​papers reviewed clearly show that human-induced warming has already led to a global increase in the frequency and severity of fire weather, increasing the risks of wildfire.
Future risks posed by wildfires may be significantly reduced by limiting temperature increase to well below 2°C.

--> AGW exists and has an effect on "fire weather"; taking measures to combat AGW is advised to reduce impact.

Australia: Observational data suggest that fire weather extremes are already becoming more frequent and intense (Dowdy, 2018; Head ​et al.​, 2014). However, the divergence between anthropogenic and natural forcing signals is weaker, and more challenging to diagnose, than in other regions due to strong regional and inter-annual variability in the effect of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation on fire weather (Dowdy, 2018; Sharples ​et al.​ , 2016). According to the latest research looking at the issue, the role of human-caused climate change in Australian bushfires has not yet been detected. It remains to be seen if the fires of 2019/2020 will alter that conclusion.

--> Fire weather is becoming more intense and frequent in Australia; the role of AGW is still not 100% sure for Australia, because there are other complex factors in play, it is more complex to analyse this area compared to other areas where AGW is already confirmed at increasing fire weather (US/Canada, Scandinavia, South Europe, Amazonia); this study was based on previous fire data and droughts etc., and was done before the ongoing bushfires, so they are not yet taken into account. So they might now alter this conclusion for Australia.​

Playing things straight on climate science may not always support a particular political agenda, and at times might even seem to undercut claims by one side or another. But what playing things straight can do is sustain public and policy maker trust in the scientific community. Playing things straight can be difficult on highly politicized issues, but organizations like the IPCC and @ScienceBrief are absolutely essential to the integrity of science as viewed by politicians and the public, whatever their political predispositions happen to be.

The article calls for faith in the scientific communities and the IPCC. How does that fit you guys' agenda? Weren't the scientists part of a big conspiracy, universities reduced to bought out shills/lobbyists, and the IPCC a total joke/waste of money that supports the Globalists/Leftists agenda for world domination?

[Strekke]

Do you have anything specific example in mind?

How about Epstein? There's a nice smack bang in your face one right there!

Epstein's death is indeed suspicious to say the least, I by no means exclude the hypothesis that he was whacked for having some very damning info on some very important people. An example I had in mind is the US' role in the Middle-East. 9/11, the "weapons of mass destruction" excuse to invade Iraq, the US-Saudi Arabia relations that are so strong despite the fact that it is a backward barbarian extremist regime of which 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and Saudi government actors were involved in organizing 9/11 (look it up if you didn't know, court cases are still ongoing today)... On paper Saudi Arabia should be the US' worst enemy, it is the exact opposite of what the US supposedly stands for, but in practice they are best buds, especially with Trump who "Likes them very much!". It's all about the oil/fossil fuel, weapons sales, and the money. If you haven't watched the Adam Curtis documentaries (Bitter Lake; Hypernormalization; etc.), please do. So I fully agree that manipulation and power games are ongoing. I also agree that most of government is useless, bought out/corrupt/lobbyist, incompetent, and only cares about stuffing their own pockets/re-elections instead of representing the interest of the people that voted for them. In many countries, democracy has been reduced to a farce. The difference once again is, we disagree on who is behind it.

[prop_joe]

Do you have anything specific example in mind?

How about Epstein? There's a nice smack bang in your face one right there!

Actually that's a bad example, as obvious as it is it has yet to be proven. Some examples that have been... Catholic child abuse, Chernobyl, MK Ultra, Mockingbird, Watergate, Syphillis study, JFK, Yewtree/Saville, Snowden, Big tobacco, Tonkin, CIA drug running. I'm sure a quick google would reveal many many more.

[marlboroughman]

The article calls for faith in the scientific communities and the IPCC.

Nope,

"organizations like the IPCC and @ScienceBrief are absolutely essential to the integrity of science", so they better get things right, but no faith.

This is what the article actually concludes:

The science of climate change and extreme events does not always fit readily into political campaigns, no matter how popular or accepted, and certainly not easily into electoral politics. However, as experts it is absolutely essential that some part of our community plays things straight in support of our collective efforts to prepare for and mitigate an uncertain climate future.

The rest are quotes and not from the Bible.

But, everyone take what you want from it, after reading it carefully.