Climate Change

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

that’s why scientists have been warning us for decades yet precious little has been done. 

Yeah, we need to listen to these top scientists. 

 

 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly, it’s revenue raising dressed up as saving the environment, and saps like soggy lap it up. Nobody tries to pretend toll roads or bridges are anything else. 

Usual stupid, ill informed comment.

If this is just a revenue raising exercise then perhaps you should aim your barbs at the people responsible for its operation. They seem to have missed a trick in only aiming for 10% of the traffic and once everyone is compliant they are stuffed.

As for the poster who complains about paying to help keep the air cleaner for his dear old Grandpa when he goes to see him, given that your vehicle is part of the problem in the first place, perhaps you are the wanker rather than the bloke who is trying to improve Gramp’s living conditions?

Edited 31 July, 2023 by sadoldgit
Typo

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

 

They seem to have missed a trick in only aiming for 10% of the traffic and once everyone is compliant they are stuffed.

 

😂 Are you really that bone headed, or is it an act? 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

From your own link:

Key Points

• Heat waves are occurring more often than they used to in major cities across the United States. Their frequency has increased steadily, from an average of two heat waves per year during the 1960s to six per year during the 2010s and 2020s (see Figure 1).
•  In recent years, the average heat wave in major U.S. urban areas has been about four days long. This is about a day longer than the average heat wave in the 1960s (see Figure 1).
• The average heat wave season across the 50 cities in this indicator is about 49 days longer now than it was in the 1960s (see Figure 1). Timing can matter, as heat waves that occur earlier in the spring or later in the fall can catch people off-guard and increase exposure to the health risks associated with heat waves.
• Heat waves have become more intense over time. During the 1960s, the average heat wave across the 50 cities in Figures 1 and 2 was 2.0°F above the local 85^th percentile threshold. During the 2020s, the average heat wave has been 2.3°F above the local threshold (see Figure 1).
• Of the 50 metropolitan areas in this indicator, 46 experienced a statistically significant increase in heat wave frequency between the 1960s and 2020s. Heat wave duration has increased significantly in 29 of these locations, the length of the heat wave season in 44, and intensity in 17 (see Figure 2).
• Longer-term records show that heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe in recorded U.S. history (see Figure 3). The spike in Figure 3 reflects extreme, persistent heat waves in the Great Plains region during a period known as the “Dust Bowl.” Poor land use practices and many years of intense drought contributed to these heat waves by depleting soil moisture and reducing the moderating effects of evaporation.⁶

I did a little googling and it appears Scally has got this from a website called Climate At A Glance, which is owned and run by the Heartland Institute. The very same organisation that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 1970s to rebut the science that was emerging about the dangers of smoking. They have no scientific credibility whatsoever - they are nothing but a corporate lobby group who peddle pseudo-science dressed up as fact with fancy looking graphs and booklets that, to the layman, look quite convincing, but are actually just laughably bad.

I had a little look around the rest of the site. Fuck me! Some of the content on it is just hilarious. Take this for example, where they talk about the scientific consensus. Their central claim is that science is about hard facts and evidence, not a 'show of hands', and they then go and back up their claim that a "strong majority of scientists are not very worried about it", by citing a survey that is literally just a show of hands - asking some scientists what they believe about certain aspects of climate change - that doesn't actually say what they want you to believe it says.

As to this graph, it's well known there were heatwaves in the US in the 1930s. They were both a cause and a symptom of the dust bowl event that devastated huge areas or arable land due to poor agricultural practices leading to the soil drying out completely, which in turn influences heat waves. What it doesn't specify is how intense those heatwaves were. And it only refers to the US, not the rest of the world. And, most importantly, it leaves out the whole bit that you posted explaining that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, because that's inconvenient and doesn't fit with their agenda.

In short - don't believe a single word printed/posted by the Heartland Institute, because it's guaranteed to be complete bollocks.

 

[Turkish]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Usual stupid, ill informed comment.

If this is just a revenue raising exercise then perhaps you should aim your barbs at the people responsible for its operation. They seem to have missed a trick in only aiming for 10% of the traffic and once everyone is compliant they are stuffed.

As for the poster who complains about paying to help keep the air cleaner for his dear old Grandpa when he goes to see him, given that your vehicle is part of the problem in the first place, perhaps you are the wanker rather than the bloke who is trying to improve Gramp’s living conditions?

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

They’re really stuffed when everyone is compliant aren’t they Soggy? 

 

 

“Details of the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's 'Pay as You Drive' plan which could replace the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Congestion Charge have been shared in a new interview. 
 

The proposal would see drivers in London pay depending on the time of day, amount of passengers and the distance they drive in London. 

Speaking to the Financial Times, Khan revealed details on how the idea might work sharing that it could be a long time until the plan was implemented.

The 'Pay as You Drive' scheme would replace the Congestion Charge which costs £15 a day and the ULEZ charge of £12.50 a day.”

[Picard]

This summer's heat wave could have been caused by a huge volcanic eruption.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

 

[Scally42]

15 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I did a little googling and it appears Scally has got this from a website called Climate At A Glance, which is owned and run by the Heartland Institute. The very same organisation that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 1970s to rebut the science that was emerging about the dangers of smoking. They have no scientific credibility whatsoever - they are nothing but a corporate lobby group who peddle pseudo-science dressed up as fact with fancy looking graphs and booklets that, to the layman, look quite convincing, but are actually just laughably bad.

I had a little look around the rest of the site. Fuck me! Some of the content on it is just hilarious. Take this for example, where they talk about the scientific consensus. Their central claim is that science is about hard facts and evidence, not a 'show of hands', and they then go and back up their claim that a "strong majority of scientists are not very worried about it", by citing a survey that is literally just a show of hands - asking some scientists what they believe about certain aspects of climate change - that doesn't actually say what they want you to believe it says.

As to this graph, it's well known there were heatwaves in the US in the 1930s. They were both a cause and a symptom of the dust bowl event that devastated huge areas or arable land due to poor agricultural practices leading to the soil drying out completely, which in turn influences heat waves. What it doesn't specify is how intense those heatwaves were. And it only refers to the US, not the rest of the world. And, most importantly, it leaves out the whole bit that you posted explaining that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, because that's inconvenient and doesn't fit with their agenda.

In short - don't believe a single word printed/posted by the Heartland Institute, because it's guaranteed to be complete bollocks.

 

The graph comes from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency so pretty reliable, not sure even you'll be able to dig dirt up on them. Sorry to disapoint.  The excuses given only apply to the 30's and not decades before or after. This heat wasn't just isolated to the US so you'll have to do better than that. Climate change was caused by farmers in the US, it never happened before and it hasn't happened since, dream on. The northern hemisphere had unprecidented heat because of American farmers....lol

[Scally42]

43 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I did a little googling and it appears Scally has got this from a website called Climate At A Glance, which is owned and run by the Heartland Institute. The very same organisation that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 1970s to rebut the science that was emerging about the dangers of smoking. They have no scientific credibility whatsoever - they are nothing but a corporate lobby group who peddle pseudo-science dressed up as fact with fancy looking graphs and booklets that, to the layman, look quite convincing, but are actually just laughably bad.

I had a little look around the rest of the site. Fuck me! Some of the content on it is just hilarious. Take this for example, where they talk about the scientific consensus. Their central claim is that science is about hard facts and evidence, not a 'show of hands', and they then go and back up their claim that a "strong majority of scientists are not very worried about it", by citing a survey that is literally just a show of hands - asking some scientists what they believe about certain aspects of climate change - that doesn't actually say what they want you to believe it says.

As to this graph, it's well known there were heatwaves in the US in the 1930s. They were both a cause and a symptom of the dust bowl event that devastated huge areas or arable land due to poor agricultural practices leading to the soil drying out completely, which in turn influences heat waves. What it doesn't specify is how intense those heatwaves were. And it only refers to the US, not the rest of the world. And, most importantly, it leaves out the whole bit that you posted explaining that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, because that's inconvenient and doesn't fit with their agenda.

In short - don't believe a single word printed/posted by the Heartland Institute, because it's guaranteed to be complete bollocks.

 

If you're going to laugh at the Heartland Institute over the 97% consensus would you like to show us where this comes from

[Whitey Grandad]

6 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I assume you have never crossed the Humber Bridge or driven the M6 Toll, the Mersey or Thames tunnels, let alone any motorways in France.

None of these are levied under the pretence of reducing pollution.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Usual stupid, ill informed comment.

If this is just a revenue raising exercise then perhaps you should aim your barbs at the people responsible for its operation. They seem to have missed a trick in only aiming for 10% of the traffic and once everyone is compliant they are stuffed.

As for the poster who complains about paying to help keep the air cleaner for his dear old Grandpa when he goes to see him, given that your vehicle is part of the problem in the first place, perhaps you are the wanker rather than the bloke who is trying to improve Gramp’s living conditions?

They start at 10% and then raise it up to 100%

[Sheaf Saint]

10 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

The graph comes from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency so pretty reliable, not sure even you'll be able to dig dirt up on them. Sorry to disapoint.  The excuses given only apply to the 30's and not decades before or after. This heat wasn't just isolated to the US so you'll have to do better than that. 

I'm not going to try and 'dig dirt' on the EPA's data. I'm not disputing that there was a spike in heatwaves in the US in the 1930s. My dispute is with the HI for using that graph to try and make it look like the current increase in global heatwave frequency and intensity isn't actually happening. This is the thing with climate 'sceptics' - they are always cherry picking data to try and disprove the warming narrative, knowing full well that uneducated people will take their claims at face value and do their dirty work for them by spreading them online.

To demonstrate this, have a look at this graph from the same EPA site your graph was taken from. 

10 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

Climate change was caused by farmers in the US, it never happened before and it hasn't happened since, dream on. The northern hemisphere had unprecidented heat because of American farmers....lol

Don't just take my word for it. Read for yourself...

Ocean and land forcing of the record-breaking Dust Bowl heatwaves across central United States | Nature Communications

Abstract

The severe drought of the 1930s Dust Bowl decade coincided with record-breaking summer heatwaves that contributed to the socio-economic and ecological disaster over North America’s Great Plains. It remains unresolved to what extent these exceptional heatwaves, hotter than in historically forced coupled climate model simulations, were forced by sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and exacerbated through human-induced deterioration of land cover. Here we show, using an atmospheric-only model, that anomalously warm North Atlantic SSTs enhance heatwave activity through an association with drier spring conditions resulting from weaker moisture transport. Model devegetation simulations, that represent the wide-spread exposure of bare soil in the 1930s, suggest human activity fueled stronger and more frequent heatwaves through greater evaporative drying in the warmer months. This study highlights the potential for the amplification of naturally occurring extreme events like droughts by vegetation feedbacks to create more extreme heatwaves in a warmer world.

[Picard]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I did a little googling and it appears Scally has got this from a website called Climate At A Glance, which is owned and run by the Heartland Institute. The very same organisation that was hired by the tobacco industry in the 1970s to rebut the science that was emerging about the dangers of smoking. They have no scientific credibility whatsoever - they are nothing but a corporate lobby group who peddle pseudo-science dressed up as fact with fancy looking graphs and booklets that, to the layman, look quite convincing, but are actually just laughably bad.

I had a little look around the rest of the site. Fuck me! Some of the content on it is just hilarious. Take this for example, where they talk about the scientific consensus. Their central claim is that science is about hard facts and evidence, not a 'show of hands', and they then go and back up their claim that a "strong majority of scientists are not very worried about it", by citing a survey that is literally just a show of hands - asking some scientists what they believe about certain aspects of climate change - that doesn't actually say what they want you to believe it says.

As to this graph, it's well known there were heatwaves in the US in the 1930s. They were both a cause and a symptom of the dust bowl event that devastated huge areas or arable land due to poor agricultural practices leading to the soil drying out completely, which in turn influences heat waves. What it doesn't specify is how intense those heatwaves were. And it only refers to the US, not the rest of the world. And, most importantly, it leaves out the whole bit that you posted explaining that heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense, because that's inconvenient and doesn't fit with their agenda.

In short - don't believe a single word printed/posted by the Heartland Institute, because it's guaranteed to be complete bollocks.

 

Heartland's reply to critics:

https://heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/

[Sheaf Saint]

22 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

If you're going to laugh at the Heartland Institute over the 97% consensus would you like to show us where this comes from

The 97% figure was first put out by Naomi Oreskes, and was popularised further by a 2013 study by Cook et. al. that examined over 11,000 research papers.

Interestingly, a 2015 study reviewed a selection of the 3% of papers which reject anthropogenic climate change, and found serious flaws in every single one of them.

The actual consensus is now shown to be greater than 99% in peer-reviewed literature.

So in a way, I agree with Heartland on one point. Science is about hard evidence and facts, not a 'show of hands'. And the hard evidence indicates beyond any possible doubt that global warming is due to human GHG emissions.

[Scally42]

18 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I'm not going to try and 'dig dirt' on the EPA's data. I'm not disputing that there was a spike in heatwaves in the US in the 1930s. My dispute is with the HI for using that graph to try and make it look like the current increase in global heatwave frequency and intensity isn't actually happening. This is the thing with climate 'sceptics' - they are always cherry picking data to try and disprove the warming narrative, knowing full well that uneducated people will take their claims at face value and do their dirty work for them by spreading them online.

To demonstrate this, have a look at this graph from the same EPA site your graph was taken from. 

Don't just take my word for it. Read for yourself...

Ocean and land forcing of the record-breaking Dust Bowl heatwaves across central United States | Nature Communications

Abstract

The severe drought of the 1930s Dust Bowl decade coincided with record-breaking summer heatwaves that contributed to the socio-economic and ecological disaster over North America’s Great Plains. It remains unresolved to what extent these exceptional heatwaves, hotter than in historically forced coupled climate model simulations, were forced by sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and exacerbated through human-induced deterioration of land cover. Here we show, using an atmospheric-only model, that anomalously warm North Atlantic SSTs enhance heatwave activity through an association with drier spring conditions resulting from weaker moisture transport. Model devegetation simulations, that represent the wide-spread exposure of bare soil in the 1930s, suggest human activity fueled stronger and more frequent heatwaves through greater evaporative drying in the warmer months. This study highlights the potential for the amplification of naturally occurring extreme events like droughts by vegetation feedbacks to create more extreme heatwaves in a warmer world.

All that graph does is show how data in later charts and graphs get manipulated to push the narrative, why else would they change an old graph that showed the 30's as having the longest and hottest dry spells in the 30's to now show today as having the hottest and longest dry spells. Is it more likely that hot dry weather caused the dust bowl era and not the other way around. Climate scientists had to explain the hotter 1930's decade and this is what they came up with, sorry I'm not buying it

[Scally42]

6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The 97% figure was first put out by Naomi Oreskes, and was popularised further by a 2013 study by Cook et. al. that examined over 11,000 research papers.

Interestingly, a 2015 study reviewed a selection of the 3% of papers which reject anthropogenic climate change, and found serious flaws in every single one of them.

The actual consensus is now shown to be greater than 99% in peer-reviewed literature.

So in a way, I agree with Heartland on one point. Science is about hard evidence and facts, not a 'show of hands'. And the hard evidence indicates beyond any possible doubt that global warming is due to human GHG emissions.

What were the scientists asked?

 

[Scally42]

18 minutes ago, Picard said:

Heartland's reply to critics:

https://heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/

Sheaf does what all science deniers do and attack the people who have a different view than them. The people who rely on pushing a narrative to get paid are the so called climate scientists. Any one who has been part of the IPCC and questioned the narrative gets the boot, if they're so sure of their science why do they attack anybody who questions what they say. If they were so sure we'd be having regular debates. 

Edited 31 July, 2023 by Scally42

[Sheaf Saint]

7 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

All that graph does is show how data in later charts and graphs get manipulated to push the narrative, why else would they change an old graph that showed the 30's as having the longest and hottest dry spells in the 30's to now show today as having the hottest and longest dry spells. Is it more likely that hot dry weather caused the dust bowl era and not the other way around. Climate scientists had to explain the hotter 1930's decade and this is what they came up with, sorry I'm not buying it

So you're citing a graph from the EPA to support your claim that heatwaves aren't getting more frequent and more intense, but when I present a graph from the same source to show a different trend, you automatically assume it must just be manipulated to push a certain narrative.

Okay then.

[Sheaf Saint]

20 minutes ago, Picard said:

Heartland's reply to critics:

https://heartland.org/about-us/reply-to-critics/

It's difficult to take this attempt at marking their own homework seriously when they still flat out refuse to disclose who funds them.

[Scally42]

8 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

So you're citing a graph from the EPA to support your claim that heatwaves aren't getting more frequent and more intense, but when I present a graph from the same source to show a different trend, you automatically assume it must just be manipulated to push a certain narrative.

Okay then.

Explain why they've gone from showing the 30's as hottest to now showing today, the facts are the facts. Nothing has changed

 

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

Explain why they've gone from showing the 30's as hottest to now showing today, the facts are the facts. Nothing has changed

 

That graph showed the heatwave index, not temperatures.

This one shows the temperatures:

Edited 31 July, 2023 by aintforever

[Sheaf Saint]

21 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

Sheaf does what all science deniers do and attack the people who have a different view than them. The people who rely on pushing a narrative to get paid are the so called climate scientists. Any one who has been part of the IPCC and questioned the narrative gets the boot, if they're so sure of their science why do they attack anybody who questions what they say. If they were so sure we'd be having regular debates. 

Believe it or not, there was a time when I thought a little like you do. I wanted to believe that I was part of a tiny minority that knew 'the truth' about climate change. So I decided to properly educate myself on the subject, and in the process of so doing I came to the inescapable conclusion that my previous position was wrong.

There is no point having regular debates, because there is no more debate to be had about whether or not humans are influencing climate. It is happening, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support it. The science is irrefutable. Anybody who still wants to push the contrarian view to that either doesn't understand the science, or is deliberately muddying the waters to push their own agenda.

The only thing left to debate is what to actually do about it.

Edited 31 July, 2023 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

16 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

Explain why they've gone from showing the 30's as hottest to now showing today, the facts are the facts. Nothing has changed

 

There are no data that show the 1930s as the hottest. Every dataset available shows the upward trend since the start of the 21st century as hotter than the 1930s.

The graph you posted only shows a heatwave 'index' in the US. It has nothing to do with the global temperature trend. You do get that, don't you?

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yeah, we need to listen to these top scientists. 

 

 

What about this loon:

 

[Scally42]

12 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The 97% figure was first put out by Naomi Oreskes, and was popularised further by a 2013 study by Cook et. al. that examined over 11,000 research papers.

Interestingly, a 2015 study reviewed a selection of the 3% of papers which reject anthropogenic climate change, and found serious flaws in every single one of them.

The actual consensus is now shown to be greater than 99% in peer-reviewed literature.

So in a way, I agree with Heartland on one point. Science is about hard evidence and facts, not a 'show of hands'. And the hard evidence indicates beyond any possible doubt that global warming is due to human GHG emissions.

So much for 97% consensus

[Turkish]

12 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

There are no data that show the 1930s as the hottest. Every dataset available shows the upward trend since the start of the 21st century as hotter than the 1930s.

The graph you posted only shows a heatwave 'index' in the US. It has nothing to do with the global temperature trend. You do get that, don't you?

that'll be because in 1930s they hadn't realised how much they can manipulate people by fear yet.

[AlexLaw76]

How are you all dealing with global boiling today?

Currently 17-ish degrees outside - DANGEROUS

Edited 1 August, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[Dig Dig]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

How are you all dealing with global boiling today?

Currently 17-ish degree outside - DANGEROUS

Oh dear, another who doesn't know the difference between local weather systems and the climate. 

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Dig Dig said:

Oh dear, another who doesn't know the difference between local weather systems and the climate. 

He knows the square root of fuck all about most subjects he posts about.

[rallyboy]

I can't see the super moon out of my window so that proves it doesn't exist.

[AlexLaw76]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

He knows the square root of fuck all about most subjects he posts about.

There you go again.  The racist speaks....

[sadoldgit]

12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

How are you all dealing with global boiling today?

Currently 17-ish degrees outside - DANGEROUS

I’ve read some really dumb posts from you when you posted as Delldays. I’ve read some really dumb posts from you when you posted as Batman. Given the bar is so low, congratulations but you have just managed to come up with your most ridiculous post ever.

Well done, your persistence has paid off.
 

 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

I’ve read some really dumb posts from you when you posted as Delldays. I’ve read some really dumb posts from you when you posted as Batman. Given the bar is so low, congratulations but you have just managed to come up with your most ridiculous post ever.

Well done, your persistence has paid off.
 

 

What have you done today to reduce your carbon footprint?

[Turkish]

23 minutes ago, Dig Dig said:

Oh dear, another who doesn't know the difference between local weather systems and the climate. 

So the recent hot spell in Europe (which is now over) was that Climate or local weather?

[Sheaf Saint]

 

1 hour ago, Scally42 said:

So much for 97% consensus

This video talks a lot about how many scientists were asked their opinion on climate change, but that isn't how science works. The beauty of it is that, if done correctly, the results you get from scientific studies are true regardless of what anybody believes. 

So a few people may have publicly asserted a figure about which there seems to be a lot of uncertainty around how it was derived. But that doesn't change anything in terms of the actual science. If you bothered to read the link I provided in the post you quoted, you'll see that the consensus in the peer-reviewed literature - which is all that actually matters, rather than the opinions of people who have never conducted any research in the field - is greater than 99%.

Edited 1 August, 2023 by Sheaf Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

29 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

How are you all dealing with global boiling today?

Currently 17-ish degrees outside - DANGEROUS

Which part of the word 'global' do you not understand?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Which part of the word 'global' do you not understand?

May I ask, what have you done today to reduce your carbon footprint?

[Sheaf Saint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

May I ask, what have you done today to reduce your carbon footprint?

I cycled to work.

And you?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Sheaf Saint said:

I cycled to work.

And you?

Is that it?

 

[Turkish]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I’ve read some really dumb posts from you when you posted as Delldays. I’ve read some really dumb posts from you when you posted as Batman. Given the bar is so low, congratulations but you have just managed to come up with your most ridiculous post ever.

Well done, your persistence has paid off.
 

 

 

[tdmickey3]

24 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 

Confession?

[whelk]

14 hours ago, aintforever said:

What about this loon:

 

You’ll be getting old LD moist

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

There you go again.  The racist speaks....

Find a new tune, you boring cunt.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Which part of the word 'global' do you not understand?

So is it boiling everywhere globally?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

This video talks a lot about how many scientists were asked their opinion on climate change, but that isn't how science works. The beauty of it is that, if done correctly, the results you get from scientific studies are true regardless of what anybody believes. 

So a few people may have publicly asserted a figure about which there seems to be a lot of uncertainty around how it was derived. But that doesn't change anything in terms of the actual science. If you bothered to read the link I provided in the post you quoted, you'll see that the consensus in the peer-reviewed literature - which is all that actually matters, rather than the opinions of people who have never conducted any research in the field - is greater than 99%.

Science is never constant. In school we were told about the Phlogiston Theory. For quite a time it used to be the in thing.

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So is it boiling everywhere globally?

The milestones passed and average temperature records that have been broken this summer are alarming, because they haven't just been breached, they've been smashed. And the strongest effects of El Nino are still yet to come, meaning 2024 is only likely to continue that trend.

Dismissing global issues because they aren't apparent on your own doorstep is idiotic in the extreme. July might have been mild and wet in the UK, but globally the story is very different:

 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What have you done today to reduce your carbon footprint?

I haven’t driven a car. What about you?

And what has this to do with your total local of understanding about the effect of global warming? Yet again, when called out, you deflect by changing the subject.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

So the recent hot spell in Europe (which is now over) was that Climate or local weather?

I thought your mate in Ibiza said it wasn’t that hot and that it’s all media hype?

[Turkish]

31 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I thought your mate in Ibiza said it wasn’t that hot and that it’s all media hype?

Making things up again. I didn't say he said that at all you lot all made out i said that.

Anyway, regardless of what you pretended i said, was it climate or local weather?

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I haven’t driven a car. What about you?

And what has this to do with your total local of understanding about the effect of global warming? Yet again, when called out, you deflect by changing the subject.

that's not because you're worried about your carbon footprint, its because, as you told us the other day, you cant afford to run two cars anymore. And you're hating it.

Edited 1 August, 2023 by Turkish