I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here. — AmadeusD

Doomsday prophecies — Tzeentch

It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet. — Lionino

the world is ending — Tzeentch

Again…You ok?

Whatever— I don’t really care. Be well.

July 2023 Is Hottest Month Ever Recorded on Earth

Also worth repeating:

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:

Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine.

— James Hansen, climate scientist grifter

I don’t really care — Mikie

That much has been obvious for some time. Not understanding other people's perspectives makes it very, very hard to care.

Well this has been adequately bizarre to finish out the year. Nice.

This thread is about climate change. Move along.

No Mikie, its about how you and I are grifters or grifter's suckers, or spouting pseudo-religious hooey, with uncouth agendas, and above all rude and therefore wrong about everything. It's all about us, because Climate change is unimportant.

Take this grifter, for example:

“The huge human cost of the climate crisis is being ignored. We hear of disaster relief, but the long-term costs are not being addressed. We must provide lasting support for people impacted by climate change,” said Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.

In his report to the Council, the Special Rapporteur outlined a six-point plan to address the human rights aspects of the problem.

Communities in vulnerable situations, including indigenous peoples, peasants, migrants, children, women, persons with disabilities and people living in small island developing States and least developed countries, are disproportionately at risk from adverse impacts of climate change, the UN expert said.

He also highlighted the many non-economic losses stemming from climate change and its consequences. “For instance, in countries where I have worked and visited in the Pacific for the last 20 years, people are witnessing the graves of their loved ones being washed out into the sea,” the expert said.

Fry noted that the key element of his plan would be to investigate the plight of people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The expert said that of 59.1 million people internally displaced in 2021 across the world, most were displaced by climate-related disasters. He noted that the number was far higher than displacement due to armed conflict.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/06/intolerable-tide-people-displaced-climate-change-un-expert

Clearly angling for more research grants. None of that is happening.

What sentiments are there here...?

• irrelevant, there's no climate change
• there's climate change, and it has nothing to do with humans
• there's climate change, and it won't affect humans
• there's anthropogenic climate change, and nothing can done
• whatever the case, risk assessments are required before anything else (best-case, worst-case)
• there's climate change, and we know too little, need more conclusive research before anything else
• there's climate change, and whatever can be done should be done for the sake of future humans
• a far-reaching revolution is required immediately to deal with climate change
• mankind is doomed, deal with it, and go on about your business
• climate scientists/activists = grifters

Something else or some combination?

It's too easy/cheap to point at some isolated thing or peddle/suggest conspiracy theories. I'm fairly sure some of those sentiments above can be binned, and others not so much.

^{Related: human "footprints" all over (roads, cities, farms, factories, wars, waste), impressive (post-)industrialization fossil burnage, pollution all over the place, population growth, anthropogenic resource deprivation, biodiversity impairment, extinctions, nature/wildlife displacement, deforestation, renewability, ...}

Well, another element of the climate grift was how they chose a child, Greta, as their spokesperson. That's a pretty classic example of grift. — Tzeentch

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism. — Tzeentch

Yes, "they" ("them", "the secret behind-the-scenes conspirators") deliberately chose her while "hiding in the shadows", due to their "ulterior motives". :D A vast conspiracy, at that. The ↑ comments are just another example of ad hominem in service of incorrigible faith.

EDIT: apparently forgot one above: • climate scientists/activists = grifters

“The huge human cost of the climate crisis is being ignored. We hear of disaster relief, but the long-term costs are not being addressed. We must provide lasting support for people impacted by climate change,” said Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.

In his report to the Council, the Special Rapporteur outlined a six-point plan to address the human rights aspects of the problem.

Communities in vulnerable situations, including indigenous peoples, peasants, migrants, children, women, persons with disabilities and people living in small island developing States and least developed countries, are disproportionately at risk from adverse impacts of climate change, the UN expert said.

He also highlighted the many non-economic losses stemming from climate change and its consequences. “For instance, in countries where I have worked and visited in the Pacific for the last 20 years, people are witnessing the graves of their loved ones being washed out into the sea,” the expert said.

Fry noted that the key element of his plan would be to investigate the plight of people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The expert said that of 59.1 million people internally displaced in 2021 across the world, most were displaced by climate-related disasters. He noted that the number was far higher than displacement due to armed conflict.

How does this not sound extremely grifty?

People have had to deal with the effects of all kinds of change for as long as humanity has existed, but now there are people in need for "long-lasting support" and this bozo needs your money.

Subsidizing people for living in unsustainable conditions is a terrible idea, and I have no doubt a large part of that money would disappear into the pockets of, you guessed it, grifters.

If two centimeters of sea-level rise means you and your family are washed away, maybe think about moving. In fact, maybe you should have thought about moving yesterday. But even so, those two centimeters will take a couple decades - there's still time!

Treating people like children and helpless victims; it's a funny tendency within modern societies and apparently also in supranational organisations. Maybe a form of subconscious savior complex?

Personally, I'm a bit more cynical, as you might have guessed. This is grifty language, used to manipulate and guilt-trip people, which sadly is all too common in these forms of charity.

I don't really have time for an argument any more, this world is going to collapse, it is already collapsing, and no orange clown is going to save us. The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing. — unenlightened

I have to admit that you are into too many layers of irony for me to understand. Props where it is due.

That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short). — Tzeentch

That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. I say good, let artificial selection take its course.

The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000, and yet the Netherlands (negative altitude) will still be afloat in 2024.

Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download



When there is no Ukraine, Israel, vaccine, or Iran hysteria to keep the people distracted from the issues of their country, you can always go back to climate hysteria.

That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

My thoughts exactly. :pray:

The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000 — Lionino

No they didn’t.

Also relevant — Lionino

No, it isn’t. Read up on both the article and the goofy Roy Spencer. Both guys are long known climate deniers.

Can’t denialists peddle anything new? Jeesh.

Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download — Lionino

Yeah, No grifting involved at all there.

In 2001, ExxonMobil’s chief lobbyist successfully recommended that President George W. Bush’s administration choose Christy to review the submissions of the U.S. team contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report, an assignment that helped burnish his scientific credentials.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112020/john-christy-alabama-climate-contrarian/

Exon Mobil lobbyists being unwavering seekers of truth and not at all partisan on such matters. He doesn't take their money, but he sure takes their lobbying on his behalf. but the reference has been very well trashed in any case over the years.

But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

Why do you think microplastics are killing us?

We know for a fact that the tobacco industry worked very hard to hold back the science on the extent to which smoking was lethal.
We know that the oil industry has been doing the same thing over climate change.

Yet here is a bunch of clowns pretending that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists and windmill manufacturers. They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. And I am the one that is

...into too many layers of irony for me to understand. — Lionino

Why do you think microplastics are killing us? — frank

Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever.

They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. — unenlightened

This is what I mean. Otherwise normal adults regress to the intellectual level of maybe an 8 or 9v year old when they hit this topic. And it’s an easy one to look at, because the evidence is overwhelming (and why the consensus is so high).

So it’s fun to see. You get either complete ignorance or conspiracy theories (also just ignorance) repeated from conservative circles — ie talking heads who are themselves parroting talking points from fossil industry lawyers and think tanks.

So it’s a hoax, a grift, an agenda, a scam, a religion. Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists.

Sorry, I don't accept "epicclimatenews" as a source for someone "burnishing their scientific credentials", which is not something that happens because science is not a clergy, there is no one to be burn at a stake.

But keep pulling your hair for something out of your control because the news told you the world is ending. It is hilarious.

As an observation, everytime you mention Trump or Biden I skip over to the next paragraph. I do not care about your largely irrelevant "country".

the news told you the world is ending — Lionino

It’s not ending. But keep repeating your news that tells you it doesn’t exist. Much better strategy.

Care to trot out Fred Singer next, as a “relevant” source? :lol:

Better to scurry away like the many deniers before you. Save yourself the further embarrassment.

Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future — Lionino

Microplastics are a grift. You’re an alarmist.

I don't accept — Lionino

What are you denying about Dr John Christy? That the research has been widely questioned? That it is a minority view among climate scientists? That ExonMobil lobbied on his behalf? That he used to be a missionary? Your blanket rejection is of no value without some reason and evidence.

Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever. — Lionino

There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification.

There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification. — frank

That has little to do with inhaled or ingested plastics that are liable I imagine to clog things up and reduce absorption of oxygen and food respectively. but there's not a huge amount of research and a good deal of complacency. Just another uncontrolled experiment with the biosphere.

here's a summary: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/microplastics-long-legacy-left-behind-plastic-pollution

It's another unwanted pressure on an already critically stressed biosphere - not to mention the hormones that are an ever-present threat to the masculinity of the pure in cell.

Yes. Entities that do medical research take suggestions from the public, and I asked for that one: the effect of microplastics on the lungs.

I remember when this was modern. All part of my indoctrination.

But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

I did a quick search in NY Times. Dozens of articles or opinion pieces on microplastics. Here's one I did not bother checking BBC, but I'm confident that you will find plenty as well.

It's a race to see how mankind will destroy this habitable planet we live on. Pollution vs. habitat destruction vs. climate change. Any one of these will be sufficient. My vote is on a combination.

But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. — Lionino

This is false. The NY Times is always banging on about microplastics, as in this Opinion essay earlier in the year: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/opinion/microplastics-health-environment.html

Hormones in food is more of a BBC thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/junk_food_brain

The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000, and yet the Netherlands (negative altitude) will still be afloat in 2024. — Lionino

The article to which you linked explained that one non-scientist official said something like this, but it's a popular misconception that he said or even implied that the underwater events would happen 'by 2000', and the predicted underwater events would affect very specific places, like Bangladesh.

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people? — Tzeentch

Never. That is because the climate change doom cult is full of shit. And if they did actually talk about it, they would no doubt blame it on climate change so as to incite more alarmism.

Hi Lionino. I would like to know where the 2 US temperature maps for Jul 20 2019 came from.

The scale has obviously changed, so how did you get the 2 maps for the same date using the 2 different temperature scales?

The maps are not real afaik, they are just illustrative of how scales may be shifted in order to inspire alarmism.

See here, where temperatures close to 0 are a nice bright green while temperatures under 30 display a hellish red.


Source https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/11/02/election-day-2020-forecast-favorable-weather-likely-across-the-nation

Not to be too pessimistic, but in all realism the climate denial argument has shifted from a position of skepticism – which is now in the past – to being about action and practicality. If you really want to convince those in the thread, respond to the question,

"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?"

The problem of climate denial is with a system of individual libertarian mindedness, not any special content of scientific evidence. Evidence actually tends to exacerbate it through its individualistic apparatus and the Cartesian-Augustinian subject, where deniers and pushers represent the same ideological form. At present it seems persuasion is of social, representational, and psychological expense rather than to do with anything of the natural world.

Their message seems to be: "If the problem comes down to individual action, information, and knowledge, then why should I care?" In my view, it seems a reflection of two different materialistic interpretations of Kant vs Hegel in the realm of morality.

"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?" — kudos

Great post. The question you point to is a philosophical challenge covered by global warming text books. The issue is that we don't have any experience with "caring" on the temporal and geographical scale of climate change.

What would you do if you had to either save two strangers or your wife or daughter? I'd choose wife or daughter. It's a question of the type of history that brings us to this moment of choice.