Super powers.

It appears that the threat from climate-change/global-warming can be greatly reduced without the need to stop using fossil fuels. A little bit of adaptation and conservation work can achieve amazing results. — Agree-to-Disagree

That would just delay the change by maybe a generation. Part of the problem is the ways people have adapted to a high energy lifestyle. So many people think they need a water heater continuously heating so they can instantly have a shower that takes 17 freaking gallons of hot water. A human doesn't need that extravagance, but people don't realize that.

So many people think they need a water heater continuously heating so they can instantly have a shower — frank

How long are you willing to wait to have a shower?

How long are you willing to wait to have a shower? — Agree-to-Disagree

I use an immersion heater. It takes about 10 minutes.

Warm showers? What decadence. You should have cold showers if you truly care about the climate. It's more healthy too.

A human doesn't need that extravagance, but people don't realize that. — frank

:up:

I don't run a car and walk a lot. Now @Tzeentch is going to tell me running a car is decadent. I agree. Although if you live in the states with little or no public transport, maybe not.

I don't run a car and walk a lot. — Baden

I do the same. I always try to go by walking to places. If it is really away from my home, I use public transport. Both trains and buses have zero emissions and are low-polluting. The price is €21.80 monthly. I have never owned a car, and I think I will never do so. Apart from the costs and pollution mainly caused by traffic jams, I think it is an evil machine. It is dangerous, and I often thought that some car brands designed the model to save the car before the driver or pedestrian.

Warm showers? What decadence. You should have cold showers if you truly care about the climate. It's more healthy too. — Tzeentch

Wash in a Polish creek. Isn't that what you guys do?

Wash in a Polish creek. Isn't that what you guys do? — frank

I remember washing myself and clothes in a creek when I was a toddler. While it was enjoyable to feel the stream flowing through my hands, the government decided to outlaw this practice due to water pollution and a lack of water storage. I agree, and it is maybe one of the few things the government of my country did rightly in the past decades. It seems an innocent practice but can scare the fish off and drop bleach accidentally. By the way, why does the creek need to be Polish? There are cool and pure creeks in the Netherlands, where maybe @Tzeentch takes a bath often.

Creeks are self cleaning. About every 100 feet, whatever you plopped in is now down in the sand. That's per a scientist friend.

Another careful picking apart of a bullshitter who ought to know a lot better.



And a new magic German feeling word to rival schadenfreude — "fremdschamen".

Simon expertly describes much of the background of gullible people's anti-climate science arguments in this:




It's stuff like this that really gets my blood pumping. I absolutely hate how gullible people are, how they're so easily manipulated by anti-climate science agendas. People who push their idiotic world views onto masses of easily manipulated people who know absolutely nothing about how science works, its methods and how to read actual data.

There's no debate, there's no discussion, there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space to the degree that normally functioning people have to deal with it. :vomit:

There's no debate, there's no discussion, there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space to the degree that normally functioning people have to deal with it. — Christoffer

I think most people follow the bandwagon that fits their profile. Neither side tends to know much about science. But scientists can be wrong, so skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But scientists can be wrong, so skepticism isn't necessarily a bad thing. — frank

Skepticism without grounding in unbiased reasoning and having an insight into what the science means... is meaningless.

People only express skepticism because it doesn't fit into their invented narrative.

It's like if someone who's never stepped on a large ship suddenly starts to command around and inserting themselves into the crew's chain of command giving out orders that have no grounding in the knowledge of how to actually manage such a ship. Then demanding the crew listens to them, just because they have some fantasy idea about how to run a ship their way, as some foundation for why they're skeptical of how the ship is run. And then for some stupid reason, the shipping company puts people like that in charge while the crew tries to explain why this is a bad idea.

The problem with using "scientists can be wrong" as a premise is that it implies that uneducated amateurs knows any better when a theory or hypothesis is proven false. No, science doesn't work like that. Research is a process trying to use every method possible to reach an objective fact about something. Being "wrong" is what the uneducated people calls it when a theory is proved false, but that doesn't mean that the overarching scientific process hit a wall and that everything is thrown out the window, NO, it means that a part of the large body of theories have been chipped down a bit, closing in on what the objective fact really is.

Unscientific people simply don't understand how science actually works and so when a certain hypothesis or theory is proven "wrong", they interpret that as the scientists not knowing what they're doing, trying to insert themselves and their bullshit into the mix as some alternate answer or simply concluding that "because that theory was wrong, I am right".

I'm simply sick and tired of the type of "skepticism" that the majority of uneducated people are vomiting all over topics like climate change science. People simply don't know what they're talking about, but demand the right to be heard as someone with a valid input without caring for the need to actually understand it first.

There are no sides here, there's the side of the science, the facts and the people who understand the correct path forward... and then the side of the uneducated self-indulging delusions of people who seek attention by trying to paint themselves as being on par with the experts. It's absolutely pathetic.

Climate science is one of the most grounded, proven fields out there. Why in the world should we listen to amateurs vomiting out dislocated concepts and counter arguments towards that research? Especially since these people cannot be reasoned with as they simply don't understand the basics of scientific research.

We've seen numerous times how even pointing at certain research papers and conclusions doesn't even matter because they don't even have basic understanding of how to read stuff like that.

The anti-climate science people simply do it to validate themselves as more important than they are. Under the banner of being "fed up with experts". It's just plain populist stupidity without any actual grounding in the science, with nothing to support alternative theories other than delusions of grandeur in these people. Or they're simply following influential people and when they vomit the same bullshit they shout "hail the influencer!"

It's impossible to not see how all these right winger narratives are the same across the entire globe. It's the same narratives everywhere. Using certain topics to gather disgruntled zealots under them and using the anti-establishment narrative as a core point of control.

And part of this narrative has been climate change. It could have been any moronic narrative really, but since there's a lot of industries that rely on things staying the same, they start to flood money into pushing these anti-climate change narratives and so it spirals out of control and into the overarching narrative of these populist leaders and influencers.

Imagine if they incorporated cancer research into their populist bs. Pointing out "wrong" theories there, pushing for lowering the amount of government, private and charity funding that such research gets. Effectively stifling it to the point that it stagnates and slows down, leading to a lot of cancer treatments not coming into reality and people unnecessarily dying. It's the same kind of scenario.

I mean, we see the same in anti-vaccer ideologies. How the anti-vaccer movement managed to enable previously almost snuffed out diseases to spread out again. Imagine being the parent of a child who dies because some anti-vaccer morons took their non-vaccinated sick child to a place with younger children who weren't at the age of vaccination yet.

There are deadly consequences to this type of anti-establishment stupidity among uneducated people who believe to know better than the experts.

The extreme focus on individualism in recent decades have shaped people into absolute bloated egos. Thinking they are the main protagonists of the world. It's an appalling situation we're in where experts are treated the way they are and politicians playing off people's stupid sense of pseudo-importance.

Rather, this world needs to grow the fuck up. People need to realize that they are a part of something bigger. They need to respect other people's knowledge and expertise and work together. The plumber should not discuss "simulated ocean current data" and form a conclusion about climate change. They should fix the damn pipes and be damn good at their job. Just as a climate change scientist shouldn't try to explain the best way to fix the pipe or risk flooding the entire office themselves because they believed they could handle it themselves.

A stable world that learns to fix major global problems needs to have people being good at their profession, not try and interfere in other people's profession.

If people have skepticism about some scientific discovery, then take that skepticism to another scientist in that field, discussing it until they understand it.

There are no sides in this other than the right one and the wrong one and I'm not going to pretend there are on some delusional idea of neutrality in respect of some spoiled behavior from people who think that they, without any education in the field, can place themselves on the same level as these scientists.

And there's a difference between non-scientists who engage with scientific research on grounds of curiosity and who always present their amateur ideas in reference to current scientific understanding and that their own ideas are probably highly speculative... and the ones being skeptical against actual scientists through the narrative of belief in their own ideas being the truth or that some influencer they like knows better than scientists. One is able to discuss without overstepping their level of knowledge, while the other don't.

Skepticism without any rational foundation, skepticism that is self-indulgent and catering to the ego of the skeptic more than the pursuit of knowledge... is meaningless and irrelevant, and It should be excluded from discussions because it's useless for the progress of ideas.

there's only idiots raising their voices so high that it disturbs the public space — Christoffer

Absolutely.

Stupid, stupid people. That’s all it is.

“Don’t Look Up” captures it well.

m

:clap:

Skepticism without grounding in unbiased reasoning and having an insight into what the science means... is meaningless. — Christoffer

Right. Educate yourself. That's the best way to gain immunity from click bait.

Paul Beckwith discusses the latest World Meteorological Organization Report on the atmosphere CO2 etc. levels. I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. But stopping increasing the rate is the first step to take, and we probably need to do that quite urgently now.

Have a nice day, while you still can.

https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69057-no-20-28-october-2024

https://library.wmo.int/viewer/69057/download?file=GHG-20_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1

I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. — unenlightened

When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? Climate scientists tell the public that plane flights are very bad for climate change, but apparently that doesn't apply to them. People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk".

A total of 83,884 people attended COP28 in person, plus 2,089 online, taking the total number of participants to almost 86,000. This means COP28 was comfortably the largest climate COP in history – topping COP27 by more than 35,000.

I am sure that "scientists" will start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels soon, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.

People might start taking climate change more seriously if climate scientists "walked the walk", and didn't just "talk the talk". — Agree-to-Disagree

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? I don't know where you are from, but I hope the politicians—and other responsables—of my country might start to take this crisis—because climate change is a big crisis—more seriously. Everything is destroyed; more than 160 people died. I can't accept an argument that this was a normal natural disaster. After experiencing the floods, someone has to be very mad to keep denying climate change, at least in the context and reality of Spain. Now it is time to convince people around the globe. Please don't focus only on tax-funded organisations or politicians. There are more out there who work with honesty and want to avoid the impacts of DANA, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Yes we should. But climate deniers never will. They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end.

Like I said: just stupid, stupid people.

They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. — Mikie

:up:

That's precisely what surprises me the most. Climate change deniers can suffer the consequences of adverse weather, but they seem to not care anyway. If they are trapped in a garage flooded to the top they would think: "Well, this just happens. It is normal. I am just having bad luck today."

When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? — Agree-to-Disagree

This is a very feeble ad hominem, even by your low standards. Some scientists do more than others. They need to communicate with the world and with governments because one cannot do much alone, without changing the infrastructure and regulatory system.

Here is Paul Beckwith again talking about the tragedy in Spain.

Shouldn't we take climate change more seriously from now on after the floods in Valencia (Spain)? — javi2541997

Scientists say climate change made Spanish floods worse

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

It is a pity that "scientists" (including climate scientists) don't do a little bit of research about the history of floods in Spain before they make unproven statements about climate change.

Background:
A large number of floods have been recorded in Valencia, from 1321 to 1897. Up to 75 floods are estimated to have taken place in the seven centuries prior to the 1957 flood. This is an average of one flood every 9.33 years.

For the October 2024 Spain floods:
- caused the deaths of at least 161 people
- Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall during the day
- Utiel recorded 200 mm (7.9 in) in rainfall
- after the catastrophic 1957 flood a new riverbed for the Turia was built. This protected the city of Valencia proper from major damage in the October 2024 flood. But it caused severe flooding in municipalities further south due to a funnel effect.

The flood of Santa Teresa took place on 15 October 1879:
- it resulted in more than 1000 deaths and heavy material damage. It is the worst recorded flood in Murcia history
- the rainfall that caused the flood was extremely heavy. It is estimated that at the head of the Guadalentín 600 mm fell in just one hour

The 1957 Valencia flood was a natural disaster that occurred on 14 October 1957 in Valencia, Spain:
- the flood caused the deaths of at least 81 people
- in Valencia, there was torrential rainfall around midday on the 14th
- The city as a whole was left without water, gas and electricity and around 75% of commercial and industrial activity was affected. Around 5,800 homes were destroyed, leaving approximately 3,500 families homeless
- in response to the tragedy, the Spanish government devised and enacted the Plan Sur, which rerouted the city's main river, the Turia.

The 1962 Vallès floods took place on 25 September 1962:
- the official death toll was 617, but estimates imply between 800 and 1000 deaths
- a precipitation of 212 liters per square meter (212 mm rain) occurred during a time period of less than three hours

They’ll keep their heads in the sand till the bitter end. Like I said: just stupid, stupid people. — Mikie

The big question is, "will Mikie keep his head in the sand after he is shown the truth?" Just like Mikie said, people who ignore the evidence are just stupid, stupid people.

What is your point of sharing the history and dates of Valencia's floods? We are already aware of the continuous floods in that area each year. It seems like you claim that the DANA always happened and was not caused by climate change.

My point goes deeper than this. Before the reference to Valencia natural disaster, you claimed that some folks—yourself included—don't take climate change seriously because of the behaviour of some tax-funded people and organisations. I agree. Maybe they are not facing the issue correctly. Then, I shared the 'before and after' picture of the Albufera. I think it is clear the impact of adverse weather in that region. Whether COP29 is effective or not, it is not relevant to the fact and evidence that climate change has changed the structure and surface of my country. First the 1957 Valencia catastrophe and now these floods. Did you know that because of this, the government has to build literally new roads and rails to Madrid? I think we have to take climate change seriously, at least here.

What is your point of sharing the history and dates of Valencia's floods? — javi2541997

My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse.

There have been floods as bad as, and worse than, the 2024 floods in the distant past, long before climate change was an issue.

"Scientists" attribute every negative event to climate change. But "scientists" seem to have an agenda and don't want to compare recent negative events to historical negative events. This is because the comparison could show that climate change may not have made the negative event worse.

[Added later]
Please note that I am not downplaying the seriousness of this disaster. I am questioning whether it is justified to claim that climate change made the floods worse.

My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse. — Agree-to-Disagree

We are having records of high temperatures in summer and records of floods in autumn each year. Check it out, and you will see. If climate change is not making the weather worse and adverse here, what is the main cause then? By the way, I guess you could accept that climate change is a factor to take on regarding the last and coming floods. People around Valencia were interviewed—not scientists—and they said: We are used to floods in Valencia, but we can’t remember of a worse example than this year. It seems like each year the floods are more violent and destructive than the previous. They are literally experiencing the consequences of climate change.

Don’t waste too much time on climate-denying imbeciles. They’re embarrassed over and over yet continually come back anyway. Just trolling— or a learning disability. Either way, best to ignore.

If you want to learn something, check out Unenlightened’s posts— something can actually be learned in that case, rather than attempting to refute any child’s armchair ideas about science.

My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse. — Agree-to-Disagree

You are not justified in such a blanket criticism of a rather fulsome explanation of why the area is prone to such floods and a further explanation of how the higher sea temperatures in the mediterranean have made the flood even worse than previously. There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.

If climate change is not making the weather worse and adverse here, what is the main cause then — javi2541997

We just went through an El Nino phase. Don't conclude climate change just because you can't think of anything else. Scientists use super computers to model the climate.