Japan Today
environment

India's heatwave longest ever, worse to come

34 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2024 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

This is why governments are so desperate to close borders. They know that soon, some places will become increasingly uninhabitable and their populations will have to move somewhere cooler.

In the meantime, change the built environment. More cover, more cooled communal areas, more nocturnal living.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It's India's numerous stray dogs that I worry the most about when its hot like an oven.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal.

So you’re saying, the left wants to hear one opinion on the topic, you’re not allowed to have a different point of scientific view? Why? Why is it that the left won’t accept alternate research, this is why people turn to Discord, Rumble and X, there all sides can speak on the issue and that’s how it should be. Fascism has no room for entering any public debate.

-10 ( +7 / -17 )

Science and data reveals the truth. Follow that.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

Which Republicans are worried about global warming?

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/republicans-worried-about-global-warming/

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Science and data reveals the truth. Follow that.

Big science is corrupt. You'd get a better idea if you followed the money.

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

The money of the deniers leads to the fossil fuel industry.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Science and data reveals the truth. Follow that.

I read science and data that says the opposite, I follow that.

The money of the deniers leads to the fossil fuel industry

Which I cannot wait for it to restart

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

What percentage of climate scientists believe in climate change?

97 percent

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

6 ( +12 / -6 )

That looks tough. At least if you live in a large country you can move if the climate changes, but those on small islands for example, or African countries subject to drought have a very challenging future.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What percentage of climate scientists believe in climate change?

97 percent

Ok, and? I like the 3% different scientific opinions.

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Then let them, I’m not one of those that jump on the same bandwagon.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

NASA is a highly regarded organization.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Then let them, I’m not one of those that jump on the same bandwagon.

The ‘underdog free thinkers’ like to think they are Galileo.

An alarming number of Americans, far more than 3%, believe the earth is flat.

I’m on the Earth is round ‘bandwagon’. Not the contrarian edgy one.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

NASA is a highly regarded organization.

Indeed, they wouldn't fake anything....

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

NASA is a highly regarded organization.

Indeed, they wouldn't fake anything....

Here we go.

What did they fake?

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Ok, and? I like the 3% different scientific opinions.

That are from irrelevant fields and are not sustained by any data? that is like liking the small percentage of doctors that say smoking and daily drinking is not so bad for your health either.

Indeed, they wouldn't fake anything....

Fake something completely in agreement with the scientific conclusions of the rest of the scientific institutions of the field in the world? that makes no sense. Specially when the accusations are completely baseless and run contrary to the interests of the industry that could provide endless amount of resources if only scientists would lie and say fossil fuels are not the cause of climate change.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Let's play pretend. "There is no climate change caused by humans. It's just mother nature being mother nature. Science is corrupt."

OK then. Almost 9 billion people on earth, running machines, polluting streams and rivers and oceans, burping and . . ., and burning coal and oil et al have no effect? This does not compute. If it's mother nature are we all condemned to die in the 6th great extinction and there isn't a thing we can do about it? Is there maybe an end point? Where does all the chemicals we burn go? Is there a portal to outer space or something?

Why are scientists lying? Do they get a lot of money or something? Have you seen a bunch of them driving around in BMWs or tossing money around in strip joints? Why are they lying?

It's not the most intelligent stance to take to simply believe Fox News and the other far right sources. A little sense is needed. One news source mean you're believing their mistakes and (horror!) lies. Be as adult as is possible.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

In 1968 world population was 3.5 billion.

In 2024 it is 8 billion.

Considering our planet is over 4 billion years old, do you really think such a rapid expansion of our dominant species has no impact on the environment and it is just ‘Mother Nature as it’s always been’?

Climate change deniers are idiots.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The ‘underdog free thinkers’ like to think they are Galileo. 

No, just like to hear other scientific theories

An alarming number of Americans, far more than 3%, believe the earth is flat. 

People have the absolute right to believe what they want.

I’m on the Earth is round ‘bandwagon’. Not the contrarian edgy one.

Same here

Climate change deniers are idiots.

I feel the same about tree huggers

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

That are from irrelevant fields and are not sustained by any data? that is like liking the small percentage of doctors that say smoking and daily drinking is not so bad for your health either.

Indeed, they wouldn't fake anything....

Fake something completely in agreement with the scientific conclusions of the rest of the scientific institutions of the field in the world? that makes no sense. Specially when the accusations are completely baseless and run contrary to the interests of the industry that could provide endless amount of resources if only scientists would lie and say fossil fuels are not the cause of climate change.

Guess what, and you’re still not changing my opinion.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@wallace In what regards? If you "EVER" worked there you would not make such a statement. LMFAO they were so regarded to the point they didn't listen to their engineers and look what happened! Boom not once twice!!!

NASA is a highly regarded organization.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

People not savvy enough to change a light globe putting their opinions above all science agencies on earth.

God this is boring.

Yes Virginia, there is a fossil fuel campaign to delay action....you can even read about....gee, these books also reference people, places, meetings and money...oh....and there's a paper trail revealing intentions.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

No, just like to hear other scientific theories

That fit with what you want to believe, that is the definition of selection bias. Rational people think having the best explanations is much better than having the wrong explanations you want to hear.

People have the absolute right to believe what they want.

But not to pretend this is a rational choice or based on science or evidence. Anybody can believe wrong things if they like, but there is no right to try and convince other people of making the same mistakes.

Guess what, and you’re still not changing my opinion.

Nobody expect people that take pride on being irrational to magically begin acting rationally, but for other people that can hear the misleading arguments debunking them clearly can prevent them from falling into the same mistake.

 If you "EVER" worked there you would not make such a statement.

What evidence do you have about NASA not being respected? which institutions have expressed this, obviously a personal idea born from bias is not an argument that proves the point.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

That fit with what you want to believe, that is the definition of selection bias. Rational people think having the best explanations is much better than having the wrong explanations you want to hear.

I am a very rational person.

But not to pretend this is a rational choice or based on science or evidence. Anybody can believe wrong things if they like, but there is no right to try and convince other people of making the same mistakes.

I agree.

Nobody expect people that take pride on being irrational to magically begin acting rationally, but for other people that can hear the misleading arguments debunking them clearly can prevent them from falling into the same mistake.

Agreed

What evidence do you have about NASA not being respected?

I never said that NASA wasn’t a respected institution.

which institutions have expressed this, obviously a personal idea born from bias is not an argument that proves the point.

Not sure, I just have my beliefs from various science sources, but I will say, if science (according to the left) is to never be questioned why did we loose two space shuttles? Why did scientists think that eugenics was good policy for the black community? 5 of my distant relatives have had various degrees of medical problems after receiving the Covid vaccine. One of my aunts died from it. Thankfully, I didn’t take it. So yes, I have my outlook on science and follow other scientific experts in the field, that have an alternative perspective.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Using the shuttle disaster as justification for denying climate change or refusing vaccines is not particularly rational.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I am a very rational person.

Yet on the choice between a correct explanation and a confortable explanation you make an irrational decision, that is not what a rational person would do. Therefore you contradict yourself.

I never said that NASA wasn’t a respected institution.

I never said you did, the quoted text for this reply is clearly there.

Not sure, I just have my beliefs from various science sources, but I will say, if science (according to the left) is to never be questioned why did we loose two space shuttles? 

Invalid argument, one becasue science is questioned all the time, just not with false or disproved arguments as you are trying to do, and second because no human enterprise is perfect.

People die from bacterial infections all the time, do this prove the institutions that conclude antibiotics work against bacteria are wrong? obviously not. The false argument your are refuting is that if something is correct then it must guarantee perfect results for eternity, which is something nobody said.

Why did scientists think that eugenics was good policy for the black community? 

Mostly because they did what you do and ignored the scientific consensus and pushed for their personal beliefs as the sole basis for accepting any conclusion.

5 of my distant relatives have had various degrees of medical problems after receiving the Covid vaccine.

Under what conditions? how they were characterized? what statistical methods did you follow to make this claim?

I mean you are using this as an argument to contradict conclusions made from literally millions of vaccinated people that show it is much better to be vaccinated than not. The least you need to do that is to provide at least the same amount and quality of data, anecdotes do not prove anything, much less when they consist on hearsay.

So yes, I have my outlook on science and follow other scientific experts in the field, that have an alternative perspective.

When you reject the scientific consensus based on hearsay and personal bias you are doing the opposite of what you are claiming here.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

In 1968 world population was 3.5 billion. 

Ok--I'll go with that.

In 2024 it is 8 billion. 

Cool--thanks for this fact.

Considering our planet is over 4 billion years old, do you really think such a rapid expansion of our dominant species has no impact on the environment and it is just ‘Mother Nature as it’s always been’?

Huh?? You went from 1968 to 2024.

And then all of a sudden you're throwing around the 4 billion years old thing.

Come on guy!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yet on the choice between a correct explanation and a confortable explanation you make an irrational decision, that is not what a rational person would do. Therefore you contradict yourself.

Not at all, I am comfortable with my research of what makes logical sense to me in scientific-wise, nothing irrational or contradictory.

I never said you did, the quoted text for this reply is clearly there.

Then reframe it to the 3rd person context.

Invalid argument, one becasue science is questioned all the time, just not with false or disproved arguments as you are trying to do, and second because no human enterprise is perfect.

But who determines what is false and what is fact. The dear doctor that told us that the vaccines work and that masks are needed proved to be a very false and overblown narrative.

People die from bacterial infections all the time, do this prove the institutions that conclude antibiotics work against bacteria are wrong? obviously not. The false argument your are refuting is that if something is correct then it must guarantee perfect results for eternity, which is something nobody said.

Interesting, I didn't take the shot and I am fine, but 5 members of my family did, one passed away from Covid despite taking the shot. They followed the science, I didn't based on the science I was following.

Mostly because they did what you do and ignored the scientific consensus and pushed for their personal beliefs as the sole basis for accepting any conclusion.

So more leftist excuses for a woman who believed the only solution was to try and prevent the birthrate of one ethnic group. Not in the least surprised.

5 of my distant relatives have had various degrees of medical problems after receiving the Covid vaccine.

Under what conditions? how they were characterized? what statistical methods did you follow to make this claim? 

I mean you are using this as an argument to contradict conclusions made from literally millions of vaccinated people that show it is much better to be vaccinated than not. The least you need to do that is to provide at least the same amount and quality of data, anecdotes do not prove anything, much less when they consist on hearsay.

I do as I see fit and no one will tell me otherwise. I don't believe them or the sainted Dr. as they call him, I guess.

When you reject the scientific consensus based on hearsay

I don't, I just don't necessarily believe in one-sided scientific theory, that won't change, ever.

and personal bias you are doing the opposite of what you are claiming here.

Not at all, I just have a different opinion and that is ok, ethically, and legally normal.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Huh?? You went from 1968 to 2024.

And then all of a sudden you're throwing around the 4 billion years old thing.

It’s very simple. But apparently not simple enough for you.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Not at all, I am comfortable with my research of what makes logical sense to me in scientific-wise, nothing irrational or contradictory.

That is completely irrational, "your research" means nothing unless published and peer reviewed, preferring it above actual research that have surpassed this hurdle is just an irrational choice.

Then reframe it to the 3rd person context.

Again, there is no need, the text is there, if you didn't write that text why answer as if you did?

But who determines what is false and what is fact. 

The evidence examined with validated methods towards well supported conclusions. Unless you can argue against the data, methods and conclusions then the only logical option is to accept they prove something, even if that contradicts what you want to believe. Not doing this means you are acting irrationally.

Interesting, I didn't take the shot and I am fine, but 5 members of my family did

Hearsay is not an argument, specially when contradicted by literally millions of cases well described that point to the opposite conclusion. Otherwise anybody using one single family member more in their story would be enough to prove your claim is mistaken, insisting on hearsay means you don't know how to follow science.

So more leftist excuses for a woman who believed the only solution was to try and prevent the birthrate of one ethnic group. Not in the least surprised.

No excuses, you are claiming this mistaken, biased and irrational method is valid, the actual rational conclusion is that this is invalid, even if you want to use it to "prove" personal beliefs.

I do as I see fit and no one will tell me otherwise. I don't believe them or the sainted Dr. as they call him, I guess.

But at the same time if your actions and beliefs can be proven mistaken or false you have no option left, by refusing to argue in defense of what you believe you are implicitly accepting that if anybody can prove it wrong logically that would be it.

 don't, I just don't necessarily believe in one-sided scientific theory, that won't change, ever.

You are, and based on a deep misunderstanding of what consensus means, it can change without problems once evidence proves otherwise, your problem is that you want it to change in absence of that evidence and think it becomes invalid when it fails to follow this irrational condition.

Not at all, I just have a different opinion and that is ok,

Once again, if that opinion can be proved wrong then you are accepting it by not being able to defend it logically, most people would not consider that ok and would strive to be correct even if it means rejecting a mistaken belief, unfortunately not all people have this attitude and prefer to continue believing things demonstrably wrong.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

That is completely irrational, "your research" means nothing unless published and peer reviewed, preferring it above actual research that have surpassed this hurdle is just an irrational choice.

To you it means nothing, and you know what, that is ok, it doesn't have to mean anything to you, as long as it does to me.

Again, there is no need, the text is there, if you didn't write that text why answer as if you did?

Because I can.

The evidence examined with validated methods towards well supported conclusions. Unless you can argue against the data, methods and conclusions then the only logical option is to accept they prove something, even if that contradicts what you want to believe. Not doing this means you are acting irrationally.

That is your opinion, you can say that all day until the sky turns purple, but I go by the science that I think makes reasonable, logical, and rational sense.

Hearsay is not an argument,

To you, but for me it is.

specially when contradicted by literally millions of cases well described that point to the opposite conclusion. Otherwise anybody using one single family member more in their story would be enough to prove your claim is mistaken, insisting on hearsay means you don't know how to follow science.

I don't have to follow the science the way YOU see fit, I go my own way

No excuses, you are claiming this mistaken, biased and irrational method is valid, the actual rational conclusion is that this is invalid, even if you want to use it to "prove" personal beliefs. 

Right back at you.

But at the same time if your actions and beliefs can be proven mistaken or false you have no option left, by refusing to argue in defense of what you believe you are implicitly accepting that if anybody can prove it wrong logically that would be it. 

I don't need to argue or prove anything to you, I don't even know you, so it's all irrelevant, you believe in one form or science and I believe in a different one, You believe Fauci, I think he should be in prison, that is what I believe.

You are, and based on a deep misunderstanding of what consensus means,

No misunderstandings

it can change without problems once evidence proves otherwise, your problem is that you want it to change in absence of that evidence and think it becomes invalid when it fails to follow this irrational condition.

I don't want to change anything, I just want to believe what I see as scientific facts, and if they don't align with the left's facts (or what they claim as facts) then they don't

Once again, if that opinion can be proved wrong then you are accepting it by not being able to defend it logically, most people would not consider that ok and would strive to be correct even if it means rejecting a mistaken belief, unfortunately not all people have this attitude and prefer to continue believing things demonstrably wrong.

I don't need to waste my time because whatever argument I would bring forward you would just denounce or disregard it, so I'm not going to waste my time, I am not trying to change your personal opinion on anything and you sure as heck won't change mine. You believe in what you want and so will I.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

To you it means nothing

As an argument to prove your opinion is correct it means nothing, therefore your are accepting your opinion is incorrect, just insist on having it.

Because I can.

And again, of course you do, and be wrong about it, nobody forced you to be mistaken about who the text was directed and complaining about it is just evidence of that mistake.

That is your opinion

No it is not, that is how objective knowledge can be found. It is easy to prove this point by looking at your lack of arguments or references disproving it.

To you, but for me it is.

If it was you would be disproven by opposite hearsay including one more person, that obviously makes no sense.

I don't have to follow the science the way YOU see fit

Not how I see fit but how it is defined as a method, calling science a biased selection of low quality evidence is not enough to make it so.

Right back at you.

I clearly proved the point with arguments, you on the other hand just say you are free to make mistakes.

I don't need to argue or prove anything to you,

Of course, that would be accepting you are wrong as proved by the arguments. You are free to do it.

No misunderstandings

Since you were unable to refute what consensus actually means it was proved your understanding of what consensus means is mistaken.

I don't want to change anything

The point is that consensus can change with evidence, so your description is mistaken. Giving up on changing it means the logical step is to accept it as correct since you were unable to demonstrate it should be different.

I don't need to waste my time because whatever argument I would bring forward you would just denounce or disregard it

What made you think you are being forced to comment? when you put forward invalid or false arguments and they are refuted easily with valid logic that is not disregarding them, it means they were not valid on the first place and could be disproved. Saying that you have no obligation to defend them is correct, but also means you are implicitly accepting them as invalid, so your claim debunked.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites