Voices
in
Japan

poll

Countries around the world are being increasingly hit by record heat, flash floods and droughts. Scientists say these weather variations are becoming more extreme due to global warming, which is being driven chiefly by humanity's use of fossil fuels. Do you agree?

41 Comments
© Japan Today

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

Yes. I agree.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

Not only fossil fuel consumption, but very poor waste management by everyone. In my home country, most flooding in major cities are due to clogged rivers and sewers due to people throwing garbage in them, hoping to magically disappear. I've read articles on this and what I got was even if the global population went green and became more responsible, the world will still be polluted due to the bad practices done by businesses.

20 ( +23 / -3 )

Scientists, like politicians, can be bought.

-18 ( +18 / -36 )

Yes.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

The rise in maximum temperatures has been really noticeable in the past few years. Along with “gorilla rain” incidents.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

Scientists, like politicians, can be bought.

Blindly assuming all the scientist of the field in the whole world have been bought because they (and their data) conclude something you don't want ot accept is not a rational position to take.

Specially when the people with the deepest pockets and more to lose if people act according to science are trying to push precisely the opposite conclusions.

17 ( +27 / -10 )

If we were talking only about the current known data and evidence, I mostly agree, but if we talk about how the media portraits this, and how politicians try to implement policy based in heavily hysteric portraits of the current situation and what their policies are supposedly going to do, then I would mostly disagree.

That's the problem there is always with this mixing of politics with science, because sadly most people are completely scientific illiterate, do not understand what science actually is, and politicians have taken the science flag as a new way to just push for their already pre-conceived ideas with this almost dogmatic "science says we should do this" approach, which is very similar to how back in the day when it wasn't science but religion what most people trusted in, how the governments talked about "this is what god wants" or "god says" to justify their policies.

The mix of politics and science will continue to be toxic and bad for science and politics unless most people have a good enough understanding of basic science... which sadly is probably never going to happen.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

Scientists, like politicians, can be bought.

Blindly assuming all the scientist of the field in the whole world have been bought because they (and their data) conclude something you don't want ot accept is not a rational position to take.

One thing that the Climategate leaked Emails showed us over a decade ago is that some of these scientists don't actually believe what they publish or say publicly. It also showed us how the elimination of editors who allowed publication of peer reviewed papers that went against the narrative probably contributed to the apparent "consensus".

-14 ( +8 / -22 )

but if we talk about how the media portraits this, and how politicians try to implement policy based in heavily hysteric portraits of the current situation and what their policies are supposedly going to do, then I would mostly disagree.

What measures being implemented that go against the scientific consensus? there is zero need to take into account any kind of media, just the primary sources (the official position of institutions of science that deal with climate change and the studies they refer as the basis for them) and the measures being put in order, what contradictions between them are you talking about? if there are none, that means there is no hysterics involved, no dogmatic ideas, just things that are actually justified in hard evidence.

The mix of politics and science will continue to be toxic and bad for science and politics unless most people have a good enough understanding of basic science

Why would this be necessary? scientists have good understanding of science, and a big part of their job is to be very vocal about the measures put in order to deal with problems in their field. Is the scientific consensus clearly against any measure? then it should be abandoned. Does the consensus agree with the measure? then it should be supported. That the public understand better the science would help only in the sense that they would also better understand why the experts support or not specific measures, but obviously it would not suddenly make the experts opinion less valid, for that the requirement is the same, contrary evidence.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

One thing that the Climategate leaked Emails showed us over a decade ago is that some of these scientists don't actually believe what they publish or say publicly.

"Some" as how many? to what degree? a few scientist disagreeing in details is a terribly long way from saying the consensus is not real, at this point there are even scientific reports proving that there is a scientific consensus about the scientific consensus (meaning that research on the collective opinion of the experts in the field consistently reaches the same conclusion: that there is a consensus).

It also showed us how the elimination of editors who allowed publication of peer reviewed papers that went against the narrative probably contributed to the apparent "consensus".

Even a decade ago preprints were already available for people to disseminate their research without need for any institution to support them, what actually decreased the publication of dissenting views was the low quality of the science of the dissenters, which would be expected when making an analysis of the same data produced opposite results of what well validated and peer reviewed reports clearly showed.

8 ( +16 / -8 )

Absolutely agree.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

its damaged because of capitalists greed and hunt for best possible profit when producing some goods in oen part of world for coins and delivering these to another parts of world by sea vessells producing a lot of pollutions and selling items with huge profit...its called a globalism.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Greed is the main problem.

The system is broken.

Consumerism doesn't work.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

It's odd that we live in a 'civilization' that has been given to us by 'scientists', rely for our good health on 'scientists', spend our days communicating and being entertained by technology and looking forward with anticipation to advances in that sphere provided by 'scientists', and, in fact, TRUST 'scientists' in ALL areas EXCEPT those that impinge on the ability of our parasitic psychopaths to fully sate their pathological GREED and who sponsor huge propaganda organizations to convince the less intellectually gifted (LIG) among us that, here, the people who we pay a fraction of the average Corporate shill to do work that they are so dedicated to that they would do it even if we didn't pay them, that these people are lying to us and that GREED is the more honest voice in this issue. Ya know... as a Human ya try REALLY hard to believe that Humanity is even ANYTHING that so many of these LIGs have been taught to believe about us and then ya see what asinine LIES they believe, what in their faces EXPERIENCE they can ignore in favor of opinions implanted in them by skilled deceivers employed by parasites, how adamant they become about deep technical issues they haven't a clue about nor the capacity to understand even if they cared, and ya KNOW that no matter how hard you try to fool yourself into thinking that Humanity is anything but a mess of programmed monkeys and that it has a 'future', sometimes you cry and sometimes you laugh like a hyena. That is the hardest part of being a Human, the absolutely constant disappointment [cry] and absurdity [laugh hysterically] that is Humanity as a whole.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The earth has been going through cycles of heat and cold for millennia. Yes, we can blame our use of fossil fuels for SOME of the current climate change, but I don't really believe that's the root cause. The earth's axis is shifting, it's magnetic poles, especially in the north, are moving measurably. Things are changing all over the planet. But I do think we'll adapt. I'm very fortunate to live where I do, but even here things have changed. Not drastically, but noticeably. No floods, no droughts, a later spring this year, and summer heat forecast until almost the end of September. But it's been that way before. Let's stop the blame game and help those who really need it.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

The mix of politics and science will continue to be toxic and bad for science... 

You're barking up the wrong tree. The industrial revolution, for example, was an environmental disaster. But the developed countries managed to clean up their cities and countryside only after politicians and governments introduced tough regulations forcing corporate violators to stop dumping industrial waste in the air, sea and land.

These measures were largely prompted by scientific findings that determined that the pollution was killing us and were accomplished through science-based cleanup measures.

Politics and science have been working together to make the world a safer, cleaner place --and reign in the industrial polluters, who are nearly always in the private sector.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

I don't agree because there are other factors too. Include the other factors, then I will agree.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

I don't agree because there are other factors too. Include the other factors, then I will agree.

What other factors and what evidence do you have about their significance? If the current understanding allows for correct predictions to be made based on the evidence that would mean the "other factors" you mention can be ignored without the models becoming wrong, that means they can be ignored in the same way without it having any real importance.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I agree that the increased weather variability may be due to increased anthropogenic GHG emissions. The impacts of these weather extremes though, are affected by many other factors, particularly bad infrastructure planning.

politicians have taken the science flag as a new way to just push for their already pre-conceived ideas with this almost dogmatic "science says we should do this" approach, which is very similar to how back in the day when it wasn't science but religion what most people trusted in, how the governments talked about "this is what god wants" or "god says" to justify their policies.

This is an important point. Many politicians just pay lip service to the science to push their pet projects.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Blindly assuming all the scientist of the field in the whole world have been bought because they (and their data) conclude something you don't want ot accept is not a rational position to take.

Conducting studies and customizing results to win your next grant is rather seductive, isn’t it?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

When this planet has had enough and it's done with us, it'll just shake us all off like a bad case of fleas. The planet will survive, we won't, but the planet'll be fine.

George Carlin

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Conducting studies and customizing results to win your next grant is rather seductive, isn’t it?

From all the scientists in the world, even if the people that are much more likely to throw money at you (much more than any government could) are interested in the opposite of what the scientific consensus have concluded?

That is not a realistic conspiracy theory. Much less if you can't make a scientific argument where results are "customized" against the best scientific practices, even when the methods to collect and analyze those results are open for anybody to review.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Absolutely.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I agree to an extent. However, every time there's a weather event of any kind, 'experts' are quick to blame global warming. We had a few days here in Massachusetts this summer when it was around 95F, and it was "global warming". We've had a heat snap or two like that every summer since I was a kid. Yesterday, we got a few inches of rain in the middle of a summer drought. The rainstorm was "global warming", too. I'd say we just got a rainstorm (though the drought is probably somewhat due to global warming).

When we get a big snowstorm, "global warming". When it doesn't snow for 3 weeks, "global warming". There is definitely an agenda.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I agree but at the same time I find it hypocritical that a lot more emphasis is being given towards it because it became more evident in "rich" countries, while back in the 1980s and 1990s we only heard about droughts and famine in Somalia or Africa in general. It's not something new, but then again, it is hitting home more than the usual.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What measures being implemented that go against the scientific consensus?

Science has nothing to do with policy, that is the realm of politics, that was the whole point.

Science can tell you facts about the world, what you do with that, how you react is in the realm of politics and social sciences.

Science will not give you the answer to any of these questions, and people who pretend science do, they are nothing but charlatans.

what contradictions between them are you talking about?

Never talked about contradictions, so don't put words in my mouth.

But for example, current politics around energy, which as nowadays always prefaced by talks about climate change, somehow have a lot of trouble considering things like nuclear power, and many times they even bring things that really do not help at all with climate change, like biomass fuels, but they get painted with the same "green" slogan.

Also, there is a lot of talk about solar, but then very little discussion about the fact that solar requires battery cell farms in order to be usable during the night, and those things have their own environmental problems.

Things like "carbon credits" and the like, which are nothing less than modern time indulgencies and for the most part just scams that get promoted as ways to "help climate change", and they are pushed by governments.

scientists have good understanding of science

Yeah, that's not my point. A population that continues to get more and more illiterate in things of science, when the government more and more tries to justify their actions with science, in a democracy, it is a recipe for disaster, because in the end no one knows if what the government is saying is actual science or just things they made up.

That's why I made the comparisons with theocracies, because even en theocracies, in times when no one could read the bible and knew nothing about their own religion, kings and the clergy would just make up stuff to justify their actions, and there was almost no one who could call them out.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

When the "scientists" warned about the coming ice age, I believed them and was really worried for a while. Next thing I knew, the same "scientists" were all over the news, warning about global warming. Pffft. Fool me once ....

Yes, the climate is changing, as it has always done, without human help.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

That humans are destroying the living planet with deforestation and pollution is sadly a given but I don't ascribe to the notion that climate change is solely related to us. There have been many climate changes in the past due to planetary movements and volcanic eruptions( a mini ice age in the 1800s). What won't hurt is trying to lessen our pollution footprint and improve our world view by realizing that everything we do has a consequence whether good or bad!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Science has nothing to do with policy, that is the realm of politics, that was the whole point.

That do not refute the argument, you say policies are wrong because they are based on hysterics, but when confronted with the fact that most of those policies are based on scientific data well validated then suddenly "science has nothing to do with policy"? It actually has, and it is easy to prove it as you were completely unable to say which of those policies are wrong and contrary to what the experts say about the problem, which means you are implicitly recognizing most of the policies are actually well sustained by science.

Science will not give you the answer to any of these questions, and people who pretend science do, they are nothing but charlatans.

That would be much more applicable to people that say policy is based on hysterics and not science, but then are uncapable of demonstrating it so. Which means it was just a baseless personal opinion.

Never talked about contradictions, so don't put words in my mouth.

If there are no contradcitions then you are wrong and the policies you don't like are not based on hysterics but on scientific data, as they should be. It is not putting things in your mouth but making you realize that if what you said was true this would be an inevitable consequence, since it is not true, then your assumption was not true either.

Yeah, that's not my point.

I know, because it is mine and completely refutes yours. The argument that the population should be more scientifically literate applies when the people disagree with those that are experts, if both agree already in the need of policies against climate change then increasing this literacy changes absolutely nothing.

If you already accept there is no contradiction with science then your point is clearly mistaken. The experts already know and understand very well what the government is doing so if they say there is no problem with it and that it is scientifically sound then people being more scientifically educated will only mean they will be more likely to reach the same conclusion, not the one you would like them to reach.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

What is the point of this question? It is no longer a question of debate.

Would a similar question be valid if it were, for example, The earth goes around the sun. Agree, disagree, no sure?

Human induced climate change is a fact that can no longer be debated. The only debate should be how best to mitigate it.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@TrevorPeace The earth has been going through cycles of heat and cold for millennia.

Sure, hothouse earth and snowball earth, which both lead to mass extinction events.

Have you even looked at the data for the period in earth's history that is particularly relevant - when humans existed and evolved?

The earth's CO2 levels (atmospheric ppm) haven't been as high as they are now for at least 4 million years.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

shot

Countries around the world are being increasingly hit by record heat, flash floods and droughts. Scientists say these weather variations are becoming more extreme due to global warming

chaser

https://earthsky.org/earth/no-named-atlantic-storms-august-2022/

No Atlantic storms in August for the first time in 25 years.

Everyone knows the climate hysteria is a lie. Everyone.

It is an issue, much like Covid, that is designed to reorganize economies into a socialist utopia (death)

It is a lie pushed by those who stand to gain incredible wealth at the expense of lives cost, and the useful idiots who unblinkingly repeat the lies as a virtue signal.

Europe is about to be a glaring, horrible example this winter.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Scientists with a combined trillion hours of studying and research has come to a conclusion, do you agree or do you trust your 10 minute google search that led you to what ever site that agreed with what you want to believe. Should probably be the question.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

No Atlantic storms in August for the first time in 25 years.

Everyone knows the climate hysteria is a lie. Everyone.

It is an issue, much like Covid, that is designed to reorganize economies into a socialist utopia (death)

It is a lie pushed by those who stand to gain incredible wealth at the expense of lives cost, and the useful idiots who unblinkingly repeat the lies as a virtue signal.

Europe is about to be a glaring, horrible example this winter.

I was wondering who all those jokes were about when they do the "But it's snowing here" sketches. I guess I have my answer. If you did research beyond just reading the word global warming and climate change you would know it's not about just everything getting hotter, it's about extreme and shifting weather in all directions. No Atlantic storms in August for the first time in 25 years would be a talking point for climate change not against it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Climate change is real and it is a direct result of the massive amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere over the last 150 years or so. This was proven over 50 years ago and it's only now the governments of the world are starting to take steps to decrease the amount of C02 being produced. Sadly though, even if all CO2 production was stopped today it would take thousands of years for the climate to stabilize again. The severe and more frequent storms, floods and droughts will continue to get worse. The raising sea levels from melting snow caps and glaciers will also increase. Then, add the warming of the seas and increased alkalinity due to the CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. The outlook for the next few hundred years is not good. The rice belts around the world will become flooded, coral reefs will die, fish populations will be decimated, millions of people will be displaced and billions will starve. This is not science fiction. It is science fact! It's only the timeline that remains a mystery. It could take centuries or it could happen in decades, but it is coming.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Scientists with a combined trillion hours of studying and research has come to a conclusion

No Atlantic storms in August for the first time in 25 years would be a talking point for climate change not against it.

The climate alarmist (Communist) will make statements like this with a straight face and then wonder why no one takes them seriously.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The climate alarmist (Communist) will make statements like this with a straight face and then wonder why no one takes them seriously.

It is a correct statement, that clearly proves you don't understand the issue and think deep abnormalities somehow prove things are normal. There is no need to be alarmist to understand that climate change is real and can many diverse consequences.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The climate alarmist (Communist) will make statements like this with a straight face and then wonder why no one takes them seriously.

Throwing in some communism in there as well I see, I guess we are doing American far right word bingo.

A word of advice, I know Americans have been thought otherwise, but adding the word communist to everything you don't understand doesn't help your case.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"When the "scientists" warned about the coming ice age, I believed them and was really worried for a while."

You're talking about the Nuclear Winter of the 1970s. That isn't the Climate Change being discussed here. Besides, the winter part would be very short-lived with "age" being inappropriate as the age of fire and oppressive heat that followed would last thousands of years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

anyone remember the big Acid Rain! (TM) scare of the early 80's?

They don't care it was disproven. They will simply put their heads down and move on to the latest lie.

Case in point;

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/10/eight-year-trend-in-global-cooling-shown-by-satellite-record/

Don't believe the communists, people.

They think you're stupid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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