2020 weather disasters boosted by climate change: report

Unconvincing, value judgmental, biased, hysterical and confusing article based on suppositions presented as if they are facts. This kind of preaching-to-the-choir article only gathers those who believe, and shuts out the large body of those who are still quietly trying to form a balanced picture, shoving these latter firmly in the same box as the climate deniers.

Why do things need to be absolute, black or white? Who are worse, the deniers or the believers?

The gaslighter has described it as "mythical", "nonexistent", or "an expensive hoax" - but also subsequently described it as a "serious subject" that is "very important to me".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003

When the effects of the crisis eventually come knocking on your ivory towers and gated communities, maybe then you'll want to do something about it. Of course, it might be too late.

But in the meantime, it's just bothering the proles and those in developing nations, so screw them, right?

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gaef3516.doc.htm

https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/environmental_protection-protection_environnement/climate-climatiques.aspx?lang=eng

Now that Orange is going and the Paris Accord is back in play, this will soon rectify itself.

Why do things need to be absolute, black or white? Who are worse, the deniers or the believers?

In this case, clearly the deniers. We should go with the consensus of scientists here.

You’ll also find the majority of deniers tend to come from a particular political viewpoint and/or a pathology towards conspiracy theories. This should send alarm bells ringing even in the slowest of minds.

IMHO the vast majority of "deniers" are mislabeled. I don't know anyone who denies that the climate is changing. Climate always changes, that is the nature of what happens on a planet. What they DO deny is the idea that human activity (short of a nuclear war) can significantly damage or repair the climate. Unless we can quantify with some accuracy exactly what damage human activity has caused, there is no point in trying to fix it. Plus the constant conflation of weather and climate only makes climate believers look foolish.

Plus the constant conflation of weather and climate only makes climate believers look foolish.

I find that more on the denial side. This was part of the absolute humiliation of Candace Owens when proving herself utterly ignorant of the science and reading from the rightwing hymn sheet.

Unless we can quantify with some accuracy exactly what damage human activity has caused, there is no point in trying to fix it. 

That has been quantified by the vast majority of scientists since well over 20 years ago (or maybe even more).

People who deny that climite change is man made either have a suicidal agenda of profit over life, or have simply been bamboozled into believing fairy tales for adults.

Why do things need to be absolute, black or white? Who are worse, the deniers or the believers?

So who are worse, of the 2 groups you’ve simplified it as?

But things shouldn’t be given in absolutes?

Well, you’ve stumped me there...

Yes, of course, but you surely still wanted to tell us where all the former weather disasters for billions of years came from. lol

It's almost 2021 and apparently some people STILL need convincing on this subject?

How about NASA's website, which you can hardly argue is a left or right-wing biased agency.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Now that Orange is going and the Paris Accord is back in play, this will soon rectify itself.

Sadly this isn’t the case. The US rejoining the Paris Agreement is definitely a positive step, but it won’t rectify the damage currently being done, which is already baked in thanks to the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere. All we can do now is reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to prevent the damage from getting much much worse in the future.

Unless we can quantify with some accuracy exactly what damage human activity has caused, there is no point in trying to fix it.

What if in the future, we are able to quantify with some accuracy exactly what damage human activity has caused - and the results say that human activity was significant enough to affect Earth's natural climate change (human activity plus Earth's natural climate change)

And what if those future results also say that those climate change effects could had still been moderated by the first half of the 21st Century if some things were done about it back then

Climate always changes, that is the nature of what happens on a planet.

Yes, but the changes are not all the same

Earth has actually warmed up "quickly" before - the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 56 million years ago). But by "quickly", that warm-up occurred over the course of about 10,000 years (10,000 years is quick in comparison to the age of the Earth)

The big difference now is that the Earth is warming up over the course of just about 200 years (much quicker than ever before). Another big difference between then and now is 200 years ago was the start of the Industrial Revolution - a very successful human-only achievement (not achieved by any other species in Earth's long history)

Is it coincidental or causal effect....................... Earth has never warmed up this quickly before (although there's a first time for everything)

Plus the constant conflation of weather and climate only makes climate believers look foolish.

Weather is just a dot on the graph

Climate is the trend when all those dots are put together on the graph

This kind of preaching-to-the-choir article only gathers those who believe, and shuts out the large body of those who are still quietly trying to form a balanced picture

I tend to agree. For example, the article mentions the record breaking number of Atlantic hurricanes, but not the below average number of Pacific typhoons.

I'd prefer to see more consistent data on global temperature patterns, CO2 levels, rainfall, etc.

Pretty sure everybody is into breathing clean air and taking care of the environment. However, there are different approaches as to how to do this. Currently, it's the one-think crowd who want to have it all their way. Tax people unnecessarily in ineffective programs.

Last year as you may remember there were the so-called climate change fires raging uncontrollably through the Australian bush in which hundreds of millions of animals died and caused extensive property damage costing people dearly.

Well, here's what really happened. I fear that some on the left side of politics may have not heard of this.

Two dozen Australians in the state of New South Wales have been arrested since early November for intentionally setting fires as record-large blazes continue to burn across the country.

There have been 24 people charged with deliberately setting fires among 183 facing legal action in the state, according to the New South Wales Police Force.

In addition to those facing the most serious charges of starting fires intentionally, authorities said another 53 people are facing legal action for not complying with the state's fire ban and 47 people have faced legal action for discarding a lit cigarette or match on land.

So, yes. Climate change is man made just not the way the so-called media portrays it.

Jimizo

I find that more on the denial side. 

Once sceptics are labelled as "deniers", you know that now we are talking about religion and not science.

California's newsom ( pelosi's nephew) perhaps intentionally releasing intentional misinformation, made a comment in this article.

It's a good article, well written and balanced.

An article in which scientists/researchers point out what is actually happening.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/24/stop-blaming-climate-change-for-californias-fires-many-forests-including-the-redwoods-need-them/?sh=5b46654e70b3

All sides must and be listened to if we want to live efficiently and cleanly on this planet but it takes maturity, open-mindedness, listening and actual real hoest cooperation.

https://www.prageru.com/playlist/what-science-reveals-about-climate-change/

Once sceptics are labelled as "deniers", you know that now we are talking about religion and not science.

Except that we are, in fact, talking about science.

Once sceptics are labelled as "deniers", you know that now we are talking about religion and not science.

No, we are talking about science. The word mostly used by the religious is ‘unbeliever’. ‘Denier’ is a better word in this situation as you are standing against a scientific consensus.

Your posts on Covid are predictive of your stance here. See the pattern I was alluding to in my first post?

Last year as you may remember there were the so-called climate change fires raging uncontrollably through the Australian bush

They have never been 'climate change fires', they were know simply as 'bushfires'. The debate is if climate change was an important factor in leading to conditions which makes them more likely to occur.

2019 was the hottest and driest year on record in Oz. Since global recording began in 1880, the 10 hottest recorded years have occurred since 2009. The climate is warming at an increasing pace.

Some people may wish to blame this on 'Mother Nature' or 'Natural Cycle' or some other mystical source, but the fact is that the earth's climate has never before warmed at this pace and there is no other reason apart from the activity of 7.5 billion humans.

Well, here's what really happened. I fear that some on the left side of politics may have not heard of this.

I fear that some with a little less sense than others may not have heard that unseasonably dry weather exacerbated forest fires around the world. Started by arson or not, it didn’t help matters.

Glad I don’t have children, the future is looking a tad bit...

One issue is that some people believe that renewables are the end all. In fact, they are not. Here, an environmental activist rationallly explains why.

https://youtu.be/Kyhks-jjma8

Riskymosiac. Read the end of that article.

It explains things better, albeit somewhat vaguely.

One issue is that some people believe that renewables are the end all. 

Eventually they will be. I think future generations will see burning fossil fuels on the level of trepanning and taking a crap in the river.

How quickly we get there depends on money invested in innovation, political will/pressure, the citizenry calling out political swamp dwellers scratching the back of donors and potential voters, foreign policy etc.

The sooner we get off fossil fuels the better. Surely you agree with this.

One issue is that some people believe that renewables are the end all.

Odd way of putting forward a point. By definition unrenewables are finite and so alternative methods will have to be found at some point unless we plan to just turn off the lights and go back to the caves.

I've never quite understood why climate change and moving towards renewable and sustainable energy has become such a right / left thing for Americans (and increasingly elsewhere) when it should be something that everyone can get behind. Do people actually enjoy burning fossil fuels? Do we owe fossil fuels a favour? Do we enjoy polluting our air, water and soils, or going to war over it, or funding filthy regimes, or corrupting our politics with it?

What is so scary about not being dependent on it? The possibility of complete energy independence is achievable for every human on earth. Imagine the benefits of energy being as free as the air that you breathe.

What's not to like about that and why cannot it be achieved by humans?

Riskymosiac.

My bad. I was referring to a different article which I did post above. Here is a clip from it.

California’s fires should indeed serve as a warning to the public, but not that climate change is causing the apocalypse. Rather, it should serve as a warning that mainstream news reporters and California’s politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth about climate change and fires.  

The article I believe you are referencing does clearly state that the 'climate change' bush fires were clearly and indeed intentionally started by humans with pyrotechnic devices.

Had a discussion with a long time friend of mine who always been on the left and who has moved even harder left to clearly stating he wants socialism in America. Long story short, even he can be somewhat realistic on matters of the environment when he said renewabless won't cut it as nuclear is the way to go. My jaw dropped when he said that. I thought, wow, a shred of reality. How refreshing.

https://youtu.be/Kyhks-jjma8

How electric cars have never been the answer.

When it's all said and done, they emit virtually the same amount of CO2 as a regular internal combustion engine.

But it's always been obvious.

https://youtu.be/Kyhks-jjma8

RiskyMosaic

A new book that critiques environmentalism is 'deeply and fatally flawed.'

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/07/review-bad-science-and-bad-arguments-abound-in-apocalypse-never/

Completely unbiased review by a completely unbiased source, eh? When you go to e.g. "climatedepot", you find a very different opinon.

Is it so hard to accept that there are different interpretations of the existing data?

By the way, if you look at the "team" at "yaleclimateconnections" you will see that none of them is an actual climatologist. They are all experts in policy, public relations, opinion forming, etc. No surprise.

RiskyMosaic

"Prager University is an American nonprofit organization that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative perspective. The university was created by conservative Dennis Prager, an American syndicated talk show host, to teach fundamental concepts. PragerU is not an academic institution, does not hold classes, and does not grant certifications or diplomas."

Do with it what you will.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/prager-university

According to your "allsides" site, the BBC, Axios, and NPR are "Center", LOL!

Make of of that what you will.

One issue is that some people believe that renewables are the end all. In fact, they are not. 

(Thanks for the link. Very interesting. I wish I could express my ideas as clearly as he does.)

Going off-topic a little, but I've never been comfortable with solar and wind energy being described as "renewables". In my mind, they are "diverted" energy sources. Renewable sources would be something like wood that can be burned and then regrown within a relatively short space of time.

On the other hand, I think it's important to keep moving forward with wind, solar, wave, etc. sources of electricity. And hopefully we can make them more efficient with better means of energy storage. But we should also keep in mind that somewhere down the line, the effect of diverting solar energy from its normal path may bring around other problems. I suspect energy issues will remain with us as long as mankind exists. We will just have to keep adjusting.

I've never been comfortable with solar and wind energy being described as "renewables". In my mind, they are "diverted" energy sources. 

Both solar and wind are renewable in that there is a never ending fresh supply of them every day; to all intents and purposes we are never going to run out of supplies of wind and sunshine.

Renewable sources would be something like wood that can be burned and then regrown within a relatively short space of time.

Well yes - and no. Trees can be regrown, but the more carbon we burn, whether it’s fossil or fresh vegetation, the faster climate change progresses and the harder it will become to maintain current forestry practices. Not to mention the other adverse effects on our lifestyles of climate change, including more frequent and more violent storms wreaking havoc on our homes and forests.

Trees can be regrown, but the more carbon we burn, whether it’s fossil or fresh vegetation, the faster climate change progresses and the harder it will become to maintain current forestry practices.

@cleo,

I don't think that's altogether true. If we can regrow as much wood as we burn, then it is effectively carbon neutral. It may not be practical in many places, but where it is, I don't think it should be dismissed. There is a wood-burning power plant near where I live that is built on the premise that it is carbon neutral.

https://www.mottmac.com/article/2282/stevens-croft-biomass-power-station-uk

Note that my issue on the use of the word "renewable" was simply a semantic one. I'm very much in favor of wind and solar power. But to me, the word "renewable" implies some action is needed to cause the renewal. I still think "diverted" energy is a more accurate description of wind and solar.

Larry Elder breaks it down so it's easy to understand.

https://youtu.be/o95wVIIyNCs