2023 Was the worlds warmest year on record by far

Just because climate has changed in the past through natural processes doesn’t mean humans can’t influence it.

There is a very strong consensus in the scientific community that man made climate change is real and serious. But you seem to know better.

 

I hope Al Gore and Greta haven't been holding their breath... We're still here...

Leftists, explain why the ice age ended please. Was it all the cars?

 

And climate-MAGAs haven't figured out how it can benefit US instead. We have one party that HAS figured out how we can benefit from Climate Change, though. I suspect that most of the leadership in BOTH parties have. However, MAGAs think they win more votes by catering to extremists. And we know they put their personal electoral interest ahead of their country's interests. I expect us to start exploiting the possibilities better as soon as the science denialist extremists become irrelevant. But while we wait for that to happen, we are losing opportunities.

 

Yes climate change offers many benefits from decreased net mortality from suboptimal temps to increased agricultural productivity. It also comes with some potential problems as well.

Nobody should exploit climate change. It should be addressed rationally, taking into account all positive and negative aspects. We shouldn’t profiteer from it any more than China. Taking advantage of people by making them have irrational fears is wrong no matter who is doing it.

The benefits climate change brings occur no matter who accepts them. There is no “figuring them out”. But yes, one party is on board with exploiting fear based marketing of climate change a bit more than the other. Both exploit the subject for votes and to keep you all fighting so you will never take a rational approach to climate. As long as both sides are denying science nothing will change. There have been two groups of climate/environmental science deniers since long before even Clinton used the MAGA phrase and there will be two groups of climate/environmental science deniers long after Trump is dead and rotted away.

I’m not sure what MAGA has to do with any of it. Climate activists who vote for folks like Biden or Bernie or Obama deny just as much climate science as any MAGA I’ve ever seen. And it will continue no matter who’s in office.

 

good thing about el nino is here in FL we got less hurricanes

 

That screed makes no sense. China has figured out (probably years ago) that letting us shoot ourselves in the foot trying to destroy rational energy production in the name of "climate change" benefits them while they pretend to play the same game.

But there is absolutely no advantage to climate changing ourselves in pursuit of some idiotic progressive fantasy.

Other than nuclear power, there is no other reliable and consistent way to get the energy our society needs to function. To claim otherwise, MAGA or not, is simply madness.

Fortunately rational thought is slowly prevailing and in June the odds are good that this nonsense will become completely irrelevant since it will no longer be able to be enforced.

 

No opportunities were lost. Everyone can make a difference if they had a genuine concern. This feigned concern is the result buying and rebleating political platitudes.

 

Ah.... So THAT's what you were talking about when you said it benefited China and that people tolerated and supported the "benefits". Looks like I overestimated your post. I guess I should've guessed it was just another senseless word soup.

 

"...destroy national energy production"???

China pretends to destroy THEIR national energy production????

Well... when you're shooting out words you heard on the right wingnut media, I guess the fact that they don't mean anything doesn't actually matter....

 

Nope. That’s not what I was talking about with China. China is exploiting you and you are unaware it’s happening. Climate change is benefitting you and you are unaware it is happening.

Here is one example. Indonesia is taking financial incentives from the U.S. and other countries to “reduce emissions”. They are taking Chinese investment money to build off grid coal power plants to smelt rare earth minerals to build EV batteries. Their use of coal and subsequent emissions are skyrocketing. Chinese firms are getting rich by destroying forests, creating massive coal sourced emissions, and sickening locals in Indonesia with air pollution from mining and smelting. The US, (you) is essentially paying Indonesian to build coal plants off grid so they are not counted in grid emissions. China is benefiting financially. We are being used and taken advantage of. Indonesia is being taken advantage of. Emissions are increasing, tropical rainforests forests are being destroyed in one of the worst countries for deforestation, locals are being sickened, the surrounding oceans are polluted with mining effluent, and you sit there thinking I’ve posted senseless word soup when I refer to it.

Become aware and then you can actually discuss the subject instead of posting pure ad hominem replying to posts you don’t have the knowledge to understand.

 

They don't care about the environment. This is all about money, power and control.

Nine years ago, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change admitted as much:

Do you see anything in there about the environment?

And of course, Figueres and her power & money grubbing comrades will be in charge. You'll be eating crickets and shivering in the dark on what was once your farm...

 

It’s unfortunate these climate nutters are so passionate about things they don’t understand. If the had a working knowledge of climate and climate change as well as political mechanisms pertaining to climate they could be a force for good.

Instead they virtue signal and cheer for those who are exploiting them without their knowledge.

 

Simple minded post from someone who claims others are science denialist but is seemingly ignorant of the fact that all science isn't on his side.

Take electric vehicles as an example how much carbon emissions are we really saving? To get the minerals for their batteries we have unbelievable destruction of earth, using heavy machinery in countries with no engine emission standards. Then we ship on heavily polluting cargo ships to America. Then we plug them in to get charged up from coal fired electrical plants. So how much carbon are we saving here? How many electric vehicles does it take to make a difference, how much of the earth will be destroyed to achieve it? How much of an increase will be put on the grid and how much is that energy is from sustainable sources? The bottom line is how much of a net carbon reduction are you proposing and what % of vehicle cuts are needed to achieve the reduction? Do you know or you just using it as a divisive political pawn?

Let's look at Industry energy reduction for answers. Synthetic Nitrogen fertilizer production alone accounts for 3% of the world's total energy use and is made in major pollution friendly countries, China and Russia. Let's just kill that and we easily achieve our carbon reduction goals. Every action has a reaction in science and what you'll find is crop yields will substantially decrease. The people will starve, which will lead to a reduction of people, which would lead to less fossil fuel usage, which would lead to massive cuts in energy-based pollution. Problem solved right? Science gave us synthetic nitrogen and it literally feeds the world and allowed massive population growth, which led to energy increases, which leads to more greenhouse gases and carbon emissions.
Science in effect is the source of pollution and certainly not always the answer. It takes common sense, science, and a lack of political BS to achieve change that matters.

 

Interesting viewpoint. Unfortunately you're responding to a single-dimension poster who views every issue solely on MAGA/non-MAGA criteria.

 

Oh, that's right. I forget you have no real technical background. I'll try again slowly.

So called "climate change" which can't be objectively proven is merely a progressive political tool to justify wiping out those on the planet that are inconveniently taking up space and resources that could be better used to make the earth "greener" and the Davos jet set class wealthier.

This is done by, for instance, making one of, if not the, greatest inventions in history, the internal combustion engine, illegal because it naturally emits the perfectly harmless gases of Nitrogen and CO2 along with water vapor. This is happening now in this country through an absurd Supreme Court decision that decided to make CO2 a regulated pollutant, going against all rationality.

Thus the progressive goal of folks like you of making this country and the world safe again for the wealthy and narcissistic progresses apace.

Meanwhile the smart players in this intellectual war on intellect like China get themselves declared a "developing country" with a deadline of 2030 before they even have to make a pledge to reduce CO2.

See? Pretty simple if you just understand it.

 

You have a good grasp of this, what several haven't figured out is that a lot of this climate change science, is nothing more than a money grab. Science needs to find energy solutions that can be implemented globally without destroying mother earth for profit and carbon emissions will reduce rapidly. The question that really must be answered is are we willing to reduce emissions without a breakthrough? If not, we are at risk that the cost will be a population reduction.

 

China is exploiting me? That's hilarious! China has been exploiting us since Bush made the idiotic mistake of seeking loans from them to finance his idiotic wars. And we've been exploiting THEM by making those loans worth less and less. The world game is a game of everybody exploiting everybody when they can.

Not just Indonesia.... MANY other countries. And from many sources. China pays billions in carbon credits to green countries. The overall goal is a reduction in carbon emissions. So I think paying other nations is a good alternative.

Look... what we REALLY need to know is that average temperature keeps increasing. And that this results in an increase in the damage natural disasters produces. And that this is only bound to get worse. These disasters are WAY more expensive than anything we pay Indonesia. Fixing this will have ups and downs, bad and good policies, success and failures... but fix it we MUST!

 

That or they'd be shilling for some other orchestrated crisis that feeds their will to power and control.

Yup, useful messianic idiots, "saving the world" one Congolese kid covered in toxic dust at a time....

 

Great point. AGW and other climate fallacies are tools for global elitist/totalitarians to seize power and establish a quasi-world government attuned to their power-hungry ideals.

 

Either all science is, or NO science is.

Not enough. So we have two options: we either throw our hands up in the air and proclaim "we're not saving enough... so let's give up!" or we keep improving until we DO save enough. This is a technological problem. NOT "science". Science only says that the surface temperature is increasing, and that human activity is the cause. HOW we address this is a COMPLETELY different matter.

So before you start, you need to have clear in your mind what it is you're talking about. And it looks like you don't. If you have an alternative on how to address this, tells us what it is. I could not care less if the solution is electrical carts, or hydrogen cars or solar cars or... whatever you can come up with.

 

Can't be objectively proven?

Where do you come up with this BS?

 

. The world "average temperature" has about as much scientific basis and the number or angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Think, if you're capable, that half the world is in Summer/Spring while the other hemisphere is in Fall/Winter - what possible value would the average of both hemispheres have? This doesn't even touch on the bigger question: How any value be determined where great swaths of land and. water surface go unmeasured?

Your obsession with party politics, particularly the binary "Dems good, GOP bad" distorts your entire grasp of the issue.

 

Oh... so now you want to discuss technology. This is the WRONG thread. This one demonstrates that science denialists got us into a situation that was predicted decades ago by people who did NOT deny science fact. If you want to discuss "technical" solutions, that's great. But it has nothing to do with this thread.

You appear to believe that being a pollutant means it's some kind of "poison". Co2 is a pollutant because it... pollutes. Which means that there is too much of it in the atmosphere, and this abundance causes ill effects. If you put water in a gas tank, it's a pollutant. Not because water is toxic, but because too much of it is harmful.

Now... with all the above in mind, if you have anything RELEVANT to say about this thread, go for it!

BTW, I doubt VERY much that you earn any credibility by calling THIS Supreme Court "progressive"

 

. This makes no sense. Science is based on skepticism and intellectual disagreement. Every great scientific discovery has had to fight its way up a wall of doubt. Almost every scientific investigation EVER was an attempt to disprove another scientific fact.

Nope, there are far more than TWO options. Again you lack of understanding of science hinders your thinking. The long history of weather and climate demonstrate the "warming is minuscule and slow growing and the contribution of CO2 is slight.

The way to address this is to ignore the ideological/political solutions that has sullied the entire field with greed, political ambition, and deceit.

A temperature change of 1.5C (or less) over the past 150+ years is NOT an alarm. Let me give you an unscientific example: The thermostat in your house has tolerance of about 2F - so if you set it to 70F all you can be sure of is that your house -AT THE LOCATION of the thermostat will be somewhere between 69F and 71F - a difference of 2F or 1.1C; temps around the rest of the house are probably close but not necessary exact. So, you are insulting people and questioning their intelligence for questioning a temperature change little more than that of your living environment.
.

 

Carbon credits? Did you read my post? We are helping Indonesia and China INCREASE emissions of the worst kind—coal. There are no carbon credits involved Just us essentially funding the building of massive increase coal power generation in Indonesia that benefits China. Has nothing to do with Bush. It was all set up under Biden, but that doesn’t matter. What I’ve educated you on here INCREASES emissions, as well as destroys forests, ocean waters, ad the health of local Indonesians. China isn’t paying Indonesia credits. They are financing coal powered generation, strip mining, deforestation, ocean pollution, and local particulate air pollution in Indonesia. And we are helping by giving Indonesia money as well. Money that was “supposed” to decrease coal use for grid power. But Indonesia just builds new coal plants off grid to power smelters and emissions actually INCREASE substantially. And you guys cheer. You think increasing emissions is GOOD! It’s bizarre. You nutters even start threads about it, not knowing what’s really going on.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...d-become-a-regional-manufacturing-hub.616004/

Yes, we also have idiotic wars under all presidents. Unfortunately.

We know temp is increasing. We know disaster deaths are decreasing. We know deaths due to suboptimal temperature are decreasing. We know economic cost of disasters as percentage of GDP is decreasing.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ful...8.1540343?scroll=top&needAccess=true&role=tab

And:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

Carbon credits do not factor in my posts at all. They are your strawman. But hopefully you do realize carbon credit schemes by definition don’t reduce emissions, right?