Climate Change Denialists Deny Denial... As Heathrow reached hottest ever temperature at 40.2C

Places in the UK were breaking out in fire, like what happened in Australia. So now the naysayers are jumping on the bandwagon(finally). 

Apparently, the US has just passed a major bill for green energy. It is no longer a "socialist" agenda. 

Suddenly everyone is thinking of green energy. The added bonus means no longer being dependent on authoritarian regimes for energy. 

As soon as the world is green, Russia and the Middle East will not have a pot to piss in. These one tricky ponies are dependent on selling fossil fuel, so their regimes will collapse. 

The climate has gone through cycles millenia before humans were even on the scene and will continue to do so regardless of our carbon emissions...that does not mean to say that we can continue being irresponsible with the way we use fossil fuels...if we are going to survive as a species, we shou ld addapt to the changes in our environment without destroying our planet...but I'll bet my house that politicians are punting measures which line their pockets and does absolutely nothing for our environment...science is the only solution. 

Speaking in riddles. Saying one thing, then contradicting what you are implying to give yourself cover. 

Political corruption is routine, yet we are meant to believe that oil companies don't have lobbyists bribing politicians either. 

Leave the charts to people that can think objectively. 

The fact that you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying doesn't make it a riddle...no wonder the planet is in such a sorry state...most people has lost the ability to think for themselves. 

It is your opinion that the planet is in a sorry state, I think it is better than it has ever been.

(The only issue is increasing over-population due to high birth rates by poor people which is a risk to future generations, with a growing third world). 

Complete nonsense.. .climate change if it exists will manifest itself in small changes in average temperature. Huge spikes in temperature are just tail end of the distribution events….which have always occurred.

My back garden was the coldest it has ever been, so that disproves global warming.  
If you are going to use this as proof, then you have to accept the opposite to counter your own argument... Otherwise, it as Fauci (Scientists) would say - anecdotal evidence...

You were at Heathrow at the time, so you must have been sweating...  You got to experience the hottest temperature ever in the UK!!!!

I’ve been through all the data….the temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century was the same as in the period from then till now. Funny thing is only about 10% of the CO2 increase had occurred by then.

’Scientists’ want to measure against a flat alternative case, but temps have been steadily increasing since the little Ice Age…the effect of CO2 is almost certainly overstated.

And no Death Valley is not in my backyard. But my backyard and the rest of the internal American continent was warmest in the 1950s.

But I do like the  term denialist…one of these days we will get ‘hereschtik’. All from the real raving nutters, the Climate groupies.

SB

When temperatures dropped to the coldest it has been in 200 years  idiots like you say that does not count because it is local and not applicable throughout the world.   When an ccassional rise of temperatures occur  in one place that determine the situation worldwide.

The whole science base for global warming is stoked by the scientost who use fearmongering to get more money donated for "scientific research"   - while politicians are using it to get full control and power over people  to rule by decree on a dictatorial basis.     

It is only brainwashed morons who fall for that trick.    None of the forecasts of the scientists have ever been realized and crooks like Obama bought at elast 5 properties since he left the presidency  - all of them would be underwater if he scientist predictions are fulfilled - so does he himself believed what they claim would happen?      No - it i all done to cow people into submission.

Anybody who believes that mankind control nature in evidence for millions of years  must also believe the moon is made of green cheese.    Let me give you a perfect example - in 1997 Europe had a continental heatwave and   the scientsts went bananas - the world was doomed because of this rapid rise in temperature.    The next year it was back to the averages recorded as average for the counties and it never happened again on a continental basis and has been he same level for centuries.

I am a thinking person not to fall for political and crooked BS - end of story..         .      .

Contents

• 1Flood of March 1543
• 2Flood of 1734–35
• 3Flood of 1788
• 4Flood of 1809
• 5Flood of 1825
• 6Great Flood of 1844
• 7Great Flood of 1851
• 8Great Mississippi Flood of 1874
• 9Flood of 1882
• 10Flood of 1891
• 11Great Flood of 1913
• 12Great Mississippi Flood of 1927
• 13Great Flood of 1937
• 14Flood of 1945
• 15Flood of 1965
• 16Mississippi Flood of 1973
• 17Flood of 1975
• 18Flood of 1979
• 19Lower Mississippi Flood of 1983
• 20Great Mississippi and Missouri Rivers Flood of 1993
• 21Flood of 2002
• 22Flood of 2008
• 23Great Mississippi Flood of 2011
• 24Flood of 2014
• 252017 flooding
  
  ..
  
  I was in St Louis for the great flood of 93….my office looked out on the bridge over the Mississippi ….every day a little less of the bridge was above water. And the flood plain was epic.

Note the timing of ocean rises…..starting almost 100 years before CO2 had increased by 10% of the total current increase:

a Sixty-year average rates over the Common Era, where pre-industrial is 0–1700 CE. b Sixty-year average rates from 1700 to 2000 CE which increase concurrently with the probability that each 60-year interval and all subsequent 60-year intervals were greater than a random 60-year interval during the pre-industrial Common Era. The time of emergence year is given for 0.66, 0.90, and 0.95 probabilities. Model predictions are the mean with 1? uncertainty.

Conclusion all the phenomena like glacial melt, ocean rises and temperature increases were well underway before CO2 could have been the cause.

SB

Sorry to disappoint you - I believe in natural phenomena - not in idiocy.    Did Dr Faucci had a huge hand in funding gain in function research at the Wuhan laboratory?  Yes or no?  Did he lied about it in the Senate hearing?  Yes or no?     How was it possible for bats who have been in existence for million of years infect humans with Covid?    Yes or no?   Why did it happen in 2019 and 2020 for the first time as predicted b Faucci in 2017 and Gates in December 2019?     The answer is simple - the virus was developed in the Wuhan Labority and not the fish market in that city.   Unlike you - who accept BS in sttreams because it is flooding your malfunctioning brain cells - I am not prepared to accept anything other than Dr Death Faucci was involve in creating a pandemic.   

As to global warming - you are saying that I believe in the BS you quote - that shows a level of complete ignorance.    Global warming became an enterprise involving billions if not trillions of dollars  and with that kind of money around it became a moneymaking enterprise by ruthless politicians  and  that is a fact as well.   All the forecasts of scientists have been so far off the mark that creates  serious ques tion marks about the validity of statements made by them and the media.         

I wonder what these eco fascist earth worshipers have to say about the fluctuation of temps through the past one thousand years. The earth has varied in temp for thousands of years but these butt fuckers... oh wait, the Barks of the world are not the fucker but the fuckee... now tell us that we live in a globe and we have to live in third world status while the super rich live like kings and remove 95% of the global population. Well, if you are willing to kill babies what aren't you ready to do in the name of greed and narcissism? Bark is such a fucking noob on every subject. I bet this motherfucker had some bad experience in his life which has left in embittered and hateful. Now he wants to bite back at the force he says he doesn't believe exists. what a fucking loser. 

LOL...come November/December in Europe and lecture the masses on Global warming and see how far you get .

These eco people are the mob that howled approval when the Inquisition immolated thinking people, or the mob sitting around the guillotine watching heads fall into baskets. The intolerance of any divergence from the given wisdom has it roots in religious group think.

There are many things to question. Oil is like a battery, stored power. Can we create a renewable energy infrastructure without bringing forward massive amounts of carbon stored power? Making carbon use much higher than it would have been for 20 or more years?

The point was brought home to me walking in London seeing a Taycan being changed via a cord that looped over a pavement down into a basement, with a little plastic cap over the cord. This is the future? In a low rise city like London without dedicated off road parking the problem looks massive.

Whether these deadlines will produce a better result than working with the oil companies on a phased transition is highly dubious.

So what are you suggesting Mozart? Just ignore the scientists- who also happen to be some of the smartest minds on the planet, and just continue using as much fossil fuel as possible, instead of trying to faze it out by 2050. (The Paris Accord).

No one in serious government positions suggests just stopping the usage of fossil fuels tomorrow...

The idea that 97% of scientists are bribed is not even an option, so it only leaves the possibility that they are actually wrong, or they are right. 

If scientists are wrong, and green energy is fast-tracked before it is really needed, what are the implications? Not much...

If scientists are correct, then the future of mankind and life on earth is stuffed if fossil fuel creates too much carbon in the atmosphere. 

You may believe your own argument, but it is not convincing enough for many people to accept - especially when 97% of scientists disagree with you. I would rather play it safe, or be conservative so to speak...

 If 97% of mechanics say XYZ, I would rather follow this. It is logical that people who specialize in an area would know more than I about a car engine, especially given my technical knowledge of a car is very limited. 

Even if their argument might not appear to be rock solid, but neither is the counter-argument.
Both seem to be based on charts, but there is no agreement on which charts are correct. 

Also, fossil fuel is running out, it will surely become more expensive due to supply and demand. 
Plus, lots of the oil is in authoritarian regimes that seem like they will never get past war even amongst themselves. 
Rather let their regimes collapse and push them to accept Democracy. If green energy was more readily available, Putin would already have lost again Ukraine. 

Putin is never going to stop at Ukraine, his plan is to continue trying to conquer independent EU countries. He is just the latest Russian despot of the conveyor belt. Authoritarian countries struggle with their economies, so if they can't sell natural assets - they are screwed. 

Some good points….I very much agree that we should be trying to get away from burning oil in applications where there are alternatives….it’s too valuable. The worst scenario is we use up our reserves and all the remaining oil is in the hands of the Russians and the Arabs.

But you keep saying 97% of all scientists agree…but to what? That man made CO2 is adding to temperatures? I also agree, but let’s measure it and accept the fact that it’s against a backdrop of naturally rising temperatures. I suspect when we do that our ability to influence things is quite limited.

But 97% of scientists haven’t opined on all the policy decisions. Are EVs really the answer? Why isn’t nuclear part of a solution. Why won’t governments partner with big oil to bring about immediate results. 

What we have today is a bunch of political talking points and policies that will lower warming by a fraction of a degree by 2100. The policies solve nothing and the problem is undefined.

Far from dooming man the vast increase in global population coincided with the oil age. Nothing could cause catastrophe more surely than dismantling our oil capabilities before sustainable energy is actually self sustaining. There are 8 billion people relying on oil to keep them alive, let’s respect that awesome dependency and manage it with care.

I must agree with Mozart in the above.    I think the scientists are being used by dishonest politicians and of those there are plenty about.     In the meantime  the epople are beginning to suffer already.

I have a gas stove at home  and went to get a new cylinder this morning.   In January oi cost . R190 for 9 kg  - today it was R270,    Electricity prices went up by 30% this month as well.   It is just too crazy.to imagine.   

My problem is the fact that the present rush by politicians to spend billions on   greene nergy - like the Bien Administration is doing - is going to reduce agricultural production worldwide leading to famine in many countries.   A balanced approach is necessary - but there si no such approach in evidence.

I must agree with Mozart in the above.    I think the scientists are being used by dishonest politicians and of those there are plenty about.     In the meantime  the epople are beginning to suffer already.

I have a gas stove at home  and went to get a new cylinder this morning.   In January oi cost . R190 for 9 kg  - today it was R270,    Electricity prices went up by 30% this month as well.   It is just too crazy.to imagine.   

My problem is the fact that the present rush by politicians to spend billions on   greene nergy - like the Bien Administration is doing - is going to reduce agricultural production worldwide leading to famine in many countries.   A balanced approach is necessary - but there si no such approach in evidence.

@DumbMike

Scientists are making their assessments independently. They are not bribed. 
Just like it would be impossible to bribe 97% of car mechanics. 

Corruption by politicians is routine and not specific to green energy-  just like how oil company lobbyists continue to bribe politicians. 

A lobbyist is just a piece of shit, regardless of whether they are pushing green or fossil energy. 

97% of all scientists include botanists, zoologists, nutrionists ….it means nothing. Any climate scientist who disagrees is silenced. And climate science itself like virology has hardly attracted the best minds.

These people, this consensus has no practical path forward….just a political agenda to kill oil and come up with a string of politically cool sounding ideas.

"I suppose Steve Hawkins, arguably the best scientific mind of the 21st century is also part of the conspiracy....."

I suppose you mean "Stephen William Hawking"?

yawn Draad...A spell checker. The link I posted has his name. No argument, so being pedantic. 

I guarantee you the physicists know nothing about the economy, the production of the means of life. And I bet most of them have never even looked at the climate data….these people tend to be narrowly focused on their own work.

I repeat there are 8 billion people alive today only because we have access to oil. Put that vital resource at risk through stupid legislation and you risk all those lives. What, are those teeming hordes in London going to grow carrots in their flower pots..  oops I forgot, currently we need oil to make the flower pots.

Leave it to the economy and provide a few renewable incentives if you must….we’ll get a much better result than a Soviet (this time with physicists) type plan.

Its not spelling numbty, its a whole different surname...I also called Richard Dawkins "Hawkins" mistakenly...I'm just asking you to clarify.

I get car recommendations from a mechanic and scientific recommendations from physicists. 

Physicists not only know the most about science, but they also happen to be amongst the smartest people on the planet.

So even people like Bill Gates or Elon Musk that are smart and can have a great conversation about science, they are no match for "Hawkings" on the topics of science.

Incidentally, these two great business minds happen to agree with man-made global warming. Most of the smartest people on the planet do...

No shark its all that Pakki food you guys are consuming thats the main cause.

Just ask AOF .

You do know Musk is a Rocket Scientist too? Not on the same level as Hawking, but way above your pa grade...

"...to the University of Pennsylvania, where he received bachelor's degrees in Economics and Physics."

Hawking specialized in Astro Physics...climate science wasn't really his thing...Musk is more into applied Physics whereas Astro Physics is a lot more philosophical in nature. 

Musk is perhaps the best businessman ever, with the IQ of Einstein.
He would probably excel in any intellectual field. 
It is demotivating to see someone so good at so many things. Maybe he is an alien.

"It is demotivating to see someone so good at so many things"

What ever for ? He is a super overachiever,  but it comes at a price...I really admire his achievements....teaching himself rocket science in 2 years and then doing ground breaking work in short time after...he must be an excellent leader to bring out the best from his team....we live in interesting times indeed.

Well inspiring in a way, but demotivating if we compare our meagre existence to him. 

You've got to control the green monster...I don't want his responsibilities for all the money in the world.

Damn! his second name is Reeve...Superman must be turning in his grave.

So you would accept Elon Musk’s point of view….okay here you go:

As gas prices soar, it is not surprising to find growing calls for increased domestic energy production. But one key figure with a direct stake in how cars are fueled raised some eyebrows on Twitter on March 5. "Hate to say it," he began, "but we need to increase oil and gas output immediately."

Why would this important voice "hate to say it?" Because it is Elon Musk, billionaire developer of the signature electric car of our age, the Tesla. Musk addresses his mixed feelings in a subsequent tweet: "Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports."

A social media free-for-all soon unfolded, as fossil fuel supporters suggested Musk is a wiser voice than the familiar chorus of climate extremists who fill their days telling us our gasoline engines are dooming coastal cities to an underwater future. Musk made clear that he was not politically or financially aligning with anyone with his observation, but that he was simply stating the obvious: "Increased oil and gas action in the short term is critical or people around the world will be placed under great duress," he argued. "It's not a question of money, it is a question of having enough energy to power civilization."

He "hates" to say it. 
Musk knows that dirty energy does cause climate change. (And it is a competitor to his battery energy). 

The consensus is that carbon from dirty energy is causing man-made climate change.

At no point did I say that the world should stop using fossil fuels - at least until green or alternative energy is available on a like-for-like basis. 
That is what the Paris accord is. It is replacing the type of energy without damaging the economy- fazing out dirty energy over time. 

Gas is actually being classified as green by the EU.  Oil is the problem. 

Very convenient for the Germans having destroyed their nuclear production to make gas ‘green’. Nope you were right Musk is the point of reason….the number of ICE cars in the world will increase in the next decade, therefore, we need more oil.

In the meantime we will be just fine with the modest temperature changes mostly due to natural causes.