TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

100+ degrees in England. Looking at the globe, and how far north it is, that is just phenomenal. Whether you believe in climate change or not, that is a crazy occurrence.
Given the lack of AC, the lack of preparation for such high temps, and just how much higher that is than the norm, it must be wholly misreable there right now

---

Was just looking at this -- the average daily high in London in July is about 75-78. So this was 25-28 degrees hotter yesterday.
For context, Charlotte's average high in July is 88. So a comparable increase would be about 115-120.

Again, setting aside any context of global warming, and just thinking of the context of what the poor Englishters must have experienced with that type of delta....

---

there was actually a worse heatwave back in 2003.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

And in 2019

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_heat_waves

---

Interesting…never really thought about the impact of the Sahara on weather that far north (I'd get the French coast on the Med).

Weather anomalies and extremes are fascinating (setting aside the deadly nature).

---

Yeah. You just took it as gospel right out of the gate, and entirely because it fit your preconceived opinion...

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

100+ degrees in England. Looking at the globe, and how far north it is, that is just phenomenal. Whether you believe in climate change or not, that is a crazy occurrence.
Given the lack of AC, the lack of preparation for such high temps, and just how much higher that is than the norm, it must be wholly misreable there right now

---

Was just looking at this -- the average daily high in London in July is about 75-78. So this was 25-28 degrees hotter yesterday.
For context, Charlotte's average high in July is 88. So a comparable increase would be about 115-120.

Again, setting aside any context of global warming, and just thinking of the context of what the poor Englishters must have experienced with that type of delta....

---

there was actually a worse heatwave back in 2003.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

And in 2019

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_heat_waves

---

Interesting…never really thought about the impact of the Sahara on weather that far north (I'd get the French coast on the Med).

Weather anomalies and extremes are fascinating (setting aside the deadly nature).

---

Yeah. You just took it as gospel right out of the gate, and entirely because it fit your preconceived opinion...

---

what is my preconceived notion? so was it historically hot in England or not?

Two things can be true ---- global warming can be a thing, and the media can blow it out of proportion. I accept both.

Example -- media used the Yellowstone flooding a month or so ago as a sign of global warming. Sure, it was a 500 year flood, so was historical. But it was, IMO, a coinciding of a couple of events:
1) large late season snowfall in days/weeks preceding
2) huge temp spike over a weekend resulting in fast melt
3) lots of rain, but really only a couple of inches...it wasn't like they got a foot of rain
4) shallow rivers in a mountain gorge where the water can only go one way

Did global warming contribute? I don't know. Was it histoical? Absolutely. Was it a sign the world is coming to an end as the media says or that we should change all of our policies...absolutely not.

---

Quote:

---

SOMERSET, Mass./WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden said on Wednesday that climate change is an emergency but stopped short of a formal declaration, announcing a modest package of executive actions and promising more aggressive efforts.

"Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world," Biden said. "This is an emergency, an emergency, and I will look at it that way."

---

dogplasma said:

---

Agreed - you definitely get instances of media reports characterizing a single flood or heat wave as proof of climate change, which isn't entirely right. GuerillaPack was actually right when he said we can't just look at one lone heat wave in the summer and say the future is here. But you *can* say this is an example of what we'll be seeing more often in the future, and that's what I've seen reported about the British heat wave.

We're well past the point of asking if man made climate change (AGW) is a thing, except maybe on the Water Cooler, lol. It's not that extreme weather events occur, because that's not new. It's that they occur more frequently and severely. You have to look at trends and evidence across many areas. There's a long list of major scientific organizations that have endorsed AGW. Many nations are adopting carbon cutting policies.

What's still somewhat debatable are the effects of warming - whether it will be not so bad or really bad for people and everything else that lives on earth. The problem with getting that answer wrong is that things may not be reversible, and could actually accelerate. Personally, I'd hate to be like the frog in the pot of water on the stove and not realize I'm cooked until it's too late to jump out. And is a nuclear/wind/solar/fusion future really so bad? (Not asking you, Packchem - just typing out loud at this point.)

---

Packchem91 said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

Agreed - you definitely get instances of media reports characterizing a single flood or heat wave as proof of climate change, which isn't entirely right. GuerillaPack was actually right when he said we can't just look at one lone heat wave in the summer and say the future is here. But you *can* say this is an example of what we'll be seeing more often in the future, and that's what I've seen reported about the British heat wave.

We're well past the point of asking if man made climate change (AGW) is a thing, except maybe on the Water Cooler, lol. It's not that extreme weather events occur, because that's not new. It's that they occur more frequently and severely. You have to look at trends and evidence across many areas. There's a long list of major scientific organizations that have endorsed AGW. Many nations are adopting carbon cutting policies.

What's still somewhat debatable are the effects of warming - whether it will be not so bad or really bad for people and everything else that lives on earth. The problem with getting that answer wrong is that things may not be reversible, and could actually accelerate. Personally, I'd hate to be like the frog in the pot of water on the stove and not realize I'm cooked until it's too late to jump out. And is a nuclear/wind/solar/fusion future really so bad? (Not asking you, Packchem - just typing out loud at this point.)

---

Agreed.
I follow Brad Panovich, a long time meterologist on a local TV station, and clearly more of a scientist than entertainer.
He made the point the other day when asked about the specific heat wave in Europe, that it in no way proved global warming. But that he believes the trend of heat waves, which he demonstrated via a graph that people can either choose to believe or not, showed that we've had more of them recently.

And went on to make what I think is a great analogy. He compared effects of global warming and heat waves to baseball's steroid era. Plenty of HRs occurred w/o any impact from steroids....but overall there were more HRs because of the effect of steroids. Same for heat waves (or floods, or hurricanes, etc)....they've always occurred, always will. But the overall increase of them** should sound alarms that something is causing them

**And as we see on this site, some folks will find data that disagrees they've increased.

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

In brief, the agenda to supposedly combat "climate change" or "global warming" is a false pretext in order to enact the policy of the ruling elites for the impoverishment/enslavement of mankind, and ultimately for mass worldwide human population reduction.

This agenda, if fully implemented, is going to have dramatic and far-reaching impacts on nearly every aspect of our lives, and for the worse -- making us much poorer, and vastly reducing our quality of life.

We all know, for example, that as Biden and others have stated, they are calling for the "phasing out of fossil fuels". And that goal is a very bad idea for our quality of life (having widely available and cheap fuel), which we can discuss in greater detail. But it goes much, much further than just this.

For instance....the climate change cultists claim that we are also going to have to phase out eating beef, because cow burps and farts are heating up the climate too much -- which is going to cause the sea level to rise half an inch and "kill us all" as the alarmists claim with no evidence whatsoever. NWO spokesman Bill Gates, who is not a medical doctor, but is apparently an "expert" not only in vaccines but also climatology, is making the argument that we phase out livestock and transition to synthetic, lab-grown and "plant-based meats".

This policy to phase out livestock is now going into effect. Here is a news article from just last week, detailing how Northern Ireland is going to reduce its supply of sheep and cattle by 1.2 million and it's chickens by 5 million by 2035, as required by a "climate act" that was passed into law:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/22/northern-ireland-faces-loss-of-1-million-sheep-and-cattle-to-meet-climate-targets

Quote:

---

Northern Ireland faces loss of 1 million sheep and cattle to meet climate targets

Fri 22 Apr 2022 03.00 EDT

Northern Ireland will need to lose more than 1 million sheep and cattle to meet its new legally binding climate emissions targets, according to an industry-commissioned analysis seen by the Guardian.
The large-scale reduction in farm animals comes after the passing of the jurisdiction's first ever climate act, requiring the farming sector to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and reduce methane emissions by almost 50% over the same period.

About a third of human-caused methane emissions come from livestock, mostly from the burps and manure of beef and dairy cattle. Analysis by KPMG, commissioned by industry representatives including the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), estimates more than 500,000 cattle and about 700,000 sheep would need to be lost in order for Northern Ireland to meet the new climate targets.

Separate analysis by the UK government's climate advisers suggests chicken numbers would also need to be cut by 5 million by 2035. Both the pig and poultry sectors in Nothern Ireland have seen rapid growth in the past decade.

---

This is just scratching the surface of the drastic changes to our lives that are coming if these Marxist, NWO elites are successful in implementing this insane agenda. It also involves, of course, huge tax increases ("carbon taxes"), which is nothing more than a scheme to steal and transfer the wealth of the masses (to the elites/government), and destroy the middle class and further destroy our standard of living. It involves closing off vast tracks of land from future human development, with the true aim of further limiting human population expansion/growth...which is also accomplished by banning abundant and cheap supplies of energy. And by banning much of our food supply, this is further evidence that this is all part of an anti-human agenda aimed at lowering worldwide human population.

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Mountainman97 said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

In brief, the agenda to supposedly combat "climate change" or "global warming" is a false pretext in order to enact the policy of the ruling elites for the impoverishment/enslavement of mankind, and ultimately for mass worldwide human population reduction.

This agenda, if fully implemented, is going to have dramatic and far-reaching impacts on nearly every aspect of our lives, and for the worse -- making us much poorer, and vastly reducing our quality of life.

We all know, for example, that as Biden and others have stated, they are calling for the "phasing out of fossil fuels". And that goal is a very bad idea for our quality of life (having widely available and cheap fuel), which we can discuss in greater detail. But it goes much, much further than just this.

For instance....the climate change cultists claim that we are also going to have to phase out eating beef, because cow burps and farts are heating up the climate too much -- which is going to cause the sea level to rise half an inch and "kill us all" as the alarmists claim with no evidence whatsoever. NWO spokesman Bill Gates, who is not a medical doctor, but is apparently an "expert" not only in vaccines but also climatology, is making the argument that we phase out livestock and transition to synthetic, lab-grown and "plant-based meats".

This policy to phase out livestock is now going into effect. Here is a news article from just last week, detailing how Northern Ireland is going to reduce its supply of sheep and cattle by 1.2 million and it's chickens by 5 million by 2035, as required by a "climate act" that was passed into law:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/22/northern-ireland-faces-loss-of-1-million-sheep-and-cattle-to-meet-climate-targets

Quote:

---

Northern Ireland faces loss of 1 million sheep and cattle to meet climate targets

Fri 22 Apr 2022 03.00 EDT

Northern Ireland will need to lose more than 1 million sheep and cattle to meet its new legally binding climate emissions targets, according to an industry-commissioned analysis seen by the Guardian.
The large-scale reduction in farm animals comes after the passing of the jurisdiction's first ever climate act, requiring the farming sector to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and reduce methane emissions by almost 50% over the same period.

About a third of human-caused methane emissions come from livestock, mostly from the burps and manure of beef and dairy cattle. Analysis by KPMG, commissioned by industry representatives including the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), estimates more than 500,000 cattle and about 700,000 sheep would need to be lost in order for Northern Ireland to meet the new climate targets.

Separate analysis by the UK government's climate advisers suggests chicken numbers would also need to be cut by 5 million by 2035. Both the pig and poultry sectors in Nothern Ireland have seen rapid growth in the past decade.

---

This is just scratching the surface of the drastic changes to our lives that are coming if these Marxist, NWO elites are successful in implementing this insane agenda. It also involves, of course, huge tax increases ("carbon taxes"), which is nothing more than a scheme to steal and transfer the wealth of the masses (to the elites/government), and destroy the middle class and further destroy our standard of living. It involves closing off vast tracks of land from future human development, with the true aim of further limiting human population expansion/growth...which is also accomplished by banning abundant and cheap supplies of energy. And by banning much of our food supply, this is further evidence that this is all part of an anti-human agenda aimed at lowering worldwide human population.

---

You're a ****ing dumb ass.

---

I know of at least one moderator that has read this poster's post. He stays on the boards damn near 16 hours a day.

I wonder why this is allowed to continue to happen?

Pretty damn sure if myself or another Conservative poster would have made the same comments we would have already been banned.

It's OK. It just further proves the consensus opinion on here that the moderation is done solely by who says what and who is doing the moderating. And we all know how that pendulum swings.

And it damn sure isn't to the right.

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

I hate to see him banned, though, he just makes me feel so smart.

---

BBW12OG said:

---

If you use Chrome, Google etc... you won't find these articles.

duckduckgo.com

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

there are a ton more..

---

dogplasma said:

---

This is an interesting new article about the earliest organized effort to cast doubt on climate change science. What surprised me is that it goes back to the very early 1990s. I forgot we'd been talking about global warming for that long!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

This is an interesting new article about the earliest organized effort to cast doubt on climate change science. What surprised me is that it goes back to the very early 1990s. I forgot we'd been talking about global warming for that long!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

---

I'm old enough to remember that in 1988, I think it was, they were predicting that Florida would be an archipelago by now (might have been Gore). That's one reason why I don't take climate Scientology very seriously.

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

This is an interesting new article about the earliest organized effort to cast doubt on climate change science. What surprised me is that it goes back to the very early 1990s. I forgot we'd been talking about global warming for that long!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

---

I'm old enough to remember that in 1988, I think it was, they were predicting that Florida would be an archipelago by now (might have been Gore). That's one reason why I don't take climate Scientology very seriously.

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

This is an interesting new article about the earliest organized effort to cast doubt on climate change science. What surprised me is that it goes back to the very early 1990s. I forgot we'd been talking about global warming for that long!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

---

I'm old enough to remember that in 1988, I think it was, they were predicting that Florida would be an archipelago by now (might have been Gore). That's one reason why I don't take climate Scientology very seriously.

---

I'm still waiting for California to fall off the side of America...

---

caryking said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

dogplasma said:

---

This is an interesting new article about the earliest organized effort to cast doubt on climate change science. What surprised me is that it goes back to the very early 1990s. I forgot we'd been talking about global warming for that long!

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62225696

---

I'm old enough to remember that in 1988, I think it was, they were predicting that Florida would be an archipelago by now (might have been Gore). That's one reason why I don't take climate Scientology very seriously.

---

I'm still waiting for California to fall off the side of America...

---

Quote:

---

According to researchers at Yale University, 72 percent of Americans tell pollsters that carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant, while 77 percent believe that the government should fund further renewable-energy research and provide tax rebates for solar panels. But when you ask people about bearing the costs of such policies themselves, things change. A 2021 poll commissioned by my colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that 35 percent of registered voters in the U.S. said they wouldn't be willing to spend even $1 a month to reduce the impacts of climate change.

---

Quote:

---

Political and economic circumstances are causing people to wake up. Nordhaus argues that the fuel disruptions triggered by Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine alone mean "the end of climate policy as we know it." Political discontent in the developed world over high energy prices is not transitory, either. At home, the Biden administration is caught in a vise. It is unwilling to budge from announced decarbonization goals but is getting killed at the polls for skyrocketing fuel prices. The administration's attempts to deal with the toxic decline in public confidence consist of attempting to publicly harangue oil and gas companies into ignoring market realities, as well as begging the Saudi royal family to expand production (no luck so far).

---

PackFansXL said:

---

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/no-net-zero-is-not-inevitable-it-might-not-even-be-likely/

Quote:

---

According to researchers at Yale University, 72 percent of Americans tell pollsters that carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant, while 77 percent believe that the government should fund further renewable-energy research and provide tax rebates for solar panels. But when you ask people about bearing the costs of such policies themselves, things change. A 2021 poll commissioned by my colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that 35 percent of registered voters in the U.S. said they wouldn't be willing to spend even $1 a month to reduce the impacts of climate change.

---

Quote:

---

Political and economic circumstances are causing people to wake up. Nordhaus argues that the fuel disruptions triggered by Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine alone mean "the end of climate policy as we know it." Political discontent in the developed world over high energy prices is not transitory, either. At home, the Biden administration is caught in a vise. It is unwilling to budge from announced decarbonization goals but is getting killed at the polls for skyrocketing fuel prices. The administration's attempts to deal with the toxic decline in public confidence consist of attempting to publicly harangue oil and gas companies into ignoring market realities, as well as begging the Saudi royal family to expand production (no luck so far).

---

Unless we embrace nuclear power, we have no chance of reducing greenhouse gases in any significant way here in the US. There is some small movement in that direction but not enough to get new nukes built. In the meantime, we attempt to count on unreliable wind and solar solutions. Unfortunately, honest discourse about choices including costs is just not supported in this current cultural climate.

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Unless we embrace nuclear power, we have no chance of reducing greenhouse gases in any significant way here in the US. There is some small movement in that direction but not enough to get new nukes built. In the meantime, we attempt to count on unreliable wind and solar solutions. Unfortunately, honest discourse about choices including costs is just not supported in this current cultural climate.

---

PackFansXL said:

---

GP, I believe that AGW is vastly overstated but it is a useful vehicle to encourage development of new nukes. Nuclear power is safe, highly reliable, inexpensive, pollution-free, and offers vast amounts of power with an emphasis on national security. If fears about AGW drive a nuclear recovery in this country, we will be far better off than if we rely on the unreliable clean energy sources like solar and wind and hoped for progress on batteries. All those technologies and/or materials are currently controlled by the CCP.

---