NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
I know we’ve got some flat-earthers climate change deniers here. Science does not agree with you.
NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
I know we’ve got some flat-earthers climate change deniers here. Science does not agree with you.
i am in australia…
and for us it is very real.
temperatures have shot up…in my area.
winters are warmer…
summers are scorching
we have holocaust fires…
and for the pacific islanders…it is a catastrophe.
because of more flooding from sea level rise.
insurance companies and councils and government are changing their polices in australia.
there is dramatic erosion on certain areas of the east coast…more than normal.
it is an inconvenient truth.
take care
Thanks, Malvok. At least someone is talking sense.
It is not something i believe. I know it as fact. I can’t imagine why some people can’t see it.
I’m not convinced they’re using quality data:
We’re not seeing this in satellite scans. There’s also a problem with cherry picking of data – troublesome thermometers are being removed from the calculations.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/horrifying-examples-of-deliberate-tampering/
I’m in favour of good science. Whenever someone tells me that “the science is settled” (it’s NEVER settled, that’s how science works), that we can’t get access to their data to crunch their numbers (reproducing results is kind of a big thing with real science), and you’re called things like “denier” for simply asking to see the complete data, I tend to NOT take that side seriously. Sorry, but I just can’t. Science should be like an operating system: Open.
Pixel.
Nice sources, a site with a column by Ann Coulter has gotta be fair and balanced in its reporting.
So are you going to look deeper or just resort to ad hominem attacks?
Pixel.
climate. i think ill name my daughter climate.
I’m not a denier per se, but am a bit suspicious .
Then when you ground her you can say it’s climate control.
There is nothing I would like better than for you to be right, but I am going to believe what the great majority of scientists are saying. Also, it is hard for me to believe that we can burn 20 million barrels of oil a day in the U.S. alone without affecting the climate. Then there is the problem of coal fired power plants.
Maybe the climate change is real, but it does not feel like it here where I am. We have had very cold temperatures here and it was also so when I was a child in this area. Do not understand me wrong, I am all for environmental protection such as reducing emissions around the world, but at this time the climate change is quite far from my life.
When I was in America in the 1990s I used to try to sell some environmental management systems to corporations. Many EPA people were on my emailing list. Already then there was a lot of talk about environmental warming and related matters. People can be more energy efficient.
The amazon deflorestation is one of the biggest issues that is responsible for climate change.
You are right, but they do it because it is profitable for those who do it. But what can an individual do to counter climate change. I suppose people in power can do something.
What do you think happens when we release tons of oil into the oceans, gas into the sky, smoke and fumes constantly filling the air? Do you think it’s good? Do you think it doesn’t matter? There are cities that have smog days. Smog days. Days where you cannot go outside because we have poisoned the air. It can only dissipate so much.
To be completely honest with you, it does not matter what the thermometers say. Those are just something to try and convince those people who are always clamoring for more proof. We know what these gases do, we know that it isn’t sustainable. I don’t want to live on Venus, and if you think it’s OK then you can go live on Venus.
These smoke days in cities is already known for many decades. I remember when I wrote my thesis in America in 1990, there were already then smoke days in Los Angeles and other cities in California. I think this is a big problem in China and elsewhere in Asia. Here where I am we have not yet had any smoke days.
What seems to me to be the main consequence of climate change, in terms of how it is going to affect our actions, is the push for a shift towards sustainable energy. Regardless whether climate change actually occurs or not, and also, whether, if so, it is due to human activity - a shift to sustainable energy makes a lot of sense to me on other grounds as well. Sooner or later, fossile fuels will be running out and it doesn’t matter too much whether it is sooner or later, it seems rather stupid to me not to prepare infrastructure and the like for sustainable energy.
I find the idea of sustainable energy rather appealing, though it is difficult to put my finger on it as in articulating exactly why. Although I think that doesn’t matter too much in the first place, for I think in the end any argument either for or against positions of this kind will involve premises of an ethical or aesthetical kind (since an ought does not derive from an is). But one aspect that appeals to me is the notion that many people can individually produce their own sustainable energy. Roofing with solar panels etc. I know of people who produce over half of the energy they consume in such a way. There seems to me to lie notions of freedom and independence lurking here, notions that I value.
Actions to protect environment could have been taken much earlier, for example the USA declined to sign the Kyoto agreement 20 years ago in 1996.