England’s first ever red warning for extreme heat on Monday and Tuesday.

[rudy gestede]

Which part of the science do you want to criticise?

[JamesWales]

Which part of the science do you want to criticise?

I don't.

[rudy gestede]

Where is the nuance in the science here that you’re talking about then?

What do you even mean by the science?

We are talking about the evidence that climate change is real and what the implications of it being real are.

[JamesWales]

Where is the nuance in the science here that you’re talking about then?

What do you even mean by the science?

We are talking about the evidence that climate change is real and what the implications of it being real are.

I believe the science. I said that to begin with. I'm just saying, some don't, and you have to allow that and it's not a wholly bad thing.

I do think the media can sometimes veer into alarmism or sensationalism (as they do on many things) and I do think there are serious questions on how we adapt, and issues around the sidelines of the debate - i cite the coal mines to supply British steelmills, which actually may be a greener options...or we cease to have a steel industry, in which case, lets discuss it much more. There's also issues over electric vehicles, food affordability, economic impacts, social impacts of people holidaying closer to home to avoid flying etc etc..

I also think some climate activists are hypocrites and arseholes.

But nope, no issues with the science, and if it was accompanied more with an acknowledgement of the other issues I mention above, I suspect we would get less questioning of it.

[rudy gestede]

Ok so nothing to do with the discussion going on in this thread

[Doucas]

The media shouldn't give platforms to people who are scientifically illiterate to talk about science related topics.

If there's a person who says the sky is blue and another who says the sky is green we shouldn't be giving them equal time, the media should just say the sky is blue.

Anyone remember the debate on good morning Britain between a flat earther and an astronaut? What is the point.

[lardy]

The media shouldn't give platforms to people who are scientifically illiterate to talk about science related topics.

If there's a person who says the sky is blue and another who says the sky is green we shouldn't be giving them equal time, the media should just say the sky is blue.

Anyone remember the debate on good morning Britain between a flat earther and an astronaut? What is the point.

The BBC did a lot of damage with that. I think they had Nigel Lawson on, giving the anti-climate change view, a few times. That was the best they could do, but it immediately frames it as something that is up for debate, and gives credibility to nonsense.

I hadn't heard of the astronaut interview, but that is nothing less than an insult.

[Doucas]

The BBC did a lot of damage with that. I think they had Nigel Lawson on, giving the anti-climate change view, a few times. That was the best they could do, but it immediately frames it as something that is up for debate, and gives credibility to nonsense.

I hadn't heard of the astronaut interview, but that is nothing less than an insult.

Here you go https://www.indy100.com/viral/flat-e...e-astronaut-tv

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Since the start of the industrial revolution the earth’s temperature has increased exponentially above and beyond the averages throughout the whole of history.

Which part of that do you think is a geopolitical phenomenon?

I suppose it isn’t even worth discussing with someone who has ridiculous opinions on covid too. It seems like you just get your opinions out of thin air to support whatever narrative you want.

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

[Doucas]

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

Because you ignored it before, I'll ask again

What do you hear/see when you see the fact that 99% of scientists say this is happening due to man.

Do you not believe the 99% figure? I'm trying to understand how anyone can see that and just dismiss it as easily as you do. What's the thought process?

[rudy gestede]

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

It’s nothing like that. There is genuine evidence of climate change, it is fact. Which bit do you not agree with?

[rudy gestede]

It just goes to show how little grasp people have of the subject when they say it’s just 2 days of hot weather.

There are effects of climate change seen around the world every day.

It’s like covid all over again people make there minds up without considering any evidence and then are too stubborn to change their minds.

There’s plenty of evidence and reading out there and obviously you can’t be bothered with any of it.

[chrisp_1927]

It just goes to show how little grasp people have of the subject when they say it’s just 2 days of hot weather.

There are effects of climate change seen around the world every day.

It’s like covid all over again people make there minds up without considering any evidence and then are too stubborn to change their minds.

There’s plenty of evidence and reading out there and obviously you can’t be bothered with any of it.

Where I disagree strongly is when people try and explicitly say that today and tomorrow are down to climate change. That's really crap science in itself. An individual event is just that, it could be caused by climate change and it could not be. Climate change can be judged by looking at longer term patterns. Those longer term patterns show it is a real thing, they also suggest that we will be in for many more days like this than we otherwise would be.

[lardy]

I suppose it's a simple case of accepting that people have different opinions, make different assumptions, and trust different sources and resources. It's a bit like all the bad mouthing on here towards anyone [in the whole of UK] who supported Brexit. " they're stupid, Gullible, been taken in.... etc, etc,]. The fact that the majority voted for it didn't occur to the small cabal on a football messageboard. You'd be surprised how many people outside of this bubble think man-made climate change is bollocks, and chuckle at the current hysteria re. 2 days of potential hot weather.

It's not about opinions and i-reckons.

Intelligent people from all over the world have studied it for decades and they are unanimous. It doesn't matter how many people with no idea about it think it's bollocks, because they think it's just about 2 days of weather.

If 99% of heart surgeons recommended you need surgery, and the people you chat to down the pub said "nah, that's bollocks, I haven't had surgery and I'm fine", who would you trust?

Actually, don't answer that...

[rudy gestede]

Where I disagree strongly is when people try and explicitly say that today and tomorrow are down to climate change. That's really crap science in itself. An individual event is just that, it could be caused by climate change and it could not be. Climate change can be judged by looking at longer term patterns. Those longer term patterns show it is a real thing, they also suggest that we will be in for many more days like this than we otherwise would be.

The fact today is a hot day isn’t due to climate change it’s due to winds from bringing heat from Saharan Africa.

The fact it’s bringing heat hotter than ever before is due to climate change.

Trends are based on individual things. If today was a one off isolated thing fair enough but it isn’t.

I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here tbh. What do you mean crap science?

[the other bob wilson]

It just goes to show how little grasp people have of the subject when they say it’s just 2 days of hot weather.

There are effects of climate change seen around the world every day.

It’s like covid all over again people make there minds up without considering any evidence and then are too stubborn to change their minds.

There’s plenty of evidence and reading out there and obviously you can’t be bothered with any of it.

It’s a characteristic of this board that you can see a political thread starting and know how the likely contributors to it will respond (this is equally true on both sides of the political divide). It’s true in this thread as well - using myself as an example, I think it would have come as no surprise to anyone who reads political threads on here what side I support.

That said, this is a strange one because I struggle to see what point the so predictable group of naysayers are trying to make. Say there was no such thing as global warming and it was forecast that there would be a spell of two or three days which could see the UK’s highest recorded temperature occur, are they saying that precautions shouldn’t be taken with a view to protecting those in the population who would be most vulnerable in these exceptional temperatures? Should the oldest and sickest just be left to get on with it as best they can?

To belong in one of the tribes in this ridiculously tribal society we live in currently, it seems you have to be implacably opposed to global warning even to the extent that you have to harrumph and say we’ve been through worse when the forecasters are telling us we, almost certainly, haven’t.

[chrisp_1927]

The fact today is a hot day isn’t due to climate change it’s due to winds from bringing heat from Saharan Africa.

The fact it’s bringing heat hotter than ever before is due to climate change.

Trends are based on individual things. If today was a one off isolated thing fair enough but it isn’t.

I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make here tbh.

You've actually illustrated my point quite well with your reply. It's really bad science to pin this weather today on climate change. There's a strong likelihood that it is, but you can't say that for definite. Freak events will always occur. It's the long term trends that show climate change is happening, picking and choosing individual days to justify it is really poor science.

[Citizen's Nephew]

31 degrees in sunny Grangetown!!
Edit: no vineyards though

[Baloo]

You've actually illustrated my point quite well with your reply. It's really bad science to pin this weather today on climate change. There's a strong likelihood that it is, but you can't say that for definite. Freak events will always occur. It's the long term trends that show climate change is happening, picking and choosing individual days to justify it is really poor science.

Well, you should perhaps have a word then with the Climate Attribution Scientist at the Met Office who appears to suggest ad-hoc extreme temperatures are actually a direct phenomenon we should anticipate with Climate Change.

“We hoped we wouldn’t get to this situation but for the first time ever we are forecasting greater than 40°C in the UK. “Climate attribution scientist at the Met Office, Dr Nikos Christidis, said “In a recent study we found that the likelihood of extremely hot days in the UK has been increasing and will continue to do so during the course of the century, with the most extreme temperatures expected to be observed in the southeast of England.

“Climate change has already influenced the likelihood of temperature extremes in the UK. The chances of seeing 40°C days in the UK could be as much as 10 times more likely in the current climate than under a natural climate unaffected by human influence. The likelihood of exceeding 40°C anywhere in the UK in a given year has also been rapidly increasing, and, even with current pledges on emissions reductions, such extremes could be taking place every 15 years in the climate of 2100.”

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-u...e-heat-warning

[rudy gestede]

You've actually illustrated my point quite well with your reply. It's really bad science to pin this weather today on climate change. There's a strong likelihood that it is, but you can't say that for definite. Freak events will always occur. It's the long term trends that show climate change is happening, picking and choosing individual days to justify it is really poor science.

But it isn’t a freak event we’ve had heatwaves caused by this forever but the extra high temperature is able to be reached due to the effects of climate change as is the fact that freak events like this are more common. It’s the increasing likelihood and increasing temperatures of days like today that’s being driven by climate change.

Climate scientist agree with this, I’ve done research in this area and would use today as a data point to show the effects climate change of climate change.

What’s your background? What makes you so confident to say this? It isn’t bad science to use an almost definite thing as evidence is about as close to good science as you can get.

You’re using the Russel Brand mistake of thinking open mindedness and not make specific claims means you’re right or have some kind of high ground which to me always comes across as shallow and non committal way of discussing things.

[chrisp_1927]

Well, you should perhaps have a word then with the Climate Attribution Scientist at the Met Office who appears to suggest ad-hoc extreme temperatures are actually a direct phenomenon we should anticipate with Climate Change.

“We hoped we wouldn’t get to this situation but for the first time ever we are forecasting greater than 40°C in the UK. “Climate attribution scientist at the Met Office, Dr Nikos Christidis, said “In a recent study we found that the likelihood of extremely hot days in the UK has been increasing and will continue to do so during the course of the century, with the most extreme temperatures expected to be observed in the southeast of England.

“Climate change has already influenced the likelihood of temperature extremes in the UK. The chances of seeing 40°C days in the UK could be as much as 10 times more likely in the current climate than under a natural climate unaffected by human influence. The likelihood of exceeding 40°C anywhere in the UK in a given year has also been rapidly increasing, and, even with current pledges on emissions reductions, such extremes could be taking place every 15 years in the climate of 2100.”

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-u...e-heat-warning

Not quite sure where he contradicts what I'm saying. He says that the likelihood of extreme weather is growing at a worrying rate.

That's what makes climate change such a worrying issue and one that I hope we get on top of.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

It’s nothing like that. There is genuine evidence of climate change, it is fact. Which bit do you not agree with?

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

[chrisp_1927]

But it isn’t a freak event we’ve had heatwaves caused by this forever but the extra high temperature is able to be reached due to the effects of climate change as is the fact that freak events like this are more common. It’s the increasing likelihood and increasing temperatures of days like today that’s being driven by climate change.

Climate scientist agree with this, I’ve done research in this area and would use today as a data point to show the effects climate change of climate change.

What’s your background? What makes you so confident to say this? It isn’t bad science to use an almost definite thing as evidence is about as close to good science as you can get.

You’re using the Russel Brand mistake of thinking open mindedness and not make specific claims means you’re right or have some kind of high ground which to me always comes across as shallow and non committal way of discussing things.

Completely disagree. It's the fact that we are breaking the UK temperature record year on year that is the extremely strong indicator that something is going very wrong. To pick out individual days or blocks of days within that is nowhere near as strong an indicator.

[rudy gestede]

I haven't argued against climate change. It's the correlation to the man-made hypothesis that I query. I also made a comment previously in this thread re. the real dangers to the planet - pollution, litter, plastic, widespread insect loss. All these will wreck the planet in the next decade but it doesn't concern climate activists and politicians as they head off for yet another climate change summit in their jets.

All those things you mention concern climate scientists though?

What makes you think climate change isn’t a real danger to the planet?

What’s your evidence it isn’t man made? Do you think the exponential increase of temperatures the like of which have never been seen post industrial revolution is just a coincidence?

[rudy gestede]

Completely disagree. It's the fact that we are breaking the UK temperature record year on year that is the extremely strong indicator that something is going very wrong. To pick out individual days or blocks of days within that is nowhere near as strong an indicator.

You’re just being deliberately obtuse. Today is another point on that pattern, the fact today is happening is driven by climate change.