Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,841]

7 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Climate change is real, I'm not denying. 

I was saying how it happen in the past and in the past we had more stronger climate change then today. 

Based on your article it was because of the rotation:

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

 

So the question is if we had that in the past right now we are not nowhere near the level of the past. Because you form lakes in the past that are big. Example on this article: 

These vast lakes formed approximately 14,000 years ago due to climate warming and glacial melting.

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldatlas.com%2Flakes%2Fthe-great-lakes-ranked-by-size.html&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

We had ice age and global warming. Right now we are in a trend of global warming, but this time based on your article the human fault not the orbit. 

Question is if we can use the model of past global warming to see how far we will go into the warming of the planet before we enter into an ice age?

That is the vibe I'm getting from your article, that we will produced these types of cycles from warm to cold. 

 

 

no, that is not 'the vibe', that is your attempt at playing denialist games, and just repeating the same talking failed points

look at the graph

it says nothing like you are trying to say it does

it clearly shows a massive rise within a very short duration

that duration started when human beings started to flood the ecosphere with hydrocarbon emissions

it is NOT some sort of 'natural cycle'

 

 

[Vesper 28,841]

Neo-Nazis Are on the March Across America

A recent neo-Nazi rally in Columbus, Ohio drew national attention—but it was just one of dozens that increasingly emboldened white power groups have held this year.

https://www.wired.com/story/neo-nazi-demonstrations-trump/

On November 16, eleven days after the presidential election, a dozen neo-Nazis from a group called “Hate Club 1488” brazenly marched through Columbus, Ohio, carrying swastika flags and shouting racial slurs. State and national leaders, including President Joe Biden, condemned the march, as did community leaders and activists.

On that same day, about 500 miles south, around eight masked neo-Nazis from several groups came together to hold a roadside demonstration in Decatur, Alabama. They brandished signs containing antisemitic, anti-immigrant, and generally racist statements.

The demonstration in Decatur received no media attention—much less condemnation from the president. But researchers say that both rallies are part of a disturbing pattern of increasingly hateful demonstrations led by neo-Nazis who have been emboldened to use explicit Nazi imagery.

WIRED compiled all reported instances of similar neo-Nazi demonstrations, gleaned from local news reports and social media, and counted 34 in total for 2024, across 16 states. That’s compared to about 30 demonstrations in 2023, 22 in 2022, and four in 2021. Experts say they are now happening with such frequency that they risk becoming normalized.

And although hardcore neo-Nazi groups tend to eschew electoral politics, they view Trump and his second presidency opportunistically. Blood Tribe leader Christopher Pohlhaus, known as “Hammer,” celebrated Trump’s victory after the election in a post on Telegram. “Thanks Trump,” he wrote. “Cheaper gas will make it easier to spread White Power across the whole country.”

Days after the election, a group of neo-Nazis gathered outside a community theater production of Anne Frank’s Diary in Howell, Michigan to shout antisemitic slurs. They chanted “heil Hitler; heil Trump,” according to news reports.

Most of the demonstrations observed in recent years have been led by the same handful of networks and organizations, which, despite their small membership numbers, have become increasingly visible. These particular extremists fall under the category of “racially motivated violent extremists”—which, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, are among the biggest domestic terror threats facing the US.

The vast majority of neo-Nazi demonstrations that WIRED logged in 2024 have targeted immigrants with their messaging, continuing a trend that emerged late last year, when groups like NSC-131, a neo-Nazi network active in New England, began showing up outside hotels housing migrants, lighting flares and holding banners that said “invaders go home.”

The renewed focus on immigrants by neo-Nazi groups coincides with surging hate crimes targeting immigrants, according to recently released FBI data. And it also marks a sharp pivot away from the drag shows and Pride events that had consumed their attention during the previous years. That pivot matches with the shift in the GOP’s attention away from the “culture war” issues surrounding drag shows and trans teens that had failed to galvanize Republican voters in the 2022 midterms, and back towards the same nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric that secured president-elect Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and again this November.

As the GOP and conservative influencers turned their attention towards immigration, hardcore hate groups followed suit. This synchronicity is not a coincidence, says Jeff Tischauser, a researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center. While hardcore groups don’t tend to care about electoral politics, they do see opportunity in dragging the “overton window” (the range of ideas, policies and speech deemed acceptable in mainstream society) towards the far-right fringe, which they hope will result in lawmakers pursuing increasingly extreme policies.

“White power activists get their marching orders from conservative influencers,” says Tischauser. “[These groups] see themselves, particularly post-2022 and -2023, as really pushing the GOP further to the right by being out in the street. They see themselves as doing and saying what the GOP elected officials and influencers cannot.”

Springfield, Ohio, was the clearest example of this relationship at work. The small Ohio city and its burgeoning Haitian community became a flashpoint for vitriolic anti-migrant rhetoric from conservative influencers and the Trump campaign. Hyper-local rumors and conspiracy theories about Haitians in Springfield circulated on Facebook, before eventually making their way to major right-wing social media accounts and then regurgitated by Trump and vice president-elect JD Vance. With Springfield in the spotlight, armed members from the neo-Nazi group Blood Tribe descended on the city on two separate occasions, in August and in September.

“These MAGA influencers pointed out a target, and white power activists took that as a call to arms,” says Tischauser. (According to recent reports, since Trump’s victory, Haitian migrants are seeking to flee Springfield.)

For groups like Blood Tribe or Hate Club 1488, demonstrations are also a way to “normalize and mainstream their ideas and symbols,” as well as create propaganda opportunities—for example, filming themselves marching unopposed, or trolling bystanders, and then posting those videos across their social networks.

Tischauser believes that the decision by Hate Club 1488, which is based out of St Louis, Missouri, to rally in Columbus, was one that had been carefully calculated to stoke fears and associate themselves with Trump’s victory.

“It was a well-timed march. They picked their location, an island of blue in a sea of red,” says Tischauser. “And the ways that migrants were used by GOP elected officials and candidates during the election really put Ohio on the map for groups like Hate Club.”

Other extremist groups, such as the Proud Boys and Blood Tribe, are also active in Ohio. “White power groups are competing among themselves, among a finite resource of people that they can recruit and fundraise from,” said Tischauser. “They’re trying to say, “we’re the realest of the neo-Nazis.’”

In August, a coalition of activist groups in the state formed Ohioans Against Extremism in response to what they saw as rising extremism on the streets and in the state house. Their executive director Maria Bruno says they were grateful for the national spotlight on the issue of rising extremism in Ohio following the Columbus rally, but is a little surprised it’s taken this long. “At the same time, it’s hard not to feel like, “where have you all been?” says Bruno. “This is something that I and marginalized communities in Ohio have been screaming about for years.”

Blood Tribe set up shop in Ohio in 2023, and a slew of alarming incidents followed. 20 members of Blood Tribe showed up to a Pride event and a Jewish center in Toledo; 26 armed Blood Tribe members rallied outside a Drag story hour in Columbus, chanting “There will be Blood; a coalition of extremist groups including Blood Tribe, Proud Boys, and White Lives Matter rallied outside a drag queen story hour in Wadsworth; a member of White Lives Matter firebombed a progressive church in Chesterland, Ohio, that was planning a drag queen story hour.

Earlier this year, Nashville, Tennessee, also emerged as a flashpoint for neo-Nazi activity. In February, about 36 members of Blood Tribe and another group called Vinland Rebels marched through historically Black neighborhoods in Nashville, Tennessee, chanting “deport every Mexican” and performing Nazi salutes. Over the course of several weeks in July, a network called Goyim Defense League held several antisemitic rallies across Nashville. (Goy is a Hebrew term used to describe non-Jews, sometimes disparagingly, which has been co-opted by antisemites).

In one instance, about 30 members of the Goyim Defense League wore t-shirts saying “Whites Against Replacement” and disrupted the Nashville-Davidson county metro council public meeting, performing Nazi salutes and berating media and bystanders with slurs. According to The Guardian, the Nashville police chief had learned that the Goyim Defense League had secured a temporary residence about 65 miles away in Scottsville, Kentucky. They had seemingly zeroed in on Nashville because, like Columbus, it’s a bastion of liberalism in a red state.

Tischauser expects these groups to ramp up demonstrations, as they envision themselves influencing and engaging not just with state policies but with federal policies. And by latching onto Trumpism, whether MAGA likes it or not, they’re trying to prod his supporters into backing an increasingly extreme version of their president.

Edited 5 hours ago by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,323]

Sanctions on Canada and Mexico announced.

[robsblubot 3,506]

2 hours ago, Fernando said:

Climate change is real, I'm not denying. 

I was saying how it happen in the past and in the past we had more stronger climate change then today. 

Based on your article it was because of the rotation:

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

 

So the question is if we had that in the past right now we are not nowhere near the level of the past. Because you form lakes in the past that are big. Example on this article: 

These vast lakes formed approximately 14,000 years ago due to climate warming and glacial melting.

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldatlas.com%2Flakes%2Fthe-great-lakes-ranked-by-size.html&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

We had ice age and global warming. Right now we are in a trend of global warming, but this time based on your article the human fault not the orbit. 

Question is if we can use the model of past global warming to see how far we will go into the warming of the planet before we enter into an ice age?

That is the vibe I'm getting from your article, that we will produced these types of cycles from warm to cold. 

 

 

That's like saying that, "it does not happen because I had a fall and a winter." The fallacy here is that climate change never said that past natural fluctuations (big or small) did not happen.

We've been through this before: it's forensics similar to what the police uses to solve crime. Analyzing Tree cores and a number of difference methodologies in a number of sciences come to the same conclusions, which makes for as much consensus as you get in science.

There is FAR less consensus in how to address it; I personally always found the idea of a global emission control naive and silly.
For me the only solution at this point is through science itself: some form of carbon sequestration, or something that we don't yet know.

Edited 3 hours ago by robsblubot

[Fulham Broadway 16,858]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

that is a pretty RW site, headed up by the hardcore US zionist Bari Weiss, her progressive-bashing wife Nellie Bowles, plus the RW British journo Douglas Murray, and the Thatcher/Reagan-loving RW US/British historian Niall Ferguson

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss

According to The Washington Post, Weiss "portrays herself as a liberal uncomfortable with the excesses of left-wing culture"[70] and has sought to "position herself as a reasonable liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech".[71] Vanity Fair called Weiss "a provocateur".[6] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said that her writing "doesn't lend itself easily to labels".[72] Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Business Insider.[73][74][75][76] In an interview with Joe Rogan, she called herself a "left-leaning centrist".[77] The Times of Israel reported that her public fight with The New York Times made her a hero among some conservatives.[78]

Weiss has expressed support for Israel and Zionism in her columns. When writer Andrew Sullivan described her as an "unhinged Zionist", she responded that she "happily plead[s] guilty as charged".[79] As of 2024, Weiss had visited Israel over 15 times, including after the October 7 attacks, and compared pro-Israel social media commentators to former Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky, whose years in prison made him an icon of the movement to free Jews from the Soviet Union.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)

Douglas Murray (born 16 July 1979)[1] is a British author and conservative political commentator, cultural critic, and journalist. He founded the Centre for Social Cohesion in 2007, which became part of the Henry Jackson Society, where he was associate director from 2011 to 2018.

He is currently an associate editor of the conservative British political and cultural magazine The Spectator, and has been a regular contributor to The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, the Daily Mail, New York Post, National Review, The Free Press, and Unherd.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Murray is known for his criticism of immigration and Islam. His books include Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005), The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017), The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (2019) and The War on the West (2022).

Murray has been praised by conservatives, but strongly criticised by many progressives.[8][9][10][11] Articles in the academic journals Ethnic and Racial Studies and National Identities associate his views with Islamophobia[12][13] and he has been linked to far-right political ideologies[14] and the promotion of far-right ideas such as the Eurabia, Great Replacement, and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theories.[15][16][17][18]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

Sir Niall Campbell Ferguson, HonFRSE (/niːl/ NEEL; born 18 April 1964)[1] is a British-American conservative historian who is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.[2][3] Previously, he was a professor at Harvard University, the London School of Economics, New York University, a visiting professor at the New College of the Humanities, and a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford. He was a visiting lecturer at the London School of Economics for the 2023/24 academic year and at Tsinghua University, China in 2019–20.[4][5] He is a co-founder of the University of Austin, Texas.[6]

Ferguson writes and lectures on international history, economic history, financial history and the history of the British Empire and American imperialism.[7] He holds positive views concerning the British Empire.[8] In 2004, he was one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world.[9] Ferguson has written and presented numerous television documentary series, including The Ascent of Money, which won an International Emmy Award for Best Documentary in 2009.[10] In 2024, he was knighted by King Charles III for services to literature.[11]

Ferguson has been a contributing editor for Bloomberg Television and a columnist for Newsweek.[12] He began writing a semi-monthly column for Bloomberg Opinion in June 2020 and has also been a regular columnist at The Spectator and the Daily Mail.[13][14] In 2021 he became a joint-founder of the new University of Austin. Since June 2024 he is a bi-weekly columnist at The Free Press.[15] Ferguson has also contributed articles to many journals including Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy.[16][17] He has been described as a conservative and called himself a supporter of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.[18][19]

Yup you're right.  It was on someone elses recommendation - now I think if his reputation stinks, what does that say about his organisation ? (tony montana)

[Fernando 6,464]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

no, that is not 'the vibe', that is your attempt at playing denialist games, and just repeating the same talking failed points

look at the graph

it says nothing like you are trying to say it does

it clearly shows a massive rise within a very short duration

that duration started when human beings started to flood the ecosphere with hydrocarbon emissions

it is NOT some sort of 'natural cycle'

 

 

And again if the human are producing it is nowhere near as  bad as the climate warming of past. 

Previous global warming was extreme that lead to ice age. 

 

[Fernando 6,464]

25 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

That's like saying that, "it does not happen because I had a fall and a winter." The fallacy here is that climate change never said that past natural fluctuations (big or small) did not happen.

We've been through this before: it's forensics similar to what the police uses to solve crime. Analyzing Tree cores and a number of difference methodologies in a number of sciences come to the same conclusions, which makes for as much consensus as you get in science.

There is FAR less consensus in how to address it; I personally always found the idea of a global emission control naive and silly.
For me the only solution at this point is through science itself: some form of carbon sequestration, or something that we don't yet know.

But according to the chart shown here it is the human fault. 

In the past it was the orbit. And in the past the weather was more extreme that led to ice age. 

We are nowhere near those levels of extreme heat to produce an ice age right now. Which tells me we can change this if something scientific is done. 

It's good that we are going to EV, but I'm not sure how much that will help when the plants that produce them are also using a lot of fossil fuels. 

[Vesper 28,841]

7 minutes ago, Fernando said:

And again if the human are producing it is nowhere near as  bad as the climate warming of past. 

Previous global warming was extreme that lead to ice age. 

 

there has been nothing in the past 800,000 years plus remotely like what has occurred in the past 150 years

anthropogenic climate change denialists are either thoroughly discredited malign actors, with ill intentions and nefarious motives, or are wilful dupes, or are plain old crackpots and cranks, spewing out anti-science ramblings and all manner of false conspiracy theories

end of story

this is not something that is up for any sort of legitimate debate

it is like debating flat earthers and/or people who think the moon landing was fake

people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts

[robsblubot 3,506]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

But according to the chart shown here it is the human fault. 

In the past it was the orbit. And in the past the weather was more extreme that led to ice age. 

We are nowhere near those levels of extreme heat to produce an ice age right now. Which tells me we can change this if something scientific is done. 

It's good that we are going to EV, but I'm not sure how much that will help when the plants that produce them are also using a lot of fossil fuels. 

Sorry, these claims are both false as well as irrelevant.

Just to show how that is irrelevant:
Imagine that at some point in time a natural event DID indeed produce a similar jump in that one chart you showed -- just as it is happening today. Let's say that it was caused by 2 super volcanos erupting, or a solar event... Now, what would be the natural event today that is causing a similar drastic change? If we had cause and consequence back then, what's the cause now? All reputable scientists agree that we are cause.

Besides looking at *one* chart is a vast simplification; in my line of business I deal with many many different graphs and each may tell a different story. It takes time to learn how to interpret them. I can imagine scientists who study this for a living have access to far more information than a single chart.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to put more trust in opinions from (random) people (even here) than vetted information. We are in an era where good information is harder to find, but it's still available--it just takes some looking and it usually comes from the usual suspects (e.g. not from your friendly YT content creator or podcaster).

I, for one, respect specialists opinions because they put their time and efforts into things so that we don't have to -- there are only so many hours in a day. 😅

Edited 1 hour ago by robsblubot

[Fernando 6,464]

19 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

Sorry, these claims are both false as well as irrelevant.

Just to show how that is irrelevant:
Imagine that at some point in time a natural event DID indeed produce a similar jump in that one chart you showed -- just as it is happening today. Let's say that it was caused by 2 super volcanos erupting, or a solar event... Now, what would be the natural event today that is causing a similar drastic change? If we had cause and consequence back then, what's the cause now? All reputable scientists agree that we are cause.

Besides looking at *one* chart is a vast simplification; in my line of business I deal with many many different graphs and each may tell a different story. It takes time to learn how to interpret them. I can imagine scientists who study this for a living have access to far more information than a single chart.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to put more trust in opinions from (random) people (even here) than vetted information. We are in an era where good information is harder to find, but it's still available--it just takes some looking and it usually comes from the usual suspects (e.g. not from your friendly YT content creator or podcaster).

I, for one, respect specialists opinions because they put their time and efforts into things so that we don't have to -- there are only so many hours in a day. 😅

So in the end the impact of humans is real but not extreme like orbital change, super volcano and what not that produce massive climate change and ice age. 

We are getting hot but nowhere near what we see in the past of extreme climates. 

[Fernando 6,464]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

there has been nothing in the past 800,000 years plus remotely like what has occurred in the past 150 years

anthropogenic climate change denialists are either thoroughly discredited malign actors, with ill intentions and nefarious motives, or are wilful dupes, or are plain old crackpots and cranks, spewing out anti-science ramblings and all manner of false conspiracy theories

end of story

this is not something that is up for any sort of legitimate debate

it is like debating flat earthers and/or people who think the moon landing was fake

people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts

In the past the climate change was more intense then today. We are producing climate change but not as hard as natural events that happen in the past. 

[Vesper 28,841]

18 minutes ago, Fernando said:

In the past the climate change was more intense then today. We are producing climate change but not as hard as natural events that happen in the past. 

that is a flat out lie, at least as far as the last 800,000 years are concerned

you are engaging in pure disinformation, whether it is on purpose or through sheer ignorance I leave it for the others here to determine

Edited 58 minutes ago by Vesper

[Vesper 28,841]

Defiant Joe Rogan insists he’s not a propaganda asset, just actually this stupid

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2024/11/defiant-joe-rogan-insists-hes-not-a-propaganda-asset-just-actually-this-stupid/

AUSTIN, TX – Following comments on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where multi-millionaire podcaster Joe Rogan blamed Ukrainian defence for “causing World War III”, the podcast phenom clarified that he was not echoing Kremlin propaganda, but is in fact truly this fucking braindead.

“I know it might seem suspicious, how I consistently and unquestioningly regurgitate Russian and authoritarian talking points to my millions of listeners,” explained the former host of a game show where contestants ate bull testicles for money. “When I say things like ‘Ukraine and Biden are entirely to blame for antagonizing Russia’ it’s not because I’m echoing Putin’s disingenuous justifications for invading a sovereign nation, it’s because I’m a true cretin who doesn’t know shit about shit.”

Asked to elaborate on his pinheaded methods, Rogan continued: “I’m not getting my information from any nefarious conspiracy. I get my info where all truly moronic online conspiracy chuds get theirs – TikTok videos, half-read wikipedia entires, and my own truly ignorant punch-drunk brain.”

Rogan continued to outline ways that his recent actions were not in fact an organized effort to shift his fanbase’s politics rightward, but instead a byproduct of his staggering naiveté and utter lack of critical thinking skills. This includes offering softball interviews to exclusively Republican candidates, consistently pushing vaccine skepticism, and listening to Jordan Peterson without once laughing in his face.

“Nope, no sinister agenda, that’s all just pure authentic simpleminded me,” Rogan continued in the middle of a rambling 3 hour interview with a discredited climatologist who claims super intelligent alien chimps built the pyramids.

“Honestly, I wish this was all part of a brilliant long con to profit off the dumbing down of a generation of economically disadvantaged MMA fans. How impressive would that be?” Rogan added. “But no, I’m too stupid to even understand the sentences I just said, and it turns out America just loves rewarding the dumbest, most aggrieved mediocre white men it can find. It’s entirely possible, baby!”

The 8th lead from Newsradio elaborated on how his own doltish limitations have fuelled his improbable career. “It was really lucky that UFC and conspiracy mongering became so popular, since it distracted fans from the fact that I’m far too idiotic to be a funny standup.”

Asked whether his famously uncritical credulity inherently benefits bad faith actors looking to use his platform to spread misinformation, Rogan answered “I don’t know what any of those words mean.” Still, looking forward, he assured his listeners that he’s far too much of an imbecile to look forward.

“Naw, I’m just gonna keep making this bullshit up as I go,” Rogan insisted. “It turns out there’s a bottomless market for encouraging mediocre men to hide their own intellectual insecurities and lack of curiosity behind claims that they’re ‘just asking questions’. I’ve been just asking questions for years and haven’t found a single goddamned answer, but it didn’t stop Spotify from making me rich.”

Rogan elaborated, “All today’s men really want is a daily reassurance that they never have to change or grow – that their own reflexive ignorance is worth just as much as any expert’s so-called facts. Luckily, that job description fits perfectly into the wheelhouse a truly mindless block-headed simpleton like myself.”

“Also, dragons were definitely real,” Rogan concluded, before reading ads for 5 different brands of supplements.

At press time, Joe Rogan has accepted a nomination as Secretary of the Interior for the incoming Trump Administration.

 

 

Site Disclaimer

The Beaverton is a news satire and parody publication. All articles contained within this website and on its social media accounts, however similar to real events, are fictitious. When public figures or actual businesses are mentioned by name, the corresponding story details are invented. In all other cases, any resemblance to actual persons, businesses or events is entirely coincidental.

[Fernando 6,464]

23 minutes ago, Vesper said:

that is a flat out lie, at least as far as the last 800,000 years are concerned

you are engaging in pure disinformation, whether it is on purpose or through sheer ignorance I leave it for the others here to determine

Not a lie. 

Climate change in the past was more extreme then today. 

Why is Greenland more warmer in the past then today despite the human made climate change? 

Greenland once truly green, scientists reveal

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal S...

 

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science.

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science

Edited 35 minutes ago by Fernando

[robsblubot 3,506]

51 minutes ago, Fernando said:

So in the end the impact of humans is real but not extreme like orbital change, super volcano and what not that produce massive climate change and ice age. 

We are getting hot but nowhere near what we see in the past of extreme climates. 

Don't think we can conclude that. Humans were not around when volcanos were super active for a reason.

It's also hard to know the actual potential outcomes of this man-made increase.
Rumsfeld from Bush the administration once talked (yeah different subject but still) about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns, and I suspect we have a lot of the latter in the mix here.

Here's the kick: Earth does not care one bit whether the climate is viable to humans or not. Imagine a small impact in the food chain today and what prices, as well as availability, would look like. 

 

Edited 26 minutes ago by robsblubot

[Vesper 28,841]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Not a lie. 

Climate change in the past was more extreme then today. 

Why is green land more warmer in the past then today despite the human made climate change? 

Greenland once truly green, scientists reveal

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal S...

 

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science.

climate change is being driven by anthropogenic causes, unlike anytime in the past

it is not being caused by natural cycles

CO2 levels have NEVER been higher (as I have shown) over the past 800,000 years

they have skyrocketed over the past 100, 150 years, caused by humans use of fossil fuels

these are driving an unprecedented rapid increase in global temperatures over such a short duration

this has been definitively proven, it is settled science

[Vesper 28,841]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

[Vesper 28,841]

Causes of climate change

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/climate-change/causes-climate-change_en

 

Burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and farming livestock are increasingly influencing the climate and the earth’s temperature.

This adds enormous amounts of greenhouse gases to those naturally occurring in the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Global warming

2011-2020 was the warmest decade recorded, with global average temperature reaching 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2019. Human-induced global warming is presently increasing at a rate of 0.2°C per decade.

An increase of 2°C compared to the temperature in pre-industrial times is associated with serious negative impacts on to the natural environment and human health and wellbeing, including a much higher risk that dangerous and possibly catastrophic changes in the global environment will occur.

For this reason, the international community has recognised the need to keep warming well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

Greenhouse gases

The main driver of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Some gases in the Earth's atmosphere act a bit like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the sun's heat and stopping it from leaking back into space and causing global warming.

Many of these greenhouse gases occur naturally, but human activities are increasing the concentrations of some of them in the atmosphere, in particular:

• carbon dioxide (CO₂)
• methane
• nitrous oxide
• fluorinated gases

CO₂ produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming. By 2020, its concentration in the atmosphere had risen to 48% above its pre-industrial level (before 1750).

Other greenhouse gases are emitted by human activities in smaller quantities. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂, but has a shorter atmospheric lifetime. Nitrous oxide, like CO₂, is a long-lived greenhouse gas that accumulates in the atmosphere over decades to centuries. Non-greenhouse gas pollutants, including aerosols like soot, have different warming and cooling effects and are also associated with other issues such as poor air quality.

Natural causes, such as changes in solar radiation or volcanic activity are estimated to have contributed less than plus or minus 0.1°C to total warming between 1890 and 2010.

Causes for rising emissions

• Burning coal, oil and gas produces carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide.
• Cutting down forests (deforestation). Trees help to regulate the climate by absorbing CO₂ from the atmosphere. When they are cut down, that beneficial effect is lost and the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere, adding to the greenhouse effect.
• Increasing livestock farming. Cows and sheep produce large amounts of methane when they digest their food.
• Fertilisers containing nitrogen produce nitrous oxide emissions.
• Fluorinated gases are emitted from equipment and products that use these gases. Such emissions have a very strong warming effect, up to 23 000 times greater than CO₂.

Countering climate change

As every tonne of CO₂ emitted contributes to global warming, all emissions reductions contribute to slowing it down. In order to stop global warming completely, CO₂ emissions have to reach net zero worldwide. In addition, reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, can also have a powerful effect on slowing global warming – especially in the short term.

The consequences of climate change are extremely serious, and affect many aspects of our lives. Both countering climate change and adapting to a warming world are top priorities for the EU.We need climate action now. Find out about what the EU is doing to fight the climate crisis.