Climate Change

[Doogie]

What’s an acceptable margin of error?

The last 50 years has seen an increase in earth‘s temperature of 0.13 degrees every 10 years. The previous 50 years was 0.07 degrees every 10 years. A delta of 0.6 degrees.

The IPCC 1995 temperature rise modelling average for the 10 years 2007 to 2017 was the same as their 2007 modelling and was inaccurate by 0.20 degrees compared to the NASA observations.

The IPCC 1990 modelling for the same 10 years was inaccurate by 0.25 degrees

The IPCC 2001 modelling for the same 10 years was the most inaccurate at 0.30 degrees.

My view is errors compared to the delta between 33% and 50% aren’t acceptable.

Another valid question is why did the 2007 modelling revert to a very similar result to the 1995 modelling? My view is that the 2001 modelling methodology was proven to be more inaccurate than the previous methodology so it was “updated”, which of course is acceptable methodology. Or maybe 2001 was overstated and resulted in quite some embarrassment for the IPCC so they “tempered” the 2007 modelling.

Even if we ignore the discrepancies to the actuals, the fact is 3 versions of the IPCC modelling over the last 32 years have varied noticeably. Also with each version, except 2001, the predicted temperature rise has decreased. In fact the decrease in later modelling is consistent with that experienced from the Broecker modelling in 1975, which was inaccurate by over 1.0 degrees by 2017 and the Exxon modelling in 1981 which was inaccurate by 0.4 degrees. I find the most interesting is movements in the Hansen modelling from 1981 to 1988, the 1981 modelling was wildy criticised because it was so low, crediting only a 0.7 degree increase between 2007 and 2017. It was revised upwards in 1988 which resulted in that version being almost as inaccurate as the Broecker version from 1975. Maybe he should have stayed with his 1981 modelling as it has proven to be the closest to the actuals.

More current, "the IPCC report 2022 warned that the world is set to reach the 1.5ºC level within the next two decades" but the 2001 modelling said that we would already be there by 2021.

There seems to be a strong case that indicates political and pear group influence results in changes in the modelling which most often are not accurate. Having followed the modelling and the actual results since the mid 90's I remain skeptical about a science that is so hugely complex that the modelling has to change almost every year to reflect what has actually happened. None of which means that I am not taking my own measured actions to reduce my carbon monoxide footprint, it seems to me that many of the IPCC demanded actions are far from measured, bordering on totally unrealistic.


Always a Bulldog

Or - to put it simply - modelling CO2 outputs as an input into the model(s) is driven by human behaviours, not a system dynamic approach. Gettting the inputs right is a best guess. Simple GIGO. Plus a fair chunk of those models were energy balance models which characterise feedback loops such as methane emissions or for example, eruptions. How do you account for something like Tonga? That has a worldwide cooling effect - but u have to somehow work out if its gunna happen in the next 20 years. Good luck.

Political and peers influence the communication of the models, but the results are the results.

You've chosen to do whatever about your footprint, fair play, your choice. But you're are doing that on the basis that the models weren't perfect so therefore they are incorrect. And CC isn't occurring. Weird argument bro.

 

[Dogmonster]

Just for the sake of this thread, i am going to go outside and rev my V8 to the clouds above.
And then spend more money on the motor so it pushes out more exhaust gases.
Ha ha suck it up greenies, and get of the road on your push bikes. Nobody wants to see your srawny greyhound body in cling wrap.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

What’s an acceptable margin of error?

The last 50 years has seen an increase in earth‘s temperature of 0.13 degrees every 10 years. The previous 50 years was 0.07 degrees every 10 years. A delta of 0.6 degrees.

The IPCC 1995 temperature rise modelling average for the 10 years 2007 to 2017 was the same as their 2007 modelling and was inaccurate by 0.20 degrees compared to the NASA observations.

The IPCC 1990 modelling for the same 10 years was inaccurate by 0.25 degrees

The IPCC 2001 modelling for the same 10 years was the most inaccurate at 0.30 degrees.

My view is errors compared to the delta between 33% and 50% aren’t acceptable.

Another valid question is why did the 2007 modelling revert to a very similar result to the 1995 modelling? My view is that the 2001 modelling methodology was proven to be more inaccurate than the previous methodology so it was “updated”, which of course is acceptable methodology. Or maybe 2001 was overstated and resulted in quite some embarrassment for the IPCC so they “tempered” the 2007 modelling.

Even if we ignore the discrepancies to the actuals, the fact is 3 versions of the IPCC modelling over the last 32 years have varied noticeably. Also with each version, except 2001, the predicted temperature rise has decreased. In fact the decrease in later modelling is consistent with that experienced from the Broecker modelling in 1975, which was inaccurate by over 1.0 degrees by 2017 and the Exxon modelling in 1981 which was inaccurate by 0.4 degrees. I find the most interesting is movements in the Hansen modelling from 1981 to 1988, the 1981 modelling was wildy criticised because it was so low, crediting only a 0.7 degree increase between 2007 and 2017. It was revised upwards in 1988 which resulted in that version being almost as inaccurate as the Broecker version from 1975. Maybe he should have stayed with his 1981 modelling as it has proven to be the closest to the actuals.

More current, "the IPCC report 2022 warned that the world is set to reach the 1.5ºC level within the next two decades" but the 2001 modelling said that we would already be there by 2021.

There seems to be a strong case that indicates political and pear group influence results in changes in the modelling which most often are not accurate. Having followed the modelling and the actual results since the mid 90's I remain skeptical about a science that is so hugely complex that the modelling has to change almost every year to reflect what has actually happened. None of which means that I am not taking my own measured actions to reduce my carbon monoxide footprint, it seems to me that many of the IPCC demanded actions are far from measured, bordering on totally unrealistic.


Always a Bulldog

A few things of note:

1) IPCC estimates are variations based on scenarios. They don't say, "This is the temperature rise that will happen", they say, "This is a scenario that could happen if x happens". "x" usually being the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere, and variation due to feedback loops and other effects

2) the 2001 IPCC report projected 0.8 - 1.7 degree increase by 2021. The temperature increase was within this range

As I said. Margin of error. No one knows exactly how much the temperature will increase, but we do know that it's increasing faster.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Or - to put it simply - modelling CO2 outputs as an input into the model(s) is driven by human behaviours, not a system dynamic approach. Gettting the inputs right is a best guess. Simple GIGO. Plus a fair chunk of those models were energy balance models which characterise feedback loops such as methane emissions or for example, eruptions. How do you account for something like Tonga? That has a worldwide cooling effect - but u have to somehow work out if its gunna happen in the next 20 years. Good luck.

Political and peers influence the communication of the models, but the results are the results.

You've chosen to do whatever about your footprint, fair play, your choice. But you're are doing that on the basis that the models weren't perfect so therefore they are incorrect. And CC isn't occurring. Weird argument bro.

This has been a fairly sensible debate, so I'll try and keep it so.

I'm reducing my carbon monoxide footprint because the ACTUAL temperature rises are factual. I don't recall ever saying that CC doesn't exist.

That doesn't mean that I believe in or even trust the modelling, there are simply too many unpredictable factors and the methodology is complex and constantly "changing", I wish I could say "updated" but I'm not even sure that is the case. Plus I am very skeptical regarding the level of political influence in the modelling and the effect of peir group pressure on the published results.

It also doesn't mean that I support the draconian actions taken by some Governments, many are simple outrageous and may well prove to be counter productive.

Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

A few things of note:

1) IPCC estimates are variations based on scenarios. They don't say, "This is the temperature rise that will happen", they say, "This is a scenario that could happen if x happens". "x" usually being the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere, and variation due to feedback loops and other effects

2) the 2001 IPCC report projected 0.8 - 1.7 degree increase by 2021. The temperature increase was within this range

As I said. Margin of error. No one knows exactly how much the temperature will increase, but we do know that it's increasing faster.

A perfect example of the conundrum, the IPCC pushes actions (called "Briefing for Policy Makers") based on the projected 1.7 degree temperature rise, but the error factor they admit to themselves is more than 100% (0.8 to 1.7).

With errors as large as that there are almost certainly other factors outside of what the IPCC models reflect. A quote from the IPCC "More research to investigate the effects of solar behaviour on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty". Solar effects on climate are somewhat important, as evidenced by the Maunder Minimum, which occurred during the climate period referred to as the Little Ice Age from about 1350 to about 1850. Somewhat relevant since 1870 is considered the starting point of the 2nd industrial revolution, which is the time when the IPCC is focused on the beginning of what affects climate change ie; they blame the industrial revelation when in fact it could be that we are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age and its unknown solar effects.

It is also worth keeping mind that the northern hemisphere is ~1.5 degrees warmer than the southern hemisphere (where we live) AND more importantly the southern hemisphere is warming ~40% slower than the northern hemisphere. This is somewhat important to the policies (Government or otherwise) that are relevant to our location. Whereas the IPCC is only interested the "whole of planet" scenario that demands global action, which may in fact be inappropriate in relation to the warning in the southern hemisphere. Why, it's pretty simple, the southern hemisphere's increase in temperature is in line with that experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age. Hence any action that we take my in fact be useless.

The overwhelming conundrum for me is what if all of these drastic, expensive and somewhat quality of life changing actions has zero to negligible effect. The IPCC will simply claim we aren't doing enough, fast enough and demand even more drastic, draconian and quality of life destroying actions.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

A perfect example of the conundrum, the IPCC pushes actions (called "Briefing for Policy Makers") based on the projected 1.7 degree temperature rise, but the error factor they admit to themselves is more than 100% (0.8 to 1.7).

The 0.8 - 1.7 isn't actually margin of error. The margin of error is much smaller. That projection was based on scenarios. The margin of error is closer to 0.4 degrees difference. Which is still large, but nowhere near that large.

The basic way to put it is, "If we add X CO2 to the atmosphere then increase will be 0.8 - 1.2 above pre-industrial levels. If we add Y CO2 then it'll be 1.3 - 1.7"

Of course it has become much more refined since then and the margin of error is smaller. But like Doogie said, way too many variables and other factors to give a completely accurate projection.

With errors as large as that there are almost certainly other factors outside of what the IPCC models reflect. A quote from the IPCC "More research to investigate the effects of solar behaviour on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty". Solar effects on climate are somewhat important, as evidenced by the Maunder Minimum, which occurred during the climate period referred to as the Little Ice Age from about 1350 to about 1850. Somewhat relevant since 1870 is considered the starting point of the 2nd industrial revolution, which is the time when the IPCC is focused on the beginning of what affects climate change ie; they blame the industrial revelation when in fact it could be that we are still climbing out of the Little Ice Age and its unknown solar effects.

IPCC takes all solar effects into account including the Maunder Minimum. Your suggestion would only make sense if:

1) They didn't take solar variation into effect

and

2) They didn't know the energy storage and release potential of greenhouse gases

1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

It is also worth keeping mind that the northern hemisphere is ~1.5 degrees warmer than the southern hemisphere (where we live) AND more importantly the southern hemisphere is warming ~40% slower than the northern hemisphere. This is somewhat important to the policies (Government or otherwise) that are relevant to our location. Whereas the IPCC is only interested the "whole of planet" scenario that demands global action, which may in fact be inappropriate in relation to the warning in the southern hemisphere. Why, it's pretty simple, the southern hemisphere's increase in temperature is in line with that experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age. Hence any action that we take my in fact be useless.

The difference in pace of warming isn't huge. It's roughly a 0.1 degree increase in difference by the end of the century (1.6 instead of the current 1.5), and this is all taken into account by the IPCC.

6.6.2 Southern Hemisphere Temperature Variability - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate

The overwhelming conundrum for me is what if all of these drastic, expensive and somewhat quality of life changing actions has zero to negligible effect. The IPCC will simply claim we aren't doing enough, fast enough and demand even more drastic, draconian and quality of life destroying actions.


Always a Bulldog

If they have no negligible effect then we're all screwed anyway. If they do have an effect and we don't do them then we're also screwed anyway.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I do like how you are approaching it from an intelligent point of view, but you're suggesting that the IPCC and others will move the goal posts when you are also doing exactly that.

Suggesting that all of the most prominent journals in the world are fudging results due to popularity, that's a common denial tactic. Undermine the knowledge base from the start to remove any foundation for debate. Problem is if you believe the opposite of the vast majority of the experts then no matter how well thought out your debate point is, it's pointless as you're arguing from a point of ignorance. And I don't mean that as an insult, I just mean the traditional meaning of ignorance.

Imagine if you're debating a mathematical problem with someone, but they start but saying that every mathematician is wrong and 1+1 actually equals 4. It becomes hard to debate when your foundation is that everything we know is wrong.

There's a professor of astrophysics that I heard put it very well when discussing people who try to prove the big bang wrong. He said, "You can't begin to prove the Big Bang wrong if you refuse to accept the physics of the Universe"

 

[Doogie]

This has been a fairly sensible debate, so I'll try and keep it so.

I'm reducing my carbon monoxide footprint because the ACTUAL temperature rises are factual. I don't recall ever saying that CC doesn't exist.

That doesn't mean that I believe in or even trust the modelling, there are simply too many unpredictable factors and the methodology is complex and constantly "changing", I wish I could say "updated" but I'm not even sure that is the case. Plus I am very skeptical regarding the level of political influence in the modelling and the effect of peir group pressure on the published results.

It also doesn't mean that I support the draconian actions taken by some Governments, many are simple outrageous and may well prove to be counter productive.

Always a Bulldog

Fair play. What exactly are your expectations of models? I use models every day, its an indication. If you have a 100% perfect model, you don;t need a monitoring station.

And I've been in a gazzillion modelling practice workshops where communication of results is the most hotly debated topic.

So what is your point then. That the models are wrong? Well all models are wrong. Its just a question of whether models are wrong enough not to be used. The communication of results? Well that can come from the modellers (for funding), peer groups (same as any lobby group) or pollies for votes. Or in the modern technological age, any fckng idiot with google these days. Sign of the times....

Guessing you think the actions are disproportionate to the evidence. I think of it as the pendulum of politics. You always do less than you should, until its obvious you're dragging the chain, and then you do too much. You never find the right middle ground.

But - from a risk management perspective, better to over manage a hazard than under manage it.

Reminded of the Rhur Valley in Germany. Big coal area but not economically viable. German govt put in a 50 year plan in the 60's and 70's to transition from coal to tourism and tech. Area is pumping now because they did it right. We have 4 year plans thanks to successive govts doing only the bare minimum. No wonder its all fckd.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I do like how you are approaching it from an intelligent point of view, but you're suggesting that the IPCC and others will move the goal posts when you are also doing exactly that.

This is a serious subject and has to be approached seriously. The IPCC sets the agenda and the objectives, goal posts if you like, I am not sure what you mean when you say I am moving the goal posts. I have no input into what the objectives are, my critique is simple, the IPCC's objectives are driven by their projections, which means modeling and I have no faith in their modeling because it changes, often quite a lot, and it varies from the actuals and surprisingly it's not getting any more accurate.

Suggesting that all of the most prominent journals in the world are fudging results due to popularity, that's a common denial tactic. Undermine the knowledge base from the start to remove any foundation for debate. Problem is if you believe the opposite of the vast majority of the experts then no matter how well thought out your debate point is, it's pointless as you're arguing from a point of ignorance. And I don't mean that as an insult, I just mean the traditional meaning of ignorance.

I'm not sure "believe" is the appropriate verb, more like I "remain skeptical" of the modeling. As an observer it is not a long bow to draw when saying that politics and pier group pressure are prominent in the CC debate. What the value of their effect is not known, but I am convinced that there is is some.

Imagine if you're debating a mathematical problem with someone, but they start but saying that every mathematician is wrong and 1+1 actually equals 4. It becomes hard to debate when your foundation is that everything we know is wrong.

Again I'm not sure where this analogy is coming from, 1 + 1 are actual numbers, not projections. If I was to continue with the analogy, then the projection says 1 + 1 = 2.13 (which is within the margin of error using your 1.6 versus 1.5 ). But we all know (same as we know the actuals) that the real result is 2. If only climate science was as easy as 1 + 1 = 2.

There's a professor of astrophysics that I heard put it very well when discussing people who try to prove the big bang wrong. He said, "You can't begin to prove the Big Bang wrong if you refuse to accept the physics of the Universe"

Do I really need to know the law of physics (or climatology) when I am comparing the actuals to the projections? It's simple a number comparison exercise that shows the projections are wrong and have always been wrong. Sometimes even wronger (sic) without explanation as to why they were not as wrong previously ie; 1997 and 2007 (the same and closer to the actuals) versus 2001. With 2001 a long way different to the actuals and without any explanation as to why the models before and after it were in fact more accurate.

Like Doogie, I do a lot of modeling (not scientific) and if I had 3 attempts with additional actual data everyone would assume that my later modeling would be more accurate. But when it comes to CC the evidence is that the modeling is getting more inaccurate, since the most accurate in the period from 2007 to 2017 was the Hansen modelling from 1981. Which in that period the IPCC with millions of actual data points has not been able to better, despite 41 years of actuals to improve the accuracy of later models.


Always a Bulldog

 

[TwinTurbo]

Please excuse me if I need several posts to cover this.

The 0.8 - 1.7 isn't actually margin of error. The margin of error is much smaller. That projection was based on scenarios. The margin of error is closer to 0.4 degrees difference. Which is still large, but nowhere near that large.

OK, let's agree that the error is large.

The basic way to put it is, "If we add X CO2 to the atmosphere then increase will be 0.8 - 1.2 above pre-industrial levels. If we add Y CO2 then it'll be 1.3 - 1.7"

Of course it has become much more refined since then and the margin of error is smaller. But like Doogie said, way too many variables and other factors to give a completely accurate projection.

No argument on that here, but the evidence is that maybe the models are becoming more refined, but they sure as hell are not becoming more accurate. As per the post above for the period 2007 to 2017 the 1981 modeling is the most accurate.

IPCC takes all solar effects into account including the Maunder Minimum.

If that is the case then why does the IPCC state "More research to investigate the effects of solar behaviour on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty". Heliophysics is an altogether different science to climatology but it seems that their modeling is also complex, "quantifying and modeling the solar cycle remains challenging. We’re working against how variable the Sun is, and the complexity of what happens inside the Sun.” I mean seriously talk about magnitude, the Sun swaps its poles every 11 years.

The difference in pace of warming isn't huge. It's roughly a 0.1 degree increase in difference by the end of the century (1.6 instead of the current 1.5), and this is all taken into account by the IPCC.

Which is not much different in the Southern Hemisphere to that experiences since 1870 and the rise out of the Maunder Minimum.

If they have no negligible effect then we're all screwed anyway. If they do have an effect and we don't do them then we're also screwed anyway.

That is where we diverge a lot, the temperature increase by the turn of the century in the Southern Hemisphere is about the same as the temperature increase experienced when moving from Melbourne to the Sunshine Coast. something thousands of people do each year. As for "we're all screwed" I don't include myself, my wife, my children or my grandchildren in the "all", in fact it's more like my grandchildren's grandchildren that may be affected.


Always a Bulldog

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Please excuse me if I need several posts to cover this.
OK, let's agree that the error is large.

No argument on that here, but the evidence is that maybe the models are becoming more refined, but they sure as hell are not becoming more accurate. As per the post above for the period 2007 to 2017 the 1981 modeling is the most accurate.

If that is the case then why does the IPCC state "More research to investigate the effects of solar behaviour on climate is needed before the magnitude of solar effects on climate can be stated with certainty". Heliophysics is an altogether different science to climatology but it seems that their modeling is also complex, "quantifying and modeling the solar cycle remains challenging. We’re working against how variable the Sun is, and the complexity of what happens inside the Sun.” I mean seriously talk about magnitude, the Sun swaps its poles every 11 years.

Which is not much different in the Southern Hemisphere to that experiences since 1870 and the rise out of the Maunder Minimum.

That is where we diverge a lot, the temperature increase by the turn of the century in the Southern Hemisphere is about the same as the temperature increase experienced when moving from Melbourne to the Sunshine Coast. something thousands of people do each year. As for "we're all screwed" I don't include myself, my wife, my children or my grandchildren in the "all", in fact it's more like my grandchildren's grandchildren that may be affected.


Always a Bulldog

Climate models aren't really getting worse and they aren't as inaccurate as you're suggesting. There's many different models and they are generally getting it pretty accurate, some with tiny margins of error

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

I would accept the idea that maybe the IPCC was fudging the numbers based on peer pressure (your suggestion) or something similar if:

1) the IPCC was a small group and not an international group consisting of groups of people (including some considered climate deniers) from 195 different countries

2) it was only the IPCC making these projection models

As I said. You're not just suggesting a small group alter their results based on peer pressure. You're suggesting NASA..

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

The most prominent science journals

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Nature Climate Change

Nature Climate Change is a monthly journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research papers that describe the most significant and cutting-edge research ...

www.nature.com

The vast majority of scientific organisations in the world, all fudging their numbers. And not only that, they're all lying about the accuracy of their models. The monitoring stations are all changing their figures.

What you are suggesting is that there's a global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people who all spent years studying something they are passionate about, only to become corrupt because they want to be cool.

Also, IPCC references the sun variability issue right there. "Magnitude". They take solar variability into effect but they can't perfectly model it because it's difficult to perfectly accurately model. Does that mean that they know nothing about solar variability? Of course not. They just can't determine the magnitude of the effect to an exact number. If you want to get a lower margin of error then you figure these things out. And that's what they're trying to do. But it doesn't mean their models are wrong. Just not fully refined.

Sorry for the brief response. Bit busy right now.

 

[Aristidiz]

Climate models aren't really getting worse and they aren't as inaccurate as you're suggesting. There's many different models and they are generally getting it pretty accurate, some with tiny margins of error

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

A new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperature finds that most have been quite accurate.

climate.nasa.gov

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

I would accept the idea that maybe the IPCC was fudging the numbers based on peer pressure (your suggestion) or something similar if:

1) the IPCC was a small group and not an international group consisting of groups of people (including some considered climate deniers) from 195 different countries

2) it was only the IPCC making these projection models

As I said. You're not just suggesting a small group alter their results based on peer pressure. You're suggesting NASA..

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

The most prominent science journals

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

Nature Climate Change

Nature Climate Change is a monthly journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research papers that describe the most significant and cutting-edge research ...

www.nature.com

The vast majority of scientific organisations in the world, all fudging their numbers. And not only that, they're all lying about the accuracy of their models. The monitoring stations are all changing their figures.

What you are suggesting is that there's a global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of people who all spent years studying something they are passionate about, only to become corrupt because they want to be cool.

Also, IPCC references the sun variability issue right there. "Magnitude". They take solar variability into effect but they can't perfectly model it because it's difficult to perfectly accurately model. Does that mean that they know nothing about solar variability? Of course not. They just can't determine the magnitude of the effect to an exact number. If you want to get a lower margin of error then you figure these things out. And that's what they're trying to do. But it doesn't mean their models are wrong. Just not fully refined.

Sorry for the brief response. Bit busy right now.

If the climate scientists are all as accurate as the covid scientists the modelling will be spot on!

 

[The DoggFather]

My educated view is that Climate change is the new boogeyman, took over where terrorism and covid left off.

Anything that happens naturally or deliberate can be blamed on Climate Change and nobody will question anything.

 

[The DoggFather]

You want me to buy into the cult of climate change with articles like this.....

Climate change increases 'domestic violence’ risks for women, Washington Post claims

The Washington Post used examples of domestic abuse in Asia and Africa to argue that climate change events "have led to escalating threats against women and girls."

www.foxnews.com

Fkn lol if you swallow this you're the conspiracy theorist.

 

[Natboy]

You want me to buy into the cult of climate change with articles like this.....

Climate change increases 'domestic violence’ risks for women, Washington Post claims

The Washington Post used examples of domestic abuse in Asia and Africa to argue that climate change events "have led to escalating threats against women and girls."

www.foxnews.com

Fkn lol if you swallow this you're the conspiracy theorist.

1000 new domestic violence climate change scientists are currently typing up their funding applications to send to our government haha

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You want me to buy into the cult of climate change with articles like this.....

Climate change increases 'domestic violence’ risks for women, Washington Post claims

The Washington Post used examples of domestic abuse in Asia and Africa to argue that climate change events "have led to escalating threats against women and girls."

www.foxnews.com

Fkn lol if you swallow this you're the conspiracy theorist.

Bit of a hit piece from Fox News, but also a bit of a propaganda piece from Washington Post.

Basically, there was a study in the Lancet that found that extreme weather events increase chance of domestic violence in countries like Africa. This is well know. It's basically just a stress thing. Increase more stress and domestic violence is more likely. But Washington Post used it as a left wing propaganda piece, and Fox News countered with their right wing propaganda article.

All needs to be said is, stress leads to a greater chance of domestic violence. Extreme weather events leads to more domestic violence in countries not equipped to alleviate that stress. So climate change causes stress which will inevitably lead to increases in domestic violence. Nothing surprising here.

 

[The DoggFather]

Bit of a hit piece from Fox News, but also a bit of a propaganda piece from Washington Post.

Basically, there was a study in the Lancet that found that extreme weather events increase chance of domestic violence in countries like Africa. This is well know. It's basically just a stress thing. Increase more stress and domestic violence is more likely. But Washington Post used it as a left wing propaganda piece, and Fox News countered with their right wing propaganda article.

All needs to be said is, stress leads to a greater chance of domestic violence. Extreme weather events leads to more domestic violence in countries not equipped to alleviate that stress. So climate change causes stress which will inevitably lead to increases in domestic violence. Nothing surprising here.

Cost of living pisses people off more than the weather.

Elites cause stress, kill the elite. Problem solved.

 

[Natboy]

Cost of living pisses people off more than the weather.

Elites cause stress, kill the elite. Problem solved.

Exactly. Our “leader” is banging on about climate change (when he’s not talking about his mum) and then rides in a billionaires private helicopter to a party & is continually flying around the world in jets hahaha

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Cost of living pisses people off more than the weather.

Elites cause stress, kill the elite. Problem solved.

Yep. But unfortunately one often leads to the other. One of the main issues with climate change is that it can make certain areas unliveable which leads to mass migration. This has already started in some African and South American countries. So we're not talking about a future potential scenario. It's something that is already happening.

Some countries in South America and South Africa are no longer sustainable for farming, so people are migrating out of those areas. The ones forced to stay there can't afford anything. Massive stressor. And it's slowly getting worse.

It can be fixed though. Not just by slowing climate change. Land restoration can be carried out but to reduce fix all the damage done so far, it could cost literally 10's of trillions of dollars, and unfortunately no one is going to flip that money to help poor, starving nations.

 

[The DoggFather]

Yep. But unfortunately one often leads to the other. One of the main issues with climate change is that it can make certain areas unliveable which leads to mass migration. This has already started in some African and South American countries. So we're not talking about a future potential scenario. It's something that is already happening.

Some countries in South America and South Africa are no longer sustainable for farming, so people are migrating out of those areas. The ones forced to stay there can't afford anything. Massive stressor. And it's slowly getting worse.

It can be fixed though. Not just by slowing climate change. Land restoration can be carried out but to reduce fix all the damage done so far, it could cost literally 10's of trillions of dollars, and unfortunately no one is going to flip that money to help poor, starving nations.

I know a joint that has trillions that could perform their duty and help..... but their boss needs new red shoes

If only they followed Lord Jesus Christ.....