Quote from: Zero Talent on July 22, 2022, 07:56

....

In the US, there are claims of between 600 to 1300 deaths/year "linked to climate change". While these deaths are unfortunate, their relatively low number, can't justify climate change as a top priority.

You are proving my point. This type of exaggeration is impacting the credibility of those who make the climate change argument.
In fact, there are studies showing that due to technological progress, fewer people are dying from natural disasters today compared with a century ago.

deaths aren't the main argument for dealing w climate change - the reason to deal w it NOW is that we continue to make the situation worse and future decades will bring much more serious effects

just one excample - the arctic icecap used to reflect a large portion of the sun's radiation (aka heat) now the arctic becomes open earlier each year, leading to more heating, leading to earlier disappearance.

droughts will worsen, coasts will be inundated, crops will fail- but one of the major reasons for lack of political response (not counting those who dont even admit it's happening) is that those are long term problems, but neither corporate concentration on short term profits, nor politicians who focus only on the next election lead to any effective response today

To paraphrase Thatcher, there is no community. It is in the interests of billions of individuals to make climate change a high priority.

If there is one thing I can't stand hearing anymore, then it's the constant denying or downplaying of severe issues with the claim that these issues were not really bad and someone was making them appear more serious just so he could earn money with them. It's the same with the corona virus issue. "The parma industry just wants to make money!".   
Oh my gosh. People actually want to make money and not work for free! What a shock! Are there people profiting financially from crises? Yes, of course! But it's not the pharma industry or the solar energy industry or whatever that is warning us about climate change or pandemics. It's scientist. And not just individual ones who, of course, get paid by various industries as well, but it's scientific consensus all over the world! One has to be nuts and nose deep in conspiracy theories to assume that prrofiting industries managed to manipulatre scientist all over the world to come to the same conclusions.
Also, why is it held agains one industry to want to make money, but not the other? Take Germany. One of the reasons we still haven't ditched coal mining is the constant whining about all the jobs that will be lost. So what's the plan? We keep supporting a not sustainable production of energy, so people don't lose jobs, creating new jobs in that industry all the time so we have a neverending cycle till we run out of coal and these people lose their jobs anyways? Why not instead focus on creating jobs with another energy? Solar energy? Wind energy? Geothermal energy? Biomass from plants? Hydropower? But, oh no, it's the evil sustainable energy industry that "just wants to make money" and manipulate us. Because the coal mining industry is a charity and does not want to make money at all. 

Yes, someone profits from changes that would come with measures to fight climate change. But there is always also someoen who profits from not taking these measures. Why not point fingers at these people? The ones who do not want the change, do not want to fight climate change, because it would mean they'd make less money? Why is it always the people who want to fight climate change that get blamed for "just wanting to make money", why not the people who want to fight these measures, because, just the same, they "just want to make money?" For example Porsche just successfully influenced german politicans to fight the EU wide stop of production of  fuel based cars. There sole motive to fight this change was the fear of losing profit. But people who want to fight climate change and would profit from it financially are somehow the bad guys? All of this doesn't make sense.

Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2021-articles/worlds-largest-study-of-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures

Doesn't take account of indirect deaths where climate change is a contributing factor, for example the Syrian civil war. Not sure why this is a left vs right issue? Shouldn�t the right be conservative (small c) and want to save the environment?
...

Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

Quote from: Annie on July 24, 2022, 19:59

Quote from: Zero Talent on July 24, 2022, 15:29

Here is the result of a recent poll clarifying the American voter's priorities.

Failing to ackowledge the reality, endorsing far-left extremist positions disconnected from these priorities will only alienate voters, opening the path for stupid politicians to gain (or return to) power.

Thanks.

At least now we can discuss what the underlying problems are rather than just debating and attacking each other.

Economy is often the top priority in a lot of countries**, but its really sad though, that if in America, some think its a 'far-left extremist position' when this kind of thing is happening right now.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/california-fires-a-wildfire-is-burning-out-of-control-near-yosemite/b2d283ea-b12b-4af3-a441-aaaf36a1ab16#5


** Its the old "its the economy, stupid' reference.

("The economy, stupid" is a phrase that was coined by James Carville in 1992. It is often quoted from a televised quip by Carville as "It�s the economy, stupid." Carville was a strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against incumbent George H. W. Bush. ... Clinton's campaign advantageously used the then-prevailing recession in the United States as one of the campaign's means to successfully unseat George H. W. Bush.) Source wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

Annie, my bad for not being clear enough. I am glad that adding that poll made my position more evident.

I hope that now it's also clear why I'm saying that putting climate change on top of the agenda is an extremist proposition.

Otherwise, yes, there are wildfires in the Yosemite. This is nothing new. The first record dates from 1930.

https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm#:~:text=Since%201970%2C%20the%20National%20Park,in%20the%20park%20each%20year.
So giving one more example doesn't mean much.

Nevertheless, there are many other more compeling arguments proving that climate change is real, the first one I can remember being Al Gore's 2006 documentary, "The Inconvenient Truth".

But the bottom line is that voters seem to care for their daily bread, and 13 other issues, more than for climate change.
Maybe this is sad for you, but it's real.

Therefore, putting issue #14 on top of the agenda is a proposition that will lead to election losses.
That is sad.
Sad will be to see Trump or people like him seizing power, because the alternative is made of idealists or far-left extremists, who are failing to ackowledge the reality, to understand what their voters want.

Sad indeed!
 

Quote from: Lizard on July 19, 2022, 22:20

Quote from: Annie on July 19, 2022, 19:54

Today was the hottest day ever recorded in most of Europe.

Fun scientific facts:


Hottest temperature recorded in Europe was 48.0 �C in Greece (Athens) on July 10, 1977.

US record: 10 July 1913 , 56.7 �C

So climate changes didn't even manage to break the records from times way before them.

It appears you don't understand the difference between "weather" (localized measurements and occurrences) and "climate" (overall patterns and trends).

Fun scientific fact:

The theory of global warming in its core assumes maximum warming at the poles.

At the same time the average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88�C over the past 50 years.

So it appears that you don't understand what I understand.