Kansas City will likely suffer 'off the charts' heat in the next 30 years, new study predicts

[DColeKC]

Why would climate scientists say "it is what it is" if in actuality "it is whatever we make it"? But whatever, I'm just glad someone is finally here to stand up to the Big Science-Green Energy industrial complex.

No need to get mouthy about it. Sure, I'm not rushing to ban straws, gasoline powered engines or lay off the beef intake but I'm someone you want on your side. I'm going to stereotype you but whatever...... People like you who talk down to anyone not signed up to your exact agenda is some of the battle on why we have flat out climate change deniers.

[mean]

Expressing the absurdity of attempting to draw equivalence between the political influence of, say, Big Oil and Big Science, doesn't seem rude or mouthy. Just... correct.

[DColeKC]

Expressing the absurdity of attempting to draw equivalence between the political influence of, say, Big Oil and Big Science, doesn't seem rude or mouthy. Just... correct.

Not the part I was referencing, the mouthy part is implying that I'm here to stand up to "big science". This is the problem, people who are fully on-board with climate change and environmental issues are quick to hurl insults if someone questions anything or is a bit skeptical. I get it, telling people that we need to treat the planet better despite having no actual ability to "save the planet" doesn't raise money or get people to go green.

Like I said a few times now because I have to qualify every statement, I'm all for continuing to improve technology to lessen the human negative impact on this planet. I do this while being a bit skeptical about some of the green agenda.

To pretend there's not powers behind the scenes pushing these things out of personal gain and that everyone making these decisions is purely out to save the planet is a joke. The global clean energy market is projected to be a 2 trillion dollar market by 2030, sorry if I think there's some non-science based motivation in there somewhere.

[mean]

OK, so I think what I am reading is any attempt to portray you as embracing false equivalency is fake news?

[grovester]

OK, so I think what I am reading is any attempt to portray you as embracing false equivalency is fake news?

Dude, I think you might being mouthy and mean.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

OK, so I think what I am reading is any attempt to portray you as embracing false equivalency is fake news?

You’re literally proving his point…

[grovester]

OK, so I think what I am reading is any attempt to portray you as embracing false equivalency is fake news?

You’re literally proving his point…

No he's not.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

OK, so I think what I am reading is any attempt to portray you as embracing false equivalency is fake news?

You’re literally proving his point…

No he's not.

His point above was that anyone not in lockstep with the prescribed narrative is somehow lesser than, intellectually, and was worthy of receiving insult? Mean was throwing an obvious insult thereby proving his point, no?

[im2kull]

The "insane climate history this planet has experienced even before humans roamed it" hasn't tended to include dramatic swings over mere decades.

You sure about that?

[im2kull]

Why would climate scientists say "it is what it is" if in actuality "it is whatever we make it"?

A small degree of what happens on this planet is in the hands of human beings. The vast majority however is far beyond our reach.

We are literally on a ball of rock hurtling through the vast unendingness of a space that we can't even begin to comprehend. Do you know how much the universe impacts our planet? The degree to which everything beyond humanity impacts our planet?

At the end of the day, micro, macro and everything in-between.. impacts our planet. That includes each and every person and your existence. Your heartbeat. Your bodys mass. All of that impacts our planet. The only way to truly do whatever it is humans can do is to return to the stone age, and before. To have no existence. Are you willing to give up everything to assist as much as possible?

[phuqueue]

Why would climate scientists say "it is what it is" if in actuality "it is whatever we make it"? But whatever, I'm just glad someone is finally here to stand up to the Big Science-Green Energy industrial complex.

No need to get mouthy about it. Sure, I'm not rushing to ban straws, gasoline powered engines or lay off the beef intake but I'm someone you want on your side. I'm going to stereotype you but whatever...... People like you who talk down to anyone not signed up to your exact agenda is some of the battle on why we have flat out climate change deniers.

Didn't you already play this exact same card in the politics thread? Swap out climate change for Trump, but it was otherwise the same wishy-washy "I kinda believe the same things as you but maybe I actually don't and you need to kiss my ass to sell me on it." It was a bad faith attempt to recenter a discussion about national politics on yourself then and it's a bad faith attempt to recenter a discussion about the global climate crisis on yourself now.

The "insane climate history this planet has experienced even before humans roamed it" hasn't tended to include dramatic swings over mere decades.

You sure about that?

If you of all people are questioning it then I'm even more sure of it than I was before.

Why would climate scientists say "it is what it is" if in actuality "it is whatever we make it"?

A small degree of what happens on this planet is in the hands of human beings. The vast majority however is far beyond our reach.

We are literally on a ball of rock hurtling through the vast unendingness of a space that we can't even begin to comprehend. Do you know how much the universe impacts our planet? The degree to which everything beyond humanity impacts our planet?

At the end of the day, micro, macro and everything in-between.. impacts our planet. That includes each and every person and your existence. Your heartbeat. Your bodys mass. All of that impacts our planet. The only way to truly do whatever it is humans can do is to return to the stone age, and before. To have no existence. Are you willing to give up everything to assist as much as possible?

This is both true and irrelevant. Humans have been altering the environment and the climate for thousands of years, but the agricultural revolution didn't rapidly push the climate in a direction of rendering swaths of the planet unfit for human habitation. There is surely a middle ground between "no existence" and "billions of people doing modern consumer capitalism" in which life can continue and the climate can remain stable.

[DColeKC]

I'm always going to play that card with you considering you're only retort is acting superior and never having an ounce of compromise. You seem to know so much but you can't grasp the concept that people like you share responsibility for why we're so divided on these important topics. I'm not suggesting any ass kissing but if you think taking the "I'm smarter, more educated and better than people" approach is effective, keep doing you!

If everyone on here just agreed with you, you'd never have anything to say. You only respond to things you disagree on so don't tell me this is about me. I'm interested in the topic, not you.

[phuqueue]

I don't think anybody is interested in me, which is why I don't beg people to pander to me to bring me over to "their side." These issues aren't about me, or about you. But I guess now that's what we're talking about since you have successfully redirected us to your hurt feelings.

[DColeKC]

I don't think anybody is interested in me, which is why I don't beg people to pander to me to bring me over to "their side." These issues aren't about me, or about you. But I guess now that's what we're talking about since you have successfully redirected us to your hurt feelings.

It’s not about my feelings, it’s about the impact your attitude has on those who may not be onboard fully with environmental issues. You just push people further away but it does help me realize why there’s such a rural Vs urban vibe in this country.

This. Is. On. Topic.

[moderne]

The condition of the Colorado River and it reservoirs is all over the news, but not much about the Missouri. It looks normal at KC only because of releases from the reservoirs keeping it at the navigation level. Despite the flooding on the Yellowstone earlier most of the basin is in drought. The levels in the reservoirs on the main stem and tributaries are dropping. A sunken steamboat has been exposed near Vermilion S. Dakota and a town that vanished in the thirties has reappeared in Lake McConaughey on the Platte in Nebraska.

[FangKC]

KC tied with Phoenix for the nation’s top heat index today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/kansascity/com ... EAAA%3D%3D

[beautyfromashes]

KC tied with Phoenix for the nation’s top heat index today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/kansascity/com ... EAAA%3D%3D

Global warming says some places will get hotter but some, like Europe, will get colder. Any chance we move into a really nice temperate climate like California?

[Highlander]

KC tied with Phoenix for the nation’s top heat index today.

https://www.reddit.com/r/kansascity/com ... EAAA%3D%3D

Global warming says some places will get hotter but some, like Europe, will get colder. Any chance we move into a really nice temperate climate like California?

The European prediction is based on the Gulf Stream which brings warm waters to the northern Atlantic will be shut down mainly due to melting of the Greenland Ice Cap. I would not put a lot of stock in that prediction. The science of global warming has been so perverted due to the way it's been reported in the media where probabilistic outliers are reported as likely scenarios.

[FangKC]

The science of global warming has been so perverted due to the way it's been reported in the media where probabilistic outliers are reported as likely scenarios.

Should the media only report what the energy companies' scientists say? Just believe the American Petroleum Institute?

Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... g-research

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

Tracing Big Oil’s PR war to delay action on climate change

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... tudy-says/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate- ... y-research

How an Early Oil Industry Study Became Key in Climate Lawsuits

...a 1968 paper commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, the powerful fossil fuel trade group, and written by Elmer Robinson and Bob Robbins, scientists at the Stanford Research Institute, known as SRI. Muffett wasn’t sure what it said, but it was cited so often he knew there must be something big in it. Then part of Stanford University, SRI wasn’t an ordinary department, but a contract research outfit that had been intertwined from its founding with oil and gas interests. The paper had been delivered privately to the petroleum institute, not published like typical academic work, and only a few copies had spilled into the public realm.
...
In stark terms, the decades-old paper explained that the world’s use of fossil fuels was releasing carbon that had been buried for millennia, and “it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur,” if that burning continued. That would mean warming oceans, melting ice caps, and sea levels that could rise by as much as four feet per decade, the report predicted. “There seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe,” the authors concluded. “The prospect for the future must be of serious concern.”
...
the industry has long understood emissions from oil and gas combustion would drive warming — and create a host of major global risks — but carried out a decades-long misinformation campaign to confuse the public and prevent a shift to cleaner fuels.

[Highlander]

The science of global warming has been so perverted due to the way it's been reported in the media where probabilistic outliers are reported as likely scenarios.

Should the media only report what the energy companies' scientists say? Just believe the American Petroleum Institute?

It has nothing to do with the oil industry. In fact, it's irrelevant to the discussion. The media gravitates towards reporting the extreme scenarios that have little chance of happening as if they are absolute certainties and imminent. Modeling produces a range of outcomes but it's always the most dire and unlikely outcome that gets in the news. It's probably the biggest reason many people dismiss climate change. Nobody's saying climate change isn't happening or even that it's not anthropogenically driven but the science has been distorted by the media to sell papers and particularly hyped in attributing certain events to climate change. If it was reported on in a more un-hyped fashion, without a lot of non-scientist weighing in with their anecdotal nonsense, then there would probably be a much more meaningful discussion. But when people make assertions like Florida will be underwater by 2050 (when sea level rise has been essentially imperceptible), it fuels the assertions that the whole thing is just a hoax.

And to be honest, I've not seen a single piece of legislation or anything suggested by either party that would even make a dent in climate change. To do that, we'd have to make radical changes to the way. In the US, demographics, density and sprawl are far larger issues than what power source we are going to use or converting to electric cars.