A Weather Station Above the Arctic Circle Hit 94.6 Degrees F

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

[Chan Island]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

Just ignore the massive fires in Siberia and the lack of ice around Alaska, eh?

I agree, let's live sustainably. Let's pressure and force our politicians to make the 1% live sustainably, and incentivise the developing world to tackle the problem properly. To aid in this effort, I say we document and publicise the hugely unusual phenomenons happening across the planet.

[Novus America]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

As I always have to point out, freaking Nixon had a plan for our power to be clean by 1980!
Also this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had we spent all the money we spent on wind and solar on nuclear instead, the air pollution from power problem would at least be solved.

Why do so many keep clinging to this anti nuclear insanity? Naivety? Sociopathy? Ignorance of science?

I like Flat Earthers more than anti-nuclear.
Anti-nuclear is just as scientifically valid (that is not at all), but has done FAR more damage.

[Jolthig]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

In defense of this thread, it's only to continue the awareness of global rising temperatures although yes, it is true it is out of my hands to do anything, it is also true that awareness can be spread. And while can adapt to the new environment, it's also true that wildfires burn in the north, and that animals are dying.

[Shamhnan Insir]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

In defense of this thread, it's only to continue the awareness of global rising temperatures although yes, it is true it is out of my hands to do anything, it is also true that awareness can be spread. And while can adapt to the new environment, it's also true that wildfires burn in the north, and that animals are dying.

In fairness hysteria is probably what's required if the message is going to get across, although at this stage one begins to wonder if we are far, far too late.

[Ghost Land]

That’s probably a summer temperature than, during summer, the cold ocean currents from Eastern Greenland blow in, I’m saying Reykjavik is warmer than New York in the winter

How much you wanna bet that that temperature was recorded in the past 15 years?

It was recorded on 30 July 2008, with records going back to 1949. The all-time record low of −19.7°C was recorded on 30 January 1971.

Also, this thread title removes context from what happened and thus is by itself rather unimpressive. Fairbanks, Alaska, recorded a temperature of 99°F on 28 July 1919, just south of 65°N. This was a full century ago, before the global warming hysteria.

[Novus America]

In defense of this thread, it's only to continue the awareness of global rising temperatures although yes, it is true it is out of my hands to do anything, it is also true that awareness can be spread. And while can adapt to the new environment, it's also true that wildfires burn in the north, and that animals are dying.

In fairness hysteria is probably what's required if the message is going to get across, although at this stage one begins to wonder if we are far, far too late.

The message is not working. It should focus more on immediate harms like asthma and cancer from air pollution. Air pollution directly kills millions a year. Climate change is harmful a aspect of air pollution but there are many others.

We can still bring up global warming of course, but I think we need to raise the other harms more effectively. Cancer is scarier to the average person.

[Aclion]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

As I always have to point out, freaking Nixon had a plan for our power to be clean by 1980!
Also this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had we spent all the money we spent on wind and solar on nuclear instead, the air pollution from power problem would at least be solved.

Why do so many keep clinging to this anti nuclear insanity? Naivety? Sociopathy? Ignorance of science?

I like Flat Earthers more than anti-nuclear.
Anti-nuclear is just as scientifically valid (that is not at all), but has done FAR more damage.

Nuclear power/carbon tariffs when?

[Jolthig]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

As I always have to point out, freaking Nixon had a plan for our power to be clean by 1980!
Also this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had we spent all the money we spent on wind and solar on nuclear instead, the air pollution from power problem would at least be solved.

Why do so many keep clinging to this anti nuclear insanity? Naivety? Sociopathy? Ignorance of science?

I like Flat Earthers more than anti-nuclear.
Anti-nuclear is just as scientifically valid (that is not at all), but has done FAR more damage.

I've been kinda on the fence regarding nuclear power for years. I can see its benefits, but I am also weary of its dangerous concerning meltdowns though admittingly the meltdown in the USSR Chernobyl, was due to poor management and poor technology while US standards are safer.

I havent taken time to study this subject

[Marxist Germany]

Two words: Nuclear energy

[Novus America]

As I always have to point out, freaking Nixon had a plan for our power to be clean by 1980!
Also this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... power/amp/

Had we spent all the money we spent on wind and solar on nuclear instead, the air pollution from power problem would at least be solved.

Why do so many keep clinging to this anti nuclear insanity? Naivety? Sociopathy? Ignorance of science?

I like Flat Earthers more than anti-nuclear.
Anti-nuclear is just as scientifically valid (that is not at all), but has done FAR more damage.

I've been kinda on the fence regarding nuclear power for years. I can see its benefits, but I am also weary of its dangerous concerning meltdowns though admittingly the meltdown in the USSR Chernobyl, was due to poor management and poor technology while US standards are safer.

I havent taken time to study this subject

There is a lot of misinformation out there.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the- ... -of-energy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... of-it/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

It is scientifically proven nuclear is the safest. Chernobyl was a poorly made obsolete design, even so killed far fewer than a coal plant would.

There are types of reactors that literally CANNOT possibly melt down as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techno ... urope/amp/

It is a indisputable scientific fact that nuclear uses the least resources, is the safest and most reliable.

[Jolthig]

I've been kinda on the fence regarding nuclear power for years. I can see its benefits, but I am also weary of its dangerous concerning meltdowns though admittingly the meltdown in the USSR Chernobyl, was due to poor management and poor technology while US standards are safer.

I havent taken time to study this subject

There is a lot of misinformation out there.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the- ... -of-energy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... of-it/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

It is scientifically proven nuclear is the safest. Chernobyl was a poorly made obsolete design, even so killed far fewer than a coal plant would.

There are types of reactors that literally CANNOT possibly melt down as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techno ... urope/amp/

It is a indisputable scientific fact that nuclear uses the least resources, is the safest and most reliable.

Thanks for the information. I'll definitely take a look at these sources.

[Liriena]

Press F to pay respects to this planet

[Novus America]

Press F to pay respects to this planet

No, press N-U-C-L-E-A-R.

[Novus America]

There is a lot of misinformation out there.
https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the- ... -of-energy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... of-it/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.c ... -fear.aspx

It is scientifically proven nuclear is the safest. Chernobyl was a poorly made obsolete design, even so killed far fewer than a coal plant would.

There are types of reactors that literally CANNOT possibly melt down as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techno ... urope/amp/

It is a indisputable scientific fact that nuclear uses the least resources, is the safest and most reliable.

Thanks for the information. I'll definitely take a look at these sources.

I do not want to link spam but I have plenty more. I understand there is a lot of fear and lies out there, but the science is settled that nuclear is the safest, most reliable and least resource intensive out there.

You are a smart man, so I am sure you will understand.

[Ayissor]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

I always wanted to know who we can blame on the whole "We are all going to die soon" thing aside from the 1 percent, but now I see, people who think it's hysteria because they have no idea how climate works.
Thank you for helping the one percent earn more money, while we boil alive like a frog in water that's slowly raised in temperature!

[Rojava Free State]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

I always wanted to know who we can blame on the whole "We are all going to die soon" thing aside from the 1 percent, but now I see, people who think it's hysteria because they have no idea how climate works.
Thank you for helping the one percent earn more money, while we boil alive like a frog in water that's slowly raised in temperature!

When 90+% of climate scientists agree that climate change is a problem but you invalidate years of scientific study and research by simply saying "WRONG!"

[The Serbian Empire]

So it was hotter in the Arctic Circle in Sweden than in Saginaw which is closer to the Equator than the North Pole.

This just ain't right and makes me think stop that damn methane leaking.

[The Serbian Empire]

Oh wow, another climate hysteria thread.

There's only so many "we have to do something or the world dies!?!" threads I can stomach. Something should probably be done, but it's out of your hands. Let's live sustainably as best we can and put an end to this virtue signaling every time something happens in the environment.

I always wanted to know who we can blame on the whole "We are all going to die soon" thing aside from the 1 percent, but now I see, people who think it's hysteria because they have no idea how climate works.
Thank you for helping the one percent earn more money, while we boil alive like a frog in water that's slowly raised in temperature!

Dairy farmers, beef ranchers, and frackers.

[Jolthig]

Thanks for the information. I'll definitely take a look at these sources.

I do not want to link spam but I have plenty more. I understand there is a lot of fear and lies out there, but the science is settled that nuclear is the safest, most reliable and least resource intensive out there.

You are a smart man, so I am sure you will understand.

If course.

You can telegram them to me, and I will archive them.

[Aeirin]

It's scary. There's an heatwave in Europe, record temperatures in France (with several deaths attributed to the heat), and wildfires in both Spain and Portugal. Things are getting worse, and they're getting worse *faster*. Climate change is a very real threat, and it saddens me that some people deny its existence, or fail to see the danger in it.
I find that many people tend to adopt more personal measures, like using public transport more often, or going vegan, and it has to be recognized that these attitudes, while noble, won't solve the problem, because they aren't what's causing the problem in the first place, it's the wider policies. More than half of greenhouse emissions come from energy use (not only energy generation, although it is a big slice, but also heating/cooling, construction, transport, etc.), and a lot of good could be done by simply phasing out fossil fuel subsidies (370 billion USD when compared to 140 billion USD for renewable energy). The excuse that renewable energy is not viable is simply that, an excuse. Renewables are growing faster than fossil fuels, and the energy produced is just as affordable as fossil fuels, and in some cases, cheaper. Also, they're *clean*, and I really like existing.
So, it's not a matter of going vegan. necessarily, it's a matter of voting for a party that can make this come true, and spreading awareness. You don't need to pull a Greta Thunberg, although if there were more people like her I'd bet the little money I have the world would be a far better place, but just helping clear misconceptions and the like can do wonders.

[The Emerald Legion]

Two words: Nuclear energy

Another two words that would help fix climate change. Nuclear Winter.

[Greed and Death]

Woohooo world record. Here is to many more.

[Saiwania]

I agree, let's live sustainably. Let's pressure and force our politicians to make the 1% live sustainably, and incentivise the developing world to tackle the problem properly. To aid in this effort, I say we document and publicise the hugely unusual phenomenons happening across the planet.

Lets keep it real, almost everyone of us is to blame for climate change. Ordinary people are just as much at fault as the wealthy or the oil companies and etc. Just to different scales.

Whenever I for example, mow the lawn with a gasoline lawn mower or I use charcoal to grill food, or whenever I use electricity for air conditioning, entertainment, and etc. I'm emitting my share of carbon that is harming this planet, assuming the power generation isn't coming from nuclear or something renewable. Individually no- I'm having little to no impact. But collectively- the point is that everything adds up to such an extent that it is causing problems.

The comfortable lifestyles we want to live are good for us temporarily, but not for the environment. We'll need to devote some resources to removing the carbon we're adding back out of circulation to maintain our good lifestyles, or to make sacrifices to living standard, or doing both- to get everything right again in the long term.

[Nova Cyberia]

This saying is old already, but "we have to do something".

Only if the top 1% of the world and industrializing developing nations see an economic benefit in doing so.

So no, we won't be working on either of those.

As someone who lives in one of the 'developing nations', converting what technology we have currently to a more nature friendly one is not an easy task, it requires a lot of money. Even if monetary incentives are coming, we still have the corruption problems.

America has already been consistently reducing its carbon emissions.

We literally are already doing something.