FTA 2001 said:

---

Sorry, I disagree. I believe climate change is happening and it's being caused by humans.

---

LOL

You're funny.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Sorry, I disagree. I believe climate change is happening and it's being caused by humans.

---

You are correct! The climate has never changed until human interference! TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE

doubledog said:

---

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57235904

Quote:

---

Global heating: Study shows impact of 'climate racism' in US

---

Heat is racists, who would have known.

---

Are you really incapable of understanding the nuanced point that the authors of this article are making? Do you really believe that they are stating that heat is racist?

How sad.

Soon it will be all the white people breathing is using too much air = racist.

No wonder so much Asian hate. The Asians continue to pollute and they get attacked and robbed in USA by climate/race activists. I would have never thought our street folks were so in tune.

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Quote:

---

"The temperature differences ... between lower-income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color and their wealthier, whiter counterparts have pretty severe consequences,"

---

The question is "does racism drive the temperature differences" or is it poverty and culture.

---

No, of course racism does not drive the temperature.

It is more expensive to move to cities with better climates. Systemic racism effects poverty, which prevents poor people from moving to better climates.

---

That's not systemic racism. What you have described is supply and demand.

---

You are half correct. The limited supply of good weather cities is overpowered by the demand to live there, which makes those cities expensive to live in.

Some Americans face uphill battles to get out of high poverty, high crime cities with bad weather through no fault of their own except they were born in high poverty, high crime cities with bad weather.

The piece you are missing is that minorities are far more likely to be born in high poverty, high crime cities with terrible weather.

A minority born in Jackson, MS is going to have a much harder time pulling themselves up by their bootstraps compared to a minority born in San Diego, CA.

---

Conflating complex problems isn't an argument, it is a narrative. You are literally regurgitating narrative.

You want and need the explanation for outcomes to be the way you want them to be, not how they are.

Poverty is determined by a set of human behaviors that tend to grow competence.

Weather changes are determined by recurring weather patterns.

The extent that human activity contributes to this does not make it a logical necessity that I hand over all (or even a proportional amount) of autonomy. I'm certainly not handing over autonomy so that someone can ostensibly move from Jackson to San Diego for better weather.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Sorry, I disagree. I believe climate change is happening and it's being caused by humans.

---

So humans can cause "climate change" but human behavior is never to blame for poverty.

got it.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

This really isn't that difficult to understand. The states/cities that are being more effected by heat waves are more likely to be states/cities with a higher than average poverty rate. Poverty effects minorities at a higher rate.

Quote:

---

"The temperature differences ... between lower-income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color and their wealthier, whiter counterparts have pretty severe consequences," said Cate Mingoya-LaFortune of Groundwork USA, an environmental justice organization. "There are these really big consequences like death. ... But there's also ambient misery."

---

Extreme heat kills more people per year than hurricanes, tornados, flooding, etc.

---

And much less than extreme cold.

---

Read the article I posted.

Quote:

---

Extreme heat is the number-one weather-related cause of death in the U.S.

---

---

Try this article

Excessive Heat Can Kill But Extreme Cold Still Causes Many More Deaths (forbes.com)

FTA 2001 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Quote:

---

"The temperature differences ... between lower-income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color and their wealthier, whiter counterparts have pretty severe consequences,"

---

The question is "does racism drive the temperature differences" or is it poverty and culture.

---

No, of course racism does not drive the temperature.

It is more expensive to move to cities with better climates. Systemic racism effects poverty, which prevents poor people from moving to better climates.

---

if systemic racism = poverty
and poverty = worse climate
then worse climate = systemic racism.

This ends the lesson in liberal logic.

Climate change isn't about controlling the climate. It's about controlling people and controlling population.

It's easier to control movement and actions when everything is tied to the grid instead of cheap, portable fuel. But at the same time they are moving everything to the grid they are also making the grid more unreliable by trying to replace fossil fuel capacity with renewable capacity. You can imagine what the poor of the world (including ours) are going to experience when the rolling blackouts become a part of daily life. The wealthy can (and will) build their own personal systems with a combination of solar, battery plant, wind generator, and emergency backup generators. This is exactly how it's already done in third world countries.

The fossil fuel era has brought millions out of poverty and led to population growth. The climate change initiative is designed to reverse that progress.

TLDR: deaths due to extreme heat and cold are going to continue to grow along with progress on "climate change" because that is the goal of the climate change initiative.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

doubledog said:

---

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57235904

Quote:

---

Global heating: Study shows impact of 'climate racism' in US

---

Heat is racists, who would have known.

---

Are you really incapable of understanding the nuanced point that the authors of this article are making? Do you really believe that they are stating that heat is racist?

How sad.

---

The article clearly states that "climate racism" is the root cause of why POC are subjected to more heat related stress.

You cannot understand the meaning of the words "climate racism"

How sad.

Of course white liberals think it's getting hotter. Most of them are going to Hell anyways.

Logos Stick said:

---

It stops when all white liberals on the planet are extinct.

---

I used to think this. But more and more white authentic liberals are turning on this bull***** It's happening.

What we are experiencing is classic Marxism and associated propaganda

FTA 2001 said:

---

Nothing to do with white supremacy.

---

Libs are mad at POCs now?
Link

"Racism can only be done by white people pushing white supremacy."
---BLM, Barak Obama, Kamala Harris, DNC, etc

FTA 2001 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Quote:

---

"The temperature differences ... between lower-income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color and their wealthier, whiter counterparts have pretty severe consequences,"

---

The question is "does racism drive the temperature differences" or is it poverty and culture.

---

No, of course racism does not drive the temperature.

It is more expensive to move to cities with better climates. Systemic racism effects poverty, which prevents poor people from moving to better climates.

---

when you find everything is racist then nothing is racist

FTA 2001 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

Sorry, I disagree. I believe climate change is happening and it's being caused by humans.

---

I'm sorry to hear that.

You're worrying about something that doesn't exist.

You're spending your life in fear of something that will not happen that basically boils down to control and money. They want to control what you eat, when you drive. Where are you go. They want you dependent on the government.

This is nothing new they've been harping on this for decades, and none of their predictions have come true, nor will they.

You don't even question that Obama and Nancy Pelosi have both bought several beachfront properties. Now ask yourself, if they truly believe in climate change, why would they spend millions doing this? The answer is they wouldn't. They know it's a scam. Rules for the, not for me.

People like Steven Spielberg and Leo DiCaprio, riding around on their private jets, omitting more carbon in one plane ride, than someone will in their entire life with their car.

Not only are the Arctic caps not melting. They're actually thriving. Do a little research on Al Gore and see what a ConMan he is. And when his deadlines past, no one says anything they just reset them.

Go look at Plymouth rock, same exact, sea level edit for over 400 years. Those G2 summit photos they took last year? Look at the same photo from the 1920s, the vegetation, the seawall levels all the same. And those are just too off the top of my head.

The "green people" live in a fantasy land. They think that electric cars are going to be feasible for everyone, yet California can't even keep their electric afloat. But that's the rub. The ones in charge know it isn't feasible. Again it's about control.

There's nothing wrong with fossil fuels, they're not hurting the earth, they're from the earth.

You live your life the way you want to but you'll see in 10 to 20 years with nothing has happened. How did you were. At least I hope you will, then you'll realize how much of your life you've wasted on nothing. Some people come to see the light others are just mired in wanting to be upset and feel like victims.

Is it good to pollute less and keep trash out of our oceans and our forests? Sure no one saying don't try to make air quality in stuff better, but this idea that we're on some kind of timeline and your lifetime. Anything will happen to the Earth is pure fantasy.

Live your life, be happy and quit worrying about things you can't control.

---

You don't know anything about me. I love my life. I'm not persuaded by arguments like this. I prefer facts backed up with sources, and I prefer scientific theories backed up with evidence.

The facts and the science suggests that CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere is warming our planet.

---

Lol

It's giving us Life

This is a misrepresentation of information. As you go into the past and leave the smear of precision instruments, you use climate analogs that are less precise and therefore subject to smoothing of short term variability within long term trends.

The climate very well could be more volatile in is rates of change than we appreciate, and we need to not confuse our short term precision of the current increases with the necessarily less precise longer term and older data.

Also, there is no true global climate. There is global variation or variability within general trends but any one region may become warmer or cooler based off the changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and other factors affecting climate.

We are in an interglacial warning period so some component of the warming is non-human. That trend will reverse in several thousand years, at which time our descendants might appreciate a higher level of atmospheric CO2 as the climate cools considerably. We are currently still close to geological all time lows in CO2 levels, so the planet can likely easily manage significantly higher levels without any major effects, as it has for most of the geological past of complex terrestrial ecosystems. The only concern is the rate of change but that may not be a concern to humans from a survival standpoint as much as an aesthetics standpoint.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

This is a misrepresentation of information. As you go into the past and leave the smear of precision instruments, you use climate analogs that are less precise and therefore subject to smoothing of short term variability within long term trends.

The climate very well could be more volatile in is rates of change than we appreciate, and we need to not confuse our short term precision of the current increases with the necessarily less precise longer term and older data.

Also, there is no true global climate. There is global variation or variability within general trends but any one region may become warmer or cooler based off the changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and other factors affecting climate.

We are in an interglacial warning period so some component of the warming is non-human. That trend will reverse in several thousand years, at which time our descendants might appreciate a higher level of atmospheric CO2 as the climate cools considerably. We are currently still close to geological all time lows in CO2 levels, so the planet can likely easily manage significantly higher levels without any major effects, as it has for most of the geological past of complex terrestrial ecosystems. The only concern is the rate of change but that may not be a concern to humans from a survival standpoint as much as an aesthetics standpoint.

---

Are you saying that I am misrepresenting what NASA is saying, or are you saying that NASA is misrepresenting the science?

FTA 2001 said:

---

FIDO*98* said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

Sorry, I disagree. I believe climate change is happening and it's being caused by humans.

---

If climate change was the result of humans, climate activists and politicians would be pushing for nuclear power. They're not because the grift is in wind/solar. All you need to do is follow the money and look at the carbon footprint of the 1%ers. They don't actually believe it, it's a scare tactic to get you to vote "D" for massive spending that is actually crushing the morons who think it's real and reversible

---

Nuclear Power plants costs $10 billion and take 10+ years to build. There is not a single private industry in the United States that would tolerate spending $10 billion and not getting a penny in ROI for 10+ years.

There are lots of climate scientists that are pro-nuclear, especially next gen nuclear. We need government investment in nuclear and that is where politicians disagree because nuclear is politically unpopular. No body wants a nuclear plant in their congressional district.

---

Only because the overlords you worship make it that way.

The latter. At every level of analysis and interpretation separating from the raw scientific research, experimentation, and results, additional political bias creeps in.

The data indicates possibilities and probabilities but it is in the interpretation of it and then the application of it that things go awry.

The nasa data could show warming over time. It may even provide a fairly reasonable amount of information as the the probable causes and projected effects.

That's information.

From there the implications become political, even at the very fundamental level of how the implications are weighed against other matters of importance. There is an incredible incentive that is created, and then regularly and systematically abused to use the fear and ignorance surrounding this topic to generate fear and compel political and economic outcomes.