I‘ve been interested in climatology and weather since the 1980s.
Yesterday, all former all-time-highs in Germany have been crushed in a way never seen before - and in unusual locations.
While the extremes were 40.2 - 40.3 C (104F) before, measured in the upper Rhine valley in the southwest and in Northern Bavaria (Franconia), yesterday more than 20 stations in the west and northwest of Germany set new all-time highs. They reached 41.6 C (107 F) in Northrhine Westphalia, and one station further north reached 42.6C (109F), however many meteorologists criticize that it doesn‘t fully meet the standards (open field etc.). So, taking the second ranked station, it is still 41.6 C and unbelievable for Germany.
The Netherlands have also reached 40 C for the first time ever.
Forests are dying in Germany, as last year was already marked by a severe drought.
So much for climate change, as it is experienced in Central Europe, certainly more than in the Eastern US in the past years...

For reference:
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-forests-on-the-verge-of-collapse-experts-report/a-49659810

Climate change is very real despite those who deny it.

There is no one that denies climate change, (Ok perhaps the Flat Earthers and those that say we never went to the moon) as it’s been going from hot to cold and back for millions of years, how much is caused by human beings is the argument, some say it is all caused by humans, (Which is totally bonkers as it has been going on well before the human race came into existence) while others say it is natural, (Which is also bonkers as human beings are part of the eco system so will automatically affect it) the problem is all the climate scientists are focussed on the human equation (Which is where all the research money is being spent) hoping this will fix the problem, whereas in reality they should also be focussing on building defences against climate change as a backup. (Putting all your eggs in one basket is not a good idea)

Bill

I think both is being done, the attempt to limit the further anthropogenic contribution as well as adaptation to it. Higher dams against flooding, development of more resistant crops etc.
The arguments for a strong human impact are that in the past the temperature rise was never as fast as this time, and it obviously didn‘t affect all parts of the earth simultaneously as it is doing at present (except Eastern US )

The bark beetle destroying spruces in German forests due to the drought since 2018...

The spruce is not a naturally occuring tree in most of Germany. But they were planted in masses as a consequence of the allied forces after World War II as they instruced the population to cut masses of trees as burning material for heating in winter. Spruces were the fastest way to reestablish the forests, but they are more prone to drought and bark beetle ans also less resistent to severe storms.

Seen during a hike this week... bark beetle damage

Oh, the picture didn't upload, trying again:

The USA has a president who denies it ... though he isn't the brightest but that is no excuse.

The President of the US has not denied climate change - He, like many climate scientist, does not believe it is man made. Neither do I.

Fact: The planet is on the verge of not having enough C02 to support the growth of plants. Source - NOAA

Fact: The warmest the planet has been in recorded history was during the 1930s, long before the industrial revolution. Source - NOAA

Fact: We are experiencing fewer and less intense hurricanes and droughts. Source - NOAA

Fact: The Antarctic Ice Pack is the largest it has been in recorded history. Source - NOAA satellite data, which began in the mid 1970s.

Fact: The Antarctic is pack is thicker than anytime in recorded history: Source NOAA ice core samples.

Fact: It was recently revealed that undersea volcanic activity is responsible for much of the loss of the Arctic Ice Pack during the past 30 years. Source: NOAA and NATGEO.

Fact: Sea levels are not rising at an alarming rate. This has been documented at locations throughout the world, and in some locations particularly several Pacific islands, sea levels have actually fallen. Al Gore predicted that Baltimore and Miami would be under several feet of water by 2014 - both cities are the same level above sea level they were 100 years ago. Some islands in Chesapeake Bay have eroded away, but sea level is the same as it was 100 years ago. Scientist say those islands eroded away when the surrounding sea grasses were wiped out by pollution and commercial crab dredging for soft shelled crabs.

Fact: All the polar bears are dying because of the decreasing Arctic Ice Pack - NOT! According to the USFWS the polar bear population is higher than it has been in more than 100 years and growing. A recent documentary revealed that more polar bears are killed by walrus wounds than disease or starvation. The documentary revealed that polar bears are only successful in killing a seal for food in one of twenty attempts. Walrus are not afraid of polar bears and outweigh them by a considerable amount. Plus, nothing has a worse disposition than a pissed off walrus when a bear moves in to try to kill one of it's offspring.

Fact: The Arctic Ice Pack is growing and much of it has returned to areas where it was 50 years ago. This is particularly true in Iceland and northern Greenland. Source - Latest NOAA satellite data and NATGEO.

Yes, the climate is changing, and according to the latest NOAA, real time data, it is slowly getting cooler - not warmer. The climate has been changing since the planet was spawned and will continue to change, regardless of what we do to prevent it. Who in their right mind could have ever thought that we puny humans could influence the climate of the globe? Granted, we have managed to pollute our air and water, but the air is cleaner now than it was 50 years ago. Does anyone remember when thousands of people in London died because of smog and thermal inversions? How about the smog in California during the 1970s when it was so dense you could barely see the other end of the street you lived on? Same held true during the same era in Tokyo and Hong Kong. I was in all those cities when air pollution was horrible - this is no longer the case.

How is this possible? How could the air quality in those cities improve while the number of cars has nearly doubled and the human population has more than doubled? Well, I guess we cleaned up our exhaust emissions, especially here in the US. But, we could use a bit more C02 if we want to keep up with the demand for food on the planet. We are, according to several sources, very close to not having enough.

After 79 years of residing on planet Earth, and traveling much of the entire world, I am convinced that we are in more danger of drowning in our own filth than climate change. We have managed to pollute nearly all of our major rivers and their tributaries to the point where the water must be heavily treated in order to make it safe to drink. Our sewage treatment plants are mostly outdated and in serious need of upgrades. Many just spray the untreated sewage into domes with ultraviolet lights, then dose it heavily with chlorine to kill the bacteria. Then, the watery sludge is dumped into the nearest waterway - the same waterways where we continue to harvest our seafood and claim it is perfectly safe to eat - UGH!

As for those spruce beetles, well in the northwest and western US where spruce trees are native, those same beetles have taken their toll or hundreds of years - it's a natural thing. That timber is harvested, cut into boards and new, more resistant trees are planted in their place. I suspect that the German logging industry will eventually follow the US footsteps and do the same thing.

I only visit the bar a couple times a year, so don't be surprised if I don't respond to any counter views in a timely manner. Beside, I really do not like to argue with people about any subject - it's just not my nature.

Have a wonderful day, everyone,

Gary

I think the president believes in whatever is good for business. Given his penchant for lying and his general ignorance of all things consequential, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what he SAYS he does or doesn't believe. I mean, who can believe a chronic liar with a self-proclaimed 'big brain' (I'm guessing hydro-cephalic) except those who refuse to see a bombastic, bullying, narcissist for what he really is. But, to paraphrase, in a free society, you get the leader you deserve. Have a wonderful day.

chas