Why is the climate so abnormal in 2022? Meteorologist's prophecy, Hawking's prediction may come true
Why is the climate so abnormal in 2022? Hawking's prediction may come true
I don't know if you are aware of a serious problem: whether at home or abroad, various natural and man-made disasters are repeated, the climate is disordered, and the epidemic is raging. Not only that, but also the economic crisis, food crisis and energy crisis caused by the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. If you count the resignation of the British Prime Minister, the assassination of the former Japanese Prime Minister, the bankruptcy and liquidation of Sri Lanka and other major events, it is enough to show that 2022 is an "unknown" year.
Of course, for ordinary people like us, natural disasters or man-made disasters in other countries are at best a casual talk for us, and are not enough to affect our lives. However, in 2022, there will be serious problems in the climate, which will affect ordinary people. , the impact is considerable.
Do you still remember, this summer seems to be very late, but it is very violent. I still remember in mid-June, when the temperature was generally low, and in some places, two-piece clothes or long sleeves were even worn. However, less than a week later, the extreme heat broke out. Heat stroke has even occurred in many areas of our country. This is a disease caused by high temperature. If not treated in time, heat stroke can take a fresh life in a short period of time.
It is now late July, and the highest temperature in many cities in many provinces in my country has even reached over 40 degrees. What a terrifying high temperature! The more often people work under the sun, the more they understand that the damage to the human body is doubled for every degree of temperature increase. The author never imagined that our country would follow in the footsteps of the United States and Canada last year so quickly.
Last year, the number of deaths due to extreme heat in the United States and Canada was as high as 1,000. If we look at the current temperature growth rate, the situation in our country is not optimistic when August is the hottest season.
For the high temperature phenomenon, meteorologists have a prophecy, maybe Hawking's prediction may come true. Hawking was a great physicist who left three warning prophecies to mankind before his death. One of them mentioned that in the future, the earth will experience extreme high temperature due to the reckless use of fossil energy by humans. Judging from the average annual temperature growth rate of the earth today, after 200 years, the earth will become a "fireball" where life cannot survive.
Yes, if we don't deal with the greenhouse effect, if the earth's temperature continues to rise, the future of human survival is really worrying!
About the Creator
sayre laylah
Tired of monotonous climbing moves, but every step is close to the top
Keep reading
More stories from sayre laylah and writers in Earth and other communities.
The Reality of the Illusion of Time
Recently, as I strolled along the short stretch to my strength training session, I aimlessly took in the row of tatty shops and shabby buildings along the route and passed an off-street, in which one of my sisters used to live, around thirteen years ago.
By Chantal Christie Weiss5 days ago in Earth
Supreme Court to Review Monsanto’s Bid for Immunity in Roundup Lawsuits
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Monsanto’s appeal seeking immunity from lawsuits related to its popular herbicide, Roundup. This decision marks a critical moment for both the company and individuals claiming health damages from the chemical, which contains glyphosate—a substance under scrutiny for potential links to cancer. The review could have wide-reaching implications for corporate accountability, public health, and the legal landscape surrounding chemical products. Background on Roundup and Legal Challenges Roundup, a herbicide produced by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), has been a staple in agriculture and home gardening for decades. Glyphosate, its active ingredient, was introduced as a highly effective solution for weed control. However, in recent years, scientific studies and lawsuits have raised concerns about its potential carcinogenic effects. Thousands of plaintiffs have claimed that exposure to Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other health issues. Numerous state and federal courts have seen extensive litigation, with some plaintiffs receiving multimillion-dollar verdicts. Monsanto has consistently defended the product, emphasizing that regulatory agencies worldwide have deemed glyphosate safe when used as directed. Monsanto’s Bid for Immunity Monsanto is appealing for legal immunity, arguing that its use of Roundup was regulated and approved by federal agencies, and therefore the company should not be held liable in civil lawsuits. The company contends that federal oversight should preempt individual claims, a legal doctrine known as federal preemption. In essence, Monsanto is asserting that because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated and permitted glyphosate use, states or courts should not hold the company personally accountable for alleged harm. Why the Supreme Court’s Review Matters The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case is significant for several reasons: Corporate Accountability: A ruling in favor of Monsanto could strengthen corporate defenses in cases where products are federally regulated, potentially limiting lawsuits against companies producing similar chemicals or pharmaceuticals. Public Health: Plaintiffs and advocacy groups argue that a corporate victory could undermine accountability for harmful products and reduce incentives for companies to rigorously test safety. Legal Precedent: The case could set a nationwide precedent regarding federal preemption, influencing how courts balance regulatory approval with civil liability. The Supreme Court’s interpretation could reshape the legal landscape for product liability and consumer protection in the United States. Stakeholder Perspectives Plaintiffs and Advocacy Groups For those affected by Roundup, the Supreme Court review is a critical opportunity to hold a powerful corporation accountable. Many plaintiffs argue that Monsanto failed to adequately warn users of the potential risks associated with glyphosate exposure. “People shouldn’t have to choose between using a product as intended and risking their health,” says Laura Mitchell, an attorney representing multiple plaintiffs in Roundup lawsuits. “A ruling that shields Monsanto from liability could leave victims without recourse.” Advocacy groups, such as environmental and cancer prevention organizations, emphasize that transparency and accountability are essential, particularly for chemicals widely used in agriculture and landscaping. Monsanto and Bayer Monsanto, now part of Bayer, maintains that Roundup is safe when used according to label instructions. Bayer has publicly stated that legal challenges have cost billions but that the company continues to stand behind its products. The firm argues that courts must respect federal regulatory authority to avoid creating conflicting standards between federal law and state-level lawsuits. “If companies could be held liable despite following federal regulations, it would set a concerning precedent for innovation and regulatory compliance,” a Bayer spokesperson said. Broader Implications The Supreme Court review has implications far beyond Monsanto and Roundup: Agricultural Industry: Glyphosate and similar herbicides are widely used in crop production. Legal outcomes could influence labeling, usage guidelines, and liability risk for other companies in agriculture. Consumer Products: The ruling could affect cases involving pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and other regulated products, particularly when federal agencies approve them. Regulatory Authority vs. Civil Liability: The decision may clarify the balance between federal oversight and state-level tort claims, potentially shaping how courts interpret the limits of corporate immunity. Previous Court Decisions Lower courts have issued mixed rulings in Roundup lawsuits. Some courts awarded substantial damages to plaintiffs, while others limited awards or found in favor of Monsanto. These inconsistent outcomes underscore the complexity of balancing scientific evidence, regulatory approval, and legal responsibility. Federal appeals courts have previously sided with both sides in separate cases, making Supreme Court intervention necessary to establish uniform legal standards nationwide. Public and Media Reaction Media coverage of Monsanto’s legal challenges has been extensive, reflecting public concern over chemical safety and corporate responsibility. Many reports highlight the tension between regulatory approvals and individual health claims, questioning whether federal endorsements automatically protect companies from lawsuits. Public sentiment is divided. Supporters of corporate immunity argue that companies need protection to operate and innovate without fear of excessive litigation. Opponents worry that such immunity could prioritize corporate interests over public health. What to Expect The Supreme Court will now evaluate key questions: Does federal regulatory approval preempt state-level claims of harm? Can companies be held liable even if they followed federal guidelines? How should courts balance scientific uncertainty with civil justice? The decision, expected within the next year or two, will be closely watched by lawyers, plaintiffs, corporations, and advocacy groups alike. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s review of Monsanto’s bid for immunity in Roundup lawsuits represents a landmark moment in American legal history. The case has the potential to redefine corporate liability, influence public health policy, and set precedent for future disputes involving federally regulated products. For plaintiffs, the stakes are deeply personal—seeking justice for alleged health impacts caused by widespread chemical exposure. For Monsanto and other corporations, the outcome could determine the limits of accountability in a regulated marketplace. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the nation watches closely, recognizing that the ruling will resonate far beyond Monsanto, affecting consumers, companies, and the broader debate over safety, regulation, and responsibility in the United States.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in Earth
My New Book is Finally Here
My poetry collection Beautiful and Brutal Things is done. It's actually done and finally published over 270 pages. Over a year of my life went into this book. More than a year, really. Long days at my computer, sometimes seven days a week because I couldn't stop even when I probably should have. Then two months of editing that felt harder than the writing itself. But it's finished, and I'm still standing, and the book is real.
By Tim Carmichaela day ago in BookClub
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.