• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
This cartoon highlights my concern precisely, just in the other direction. Here is the scientist trying to explain a complex problem, while the little boy is basically “poo-pooing” the whole issue and the scientific community at large, which is my bigger concern. If a significant majority of the experts who study the climate are at least at a consensus that AGW is a legitimate concern, why are out policy makers and the public in large so strongly push back or just deny there could be any problem? Sure,there are very reasonable reasons and data that one can use to debate the issue, as some of our posters do admirably well, but the disconnect between the science and how the average Americans feels about it is alarming to me. This utter distrust of science has been ongoing for centuries (see Galileo and biologicall evolution), and the same arguments were used to try to disprove scientists concerns about leaded gasoline and CFCs affecting ozone this past century. So this cartoon simply shows how much a lack of trust their remains between the average person and scientific thought in general.

People ask me what my opinions on "climate change" is, and I say, of course humans contribute to it and the world is warming. I also say that mother nature also does things that can do much more damage than we do, like super volcanoes. We need a lot more data and less "theory" computer simulations. We can't even forecast our weather 3 days out with 100% accuracy.

The point is, using fear, like recently with the "the world will end in 12 years" to try and force political decisions is where the problem lies. When it is all said and done, it is 100% political. One side wants one thing, another side wants another. That's where the screw up truly is.

To add to my last point, conservatives I speak with agree that solar energy is amazing and they have no problem with being more "green". But the same people as soon as a democrat/liberal/far left minded politician is named, they are 100% against it and vice versa.
 
This cartoon highlights my concern precisely, just in the other direction. Here is the scientist trying to explain a complex problem, while the little boy is basically “poo-pooing” the whole issue and the scientific community at large, which is my bigger concern. If a significant majority of the experts who study the climate are at least at a consensus that AGW is a legitimate concern, why are out policy makers and the public in large so strongly push back or just deny there could be any problem? Sure,there are very reasonable reasons and data that one can use to debate the issue, as some of our posters do admirably well, but the disconnect between the science and how the average Americans feels about it is alarming to me. This utter distrust of science has been ongoing for centuries (see Galileo and biologicall evolution), and the same arguments were used to try to disprove scientists concerns about leaded gasoline and CFCs affecting ozone this past century. So this cartoon simply shows how much a lack of trust their remains between the average person and scientific thought in general.

First off I want to say that I am stating my humble opinion. I am not much for debating, I know a little about a lot of things but not a lot of anything. Also I do believe the climate change is a thing. The Cause of which I believe is a mix of both, human and natural.

Unfortunately people as a group are untrusting by nature. Most people make you earn their trust and do not just trust and follow others. I believe it is especially true when it comes to Politics or Scientific research. Human Greed is arguably the biggest culprit for both sides of the climate change debate and politics for that matter. For every Scientific research paper claiming human climate change someone can find one for Natural climate change.

As far as the Natural side of climate change, there is not much us humans can do about it. One astronomical event or Massive earthquake or caldera eruption and we will either be gone or back in the stone age.

On the side of human caused climate change. We have come a long way since the start of the industrialization era on recognizing the pollution that was started to be put in the air. We have reduced a huge chunk of our impact. Yes we have a ways to go but it has not went completely unchecked. As a society that is as diverse as ours, there will always be a point that will be hard to cross. I believe we are reaching that point now. To get past this point I believe it will take an extraordinary leader or leaders to continue the progress we have started already as a society.

Until someone has the courage to practice what they believe others will not give their trust.

My thought. The voices that speaks the loudest with the most money and influences should downsize their "Mansions" Stop flying in personal jets around the world and lead by example. Spend their excessive personal profits on finding and building the technology to reduce what ever human activities share of the climate change may be.

I am not saying they need to be forced by any government or corporate entity. I am not speaking for any type of Socialist government. I am not asking it to be passed down the societal ladder. It should be placed on the people who have the means and capability to do it. I am asking these people to live a life of moderation and not excess. Use the excess wealth to find ways to control the impact humans play in our climate. They need to take the lead. When they lead by example other will slowly put their trust in them and follow.

Unfortunately Greed is a powerful force and hard to overcome. People like to talk a good talk. Talking is cheap. Ideas cost nothing until you start to try and make them reality. This is where the break down happens. "My ideas are great. Take them. Make them your own. Just don't ask me to do it also." It is hard for some people to lead by example.

I am sure at some point this type of leader/leaders will eventually show themselves. They will need to show themselves by choose and not by force. Until that time the debate will continue and we will continue to make small steps to fixing the problem. Hopefully it will be enough steps forward to not be completely left behind unable to catch back up.

Again this is just my humble opinion. I am not pointing fingers at anyone. I hope as global society we figure it out sooner rather than later. We all can do our part to help and there is power in that. Maybe that is what it will take to make that leader rise. When that leader rises it will be from the earned trust of the many and not the few.
 
This cartoon highlights my concern precisely, just in the other direction. Here is the scientist trying to explain a complex problem, while the little boy is basically “poo-pooing” the whole issue and the scientific community at large, which is my bigger concern. If a significant majority of the experts who study the climate are at least at a consensus that AGW is a legitimate concern, why are out policy makers and the public in large so strongly push back or just deny there could be any problem? Sure,there are very reasonable reasons and data that one can use to debate the issue, as some of our posters do admirably well, but the disconnect between the science and how the average Americans feels about it is alarming to me. This utter distrust of science has been ongoing for centuries (see Galileo and biologicall evolution), and the same arguments were used to try to disprove scientists concerns about leaded gasoline and CFCs affecting ozone this past century. So this cartoon simply shows how much a lack of trust their remains between the average person and scientific thought in general.

I don't necessarily disagree with this and think it is largely correct. there is a serious disconnect between some scientists and the public at large because of the extreme positions of what the news media reports, making the public (using their own critical thinking skills) skeptical because of the outlandish and fear mongering predictions. It goes against the public's common sense approach to say a gas that makes up less than 4% of the atmosphere can and will change the entire structure of the remaining 96%. It is like saying putting 4% of your bath in as scalding water will warm the other 96% in your tub to a dangerous degree. Also using nebulous terms like "feedback" or "cascading effects" without specifying what exactly these are, and where it has been shown their accumulative effects have been deleterious. It is a complex problem and, as proven by the current winters results, show how much more about our system we need to know before we panic and change the entire societal focus and reliance on cheap energy resulting in potentially very harmful economic impacts. BTW, why do we never hear about the ozone hole anymore? It is just as big as it ever has been yet, nada
 
This cartoon highlights my concern precisely, just in the other direction. Here is the scientist trying to explain a complex problem, while the little boy is basically “poo-pooing” the whole issue and the scientific community at large, which is my bigger concern. If a significant majority of the experts who study the climate are at least at a consensus that AGW is a legitimate concern, why are out policy makers and the public in large so strongly push back or just deny there could be any problem? Sure,there are very reasonable reasons and data that one can use to debate the issue, as some of our posters do admirably well, but the disconnect between the science and how the average Americans feels about it is alarming to me. This utter distrust of science has been ongoing for centuries (see Galileo and biologicall evolution), and the same arguments were used to try to disprove scientists concerns about leaded gasoline and CFCs affecting ozone this past century. So this cartoon simply shows how much a lack of trust their remains between the average person and scientific thought in general.

I think the ultimate cause lies in the sensationalism presented by the news media of various "expert" claims about what will happen, how the world will end, billions will die, etc. A great example of this is the "world is ending" claims by Al gore about the Arctic ice cap going "ice free" and his numerous failed predictions. He certainly isn't an expert in the field IMO but the media puts him on a pedestal as if he is and when his claims fail to materialize people become increasingly skeptical. There are plenty of other examples of this out there and this is probably one of the biggest issues. There is also a political side to things where some prominent AGW leaders and researchers have even admitted it's more about controlling the flow of money and control of countries/economies.

There's also the problem with switching to clean energy. As I mentioned recently it's not easy at all to switch to wind or solar power and maintain a stable power grid especially for a large country like the US. There are also studies that bring out the potential serious issues of switching to wind and other power methods. Here's a great example relating to wind power.
(press release) A new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems. … The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24˚C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation’s electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1˚C.

Naylor, 2018 While wind energy provides a viable solution for emission reductions, it comes at an environmental cost, particularly for birds. As wind energy grows in popularity, its environmental impacts are becoming more apparent. Recent studies indicate that wind power has negative effects on proximate wildlife. These impacts can be direct—collision fatalities—and indirect—habitat loss (Fargione et al. 2012; Glen et al. 2013). Negative impacts associated with operational wind farms include collision mortalities from towers or transmission lines and barotrauma for bats. Habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as avoidance behavior, are also consequences resulting from wind farm construction and related infrastructure. The potential harm towards protected and migratory bird species are an urgent concern, especially for wind farms located along migratory flyways. In terms of mortality, wind turbines kill an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 birds, annually (Smallwood 2013). The high speed at which the fan wings move and the concentration of turbines create a gauntlet of hazards for birds to fly through. … [T]he height of most wind turbines aligns with the altitude many bird species fly at (Bowden 2015). Birds of prey— raptors—are of particular concern because of their slow reproductive cycles and long lifespans relative to other bird species (Kuvlesky 2007).

There's also the issue with the reliability of climate modeling (as we've seen even this winter with the failure of climate models to pick up on the SER and warmth in our area). If climate models can't even reliably agree and get right a forecast 2-4 months in advance, why in the world would anyone trust their forecast impacts for 10+ or 100+ years down the road? Here's one example of the poor modeling and the impact.
Recent changes in summer Greenland blocking captured by none of the CMIP5 models … Recent studies note a significant increase in high-pressure blocking over the Greenland region (Greenland Blocking Index, GBI) in summer since the 1990s. … We find that the recent summer GBI increase lies well outside the range of modeled past reconstructions (Historical scenario) and future GBI projections (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The models consistently project a future decrease in GBI (linked to an increase in NAO), which highlights a likely key deficiency of current climate models if the recently-observed circulation changes continue to persist. Given well-established connections between atmospheric pressure over the Greenland region and air temperature and precipitation extremes downstream, e.g. over Northwest Europe, this brings into question the accuracy of simulated North Atlantic jet stream changes and resulting climatological anomalies […] as well as of future projections of GrIS mass balance produced using global and regional climate models. Hanna et al., 2018

Finally, here is a great summary that was done that aptly summarizes what I believe to be the problem with the AGW debate and the lack of public trust.
Olson, 2018 [O]pinion polls and other research show a public that frequently perceives climate science and associated AGW threats as complicated, uncertain and temporally and spatially distant (Anghelcev et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2011). Thus climate scientists, celebrities, public policymakers and other AGW social marketers face a daunting task in convincing a lackadaisical and often skeptical public to support AGW mitigating behaviors and policies. The difficulty of this marketing assignment has also led to the utilization of ethically questionable tactics that hype the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Rogers, 1975; Rosenberg et al., 2010).

For example, the past 25 years have witnessed a large number of greatly exaggerated predictions regarding the speed and scope of temperature increases and AGW dangers from a variety of AGW “endorsers,” which have fortunately proven to be false alarms (Bastasch, 2015; Grundmann, 2011; Michaels, 2008; Newman, 2014). Another ethically questionable example is provided by the Climategate scandal involving members of the climate science community and their attempts to increase public certainty regarding the methods and predictions of “mainstream” climate models by blocking the publication of research not supportive of the AGW paradigm (Curry, 2014; Grundmann, 2011).

The Fakegate scandal that is the focus of the current research is different than other AGW scandals and ethical missteps, however, because the protagonist publicly admitted to the intentional use of ethically questionable tactics for the purposes of favorably influencing public opinion regarding the AGW cause. Fakegate started with the theft of internal strategy and donor documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank and dangerous AGW “competitor” owing to their efforts to educate the public regarding climate model uncertainties and the high economic and political costs of AGW mitigation (Hoffman, 2011). … An analysis of the writing style, content details and errors in the fake document led several bloggers to speculate that the thief and fake document author was Peter Gleick, a climate researcher, environmental think tank president, chairman of a scientific association ethics committee and frequent blogger on climate science and AGW threats (Greenhut, 2012). These publicly discussed suspicions led Gleick to confess and apologize for his use of deception in posing as a Heartland board member to acquire and disseminate the internal documents.

Failures provide valuable learning opportunities, and the Fakegate failure demonstrates that social marketers who are unwilling or unable to honestly and persuasively debate the scientific validity and “greater good” of their cause, should not resort to ethically questionable persuasion tactics if they hope to win widespread and lasting trust and support for their social marketing objectives. The current study also makes a contribution through its close examination of AGW skeptic arguments that have typically been ignored or dismissed (Hoffman, 2011; Koteyko et al., 2013). In contrast to the scientific ignorance commonly attributed to skeptics, the sophistication and apparent validity of their viewpoints regarding scientific progress and the high costs of AGW mitigation suggest that skeptics more than deserve the respect, transparency and inclusion that social marketing ethical guidelines promote, but which many AGW social marketers have failed to follow.
 
Interesting reading old historical newspaper articles and other resources to see what type of rhetoric the news media used for past weather events. Notice any similarities?? Btw what happened to this satellite data pre-1979? @Rain Cold might find the sensationalism in this article quite interesting. Source here

Another Ice Age?

Monday, Jun 24, 1974
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
 
Well I’m not laughing at all the GW jokes while staring at yet another record warm February, this year will join 2017 and 2015 as the 3 warmest on record at RDU, haha.
 
Well I’m not laughing at all the GW jokes while staring at yet another record warm February, this year will join 2017 and 2015 as the 3 warmest on record at RDU, haha.

Getting into the 80s with 60s at night tends to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well I’m not laughing at all the GW jokes while staring at yet another record warm February, this year will join 2017 and 2015 as the 3 warmest on record at RDU, haha.

But that’s how it works, when it’s warm somewhere it’s cold somewhere else. We just have been on the short end of the stick lately.
 
SHHH, don't tell them, it will spoil their fear. Personally I am much more afraid of an unknown asteroid or comet impacting the earth than I am heating us up too much by driving my car
 
Interesting reading old historical newspaper articles and other resources to see what type of rhetoric the news media used for past weather events. Notice any similarities?? Btw what happened to this satellite data pre-1979? @Rain Cold might find the sensationalism in this article quite interesting. Source here

Another Ice Age?

Monday, Jun 24, 1974
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
Yeah, it is typical in that it uses extreme predictive sentiment, "grim premonition", "catastrophic", "ice age", "climate upheaval", and the like. I don't know what it is about the human condition that we can't be satisfied either writing about or hearing about things within the range of average. Instead, we yearn for and seek out the extreme. Worst cold ever. Hottest summer on record. 500 year flood. Catastrophic polar vortex. Population ending climate change. Coastal inundation. Uninhabitable planet. Everything is like that now. There's almost no scenario put forward in the mainstream where the earth's temperature rises or falls that lead to a warmer or cooler climate with an effect going no further than that of some inconvenience to some portion of the earth's population. Instead, whatever happens, the effect will be catastrophic. By 2000. I mean, by 2020. I mean, by 2040. I mean, in just another 10 years. I mean, in just another 10 years. The science is settled. You can only cry wolf so many times.

Science is never settled. Arguing otherwise is emotion-based, not based on a desire for knowledge. Anyway, all that said, we do an absolutely terrible job caring for our planet. Our oceans are a disaster (and I know the Fukushima disaster will be found to have a far, far worse impact than has been or is currently being reported) -- they are littered with pollutants and garbage. There is garbage all over the land, wherever you look. We pollute the atmosphere. We pollute our water tables. Animals and insects and fish and coral and phytoplankton are dying off. We pollute our bodies with preservatives, additives, drugs and medicines (many of which I'm sure have things that do more long-term harm to our bodies than good), and who really knows what else. We pollute the air with heavy metals, radiation, and all kinds of electronic signals and all with no regard to how these things really affect the planet, the animal communities, or ourselves. And nobody, outside of a small set of people even lift an eyelid to see what is going on.

We are too distracted by anything and everything. It's all about me, myself, I. Every trend in our culture is one that caters to and points back to the importance of self over everything else, so it's no wonder we don't give a crap about anything. We can't lose anymore. We can't accept that our actions have consequences. We need somebody to smooth it over for us, talk us up, tell us that we're really just a victim of our environment or other people. We need continual positive reinforcement. More likes, more clicks, more thumbs-ups, more retweets, more pats on the back. I need to log onto Facebook and tell everybody every inane thought that pops into my head, because I have something to say, and YOU need to hear it. I want everyone to know everything I'm doing, because I'm so important and my life is so awesome. I do my job, and I need 20 emails of praise for doing it right. I finish in last place, but I need a participation trophy because I showed up. I don't want to go look for anything, so things I need or might want just pop on on the screen for me, so I can just click a button and have all of the happiness I deserve that I don't want to work for. And if none of that works, here, take this pill and you'll feel all better.

All that seems like somewhat of a tangent, but at the end of the day, it is a growing headwind to any movement to better society on any level. We're not going to give a crap about the environment until and unless something really does break. We're not going to come together politically. We're not going to come together socially. We're not going to fix the structural economic imbalances that exist. The only thing that will eventually unite us is a disaster of some kind, and it is coming. My view is that it will be economics and/or politics before the environment comes into play (unless we get a Yellowstone, asteroid, or some massive pandemic). That might seem like the extreme viewpoint I was lamenting above, but it's reality....though I don't offer a timetable. We're on a collision course with a calamity of some type, if we don't change. We live in a bubble and only care about ourselves. I don't see that changing anytime soon, as everything is working against that (and I'm not sure it's not by design). That only leads to one end. And it isn't a good one. End rant.
 
Last edited:
^ Amen. If we live our lives in fear or worry the only thing you can say for sure is you will die before your time. Besides, I know who controls all things so I will leave it to Him.
Agree. I tend to wonder if we could have actually been headed for an epic winter and the Lord had something else in mind.
 
Yeah, it is typical in that it uses extreme predictive sentiment, "grim premonition", "catastrophic", "ice age", "climate upheaval", and the like. I don't know what it is about the human condition that we can't be satisfied either writing about or hearing about things within the range of average. Instead, we yearn for and seek out the extreme. Worst cold ever. Hottest summer on record. 500 year flood. Catastrophic polar vortex. Population ending climate change. Coastal inundation. Uninhabitable planet. Everything is like that now. There's almost no scenario put forward in the mainstream where the earth's temperature rises or falls that lead to a warmer or cooler climate with an effect going no further than that of some inconvenience to some portion of the earth's population. Instead, whatever happens, the effect will be catastrophic. By 2000. I mean, by 2020. I mean, by 2040. I mean, in just another 10 years. I mean, in just another 10 years. The science is settled. You can only cry wolf so many times.

Science is never settled. Arguing otherwise is emotion-based, not based on a desire for knowledge. Anyway, all that said, we do an absolutely terrible job caring for our planet. Our oceans are a disaster (and I know the Fukushima disaster will be found to have a far, far worse impact than has been or is currently being reported) -- they are littered with pollutants and garbage. There is garbage all over the land, wherever you look. We pollute the atmosphere. We pollute our water tables. Animals and insects and fish and coral and phytoplankton are dying off. We pollute our bodies with preservatives, additives, drugs and medicines (many of which I'm sure have things that do more long-term harm to our bodies than good), and who really knows what else. We pollute the air with heavy metals, radiation, and all kinds of electronic signals and all with no regard to how these things really affect the planet, the animal communities, or ourselves. And nobody, outside of a small set of people even lift an eyelid to see what is going on.

We are too distracted by anything and everything. It's all about me, myself, I. Every trend in our culture is one that caters to and points back to the importance of self over everything else, so it's no wonder we don't give a crap about anything. We can't lose anymore. We can't accept that our actions have consequences. We need somebody to smooth it over for us, talk us up, tell us that we're really just a victim of our environment or other people. We need continual positive reinforcement. More likes, more clicks, more thumbs-ups, more retweets, more pats on the back. I need to log onto Facebook and tell everybody every inane thought that pops into my head, because I have something to say, and YOU need to hear it. I want everyone to know everything I'm doing, because I'm so important and my life is so awesome. I do my job, and I need 20 emails of praise for doing it right. I finish in last place, but I need a participation trophy because I showed up. I don't want to go look for anything, so things I need or might want just pop on on the screen for me, so I can just click a button and have all of the happiness I deserve that I don't want to work for. And if none of that works, here, take this pill and you'll feel all better.

All that seems like somewhat of a tangent, but at the end of the day, it is a growing headwind to any movement to better society on any level. We're not going to give a crap about the environment until and unless something really does break. We're not going to come together politically. We're not going to come together socially. We're not going to fix the structural economic imbalances that exist. The only thing that will eventually unite us is a disaster of some kind, and it is coming. My view is that it will be economics and/or politics before the environment comes into play (unless we get a Yellowstone, asteroid, or some massive pandemic). That might seem like the extreme viewpoint I was lamenting above, but it's reality....though I don't offer a timetable. We're on a collision course with a calamity of some type, if we don't change. We live in a bubble and only care about ourselves. I don't see that changing anytime soon, as everything is working against that (and I'm not sure it's not by design). That only leads to one end. And it isn't a good one. End rant.
Very nice ... ;)
The two things that strike home most are "now" and "me, myself and I".
Thanks RC!
Phil
 
Humans don’t live in small groups anymore dealing with drought and predators which made everyone work together where everyone was in the same boat. I guess once folks start dropping like flies and the population gets much lower that mentality will come back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Humans don’t live in small groups anymore dealing with drought and predators which made everyone work together where everyone was in the same boat. I guess once folks start dropping like flies and the population gets much lower that mentality will come back.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dropping like flies from what? A far greater concern to the world population is war, overpopulation or getting hit by a meteorite... and there are plenty of countries where thousands die daily from a lack of money to buy food.
 
Humans don’t live in small groups anymore dealing with drought and predators which made everyone work together where everyone was in the same boat. I guess once folks start dropping like flies and the population gets much lower that mentality will come back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now we are getting somewhere BHS. You may have inadvertently stumbled on to the truth here. Could it be the amount of people that inhabit this planet and the resultant building of infrastructure necessary to house, transport, feed, educate, etc is most likely responsible for the "added" heat our thermometers are showing. Could it be that UHI is much underestimated and is the root cause for the rise in earth's temperature we are seeing? Sure there are more cars driving around now than in the 60's, but a partial percentage (who knows how much) of that greenhouse CO2 being produced is offset by the massive increase in MPG the vehicles are getting? Also the fossil fuels we are using now are undeniably running cleaner, due to improved engine and methods of refining of oil we have today contribute to even less CO2 emissions. Anyway hopefully people will become more civil and willing to listen to skeptics (deniers is such a pejorative word) than they have been up to now in the scientific community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top