Life and lifestyle stuff


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. Is everyone you disagree with 'ideologically possessed'?

As for Dr Micheals, I do not think he is a quack, (the word I used was 'maverick') I just point out that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists would disagree with him. He, and you, seem to be sceptical enough of the consensus on climate change to serve for all of us.

Nevertheless, I think it worth exploring the potential impact if a) he is wrong, and the rest of the academics right, and b) he is right, and the rest of the academics are wrong, assuming we make minimum appropriate changes to our current lifestyles.

In case a) we have disaster, maybe multiple disasters, and the irretrievable degradation and decline in the fertility of the planet.

In case b) we don't have such disasters, and our precious habitats remain intact.

Borrowing a concept from Game Theory, we have, then, a payoff matrix something like the following:

Make no change to our lifestyles. and climate change happens:      payoff = -100

Make no change to our lifestyles, and climate change doesn't happen:     payoff = 0

Make changes to our lifestyles, and lesser climate change happens:    payoff = -50

Make changes to to our lifestyles and climate change doesn't happen:   payoff = -10

Either way, all we risk by way of a 'stake', is whatever climate change amelioration and mitigation measures we might feel appropriate to put in place. The 'minimax'* solution is to assume climate change will happen and make appropriate adjustments to our lifestyles to reduce its impact. So the questions become, how much are we prepared to risk, and how moral is it to make that wager?

Best wishes, 2RM.

*minimise the maximum losses and gains.

 

"The overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists"... is that the same statistic as "97% of scientists agree..."?  This is why I believe the uproar over Climate Change are ideologically possessed.  "97% of scientists agree..." is parroted by all of them.  That statistic is the HEIGHT OF UNSCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you think, then, that climate scientists have no reasons to agree, other than their desire to agree?

Best wishes, 2RM

I have some research for you... if you are so inclined.  Research how the statistic "97% of scientists agree..." was arrived upon.  Then explain to me how that follows the scientific statistical method.  Then tell me if you still believe that that statistic means what you think it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Borrowing a concept from Game Theory, we have, then, a payoff matrix something like the following:

Make no change to our lifestyles. and climate change happens:      payoff = -100

Make no change to our lifestyles, and climate change doesn't happen:     payoff = 0

Make changes to our lifestyles, and lesser climate change happens:    payoff = -50

Make changes to to our lifestyles and climate change doesn't happen:   payoff = -10

 

The Paris Climate Accords do not have those kinds of payoffs.  The payoffs are: 

Bring developed countries to the brink of poverty while continuing progress in developing countries

vs credibility concerns of Climate Change predictions (the world was supposed to have burned up decades ago).

That's what's on the table.

Lifestyle changes are being done by those who really want to exercise responsible stewardship - they are the silent ones that people are beating over the head as "Climate Deniers" because they don't agree that we should pay carbon taxes.  Meanwhile, the Paris Climate Accords and their ilk continue to burn through their lavish lifestyles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I have some research for you... if you are so inclined.  Research how the statistic "97% of scientists agree..." was arrived upon.  Then explain to me how that follows the scientific statistical method.  Then tell me if you still believe that that statistic means what you think it means.

I think you are missing my point. I am not arguing that because 97% of scientists agree, what they agree upon is fact, any more than I would argue that because 97% of Latter Day Saints agree, what they agree upon is fact.

I am arguing that being scientists, they have respect for scientific method, and that their agreement is founded on that scientific method. And scientific method has proven itself, thus far, to be a reliable manner to arrive at the truth value of an empirical, a posteriori, contention. Scientists, with their academic credentials and reputation on the line, tend to be very careful about what they endorse and do not endorse as matters of fact. And I am willing to trust in that carefulness, even if you are not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I think you are missing my point. I am not arguing that because 97% of scientists agree, what they agree upon is fact, any more than I would argue that because 97% of Latter Day Saints agree, what they agree upon is fact.

I am arguing that being scientists, they have respect for scientific method, and that their agreement is founded on that scientific method. And scientific method has proven itself, thus far, to be a reliable manner to arrive at the truth value of an empirical, a posteriori, contention. Scientists, with their academic credentials and reputation on the line, tend to be very careful about what they endorse and do not endorse as matters of fact. And I am willing to trust in that carefulness, even if you are not.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are not listening... "97% of scientists agree" is a FALSE CLAIM.  This can be easily proven if you just do 5 minutes of research (and, of course, you understand scientific statistical methodology - which, if you graduated from High School in the USA, you would have had passing proficiency in).  

But since you didn't accept my challenge to research the claim, then this is where we're at... why would all these people LIE about that statistic??? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

... While beating them over the head with your politicized environmentalist propaganda.

On the contrary, I hope to affirm their environmental activities and political choices. Any beating over the head I reserve for those who think, like Trump, that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to progress their nefarious interests. I do not know the exact figures, but I would be prepared to hazard a small wager that at least 97% of climate scientists do not believe this.

As for your other point, I do not think we are so far apart as you seem to. Whether 97% of scientists (your statistic, not mine) agree that we face global warming and imminent environmental disaster is a simple matter of fact. Either they do, or do not. The contention is either true or false. However, whether they have the academic right to believe what they believe about climate change is less a matter of fact than about philosophical judgment and the projected future, given the extrapolations of current trends.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"The overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists"... is that the same statistic as "97% of scientists agree..."?  This is why I believe the uproar over Climate Change are ideologically possessed.  "97% of scientists agree..." is parroted by all of them.  That statistic is the HEIGHT OF UNSCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.

 

Whether or not it is accurate, it is worth noting that NASA uses the same figure of 97% several times:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

But, delving into the method of determination, you are right that it doesn't quite have the same meaning as quoted.

It can be said for sure however that the vast majority of scientist believe that humans are causing global warming.

Quote

So, I'm guessing you believe Dr. Patrick Michaels to be a quack scientist.

Dr. Patrick Michaels is most certainly a quack scientist.    He keeps predicting that the world will be cooling.  He has been saying this for years.   It was he and his ilk who incorrectly were predicting a cooling trend and the next ice age (and contrary to what some have said on this forum, the majority of scientists did not believe in global cooling during the 1970's; it was only a very few).  He also constanty misquotes and misuses data, which is the very thing that you are claiming to be against. 

==================================================================================================

PS, no one (or almost no one) is saying that industry has to stop or even be scaled back.  It only has to be more responsibly.  

Being more responsible isn't the same as becoming an undeveloped country.  If that were so, countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, etc. would have went bankrupt a long time ago.  

Also, a lot of carbon could be offset by reforestration without even cutting back carbon output.  Countries like Dominica and Costa Rica, for example, aren't in the top richest countries, but they are doing a lot of reforestration.

Every little bit helps.

PS, for anyone interested, the Nature Conservancy has a good Carbon Offset program.  

The Nature Conservancy is not a scam.  They are a reputable charity and do good work.   They score very high on reputable charities.   I have been to many of their projects.  They do a lot of projects that help out locals as well.

https://support.nature.org/site/Donation2?idb=92970718&df_id=3901&3901.donation=form1&mfc_pref=T&Level=10043&PREFILL_AMOUNT=405

Even if you didn't believe in global warming (which doesn't make sense to me, but whatever), you will be helping out with the forest and other projects.    

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Whether or not it is accurate, it is worth noting that NASA uses the same figure of 97% several times:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

But, delving into the method of determination, you are right that it doesn't quite have the same meaning as quoted.

Now, doesn't that make you scratch your head?  Why does NASA use that figure when you would think, if there's anybody who are sticklers to the scientific method it would be NASA?  You're not NASA yet you figured that out in a matter of minutes.

There are 2 conclusions to be had here:  1.)  NASA leadership has bought into the politicized agenda (with what we're finding out with the FBI, CIA, DNI, DOJ, and IRS it wouldn't be a surprise that NASA has become politicized as well).  2.) NASA leadership couldn't spell Scientific Method.

Either way, credibility is shot.  This is why I emphatically believe that until that time that the politicized propaganda is STRIPPED OUT of Climate Science, any solution presented by governments is NOT CREDIBLE.

 

15 hours ago, Scott said:

It can be said for sure however that the vast majority of scientist believe that humans are causing global warming.

Well duh!  We are carbon-emmitting organisms!

But that's not the end of the science.  We emit carbon.  So does volcanic erruptions.  Next question:  HOW MUCH of Climate Change is caused by humans?  Bill Nye and his ilk claims 100% - you know that's stupid.  So why are they lying about that?

That's why you use models, so you can make predictions.  I'm a Systems Engineer - system models is my thing.  The models to predict which of Target's customers are pregnant is quite complex with ginormous input but it is amazingly accurate!  There's no government body controlling the funding so we can throw everything and the kitchen sink at the model and see what comes out on the other side.  Identifying customers through buying patterns is complex but it is baby's play compared to predicting a Climate System!  Even Climate Scientists don't know all of the systems that contribute to Climate Change as for every single data metric that impacts one data point, the domino effect of that one data metric is largely unknown.  For example - it's pretty easy to determine that a rise in carbon emissions causes a rise in forestation, after all, trees love carbon.  A rise in ocean temperature causes a rise in coral growth.  After all, corals thrive on warm water.  But those are just a super tiny impact on the entire global system... there are other impacts, good and bad, that are very very complex.  Mother Earth is a pretty amazing evolutionary system that has corrective measures built into the system through the evolutionary process.  The more ACCURATE data we can throw into the system, the better the system becomes in predicting change.

And that's why models CAN'T BE INFLUENCED BY POLITICS.  Because, saying - the models predict global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees... okay?  So, do we have to do anything about it?  Can we even do anything about it?  And, if so, you think eliminating all fossil fuels will stop it from rising?  Is it worth the mass starvation that is a result of an energy crisis?

 

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Dr. Patrick Michaels is most certainly a quack scientist.    He keeps predicting that the world will be cooling.  He has been saying this for years.   It was he and his ilk who incorrectly were predicting a cooling trend and the next ice age (and contrary to what some have said on this forum, the majority of scientists did not believe in global cooling during the 1970's; it was only a very few).  He also constanty misquotes and misuses data, which is the very thing that you are claiming to be against. 

Back in the 70's, governments were not much involved in scientific research.  They are involved in the press propaganda.  This time, governments are very much involved in scientific research.

Now, the fact that you call Patrick Michaels a Quack Scientist just proves my point.  Science is science - you debunk scientific theory using experimentation - not by CNN interviews.  "Misquotes and misuse of data" is an interview platform not a scientific method.  Rejecting scientific methods because they don't give you the conclusion you want is the VERY PROBLEM of Climate Change Science.

 

15 hours ago, Scott said:

==================================================================================================

PS, no one (or almost no one) is saying that industry has to stop or even be scaled back.  It only has to be more responsibly.  

You must not have been paying attention to the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Climate Accords.

 

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Being more responsible isn't the same as becoming an undeveloped country.  If that were so, countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, etc. would have went bankrupt a long time ago.  

Countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland have the luxury of not having to pay for their national and trade defense against countries like China and Russia and the overall threat of Islamic Terrorism by energy producing countries.

 

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Also, a lot of carbon could be offset by reforestration without even cutting back carbon output.  Countries like Dominica and Costa Rica, for example, aren't in the top richest countries, but they are doing a lot of reforestration.

Every little bit helps.

PS, for anyone interested, the Nature Conservancy has a good Carbon Offset program.  

It would be nice if Environmentalists would actual be Environmentalists instead of political hacks.  Then we'll see more of these types of things praised all over the press instead of calling people who are doing these "little bits" Climate Deniers who want their kids to live on a dead planet because they don't want the USA in the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Climate Accords or don't want to vote for the latest iteration of the Green New Deal or don't believe the world is going to end in 12 years.

 

15 hours ago, Scott said:

The Nature Conservancy is not a scam.  They are a reputable charity and do good work.   They score very high on reputable charities.   I have been to many of their projects.  They do a lot of projects that help out locals as well.

https://support.nature.org/site/Donation2?idb=92970718&df_id=3901&3901.donation=form1&mfc_pref=T&Level=10043&PREFILL_AMOUNT=405

Even if you didn't believe in global warming (which doesn't make sense to me, but whatever), you will be helping out with the forest and other projects.    

You hear "don't believe in global warming"... of course it doesn't make sense.  Because most people have paid enough attention in 5th grade Science class and believe dinosaurs existed.  Of course they believe in Ice Ages and Meltdowns - global cooling and global warming.  But this is the thing - when people tell you, I don't believe fish will be swimming in Miami streets in 2 years... or when people tell you, Al Gore's movie is so stupid which goes to show the depravity of the Nobel organization...  you put that in your head as "don't believe in global warming".  That's why you're confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You hear "don't believe in global warming"... of course it doesn't make sense.  Because most people have paid enough attention in 5th grade Science class and believe dinosaurs existed.  Of course they believe in Ice Ages and Meltdowns - global cooling and global warming.  But this is the thing - when people tell you, I don't believe fish will be swimming in Miami streets in 2 years... or when people tell you, Al Gore's movie is so stupid which goes to show the depravity of the Nobel organization...  you put that in your head as "don't believe in global warming".  That's why you're confused.

Exactly...

If we understand what happened to the dinosaurs and what happened with the ice ages... it is impossible not to believe in climate change and mass extinction events... because they clearly happened without any human actions.

As for human caused climate change... I am willing to grant Humanity having an impact... In fact I sincerely hope it does... Because the climate will change with or without us, but having some power over it means it is possible that the next mass extinction event will not include humanity.

I am more afraid that we will be bamboozled by the climate change con artists in to spending our resources on things that will not work... That when the next ice age happens, or asteroid strikes or super volcano erupts, that we will have wasted the every resources that could have saved us and stopped us from being part of the mass extinction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Either way, credibility is shot.  This is why I emphatically believe that until that time that the politicized propaganda is STRIPPED OUT of Climate Science

I agree 100% and have always said that.   Politicians should listen to the scientists and scientists should be not politicized.   

Quote

Next question:  HOW MUCH of Climate Change is caused by humans? 

That's the million dollar question and what should be answered by scienistist and not politicians.  Un-biased research should be done  and the politicians should listen to the scientists, not vice versa.  

Quote

 

Quote

Bill Nye and his ilk claims 100% - you know that's stupid.  So why are they lying about that?

Why is Trump lying about it and saying that climate change is a Chinese hoax?  That is even more stupid.   A lot of politicans and others lie about it. 

Saying that sensible environmental regulations are going to send us all into the dark ages is another lie used by many (not all) conservatives and greedy and unethical industries and companies (which isn't to say that they are all like that).   There are many politicians (especially out west) who fight against almost every regulation out there, even if it protects health and lives.  They care more about certain industries rights more than they care about citizens rights to clean air.  It all comes down to greed.  

Almost no one wants to cut off energy production or industry in order to save the earth.   They just think that it can be done more responsibly.   It can be done economically as well.   This is regardless of when the earth ends.   

Since you are focused on gloom and doom predictions, look at the flip side.    There were a lot of claims that the clean air act would kill the auto industry.  It did not.    There were claims that safety regulations would kill the auto industry.  It did not.  There is a lot of fear mongering from the other side.  

The only industry I can think of that might be killed through regulation is the coal industry, but that industry is currently about as unethical as it comes, perhaps only equalled by the tobacco industry (it would be a toss up).  

The energy industry and industry in general will continue to thrive, even if things are done cleaner.    No one is saying that industry has to stop.   It does not and will not.  

Quote

 

Now, the fact that you call Patrick Michaels a Quack Scientist just proves my point.  Science is science - you debunk scientific theory using experimentation - not by CNN interviews.  "Misquotes and misuse of data" is an interview platform not a scientific method.

Patrick Michaels is a quack scientist.   Many of his claims can be debunked by scientific theory and it can be proved that he minupulated data.   Take for example his presentation of James Hansen's papers.   I'll let you research that yourself if you haven't already.   

Also, Patrick Michaels himself has claimed that about 40% of his funding comes from the pertoleum industry (that doesn't include all the money he gets from the coal industry):

 

Quote

Countries like Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland have the luxury of not having to pay for their national and trade defense against countries like China and Russia and the overall threat of Islamic Terrorism by energy producing countries.

We just choose to spend so much on national offense (it is folly to call all of our operations national defense).  Other than a small remote part of Alaksa, Sweden is closer to Russia than the US is.     

Quote

It would be nice if Environmentalists would actual be Environmentalists instead of political hacks

Most of them aren't.   THere are a lot of environmentalist and very few of them are political hacks.    Environmentalist is almost a dirty work among conservatives and they tend to paint them in a negative light, especially in Western States.

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

I agree 100% and have always said that.   Politicians should listen to the scientists and scientists should be not politicized.   

That's the million dollar question and what should be answered by scienistist and not politicians.  Un-biased research should be done  and the politicians should listen to the scientists, not vice versa.  

Why is Trump lying about it and saying that climate change is a Chinese hoax?  That is even more stupid.   A lot of politicans and others lie about it. 

Agree.

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

Saying that sensible environmental regulations are going to send us all into the dark ages is another lie used by many (not all) conservatives and greedy and unethical industries and companies (which isn't to say that they are all like that).   There are many politicians (especially out west) who fight against almost every regulation out there, even if it protects health and lives.  They care more about certain industries rights more than they care about citizens rights to clean air.  It all comes down to greed.

 

This is political hack talk.

”Sensible environmental regulations” does not in exist in a world where Environmentalism is used as a political bludgeon in the same way you’re using it right in that very statement.  “It all comes down to greed” belongs in some political campaign smear slogan, not in an Environmentalist’s movement.  That’s what makes Environmentalists political hacks.

 

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

Almost no one wants to cut off energy production or industry in order to save the earth.   They just think that it can be done more responsibly.   It can be done economically as well.   This is regardless of when the earth ends.     

This is false.  The MSM talks mostly of nothing else.  This is like gun laws.  Ordinary guy on the street says “nobody wants to take your gun away” while MSM parades politicians and wide-eyed teenagers saying the very thing all day long until the everyday masses start parroting them.

 

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

Since you are focused on gloom and doom predictions, look at the flip side.    There were a lot of claims that the clean air act would kill the auto industry.  It did not.    There were claims that safety regulations would kill the auto industry.  It did not.  There is a lot of fear mongering from the other side.  

The only industry I can think of that might be killed through regulation is the coal industry, but that industry is currently about as unethical as it comes, perhaps only equalled by the tobacco industry (it would be a toss up).  

The energy industry and industry in general will continue to thrive, even if things are done cleaner.    No one is saying that industry has to stop.   It does not and will not.  

Tell that to your politicians, entertainers, and all those people of power.  

You sound like you think I’m defending one side of the political spectrum over the other.  You would be wrong.  I want ALL OF THEM out of Environmentalism.  Or, I want environmentalism out of politics.

 

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

Patrick Michaels is a quack scientist.   Many of his claims can be debunked by scientific theory and it can be proved that he minupulated data.   Take for example his presentation of James Hansen's papers.   I'll let you research that yourself if you haven't already.   

Also, Patrick Michaels himself has claimed that about 40% of his funding comes from the pertoleum industry (that doesn't include all the money he gets from the coal industry):

 

   

Now do the other side... there’s so many to choose from.  Say... Holdren, McPherson... take your pick.

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

 

We just choose to spend so much on national offense (it is folly to call all of our operations national defense).  Other than a small remote part of Alaksa, Sweden is closer to Russia than the US is.     

Doesn’t change the fact that the countries you mentioned have relatively tiny populations who depend on other countries for their continued survival so they have the luxury to virtue signal.

 

On 5/16/2019 at 3:04 PM, Scott said:

Most of them aren't.   THere are a lot of environmentalist and very few of them are political hacks.    Environmentalist is almost a dirty work among conservatives and they tend to paint them in a negative light, especially in Western States.

That’s funny that in the same sentence that you said few of them are political hacks, you employ political hackery.  I guess you only think it’s political hackery if it comes from conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science really is not that hard to understand.  (Getting precise numbers can be but the overall is not)

The big deal of Climate Change is Carbon.  Basic chemistry teaches us that Carbon is a element and that baring nuclear process Carbon can not be created nor destroyed.  Humanity does not have the technical skills to create Carbon in any large scale methods.

Thus pretty much all the Carbon we have on the earth has always been here. (Yes we might lose a bit from Solar Wind and gain some from Solar Dust and meteors but that is really trivial)

The interesting thing about Carbon is that it is foundational to life.  Organic Chemistry is basically Carbon Chemistry. (Science Fiction plays on this when it speculates on Silicon Base life for aliens)

The amount of Carbon on earth does not change but its state can.  Everyone of one is part of this carbon state change cycle.  As we grow we take in carbon to fuel our growth.  If we lose weight we lose carbon.  If we are stable we take in carbon (from food) and lose carbon (from breathing aka CO2 and elimination) Thus our very bodies are part of what could be call the 'active carbon cycle' and the 'stored carbon cycle'.

The earth is apart of this cycle to... Its part of the Active Cycle and it is part of the Stored Cycle.  The Stored Cycle is all organic material, everything from you and me to fossil fuels.  The active cycle is all carbon that is moving.  The best measure for this would be atmospheric carbon because it is the most mobile.

Now the big argument of Climate change is that we are taking we are taking Stored Carbon (aka fossil fuels) and making it Active Carbon.  That is not really debatable... because that is exactly what we are doing.  What is debatable is what is going to happen next.. The Climate Change supporters point to Venus as an example of what we are headed for. (Runaway greenhouse gases)  But the neglect the big check on the Active Carbon cycle.  Something as far as we know Venus does not have and never did, something that Earth has in abundance.  That check is Life itself.

In Earth history it has had times of great variation of the Active Carbon cycle.  Things like meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions can greatly increase the amount of active carbon that is in the cycle, by releasing the stored carbon.  This can be greatly disruptive to existing life... but it is greatly beneficial to the concept of life itself.

Because the interesting thing about greenhouse gases is that they are greenhouse gases.    Ask any Climate Change Supporter and Greenhouse Gases are the bad guy. Ask anyone that tries to grow plants and you hear use how helpful and useful they are to plant growth.

Now it is clear that we are putting more Carbon into the active cycle, and it is clear the earth is doing what it always does when this happens. (increasing the ability to store it). The big question is are we going to push it more then the earth can respond to? That is unlikely.  But can we push it to the were the earth's response is not good for us and we hurt ourselves?  That seems quite likely.

So what do we do.. The climate change agenda pushers are all about taking control (aka power, aka its for your own good) and they want to stop everything.  Sadly this will not stop volcanoes and meteors or any other natural method of carbon release.  That seems like a bad choice no matter what.   Know what seems like a better choice?... Encouraging life and innovation.  Find a way to put carbon back into storage and find away to profit from it.  This saves the world, saves the economy, and it give a tool to dig back out from a "natural disaster".  Until then do what makes sense for you personally to reduce what you pull and increase what you put into the carbon storage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 9:34 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

So, following the UN report, published today, if we all keep on living the way we live now, we can expect up to a million species to go extinct pretty rapidly, real soon now. I wonder if this might be of interest to Latter Day Saints, and what might be your reaction to this challenge? Do we have dominion over, or custodianship of, the natural world?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think most of them are algeas and amoebas and such.  So what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 5/16/2019 at 2:04 PM, Scott said:

Why is Trump lying about it and saying that climate change is a Chinese hoax?

You're mischaracterizing what he said.

He was of the opinion that climate change is natural.  But the concept that it is both manmade and the fact it is hyped as much as it is -- that is a Chinese hoax.

The first part is something I agree with. It is natural (at least the great majority is).   The Chinese hoax part... I could believe it.  I haven't really looked into it enough to determine.  But it makes sense that it might be.

About Trump... I'l be completely honest.  I do believe he really thought the whole idea of the earth getting warmer may have been a big hoax.  But he was informed on some science and what the reality was by some advisers.  And he backed off a bit to the current position I just outlined.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

Now, here's a question for all those who are panicking about global warming.  Most of the greenies out there are liberals.  And you will tend to share the liberal position on abortion.  The question often asked is,"What are you doing to help those single mothers...?" 

Well, I believe we've answered that on this website.  And it is well documented how much conservatives give to charity above liberals of the same income brackets.

So, to liberals:  If you're so panicked about global warming, what are you doing that has any effect on climate change?  And what are your politicians doing about it?

I know some, but not many, greenie types that are actually making major changes to their lifestyles to combat climate change.  But most of their efforts have other side effects that they don't realize their efforts are a net zero.  And most of the politicians actually do ZERO to help with the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mores said:

Now, here's a question for all those who are panicking about global warming.  Most of the greenies out there are liberals.  And you will tend to share the liberal position on abortion.  The question often asked is,"What are you doing to help those single mothers...?" 

Well, I believe we've answered that on this website.  And it is well documented how much conservatives give to charity above liberals of the same income brackets.

So, to liberals:  If you're so panicked about global warming, what are you doing that has any effect on climate change?  And what are your politicians doing about it?

I know some, but not many, greenie types that are actually making major changes to their lifestyles to combat climate change.  But most of their efforts have other side effects that they don't realize their efforts are a net zero.  And most of the politicians actually do ZERO to help with the issue.

I'm not as concerned about Climate Change as one may think...but I do plant trees.  Unfortunately, I think I planted too many trees in my yard and need to have a serious trimming or something.  We have a literal wall all around the house (well, not the house, but the land it is on) now.  If I had to do it over I might plant something that grows a little less quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not as concerned about Climate Change as one may think...but I do plant trees.  Unfortunately, I think I planted too many trees in my yard and need to have a serious trimming or something.  We have a literal wall all around the house (well, not the house, but the land it is on) now.  If I had to do it over I might plant something that grows a little less quickly.

i'm very proud of you that you have actually taken some action on your own terms with your own time and property that you believe is helping the world.  I hate to break it to you that this act you've done is, at present, most likely a zero sum act.  Details are required (see below).

We tend to think that because CO2 is a problem, we just need to have more plants to absorb the CO2.  While it is true that atmospheric CO2 is decreased with plant growth, there is also a problem with increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere as a result of plant growth via plant waste.  Sometimes ammonia is also added to the atmosphere.  In addition, the agricultural energy that is required often offsets how much of a change there is in the atmosphere. 

Usually, new plantings require irrigation.  To bring that water to the plants requires energy.  Where does that energy come from?

You also probably had to use fertilizer, plant food, and a variety of other plant care products.  Where did all that come from?  Organic chemicals?  That usually takes three times the energy to create than so called chemical equivalents.

Do you mow around the trees?  Using what?

Do you trim the trees?  With what?

What do you do with fallen foliage?

 As the plant life levels are around current volumes, the combinations and give and take of CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. don't significantly change the temperature.  They all trade off into a basically zero sum game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 5/15/2019 at 3:06 PM, 2ndRateMind said:

I am arguing that being scientists, they have respect for scientific method, and that their agreement is founded on that scientific method.

And you'd be wrong.

Quote

And scientific method has proven itself, thus far, to be a reliable manner to arrive at the truth value of an empirical, a posteriori, contention.

If it is actually followed.

Quote

Scientists, with their academic credentials and reputation on the line, tend to be very careful about what they endorse and do not endorse as matters of fact.

If they are truly scientists per the classical definition of the word, then you could be right.  But they don't.  Most "climate scientists" don't engage in scientific method.  They look up what others have researched and concluded. Then they just accept it and use that data in whatever work they are doing.  When delving into the percentage of climate scientists who "agree", we find that a full 70% never did actual studies or calculations or peer reviewed computer models.  They simply read the IPCC report and decided to quote it regardless of the accuracy or logic behind it. It was backed by the governments of multiple countries.  That was the only real thing the IPCC had going for it.

The other 30% were divided.  And most of them did indeed agree that there was a real effect of various gasses that could trap more heat than they release out of the atmosphere.  That is what 97% of scientists agree upon.  The rest of it (is it manmade, degree of damage, how to fix it, causes, etc.) most of them did not agree.

And now you're agreeing with those same people who never did any studies themselves, and you don't even know what you're agreeing with.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share