Reality is flexible nowadays. Just trumpet "Fake news!" a few times, and inconvenient reality ceases to be reality.
In the mid 90's Nicole Kidman starred in a film called "To Die For". She played a psychopathic small-town TV anchor with ambitions to make it to the big time by any means necessary. Somewhere in the film, her character says a few lines to the effect that what people see on TV is more real than reality, that reality doesn't actually exist until TV cameras show up and make it real.
Sadly, that frighteningly deluded belief is no longer only held by psychopathic TV anchors. It has become a mainstream belief held by hundreds of millions of people.
It was bad enough when people growing up with too much disconnection from nature and too much exposure to Disney films came to believe that wild animals all want to be your friend, and therefore you should try to pet the deer in America's national parks. An excerpt from a Los Angeles Times article follows:
L.A. Times said:
That was in 1988. Thirty-one years later, the delusion is much bigger. Now we don't believe the wildfires blazing across Russia ( Siberia wildfires: Russian cities are choking in smoke from massive blazes - Vox ). We don't believe the extraordinary melt rate of Antarctic glaciers ( Glacial melting in Antarctica may become irreversible | World news | The Guardian ). We don't believe that July 2019 was the hottest year on record, with data going back to 1850 ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...test-month-since-records-began/?noredirect=on ).
But apparently we do believe what Fox News says, that climate change doesn't exist, all scientists are liars and fools, anyone who is concerned about climate change is a deluded fool, or worse, a criminal conspirator, et cetera.
I have a feeling our growing collective inability to tell fact from fiction is very likely going to be the thing that eventually wipes out our species.
-Gnobuddy
You're contradicting yourself badly .You still hear it on TV and it is INTERPRETED for you on TV. You make a choice of whom to believe based on your preconceptions and bias but deny that choice to anybody else.
What kind of sacrifices you personally made to save the world ??ANY??
Are you selling your property and moving to Alaska and if not why? Don't you want to live ?
The problem is that scientists are not and should not be a political activists. They just should provide the data and prediction and that's it. They are not there to form committees or to serve to various lobby groups pushing policies and agendas.
All this nonsense of kids organizing themselves and demonstrating "spontaneously" has to be exposed for what it is. And all ths seriousness, old political pricks who in their spare time rape 14 years old on some distant island but during a prime time are enthusiastically endorsing a teenage Greta who is lecturing the world and is doing it all on her own of course. I mean what kind of idiot one have to be to believe that crap??
What kind of sacrifices you personally made to save the world ??ANY??
Are you selling your property and moving to Alaska and if not why? Don't you want to live ?
The doctors who came to fight Ebola were probably mistakenly perceived as those who try various vaccines in various poor countries and when people die just move along to another country to try something else.
The problem is that scientists are not and should not be a political activists. They just should provide the data and prediction and that's it. They are not there to form committees or to serve to various lobby groups pushing policies and agendas.
All this nonsense of kids organizing themselves and demonstrating "spontaneously" has to be exposed for what it is. And all ths seriousness, old political pricks who in their spare time rape 14 years old on some distant island but during a prime time are enthusiastically endorsing a teenage Greta who is lecturing the world and is doing it all on her own of course. I mean what kind of idiot one have to be to believe that crap??
Exactly: humans always make mistakes, but the wonderful thing about science is that it exposes our mistakes, so that we can correct them.
Science is a recipe that, amazingly, allows humans - with all our failings - to eventually come to conclusions that are correct, even when they are completely counter-intuitive. The earth looks flat, but science found out that it isn't; things appear to stop moving if not pushed, but science found out that they are stopped by invisible friction, and will not stop moving if you put them in a frictionless environment (like outer space.) Objects appear solid, but science found out that they are made of atoms that are mostly empty space; that science led to the extraordinary creations of modern chemistry that touch every one of our lives, from brightly-coloured paint pigments to the medications that save our lives.
On the other hand, conclusions that people draw without using science - opinions, beliefs, myths, conjectures, superstitions - are wrong far more often than conclusions drawn by science. And they are almost never proven wrong, so people continue to believe in complete and utter nonsense, century after century, millenium after millenium: ghosts, spirits, fairies, good luck charms, horoscopes, magic, et cetera, et cetera.
You're typing your posts on a cellphone or computer: do you think those miraculous creations would have come into existence without science?
And if science clearly results in extraordinary things being understood, and extraordinary things being made, then why would you choose to ridicule only one branch of science, the one that tells us we've overheated our planet to dangerous levels?
-Gnobuddy
Science of billionaires who made out like bandits during last 30 years of manufactured busts and business motivated wars, and now want to free themselves from a restrains of geopolitics. I do hope they will succeed and your kids will have a bowl or rice daily and will be happy that that they saved the planet. I have no doubt that the feelings will be constantly reinforced by the media.
I have read quite a lot of this thread and mostly only skipped a few bits of arguments. The greatest man made climate effect has been soot emissions into the atmosphere by the burning of raw coal in open grates. This has held the temperature down by stopping the sunlight reaching the ground especially infrared light/heat. Most of this has been stopped and global warming has started making its way back to where the temperature would have been if there was no industrial revolution. This in the exact opposite of what climate scientists have been on about. Large volcanic eruptions demonstrate this very well all be it with heavy dust that settles out of the air more rapidly than coal soot. We are talking about 18 months for rock dust against 60 years for fine coal soot. Mount Tambora is the best example to demonstrate this. Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia
Deforestation reduces the thermal mass of the land by allowing the land to dry out and causes bigger changes in temperature between winter and summer. This will kill other plants and make the problem worse as time goes by.
There are also natural effects that come from the solar wind. Nobody has as far as I know been out there to measure this but anyway here goes
The magnetic field of the earth sorts all of the electrically charged particles emitted by the sun into positively and negatively charged individuals and then they fall through the atmosphere creating the arora at the poles. Some of these particles remain on the ice caps and repel more particles so that the arora form rings of light thousands of miles across. The polar ice effectively becomes an ice semiconductor diode causing the current generated by the solar wind to land at locations near the edge of the icecaps where the point of contact moves around and melts patches of ice as is is closer to its melting point there. This mobile hot spot caused by the local resistive heating makes the jetstreams snake and drag hot and cold air north and south so that it gets reported as extreme weather. The electric current generated by the solar wind will eventually find a lower resistance path to earth avoiding the diode effect by forward biasing it and the one at the other pole. The man made effect here is soot on the ice short circuiting the diode effect so delaying this geological time period oscillation by many years. Once the low resistance path is found the current will reverse and that great big solenoid in the core of the earth will reverse its polarity making all magnetic compasses point the wrong way. It is well over due and the magnetic poles are moving quite a bit now. The time periods and time taken for reversal to actually happen are very variable.
Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia
Deforestation reduces the thermal mass of the land by allowing the land to dry out and causes bigger changes in temperature between winter and summer. This will kill other plants and make the problem worse as time goes by.
There are also natural effects that come from the solar wind. Nobody has as far as I know been out there to measure this but anyway here goes
The magnetic field of the earth sorts all of the electrically charged particles emitted by the sun into positively and negatively charged individuals and then they fall through the atmosphere creating the arora at the poles. Some of these particles remain on the ice caps and repel more particles so that the arora form rings of light thousands of miles across. The polar ice effectively becomes an ice semiconductor diode causing the current generated by the solar wind to land at locations near the edge of the icecaps where the point of contact moves around and melts patches of ice as is is closer to its melting point there. This mobile hot spot caused by the local resistive heating makes the jetstreams snake and drag hot and cold air north and south so that it gets reported as extreme weather. The electric current generated by the solar wind will eventually find a lower resistance path to earth avoiding the diode effect by forward biasing it and the one at the other pole. The man made effect here is soot on the ice short circuiting the diode effect so delaying this geological time period oscillation by many years. Once the low resistance path is found the current will reverse and that great big solenoid in the core of the earth will reverse its polarity making all magnetic compasses point the wrong way. It is well over due and the magnetic poles are moving quite a bit now. The time periods and time taken for reversal to actually happen are very variable.
Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia
Not at all. I read the research papers, talk to researchers, read summary articles put together by scientists. I haven't watched TV since the early 2000s.
Not at all. I don't believe in "whoms", I believe in facts - things supported by scientific evidence, not merely by superstitious beliefs and emotional rants, or by the opinions of other people.
As an example, the accelerated melt rate of glaciers all over the world in recent decades is fact. The belief that there is no such thing as climate change is merely an unsupported opinion, and therefore, worthless.
Next thing, you'll be asking me if my socks smell. What does any of that have to do with the reality of climate change? What makes you think I, or anyone else, can save the world?
And what makes you think we can live through what's coming, no matter what we do or where we move?
Fact: there are 7.7 billion people on the planet. Any one person - you, me - represents one part in 7.7 billion. That's the tenth decimal place downstream - a contribution so small it's utterly insignificant. If you somehow stopped your CO2 emissions entirely, it would have no effect at all on the future of the planet.
Any hope we had involved the collective behaviour of billions of human beings, not the individual actions of idealistic people. Collective altruistic behaviour on that scale has never been demonstrated by our species. Our chances were not good, even when there was still time to stop ourselves (the problem was well known to scientists and politicians in the 1980s, thirty to forty years ago now.) And sure enough, we have failed to even try, except for a few small - and usually wealthy - nations.
I don't believe there is a way to a happy ending. There are no good solutions in sight - replacing our incandescent bulbs with LED lamps might make us feel good, but it does next to nothing to our total CO2 emissions. Because there are no good alternative options or solutions in sight, we will all continue to do the same stupid things that got us into this situation, for as long as we can. And eventually, nature will take its course, and pull down our very tall house of cards.
Moving to the Yukon or trying to live on termites won't stop climate change. Doing those things in the hope of stopping what is now unstoppable will merely ruin your life, and help nobody else. You're the tenth decimal place, remember?
But choosing to bury your head in the sand or believe ancient superstitions rather than face facts is hardly a noble way to face the oncoming onslaught.
I would much rather face reality, until it mows me down, along with everybody else.
-Gnobuddy
I think you may be confusing economists and military strategists with scientists.
In fact, I've never heard of a scientist who was a billionaire. The majority of scientists make less money than the uneducated guy running his own plumbing business. People motivated by money rarely go into science, and scientists are rarely primarily motivated by money.
Billionaires, on the other hand, are usually narcissists with severe psychological problems, except the ones who inherit their billions (and those too tend to have severe psychological problems, though they may not be narcissists.)
-Gnobuddy
I'm not confusing anything. I know that scientists are not billionaires but they mostly serve those who funds the research. that's why the climate change fan club is always asking who is funding the research RIGHT??By the way those few scientists who dare to have somewhat different opinion than the consensus are treated, I know that the politics overtook the science.
Observing the ways Academia is bowing to the Social justice idiocy and in absolutely comical fashion I know they have no spine to push upstream and are just bought and sold. I choose to believe those who say that there is no danger of the world ending or for that matter any significant danger of any sort relating to global warming at least to the end of the century.
The climate like a medicine is not a strict science.
Observing the ways Academia is bowing to the Social justice idiocy and in absolutely comical fashion I know they have no spine to push upstream and are just bought and sold. I choose to believe those who say that there is no danger of the world ending or for that matter any significant danger of any sort relating to global warming at least to the end of the century.
The climate like a medicine is not a strict science.
Last edited:
Do you know how to filter out pseudo science? In audio electronics market, many of them appear so legit. They exist in meteorological science community too. So I'm curious how you would do it, if you do.
Who said climate doesn't change?
Fusion (not fission).
Which psychiatrist or psychiatric research did you get this from?
Galileo would probably die laughing . What dangers are present day climate doomsday scientists face ? Being invited to a talk show full o cheering 15 years old girls and plenty of access to a research funds.
It supposed to rain for four days this week so I neglected to water my garden thinking the weather will take care of it and left home . Nope , it did not rain a single day and the tomatoes are dead . Why do I even bother to check ...
The only deadly climate change caused by humans is a political climate and a social climate.
It supposed to rain for four days this week so I neglected to water my garden thinking the weather will take care of it and left home . Nope , it did not rain a single day and the tomatoes are dead . Why do I even bother to check ...
The only deadly climate change caused by humans is a political climate and a social climate.
Lags and thermal thermal mass. CO2 has gone up - no doubt. Temperatures have gone up no doubt.
Solar activity: no - shown to be negligible over the the short term - only a very long term effect (c 10% increase in output every 1 billion years)
This on Lindzen (from wiki)
“These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. . . “
Everyone I look into CG I see lots of independent academics - some working for governor you agencies admittedly) arrrayed against deniers (often highly qualified) funded by either large corporations with some skin in the game, or political organizations that are appealing to people’s outrage that they may have to curb their lifestyles in order to get a grip on the situation.
In the United States, is it possible to grow tomatoes on a site near a house? I heard that it is forbidden.
As I understand it, authorities say that some plant species are crowding out local species. Then this is the spread of plant diseases. Violation of design or urban environment. And it can harm neighbors.
Why is it illegal to grow vegetables and fruits in your backyard in the United States?
Florida Supreme Court: You can't grow vegetables on your own property | Pacific Legal Foundation
In the United States, is it possible to grow tomatoes on a site near a house? I heard that it is forbidden - Поиск в Google.
Last edited:
My version and this is the main and hidden reason. People who grow food in their gardens receive an element of independence from the authorities. We have the same trend. Russian authorities are slowly copying the successes of "Western democracy." Products have not yet been banned to grow, but restrict the freedom of summer residents and introduce new taxes and fines. Money is a new camouflaged, civilized prison and bondage in the modern world.
It is not common to grow vegetables between the house and street in suburban areas but not typically forbidden unless a HOA is involved. I don’t know of a place that forbids it behind the house. The link you posted is about a city that bans it between the house and street. That is not typical and why it made the news.
There once was a time when vegetable gardening and backyard farming were not endangered; these activities were a way of life. However, with booming big agriculture business comes the need for monetary and job security, which means that threatening the productivity of big agriculture will not be tolerated. With Michigan’s recent ban on backyard farming, along with many states regulating the amount of garden space individuals may have in their yard, the ability for Americans to grow their own food and feed themselves is becoming a thing of the past. The future of personal gardening and farming is in danger and may become illegal altogether. Personal Gardening and Farming Are Becoming Illegal - Guardian Liberty Voice
It all comes down to the fact that soon you will not buy anything at the store without having scanned your face and fingerprints on your smartphone. And only the lawn will grow in your yard. In China, this technology is already working, you can’t get on the subway, and in some cities you can’t even get home without a face scan. And all this technology is being developed at the expense of Google and Apple customers, that is, free of charge for companies and, most likely, by order of governments.
It all comes down to the fact that soon you will not buy anything at the store without having scanned your face and fingerprints on your smartphone. And only the lawn will grow in your yard. In China, this technology is already working, you can’t get on the subway, and in some cities you can’t even get home without a face scan. And all this technology is being developed at the expense of Google and Apple customers, that is, free of charge for companies and, most likely, by order of governments.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.