The New Climate Reality

Indeed. Though I think a lot of it is self confirmation. Just as I might look up "Weather determined by man made climate change" So I can't complain if they look up "Weather not determined by man made climate change" Each of us finding what we expect.

 

LOL

Yes, I can’t understand why almost all climate/environmental advocates find it necessary to lie. It not only damages this cause but it damages the whole notion of science being an arbitrator of truth. When “science” no longer adheres to empirical evidence, we have a big problem in society in general.

I do support everyone’s right to make noise on the issue. I just wish the people influencing the young had the integrity to stick to evidence.

I’m very slow lately!

 

Each of us? Please speak for yourself. Some of the people you lump into your "each" do not rely on headlines they want to read and self serving internet articles with subjective opinions they want to read.

Studies. They are all on public domain. Universities and scientists publish them. To ignore what they say and remove them from their context to suit specific denial agenda is intellectually dishonest. I have lost track of the number of deniers on this and other forums who deliberately ignore stats and pretend they do not exist (even when the data was provided to them) or they conclude something the data the data never discussed or analyzed.

I repeat it again a comment like we saw on a thread that global warming (from someone who denies it) increases precipitation so it puts out wilddfires as an argument to down play global warming's exasperation of wildfires is as moronic as arguing global warming increases our ability to grow certain crops so its a good thing. How could the people who make such statements not realize the beneficial results they think happen are far outweighed by the damage being done to other parts of the globe?

It is also begs patience to read someone suggesting forest fires have decreased based on his isolating a time period from a report he read (the very exercise Jack Hays used after denying global warming arguing exists because the people who say it does use a limited time period that prevents true accuracy).

It then becomes absurd when the very report used to argue forest fires decreased means there is no global warming and to quote that report but delete the comments from those report writers arguing the fact that forest fores decreased does not mean global warming is increasing their rates or that it can be assumed their decrease means they are "normal".

To come on any forum and attempt to blanketly state the increase in forest fires is not linked to global warming is as irresponsible and intellectually dishonest as pretending global warming has not increased flooding, rising sea levels, unstable weather fronts, draught but we see it continuously with the deliberately false mantra, "these things would have happened anyway" , i.e., their rate has not been accelerated by global warming.

Then we have the continuing outright denial that the amount of CO2 in the air has not had any role in global warming.

These arguments put forth by deniers are not just patently false but deliberate in misrepresentation. They are not done simply because of honest bias but by deliberate misrepresentation.

Excuse me but the misrepresentations on this board are not genuine debates on how to interpret data they are examples of arrogant, know it all, petulant, individuals who do not want to be told their lifestyles will have to change.

I took my gloves off long ago being polite on this topic. I and others tried only to be made personal targets of name calling and having the data we provide DELIBERATELY ignored or misrepresented by deleting parts of it.

Bottom line-people should be fed up with global warming deniers no different then they have a right to be fed up with vaccine and mask deniers, people who insist on driving drunk, smoking or engaging in any other self-destructive habits pretending their choices only matter to them and do not negatively impact on others or they do not give a damn how they impact on others.

As for the people whining do not like the alarmist headlines because it makes them poo their pants..too gawd damn bad get a diaper. have a wonderful day.

I deny all of the above I wrote. It doesn't exist.

 

Falsehood upon falsehood.

 

Kind of ironic when you think about it—globalism is praised even though it’s responsible for most all negative environment impacts—including invasive species.

Fungi. Good or bad they never get credit where credit is due. I don’t know much about Phytophthora cinnamomi but we have a close relative Phytophthora sojae that can be a real problem in soybeans. I can imagine in your climate where soil temperatures are high year round it could really take hold. The answer in soybeans seems to be selecting varieties with resistance. I think there is research ongoing trying to apply the same selection process for resistance in soybeans to the American Chestnut and P. cinnamomi . I suppose the same could be done for other species but what a lot of work. Perhaps we will identify enough genes and be able to engineer more plants to resist.

Very good point about the universally true but meaningless bit. That’s par for the course it seems with a lot of this kind of research.

Yeh, that thing looks vicious. It would have taken care of your feral cat problem. LOL

That’s a good point about humans trending towards symbiosis with the rest of the planet. I certainly believe at some point if climate change does have the plethora of negative results predicted the ability of humans to continue to thrive and contribute to further change will be severely curtailed. Our population and behavior will be modified by the environment to a point of equilibrium. The fittest will survive.

Still no call back. Shocking!

I married into the state of Nebraska I suppose. I started attending school in Nebraska my junior year of high school and made friends here including meeting my wife. We had the opportunity to farm in Northeast Colorado or here. Northeast Colorado doesn’t have many redeeming qualities so we decided on Nebraska where my wife’s ancestors homesteaded. The land is much more productive here for production ag. from a soils and climate perspective. It is actually much less flat here than Northeast Colorado. We have hills and canyons most seasoned Cowboys are hesitant to ride down because of their slope. This is one of my pastures.



Yep, Denver is about 5 hours away.

No native blood I’m aware of! I think ag producers come close to the spiritual connection of natives.

Your dad sounds awesome. I’m glad you appreciate the gift of “love of knowledge” he gave you. My dad did the same for me. Everywhere we went he taught us to ask questions and listen and observe. Without even trying he taught my brother and I to care enough about the environment to take personal actions to protect it.

I would love to see the productions your dad does now. They are fascinating.

 

Do you feel better for that?

 

I don't feel one way or the other. If you fart and you do it in my face don't stand there and ask me to hug you. Got it? Not a complex concept. Here let me assist with these pictures to help you:


Trump, you, anyone emitting gas

This young person wants you to stop farting

 

$$$$

 

I'm on your side if you remember rightly. My home is heated with heat pumps my business (Leisure industry) uses 80% reclaimed materials in its expansion.
I recognise climate change and support efforts by governments and individuals to deal with it.

All I said was that people tend to find the opinion they are looking for.

 

I am being sarcastic immitating my favourite deniers. No worries. I should have made that clear. You are innocent and yu are right that we all have biases. I am just a tad annoyed at how stupid the denial debate has gone on this forum in terms of how people have denied what is smack dab in their face. So I have been a tad tongue n cheek.

 

Because the facts dont support their catastrophic scenarios. From back in 1989, Stephen Schneider

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

They decided long ago to be "effective" instead.

 

Cool quote. And exactly what we see. But I don’t agree with it’s necessity. We can and should make a strong argument for protecting the environment based on empirical evidence alone.

I think the above quote is from an authoritarian who failed to realize there are consequences to lying to get what you want. Tyrants have lied through the ages to curtail freedoms—yet here you and I are—still enjoying freedom and willing to die to preserve it. People like Stephen fail to account for that.

 

Many of the people you denigrate accept all empirical evidence. You reject all evidence that does not directly support your pre-conceived opinions. You are the epitome of what you rail against.

 

When you make a generalized sweeping statement that suggests facts do not support scenarios but do not give an example of the data you question and explain why its inaccurate you state a meaningless subjective statement. The comment you quote is an example of an unsubstantiated subjective statement that proves nothing but you quote as if it proves something. All it shows is you do not understand how substantiate your opinions. So they are meaningless.

 

It is the way of all critical theory.

Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it. Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy, Horkheimer critiqued both the model of science put forward by logical positivism, and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism. He described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."[6] Critical theory involves a normative dimension, either by criticizing society in terms of some general theory of values or norms (oughts), or by criticizing society in terms of its own espoused values (i.e. immanent critique).[7]

Its not an examination of society and is instead only an attempt to change it. Factual reality is an inconvenience to them

 

And in the attempt to “liberate” they enslave themselves to a narrow minded world of confirmation bias and denial of empirical evidence. No thanks. Not interested!

 

Fair do's. If its any help, 90% of people living on the planet recognise climate change as man made and bad. So any arguments with the deniersare for entertainment value only

 

Well said Tigger thank you I needed that. I should be clearer who I am raving at by the way. Sorry.

 

The history of science is replete with scorned minority views that turned out to be correct.

 

Is this one of them panic threads?

 

But far more cases of the agreed view carrying forward.

 

Oh yes, its that serious now.

 

Ya, but not this time.

 

Actually, most important scientific advances have begun with the destruction of a previous consensus. Please see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.

 

Quite obviously this time.