Forum: Author Hangout

They're wrong about a great number of things.

Right or wrong, I don't know. I'm not smart enough.

My point was that "global warming" and "burning of fossil fuels" is automatically the blame for any kind of weather. No matter what. Too much rain = global warming. Too little rain = global warming. I don't know if it's the media or the scientists or the politicians.

When you start with a predetermined result, it is easy to find facts to support it.

It is a fact that scientists have determined that the weather here on Earth is cyclic with a wide range of weather conditions. Fossil fuels is one of the things that affect our weather, but it is not the main thing in my opinion.

Right or wrong, I don't know. I'm not smart enough.

Then don't write about it or spread disinformation.

However, if you are looking for a scientifically sound theory to write, then research the effects of increased "man made" infrastructure and decreased deciduous vegetation on the surface temperature of the planet.

Then don't write about it or spread disinformation.

My point was that scientists don't have all the facts and are writing about it and spreading information (or maybe misinformation). And the media jumps on the bandwagon and also does it. Climate change has occurred for millions of years. We've had an ice age and then the ice age was gone. No one was burning fossil fuels back then.

Is burning fossil fuels part of the problem? I think it is. But it's not the problem for everything. Getting rid of the trees in the Amazon is probably doing more damage.

And government isn't any help. California just passed a law that requires grass to be replaced with artificial turf because of the drought (water shortage). Sounds good. But grass cools the planet. Astroturf gets unbelievably hot so it heats the air around it (rather than grass cooling the air). I know. I have artificial turf in my backyard and boy does it get hot.

My point was simply that it's wrong to blame everything on one thing. That I'm smart enough to know.

California just passed a law that requires grass to be replaced with artificial turf because of the drought (water shortage).

Cellulose is nature's equivalent of a plastic. Except that bacteria have evolved to digest it and it doesn't require fossil fuels to produce.

Those californicators make the Beverly Hillbillies look like geniuses.

AJ

California just passed a law that requires grass to be replaced with artificial turf because of the drought (water shortage).

Just how low is the rainfall in the regions affected? Once the grass is established and has formed a sward (with or without runes), it can go long periods without water - it will go brown and crisp but should recover when it next rains. I suspect watering the grass might not be the big issue, but watering it every day, especially if simultaneously keeping it trimmed to golf-green or housing association standard lengths.

AJ

Actually, I misstated. The Calif law doesn't outlaw grass. It limits how much water can be used (in a day?). The solution is to replace grass with artificial turf.

But to answer your question, the drought is really bad (here in Arizona too or maybe even worse). Lake Mead is at its lowest level since Hoover Dam created it. I think I heard that if it drops a few hundred more feet the hydroelectric generator won't work.

I'm not faulting California for taking action on how much water can be used. I simply pointed out that when government fixes one problem, they often add to or create another problem.

A better solution in arid areas is xeriscaping.

Isn't that trying to live with the problem rather than trying to fix it? Surely the carbon-capture capabilities of xeric plants is far lower than more traditional plants.

I suspect much of California's domestic horticulture water use is wasted by evaporation. The same amount of water could be used to much better effect by seeping water to the plants from below the soil's surface.

AJ

While (probably) better than xeric plants, the carbon-capture capabilities of grass are comfortably exceeded by shrubby plants and trees and especially peat bogs. I would imagine that as well as their carbon-capture capabilities, their cooling capabilities are better too.

There's a sort of domino effect that trees are better in cohorts. More trees together are more likely to thrive, while fewer trees together will eventually lead to Easter Island, where so many trees were cut down that all tree-life became unsustainable. Conversely, if you could get one tree to grow in an arid area, you'd get a much better chance of growing neighbours around it.

You should be right about the costs of bringing water from hundreds of miles away though.

Was California always arid? Is the prevailing wind from the west?

AJ

If you really want to tackle global warming (yes, I know that's not your objective in our side discussion), then you need to know what you have to work with before starting to terraform.

Chile has physical similarities to California, but the prevailing west wind lifts clouds over the Andes to shed their loads onto the Amazon catchment. That would make it very difficult to green the Atacama Desert.

AJ

A better solution in arid areas is xeriscaping.

The real solution is to pipe water to Arizona from the Mississippi River. It will solve their flooding and provide AZ with needed water.

No, the real solution is to recognize you are living in a desert and adjust to living with that instead of trying to turn it into a grassland.

There's not a lot of grass in the Arizona desert cities, like Phoenix. We've been landscaping for the lack of water since I've been here (1976) and probably before I got here.

My last house was in a community called Desert Highlands. Lyle Andersen had a dream of building a golf community in the middle of the desert using as little water as possible. He hired Jack Nicholas to build the course. Nicholas wanted to build his first golf course and Lyle Andersen wanted to promote his development. That's how the Skins Game came about. Nicholas used his influence to get it on TV and Andersen let him build the course. The first 2 or 3 Skins games were at Desert Highlands.

There are no water hazards on the course. As little grass as possible. What it has is sections of grass within the desert. Like on a par-5, you hit over the desert off the tee, then again in the fairway, and then again in front of the green. It's what's now known as target golf. Trees don't line the fairways. Desert lines the fairway. There are cacti and Palo Verde trees, both native to the desert. It's beautiful and uses much less water than a normal golf course (plus it's watered with recycled water).

But the problem is the Colorado river. It used to get filled by melting snow in the Rockies. There isn't much snow anymore. Or rain. So Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and California are running out of water because they depend on the Colorado water. And 80% of the water usage in Arizona is agriculture. They really need to pump water from the Mississippi into the Colorado River.

The idiots want green grass in a desert,

Most of Calif is not a desert. They're just in the middle of a many-year drought.

Sorry I missed seeing this sooner.

If you took my post to be at "you", then I offer sincere apologies.
The 'you' I used is the collective one. Meaning the world.

And yes, your point is exactly what I was trying to point out.
Things are warmer due to destruction and replacement of the natural stuff

Except the number of US land falling hurricanes is not up.

See this interesting data from NOAA — Reducing Pollution incrases the number of Atlantic hurricanes

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study links changes in regionalized air pollution across the globe to storm activity going both up and down. A 50% decrease in pollution particles and droplets in Europe and the U.S. is linked to a 33% increase in Atlantic storm formation in the past couple decades, while the opposite is happening in the Pacific with more pollution and fewer typhoons, according to the study published in Wednesday's Science Advances.

A 50% decrease in pollution particles and droplets in Europe and the U.S. is linked to a 33% increase in Atlantic storm formation in the past couple decades, while the opposite is happening in the Pacific with more pollution and fewer typhoons,

This is what I saw on the news.

However, one thing I hate about statistics is you can come to erroneous conclusions. What if the two (pollution and number of storms) aren't related but just happen in the same time period?

What if the two (pollution and number of storms) aren't related but just happen in the same time period?

As the World Health Organisation claims when linking the consumption of red meat with cancer, 'correlation proves causality'. ;-)

AJ

As the World Health Organisation claims when linking the consumption of red meat with cancer, 'correlation proves causality'. ;-)

I guy drank Scotch and soda. And Rye and soda. And Vodka and soda. He got sick every time so he looked for the common thing in all the drinks and came to the conclusion that it must be the soda.

Ignoring the fact that the planet is getting out of control won't save anyone.

But I do believe it. I even believe greenhouse gases are contributing to it. But I don't believe the greenhouse gases are causing every problem we have.

Too little rain in the SW. Oh, greenhouse gases is the cause. Too much rain in the SE. Oh, greenhouse gases is the cause. There's something illogical about that.

As to scientists, unfortunately they change their mind all the time.

As to scientists, unfortunately they change their mind all the time.

There are tens of thousands of climate related scientists, and the media loves to hold up differing views among them (regardless of the statistical distribution), but when you aggregate their results, the vast majority stick to claiming that over the last hundred and fifty years, there has been an abnormal increase in global temperatures which is consistent with the increase of human released greenhouse gasses and consistent with how greenhouse gasses function in Earth's atmosphere.

climate related scientists

I don't think they're real scientists because they can't follow the scientific method. They might come up with predictions but they won't live long enough to see whether they were correct since climate is measured over centuries.

AJ

By climate related scientists, I meant meteorologists, geologists, astronomers, fluid dynamics physicists... Climate science isn't one thing. It's a huge network of sciences all sharing research and discussing each others' results and methods and forming predictions, which again aggregated, results in a vast, world spanning agreement that we need to act to reduce greenhouse gasses in our planet's atmosphere.

In about 80 years time humanity will be able to check whether end-of-century predictions were right, whether there will be an extra half degree of warming over what they predicted 20 years ago. Except that nobody will care and the predictors themselves will be dead. And they can't produced revised predictions based on better knowledge because the climate will have moved on. So no scientific method.

AJ

Playing the Devil's Advocate, isn't the amount of water in the biosphere pretty much fixed? On the other hand, the amount of carbon in the biosphere isn't. The UK is planning four carbon-capture plants which will store the carbon in solid form deep underground, ie below the biosphere. Not that it will make a gnat's bite worth of difference compared with the amount of fossil fuels we still introduce into the biosphere.

AJ

It is generally fixed, but subject to increase based on the amount of evaporation from the oceans.

By biosphere I mean both the oceans and the atmosphere so evaporation isn't a consideration unless, like what may have happened on Mars, the water evaporates into space.

AJ

biosphere, relatively thin life-supporting stratum of Earth's surface, extending from a few kilometres into the atmosphere to the deep-sea vents of the ocean.

That sounds about right, although I would have added a criterion for the land depth as well as ocean depth since life can survive considerable distances below the surface.

AJ

Coal and oil deposits are open at some places or only some meters below ground, so these carbon sources are part of the biosphere

That's true and something I hadn't thought of since we're taught that fossil fuels are created by vegetable material under heat and pressure.

I'm surprised some sources quote peat as a fossil fuel. There's no fossilation involved in the production of peat.

AJ

Hmm, makes me wonder if it would be possible to create an aquaculture type setup that would "grow" peat at an accelerated rate under controlled conditions.

It should be possible to generate a system of cold water flowing through the layers of dead sphagnum underneath live moss, preventing it from decaying. I've done it on a tiny scale.

Sphagnum moss grows at a far faster rate than 1mm per year so I suspect HM's figures are from a woke source.

If the water throughput is left undamaged, all peat bogs should regenerate once peat extraction has ceased. I remember a university seminar on the subject which listed examples. The biggest issue is biodiversity - much of a peat wetland's flora and fauna is killed by peat extraction and some of it never comes back.

AJ

The important question is how scalable the process would be.

In my opinion, not enough to be commercially viable.

AJ

not enough to be commercially viable.

"Commercially viable"? Who cares about that? We're talking about our extinction.

"Commercially viable"? Who cares about that? We're talking about our extinction.

The human race is Not facing extinction from "climate change" ("man made or not).

Humanity, and millions of species have survived far more significant (and dramatic) alterations of the climate than even the worst-case scenarios predicted by the "experts" that have any credibility. Humanity has survived with minimal technology to mitigate the bad effects of climate change.

In the early 1800's, the "Napoleonic" Era, the people of New Orleans built levees and other works just for mere convivence. The French Quarter rarely if ever floods, it's on High Ground. New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and the Netherlands are all examples of alternatives to the situation in New Orleans.

The Dutch have gone to considerable lengths to build dikes and pumps, then desalinate land to use it for farming! More than 400 Years ago. It would have been easier to conquer the lands of the Flemish and Walloons! (They've done it in the past.)

Cui Bono "Who Benefits?"

Too many of the "solutions" that we have been Compelled to adopt have been proven to be worse for the environment than the "problems" it was claimed they would solve. Well-connected individuals have gotten even wealthier than they already were by forcing the "common people" to pay for this "Snake Oil" boondoggles!

If the PTB were truly concerned about "emissions" in the production of electricity, we would have a lot more Nuclear-powered electrical generation facilities. Solar can be efficient, but not for large-scale electrical generation; made worse when the electricity must be transmitted large distances. Wind turbines are even worse, in particular at large scale.

Wind turbines and solar panels are much more effective at a small scale as solar water pre-heaters, or to trickle charge batteries; windmills may be used in similar ways, or to pump water from a well, etc. Off-Grid living, without off-site transmission lines often use small scale wind and/or solar; better have a natural gas (etc.) powered generator too.

Blind Adherence to the Profits of Death won't result in the extinction of the human race, but could result in the deaths of Billions...

Perhaps that is the Feature Not "the Bug" of these schemes?

Who is getting More Powerful and even Wealthier?

The human race is Not facing extinction from "climate change" ("man made or not).

I guess this one time an adverb was necessary, as in, "he said, sarcastically."

Who cares about that? We're talking about our extinction.

Wait!

Is there a giant asteroid plummeting through the sky right now?
Has every ICBM in everyone's stock suddenly launched?
Did the sun just send out a massive coronal discharge and solar flare of immense radiation?

No?

Then shut the frack up about your extinction bullshit. Is there climate change? Of course - there's ALWAYS been climate change. Is the portion that's manmade going to make humans extinct? Not hardly.

Oh, and don't forget that while the western society is continuing to cut back, while China and India simply aren't. It's like the same moronic attitudes regarding electric vehicles. Those things sound great. They're the next best thing - and they always will be.

(Well, if we actually had nuclear fusion power, or actual wind power that worked, or broadcast power, AND an infrastructure that could handle it - they'd still suck until you got a battery that was worth a damn, and wasn't affected by heat or cold.)

Maybe if we had a viable fusion reactor small enough to put in a car we wouldn't need batteries.

It worked for Doc Brown!

And actually, you're quite correct. Or effective hydrogen power cells.

It's like the same moronic attitudes regarding electric vehicles. Those things sound great. They're the next best thing - and they always will be.

The UK motoring industry pundits awarded best electric towing car to a vehicle that can go up to 100 miles between charges. The government is forcing on us a technology that's not fit for purpose :-(

AJ

Towing what kind of load?

There were some figures in the article but they meant nothing to me. I think they were talking about vehicles towing a caravan, and I suspect those are somewhat smaller in the UK than in the USA.

AJ

Tesla at one point talked about an electric semi tractor, but as far as I know they never had a working prototype.

Tesla as a "working" prototype, but even the small day cab weighs 4,000 pounds more than its diesel equivalent - which makes it unattractive for actually doing its job of hauling freight due to the weight maximums for semis.

If that is the opinion why should Switch Blayde not be allowed to state it?

He didn't state it as an opinion, he stated it as if it were an established fact. You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Thus, like normal, your argument (and you) are incorrect and irrelevant.

Are we? I'm talking about commercial peat 'farming'. There are far better sources of biofuels, and peat won't make a ha'porth of difference either way.

AJ

I'm talking about commercial peat 'farming'.

I was being satirical. I was poking fun at those who force us all do something because it's the "right" thing to do, but when it's not commercially viable for them they ignore it.

California has a new rule (law?) that state agencies cannot do business with states that ban abortions. UCLA and USC are leaving the Pac 12 to join the Big 10. UCLA is a state school and shouldn't be allowed to participate in games in, say, Indiana because of their abortion laws. But Calif ignores their own preaching because it's football and brings in a ton of money.

So in the end, it's all about money.

I was being satirical. I was poking fun at those who force us all do something because it's the "right" thing to do, but when it's not commercially viable for them they ignore it.

Thanks for the clarification.

AJ

What means "woke" in this context? The online definitions I found said it had to do with "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination"

That was the original 2017 definition when it first entered dictionaries. Nowadays it means sensitive to any trendy causes, with nuances of liberal leftism. Increasingly it's being used pejoratively because of the petulant way those perceived as being woke demand everyone immediately do what they want.

AJ

the vast majority stick to claiming that over the last hundred and fifty years, there has been an abnormal increase in global temperatures which is consistent with the increase of human released greenhouse gasses and consistent with how greenhouse gasses function in Earth's atmosphere.

Yes, greenhouse gases are definitely heating the planet. But see my previous post. The history of the Earth is cycles – ice age, warming, ice age, warming. We are in the warming cycle now. Someone else mentioned the droughts the Western U.S. goes through. It's another cycle. If scientists think stopping burning fossil fuels will save the planet, they're crazy. Mother Nature will win that war.

Correlation is not causation.

I agree with you but the World Health Organisation begs to differ. Allegedly a correlation between red meat and cancer 'proves' causation. The UK health authorities have jumped on the bandwagon: a correlation between air pollution and dementia proves causation :-(

AJ

I even believe greenhouse gases are contributing to it. But I don't believe the greenhouse gases are causing every problem we have.

How much greenhouse gas was produced by Mount Tambora, when it blew up and then produced the year without a summer?

I read an article that we're already overdue for our next Ice Age, and the only thing holding it off is human produced greenhouse gases.

I read an article that we're already overdue for our next Ice Age, and the only thing holding it off is human produced greenhouse gases.

I don't think it works that way. The warming cycle melts the glaciers which affects the oceans and our temperature. Then it starts snowing for thousands of years and the snow is compressed into glaciers.

We certainly caused the Arizona dust bowl. It's my understanding humans also converted the Sahara from a rainforest into a desert, just like we're currently converting the Amazon from a rainforest into a desert :-(

AJ

Yes, but that had nothing to do with CO2.

It would have released carbon from the carbon sink into the atmosphere, so IMO it should have produced a small CO2 increase.

AJ

We certainly caused the Arizona dust bowl.

We caused the dust bowl, but it wasn't in Arizona.

Ignoring the fact that the planet is getting out of control won't save anyone.

That's a belief and not a fact.

but given that I'm not in the US I'm probably exposed to very different media biases than people in the US are.

That was the point of the thread. The media. I guess the U.S. media. On one end you have Fox News telling you what THEY want you to hear. On the other end is CNN and MSNBC telling you what THEY want you to hear. And the others are definitely biased toward the left.

I used to watch Lester Holt on NBC at night. I thought he was really good and unbiased. And then I heard him say the media shouldn't give the Republican side because they are dangerous. Say what!? I now only watch BBC news and a new news cable network called NewsNation. They claim to be unbiased (of course we're all biased, but they do slam the biased reporting of both MSNBC and FOX as well as the bullshit from politicians from both the Left and Right).

I'll give you an example of the left-leaning media. There was a shooting in a mall recently. I think it was Illinois or Indiana. The shooter opened fire with an assault rifle. A guy who was carrying a pistol shot him dead in something like 20 seconds saving many lives. The police captain called him a hero. Did we see it on the news? Nope. Why? It goes against the media's argument against people owning guns. For that matter, did the president call the man a hero or even mention him? Nope. Same reason. (I saw it reported on NewsNation.)

Back to the thread. Whenever there's any kind of weather disaster today, the media blames it on climate change. And of course, to them, climate change is solely caused by the burning of fossil fuels (talk about wearing blinders). It definitely adds to the excessive heat. But the drought the Southwest is currently in? I doubt it. I believe it's part of Earth's weather cycle. The wildfires? They blame it on burning of fossil fuels, but it's the drought that's causing it (and partly the mismanagement of our forests).

The problem is, we're not going to solve our climate change problem simply by blaming the burning of fossil fuels. But that's all people are looking at (because of the media) rather than looking at the broader picture. That's the problem.

It is amazing that forests managed to survive all those thousands of years before we ever started to 'manage' them.

Other than lightning, I don't know what else started all those fires back then. But now most are started by humans. A spark from a metal object, a cigarette, a campfire, or even arson.

As to your other post on why put them out, many are where homes and business are. And even if not directly near a home, they leave a burn scar on the mountain which causes rain runoff, flooding the home areas.

Many of the forests can't be maintained. They're too hard to get to. But many can and need ground growth to be removed. That's typically what catches fire and spreads to the trees. Once on the top of the trees, the fire jumps to others. I had a house in Pinetop, AZ and lived in the middle of the forest. The only place that seemed not to have fires was on the Indian reservation and I had heard they maintained their forests.

Couldn't they pre-process the unsuitable acorns by feeding them to pigs then eating the pigs? ;-)

AJ

Prior to Europeans importing pigs, there were none to feed them to.

No pig relatives at all? I thought they were pan-global.

PS I've just found a website claiming that the peccary branch found its way to South America via North America.

AJ

you can do photo comparisons of many national forestry lands(and national parks) in the Western United States and find that there are far more trees present there today than existed in the early 20th century

I just came back from Western Canada and saw a lot of trees, glaciers, lakes, etc. A lot of the forests are dying from a beetles. And, I forget the name of the tree, but the seed doesn't get released until there is major heat, like a forest fire. I was told it's natural for the forests there — trees drop their seeds, the forests burn down, the heat from the fire frees the seeds, and new trees grow.

The guide said they're waiting for a fire to do its thing (get rid of the dead forest and start a new one). I asked if they had matches in Canada. Sounds like the perfect use of a control burn to me. The answer was it's a national forest so they can't do that. Nature has to do it so they're all holding their breaths for the lightening to strike.

Btw, a cave was pointed out to us as we drove by. What was odd about it was that it was about 2/3s up the mountain. I mean the Canadian Rockies. So how did a cave form up there? Easy. The Rockies at one time were underwater. There was an ice age and then a warming, causing — what would you call it? Flooding? Then another ice age and another warming. So at one point that part of the mountain was at the surface of the lake.

I don't know how the scientists are going to keep the Earth from doing what it does. Getting rid of fossil fuels won't do it. Although we should find alternatives to fossil fuels. That resource will run dry some day (if people live long enough). Who knows, maybe our bodies will become fossil fuels in a million years.

There was a shooting in a mall recently. I think it was Illinois or Indiana. The shooter opened fire with an assault rifle. A guy who was carrying a pistol shot him dead in something like 20 seconds saving many lives. The police captain called him a hero. Did we see it on the news? Nope. Why? It goes against the media's argument against people owning guns. For that matter, did the president call the man a hero or even mention him? Nope. Same reason.

Greenwood Park Mall, just south of Indianapolis. I'm very familiar with it and the area. It WAS reported on Fox, but the biggest issue that the left had - including morons on The View - was that the good guy violated mall policy by carrying inside. They thought he should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Newsflash - the way Indiana's brand new Constitutional Carry Law is written, while a facility may request you not carry, you are NOT breaking the law to do so. Never mind that the shooter ALSO violated the no weapons policy, and the reason he CHOSE the mall was due to the no weapons policy, thinking he was 'safe' in killing a lot of innocent people.

The only real question about the young guy that took the bad guy out was whether he shot from 40 FEET or 40 YARDS. The police chief originally misspoke in saying it was two minutes for him to take out the bad guy - it was actually 15 seconds from the time the bad guy started shooting until the good guy pulled his Glock 17, started shooting and fired 10 rounds, and hit with 8 of them.

Of course, the bad guy, in those same 15 seconds, fired 23 rounds, and killed 3 people and injured two others.

It WAS reported on Fox

I don't watch Fox News, but they don't have an anti-gun agenda so they carried the story.

If you have the testicular fortitude, address that publically.

Me?

But there are some 'colored' Germans, sired by mostly American (and a few British and French) soldiers after WW II, leaving mother and child behind when returning back home.

I recently read about black American GIs in the UK during the second world war and the appalling way they were treated by their own countrymen eg the Battle of Bamber Bridge.

There was one very memorable quote - 'Lovely fellows, it was a pleasure to have them here. Shame they had to bring the white ones too.' ;-)

AJ

Start to educate yourself on what is science and stop digging.

I was going to ignore you as I've learned to do with such comments, but I'll say one thing (and only one thing).

My "opinions" are based on my college classes in the earth sciences studying hundreds of years of scientific research into the Earth's changes. I find the fact that you think this is a new phenomenon disturbing.

about the negative effect of human caused pollution on the climate.

Never said I disagreed. What I complain about is that every time there's an event (flood, drought, hurricane, fire, etc.), they blame it on greenhouse gases. There have been many weather events in the past millions of years without greenhouse gases. The Earth has weather cycles. It's currently in a warming cycle. Sped up by greenhouse gases? To some degree, but it's going to happen even if we stop polluting 100% today.

An ice age or a warming period happing in history may have been a catastrophe for the million or so humans on the planet at the time. But that would be nothing to the apolcalypse that a severe warming

Agreed.

But we've been in a warming period for thousands of years (since the last ice age). The glaciers are melting like they have before during previous warming periods. Are greenhouse gases speeding that up? I think so. But by what percentage? The problem is the people crying Chicken Little have blinders on. The warming is coming regardless of the burning of fossil fuels. But if you think the greenhouse gases is 100% of the cause, you won't solve the big problem — if mankind can actually solve it.

But, again, my OP was simply to rant that every hurricane, every flood, every drought, every fire, every anything is being blamed on greenhouse gases. We had those things way before the creation of the gas engine and doing away with burning fossil fuels isn't going to put an end to it. The climate is changing, just like it has for millions of years. To blame our current condition on one thing is ludicrous, and dangerous. You don't fix a dam by holding your finger on the hole. You fix the hole. And the hole isn't fossil fuels.

But if you are putting up your opinion against the absolutely overwhelming majority of climate scientists

You missed the '-change' after climate. Their employment depends on there being global warming so guess what they find! And climate change scientists are not subject to the scientific method (which of them will still be alive in eighty years time to verify the accuracy of their predictions or correct their models for retest in another 100 years if they were wrong), so climate-change doesn't qualify as a hard science.

I'm not questioning the possibility that global warming is happening, but I'm very concerned about all the hyperbole and the cancel culture towards dissenters (ie kicking them of the UN IPCC, which is now an echo chamber).

You might also like to research the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

AJ

In 1965, yes 1 9 6 5, Pres. Lyndon Johnson was given a report by his Scientific Advisory Committee about the negative effect of human caused pollution on the climate. 57 years of America doing a little as possible to prevent it happening.

Wasn't the world worried about an overdue ice age at that time? Is that what the report predicted?

AJ

So sayeth the climate pope Gore and mother Thunberg.

You left out that other renowned science faker, David Attenborough.

AJ

I was in college in the early 1970s. I attended a talk where a scientist was retiring and discussing his life's work. He was a geologist who specialized in the geological records of Earth's weather patterns. At that time he only had 3 or 4 colleagues in the entire world sharing this specialty.

That tallies with my own recollection of the position of 'climate science' in those days.

Nowadays it's the done thing to claim climate scientists were beavering away on their predictions over 100 years ago.

AJ

Is CO2 a pollutant? Not if you want to ever see a green plant again; they consume CO2.

And that is a larger negative impact humans are making on climate than gas-burning vehicles. Removing vegetation that consumes CO2 (and creates oxygen).

But would a politician tell a city they can't clear the land to build more? Tell the Amazon people they can't expand into the jungle? Tell families they have to limit the number of children because each one produces CO2 when they breathe (or, for that matter, because we don't have the water to support them)? Or even burn down a dead forest in a national park because beetles killed all the trees that were helping our environment and new ones won't grow until there's a fire?

And what about the batteries for electric cars? 100, 200 years from now ecologists and scientists will be telling everyone that the battery waste is destroying the planet (and they might be right). And they'll probably tell us that the minerals needed for batteries are being depleted. What will they do then — spend billions to go back to fossil-burning cars?

When I started this thread, it wasn't to debate climate change. I was watching the news where every weather catastrophe was blamed on climate change, which was caused by burning fossil fuels. It's as if we didn't have weather catastrophes before the gas engine was invented. I was just so sick of it that I ranted by creating this thread.

Actually total global vegetation has been increasing for several decades.

That is surprising!

CO2 is plant food. Not only does it make plants grow faster, many use other resources like water and minerals they obtain from the soil more efficiently.

I vaguely remember an agricultural seminar in which the guest speaker claimed that increasing CO2 levels would only benefit about half of plant species. But when plants do benefit significantly (eg tomatoes), then sure, grow them in greenhouses and whack up the CO2 levels.

AJ

Where did he get his data? Lab or greenhouse experiments?

Probably both, but the research was well into last century and probably based at one of the UK's agricultural research centres. I have doubts as to the size and composition of population studied.

AJ

The study used high-quality satellite data

Therein lies a huge flaw - the data needs to be three dimensional or a patch of grass would appear to count the same as a 100ft tree.

AJ

the geological record indicated that the planet had enjoyed 200-300 years of very mild weather. [Roughly coinciding with the industrial revolution.] However, the trending data suggested that the planetary weather patterns were returning to a more "normal" planetary pattern. What that "normal" included was more extreme and chaotic weather. He speculated that this would have major impact on food production as current agricultural regions might not be sustainable for that use.

One of the hardest things to grasp in science is the shear magnitude of things in nature. In contrast, humanity can have a significant influence on local ecologies but the larger influence to the whole planet is essentially beneath notice. One volcanic eruption puts more garbage into the atmosphere than all of humanity in a year or more. And the planet recovers from that quite nicely.

THIS! So Much THIS!!!

My parents paid for me to attend a very good (if occasionally resource stretched) Private Catholic School c.1975-79. Our teachers were remarkable, one, a Nun had participated in research on the Dead Sea Scrolls immediately after her time in the University (Grad Students are practically "slave labor" but sometimes learn quite a bit), our History/Social Studies teacher was a Veteran of combat in Vietnam, and quite creative, using College level interactive scenarios, and our Ecology teacher had participated in some recent Field Studies that coincide with what Fool42's Professor taught! We read Erlich's "The Population Bomb" then wrote papers about flaws and fallacies already obvious by 1978/79.

We moved and I attended Mercer Island HS, though "public" it is effectively an Elite "Private" HS, some of our teachers were tops in their fields, some with PhDs, and could have taught at Universities (I believe their salaries were comparable). We were taught that the "Coming Ice Age" was a fallacy, and so too the emerging "Global Warming" We were also taught about the pollution in the LA Basin in the 1960's and 70's in particular, and the emerging successes in reducing human pollution. We learned about Love Canal, and the rivers back east where the Polluted Water Burned! Etc. We were taught about the Need to reduce human impacts on the environment, as well as the Hubris of thinking Humanity could have as much effect as the Sun! Then Mt. St. Hellens Erupted!

Later, after my first years in the Army, I took a Geology class in the early 90's where we went to the environs of Mt. St. Hellens, up as far as New Crater Lake to see the forming dome. It was obvious that the "Dire Predictions" that the area "would Never Recover for Hundreds of Years!!! Made some 15 years before were Wildly pessimistic. Vegetation was rapidly expanding, even evergreen trees that had sprouted, some mere months after the first eruption.

On the Yakima Training Center, I have seen the effects of the volcanic ash upon the Desert there. Between the 1970's when I first saw the area (on my way with my class to the Observatory at Goldendale) using our telescopes during a "bathroom break" we (guys) were mostly watching the tanks and soldiers, but also the Desert compared to rainy Western Washington. By the mid-1990's the YTC was much "greener" and still is. It's not Western Washington, but the volcanic ash that had choked out so much of an already desolate area (compared to the areas in the Yakima Valley that got more rain, and importantly Irrigation.

Computer models. They are a crock-. Not a single touted weather model over the last 30 years has proven to be accurate. The reason for this is simple; there are too many variables than can be accounted for in any computer model. Thus, all computer models are based on a set of assumptions over what is important and what is not important to the system being modeled. In all cased what you get is a "WAG." It gives a scientist something to publish or to talk about at some symposium of his peers, but nothing more. In fact, predicting weather turned out to be so difficult to do (even with super computers) that a whole new field of math was invented to compensate for the uncountable variables that had to be considered. It was called "Chaos Theory." And they only increased their prediction accuracy by a day or two.

So, the only ones to benefit over all of the climate foofaraw, are the politicians who imitate Chicken Little to grab more political power.

I Believe In Science! (I also believe in God, which is not a contradiction, at least to people much smarter and wiser than I.) I read quite a bit, and though I am a "Man Without Letters" I have taken and passed quite a few University and College classes. Also, thanks to the US Army I have traveled widely and seen other lands, in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Witnessed primitive land clearing by "Slash & Burn" pollution just dumped onto the ground, or into the streams and rivers (that People Drink from!); exposed to where people burn garbage, tires, and human waste mere meters from homes, schools, or the side of the road.

There is Much we need to, can, and should do to reduce pollution, and improve the environment.

However, I reiterate:

So, the only ones to benefit over all of the climate foofaraw, are the politicians and Others who imitate Chicken Little to grab more political power.

Many so called "solutions to manmade climate change" etc. are actually Worse for the Environment! 10% Ethanol in gas Causes More Pollution; because of lover MPG, and since it can't be shipped by pipelines (current networks) it must be trucked. Not to mention the fuel and fertilizer to grow the corn for ethanol!

Well connected "Interests" who own significant railroads and tanker cars, who back Anti-Pipeline "Environmentalist" groups. Or who own other Energy assets (Petroleum, as well as "alternates" Al Gore) who fund Anti-Nuclear "Environmentalist" groups...

I believe many "grassroots activists" are sincere Mistaken, ignorant, or Mal-informed, but "True Believers!"

Then there are those who Pontificate that WE must make "Sacrifices" and shutdown power plants, and enact Laws They Don't adhere to or can Afford to get around, because the "COST of ENERGY MUST NECESSARILY SKYROCKET!"

In short: Is the climate changing? Yes. Did humanity cause it? NO! Can man stop climate change and maintain the status quo? NO!

Excellent Post Fool42!

What "climateers"? Nobody reputable pushes that sort of s***.

Sadly the Met Office has fallen prey to social media-type short-termism and hysterics.

AJ

And still we and the world leaders dither.

Not on the warming. How the warming should be tackled (if it can). Sometimes you can't beat the natural science (Mother Nature).

We've been in global warming since the last ice age. Carbon emissions is adding to it, but so is all the concrete and asphalt we are covering the Earth with and a slew of other things humans have done.

The question is, are we putting our money and brains in the right place?

And still we and the world leaders dither.

Politicians of the Western nations, many of them seek greater Control over their populations. Leaders of Communist China, Russia, India, and some other nations seek to make themselves more powerful by building coal, gas, nuclear, or whatever power plants that increase their Power! Sadly, the Western nations virtue signaling aids these evil tyrants! Coal is now much cheaper for them, exacerbating the costs of Energy for us!

Costs of Energy effect the costs of everything else, and the costs of transportation!

Providing competitive advantages to Communist China and Russia is a mistake!

When the Western nations spend more on energy, we have less to spend on things that would more effectively mitigate problems caused by climate. Worse, since our goods and agriculture cost more, it is likely that Communist China and Russia, etc., will produce more goods and crops, while polluting significantly more than Western nations would to produce such goods.

The more that Western nations virtue signal, the more pollution is produced globally by nations that don't give a Damn!

Poor nations don't care how much they pollute, as long as they produce or import enough Food, necessities, and sufficient luxuries to keep their leaders in power. Any money we send to "impoverished" nations, such as Communist China, North Korea, etc. it Won't be used to "help the environment" it will fatten the tyrants Swiss Bank accounts!