Humans And Their Amazing Ability To Adapt.

[RX-79G]

Glaciers are not a source of water unless they melt. They don't melt when they grow continuously, resulting in ice ages.

They do melt, in part, every summer. When they are gone, they don't collect and trap as much water because of the decreades albedo of the mountains.

 

[RX-79G]

Just opinion by watching debates for decades, when a side tells the other side they are bad people for not believing the evidence then its the time to not believe the evidence.

Who said anyone is a bad person?

The usual claim is that people that know what is actually going on and say the opposite to sell more stuff are bad people. Like tobacco, asbestos.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It's far easier to find things in support of the climate hysteria than contrary to it,

And you don't see that as a clue?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Who said anyone is a bad person?

The usual claim is that people that know what is actually going on and say the opposite to sell more stuff are bad people. Like tobacco, asbestos.

Or like all the big oil companies that have known for the last 60 or 70 years that climate change was real and they played a huge part in it, but buried their own research to ensure profits?

 

[RX-79G]

Or like all the big oil companies that have known for the last 60 or 70 years that climate change was real and they played a huge part in it, but buried their own research to ensure profits?

Well, let's not get crazy here! Next you know you'll be quoting the Frontline from last night about how the gas industry was aware of the amount of methane leaked in natural gas fracking but hid that!

 

[Knobgoblin]

And you don't see that as a clue?

We see what we want to see .

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Well, let's not get crazy here! Next you know you'll be quoting the Frontline from last night about how the gas industry was aware of the amount of methane leaked in natural gas fracking but hid that!

 

[Longwalkhome]

Who said anyone is a bad person?

The usual claim is that people that know what is actually going on and say the opposite to sell more stuff are bad people. Like tobacco, asbestos.

Debates have gone from gathered evidence that forms an opinion to insults if you don't accept the other sides opinions. Climate denial, racist, bigot, homophobe, Maga extremist and so on.

It's my point of view that when a side needs to bring social pressure into the debate then its obvious it's about controlling the narrative and has nothing to do with truth. Ymmv.

 

[Cavedweller]

Or like all the big oil companies that have known for the last 60 or 70 years that climate change was real and they played a huge part in it, but buried their own research to ensure profits?

Climate change is a real thing. The climate has been changing throughout the earth's history. As long as the continents move and change shape (plate tectonics) climate will change. As long as there is volcanic activity climate will change, as will the chemistry of the atmosphere. We know from fossil evidence that there was once a vast inland tropical sea in the continent now known as North America. We also know from geological evidence that there were once, on the same continent, vast cold water inland lakes held in place by ice dams. So, given all this evidence, how can one be certain that "big oil companies" played a "huge part" in climate change?

We know from archaeological evidence that the Danes established colonies in Greenland where they once grew wheat and raised livestock. We also know that about 1,000 years ago they had to abandon these settlements because IT GOT TOO COLD.

I may be all wet. If you can show me where I can read up on The Big Oil Companie's own research that buried their role in climate change, I would appreciate it. I'm always willing to learn.

STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

 

[gmerkt]

opposable thumbs

If crows had thumbs, they'd rule the earth, not humans.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Cool story, lets circle back on that when the continents start drifting a couple yards instead of an inch or so each year

Also, I feel like you could have done this, but . . .

oil companies global warming - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[OldBroad44]

If the system was 0.01% short of failure it was already doomed. Try learning about biological feedback systems..... Why do climate scientists suppress data that might prevent funding?

Biological feedback systems as we know them in more complex levels such as ecology or climate research usually have multiple components missing entirely, so predictions normally don't work except to discover the reasons why they didn't work.

I don't think climate scientists suppress data. They don't need to. It takes maybe an order of magnitude more assumptions than data, and then massive interpretation to get to anything meaningful. For someone with a career in climate change research, they need predictions that say that climate change is an emergency and things are just bad enough that if we massively support climate change researchers and make them big shots and heed everything they say for the next few decades it won't be too late, but if we don't it will. After all, if we have plenty of time or if its already too late we don't need Climate Change researchers. So even though they have been discovering new factors that matter over the last five decades I've been watching, the overall models always end up with the result that climate change is an emergency and what we do the next few decades is critical but its not too late.

Basically every field of research has a bias in the direction that makes its specialists more socially important and worthy of funding. One approach is to promise important breakthroughs affecting human health are imminent. Such as leading to understanding that will help cure cancer. Better yet is warning a disaster that will greatly harm humanity will happen if you don't support our field more. Best of all is that all humanity will go extinct if you don't support our field more.

The scientists mostly believe their party line. After all, you don't go into a field unless you think it presents important problems that are going to be solvable in your lifetime. Sometimes scientists are right in those beliefs and choices. Often they arent. This is one reason why so many of the major breakthroughs get made by accident.

 

[OldBroad44]

If crows had thumbs, they'd rule the earth, not humans.

Its octopuses that fascinate me.

 

[Cavedweller]

Cool story, lets circle back on that when the continents start drifting a couple yards instead of an inch or so each year

Also, I feel like you could have done this, but . . .

oil companies global warming - Google Search

www.google.com

Thanks for that search. So, as best I can tell, your assertion that Big Oil Companie's own research showed that they "played a huge part" in climate change amounts to this:

Burning oil creates CO2. No argument there.

The Exxon study concluded that the burning of "synthetic fuels" resulted in a less than 0.2 degree centigrade increase in average global temperature, or less than 7% of the projected total increase over the same period, which your source called remarkably accurate. Is that a huge part? I guess that's a subjective judgement.

 

[RX-79G]

Debates have gone from gathered evidence that forms an opinion to insults if you don't accept the other sides opinions. Climate denial, racist, bigot, homophobe, Maga extremist and so on.

It's my point of view that when a side needs to bring social pressure into the debate then its obvious it's about controlling the narrative and has nothing to do with truth. Ymmv.

I think you'll find bad behavior by all "sides". That really doesn't have anything to do with the truth, but the importance people attach to their view.

 

[Member 3687]

Cool story, lets circle back on that when the continents start drifting a couple yards instead of an inch or so each year

So, in the last 2000 years the America's have moved about 2000 inches or 55.5 yards from Europe and Africa and in the last 100 years its moved 2.7 yards and as it moves it changes the shape of the ocean floor and the ocean currents that help change the weather. It also moves mountain ranges and that changes jet streams all effecting the weather.

True weather data has really only been collected for the last 2000 years everything else is a guess based on a model they think might be correct but has had flaws in the past more than once so in reality they are guessing as they have not got a clue.

Just my opinion

 

[NeoBlackdog]

Holy cow farts. Good thing you fellas are typin' and not talkin'. All that Co2 you'd spew out would've killed us all for sure.

 

[CountryGent]

Here's a link I took 2 minutes to find that can be the start of further inquiry if you are interested. Note the cover art of magazines.

GLOBAL WARMING: A TOOL OF FEAR MONGERING – Evolution is a Myth

www.evolutionisamyth.com

You may have wanted to take a little more than two minutes.

I mean, really, sir?

For a moment there I thought it was a parody site.

 

[308]

​

 

[OldBroad44]

... duck and cover will save your life in a nuke blast...

I, too, used to feel pretty cynical about this as a kid. I was a kid growing up on or near Air Force bases. We didn't ever duck and cover in any of my schools. We all assumed we would be incinerated, as did the teachers and school authorities.

I realized the duck and cover approach actually made a lot of sense after watching videos of the meteor blast in 1913 over Chelyabinsk Russia. The injuries were mostly because people in buildings saw the flash through windows, then turned toward or even ran to windows just in time to get a faceful of glass and debris when the shock wave hit and the windows were all shattered forcefully inward. If they had instead ducked and covered nearly all the injuries would not have happened.

IF YOU SEE A BRIGHT FLASH DUCK! The shock wave is right behind.

And now I realize that ducking and covering in response to a nuclear bomb is actually sensible. Where I went wrong was I was thinking of my position being right on the target. A reasonable assumption when you are living on the base that housed, for example, Headquarters SAC, Warner Robins, GA, where we were during the Cuban missile crisis--one of the few bases within reach of the missiles Cuba had. But the zone of death and damage from the shock wave of a nuclear bomb is way bigger than the zone of total annihilation from incineration. And in the shock wave zone you need to deal with things like buildings falling, breaking windows, cars and other objects being lifted and slung around. More like the sorts of dangers that happen in hurricanes and earthquakes . Stuff that can kill you but which are often surviveable.

Duck and cover would have been a useful approach even when living on an Air Force base. If the bomb was right on target so you got incinerated of course it wouldn't help. Nor hurt. But if the bomb missed by a little, you would be in the zone where the damage was from the shock wave, where some version of taking cover might matter. Bombs miss all the time. In fact, after sitting in silos for decades most of them might not be all they once were. Who knows?