I pointed out that public safety is ONE reason for limits of freedom that is used today. I certainly did not say it is the only one. You aren't making a reasonable argument on statistics here. ?? I do like public safety, though. So, you got me there!! I also like national security! Twitter is a currently prominent example of speech, raising issues of "freedom". I don't claim to know what your beliefs are. But, you're pretty up front about specific changes you want, and I do comment on that. Even if we shared our various beliefs in some area, we could still disagree on specific issues of law, etc.
So if that is your only concern, then we should eliminate all rights because they can all be dangerous. You spin me right round baby right round... I am pretty sure you have me confused with somebody else there. I almost never talk about actual changes. And when I do, it is rarely in a topic or thread like this. Most of the places I can think of that I ever suggested changes are in the military thread. Where yes, I do have ideas I would like to see advanced when it comes to the military and military equipment. But changes in science? I think the closest I have ever come to that topic in this area was that I do believe we should stop worrying so damned much on CO2 and instead start worrying about the insane rate of deforestation going on. And that I actually blame the rapid rise in CO2 levels on that more than emissions. To me, the insanity of screaming about CO2 is like worrying about it getting too hot inside your room, completely ignoring the fact that your house is on fire. It is known that whenever global temperatures rise, CO2 levels also rise. Because as each century passes more and more of the biome is returned from an inert status where it is neither adding nor subtracting gasses like CO2 or O2 from the atmosphere. And as the ice melts, huge amounts of "greenhouse gasses" finally start to escape that were trapped below the ice. And escape faster than the biome can reclaim them. Because the biome has to go through thousands of years to recover from the ice age. Myself, as I have said I look at things really-really "long term". And my long term interest in ecology and geology causes me to look at things in ways that are completely alien to you. Tell me, can you even start to describe the phases that the biome goes through after an ice age starts to end? I can, I have even traveled through the same climates and conditions myself. And huge parts of North America are still in a very early recovery phase. The ice is gone, and all that biological matter that was starting to decompose when covered by ice is now emitting gasses. And a hell of a lot of that is methane. But the landscape above it is nothing more than moss and lichen, absolutely horrible for capturing those gasses. A hell of a lot of North America has yet to even reach the stage where it can start to support trees, one of the best ways there is to sequester such gasses. I am not sure what you see when you look at North America. I see most of the middle part of the country as largely grass plains. Still in recovery, not yet able to sustain forests and large stands of trees. The land needs a few tens of thousands of years first to enrich the soil before it can reach that stage. North of there? Mostly peat bogs, tundra, and permafrost. Once again, the soil largely stripped of nutrients be thousands of years of glaciation, mosses being about the highest forms of plants that can survive. And still subject to subsurface freezing so nothing else can really grow until things warm up more for longer so all of that permafrost can finally melt away. Are you even aware that when humans first arrived in North America, most of the Midwest was still tundra and permafrost? And in all the thousands of years since then, it had only advanced to where it could sustain grasslands. Of course, I could go into the geological reasons why that recovery is taking so damned long, yet in the Northeast, there were rapidly forests rising in a landscape that had looked the same way. Yes, the NW recovered faster than the Midwest, but only because of geology. Go ahead, think about it. I wonder if you even have a clue as to why that was. And yes, this is why I laugh at you. You really do not think on anything. You just repeat what you were told, and never even try to expand your own thinking and to look at things critically. And apparently you are big into conspiracies. As over and over you seem to project them onto others. Me, I just analyze things as they are. No preconceptions, no need to try and twist them to conform to my own beliefs. And that tends to really piss of people who do have preconceptions and want things twisted to conform to their beliefs. So in this area, yeah. I want to see people doing more to help the planet recover from the ice age. And stop obsessing over gas levels. Stop slashing and burning the rainforests. Try to help the ecology move to the next stage of its natural evolution from one biome to the next. And to realize that we are still in a damned ice age. And things are only going to get warmer as time goes on. Because I am sick and tired of all the damned lies! Every time I hear things like "it has never been warmer than it is now", I just want to punch somebody. That is an outright lie, and is easily proven. Simply look at the geology. We know that palm trees once thrived into the middle of Alaska. And at that time, North America was actually farther north than it is now. Now think on that, palm trees growing wild in central Alaska. Where today palm trees can not even grow naturally in Oregon. And think exactly how much hotter the planet would have to be if you have Southern California weather in Central Alaska. This is why I outright reject and laugh at the people I see as "Global Warming Nutcases". They are the ultimate in luddites, and want to see the planet kept permanently in the Little Ice Age. They are like the ultimate in cats, the most insanely conservative animals on the planet. Hate any change, and will blame the humans on any change that happens. Don't believe me there, try to put your cat out in the rain. They will glower at you, like it is your fault it is raining.
That is a nonsense argument, and I think you know it. You know very well that serious issues get evaluated, driving decisions on whether rights limitations are justified.
As for your comments on climate direction, YOU have to remember that there are things that WE can do and there are SERIOUS limits on what we can require other countries to do. Then, you have to remember that we are the worst offender of any major country when measured on a per capita basis - which is the ONLY legitimate measure and the measure that EVERY other country will use. PLUS, WE are the major player in causing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 that exists today. It's how we got wealthy. So demanding change from others when we don't do that here is not going to work. If WE are to have international influence on CO2 or trees or whatever, we have to show a willingness to do our part.
Which once again proves that actual facts do not matter to you worth a damn. You only care about manipulating figures so they have the result you want. And there is no "we" about it. That is known as "guilt tripping". And sorry, I'm not Catholic. So laying guilt on me that is not my own is a waste of time.
No, that is known as outright rejection. You refuse to deal with the reality, and only deal with manipulated figures that make you feel good. You refuse to have a discussion based on the real world, so there is nothing to rebut. I simply reject this, like most of your silly and nonsensical claims.
Yet what we've come to expect. I argues the basis on which people agree or disagree with science is driven strongly by tribalism. That's why I always say verify for every scientist out there coming up with some new theory to test there's another one out there trying to debunk it. Reading from all of the dissenters is probably a good way to be informed on what is and isn't science. But even then even experts in the field have been fooled.
That's because it's not a rebuttal he's calling you out. I think the card is a little flawed as your view on science is very tribal. It's based on the politics you hold and more importantly the politics people you oppose hold or at least that's been my experience dealing with you.
How much of this whole thing is tribal. What did the people I agree with say and I'm going to agree with them because they are the people I agree with it's not because they have the better viewpoint. That's why any of these things people talk about regarding science are not really science it's all settled fact that's over and done with and all the people studying I don't really exist to them. I tend to approach many things with skepticism though even I am guilty of tribalism it's part of being human.
And the funniest thing is, I am not even political. I am also a very skeptical person by nature. And I reject junk science claims as quickly as I do conspiracy theories. I am very apolitical, especially when it comes to science and history. I do not judge based upon my beliefs, but on the preponderance of the facts. To WR, everything is political, including his belief on things being real or not. He has posted tons of junk science in here, and his belief entirely seems to be based on some kind of popularity contest. In fact, he is one of the most anti-science people out there.
Being interested in what the majority of science experts in a particular subject have found can not be termed "popularity" or "political". In science, a fact is a documented observation. Things like the average temperature of something (Earth, ocean, your city, etc.) are not facts. You claim you have "facts" that contradict the majority of scientists. But, I really doubt that would even be possible, let alone likely.
Actually, it's exactly popularity or political. "Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share." —Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
well science is the pursuit of knowledge so if people are getting their politics in the way they're pursuing something other than knowledge. yeah it's tribalism I've seen so many different discussions with people other than that poster where they post science that they agree with and nothing else so that proves it no it doesn't you haven't looked at all the other stuff yet. The trick I find the funniest is when they post a link to an abstract that they haven't even read yet.
But the automatic assumption that it is caused by humans is not a "fact". That is conjecture, and not a fact at all. And a hell of a lot of scientists do in fact reject the idea that humans are causing it. This is just another example of you twisting words, and misdirection. And yes, your almost endless proclaiming it is a fact based on fraudulent and made up number of scientists that you claim support your belief is a "popularity contest".
Or outright reject any science that they do not agree with. Some are really annoying, because they misquote people and purposefully do so over and over again. Like notice how often WR and others will over and over classify me as a "Global Warming Denier". In fact, I am anything but that, even believing in "Global Warming" back when the same Chicken Little scientists were pushing for a "New Ice Age" back in the 1970s. I know the planet is warming, and has been for over 20,000 years. And that not a damned thing has shown to me that what we are experiencing is unexpected. Add to that that pretty much every single "model" they have made to predict future warming and other things has been absolutely wrong, and I simply wonder how anybody can believe the nonsense that many are trying to push.
what's really funny is the extent they go through to try and deny it. Like Donald Trump controls a worldwide ring of Shadow governments that control universities all over the world. And that's why there is evidence in the research realm that goes against whatever they really want to be true. well something I've noticed is that anybody who tries to make their point with various studies that they Cherry picked they're trying to come off as the smartest person in the room they really want to be seen that way. "Well I accepted the science" implying everyone who disagrees doesn't and no other science but whatever random studies they Cherry picked are legitimate. And then there is pseudoscience. One of my favorites is that thing with the 97% consensus among climatologists. They believe this unquestioningly and there is plenty to question the methodology the survey questions. So on. And they'll try and imply that you're stupid for questioning that. global warming denier is just another word for heretic. It's not the warming or the climate change that I deny, I could even accept that there is an effect caused by man's activity. I just deny the idiotic solutions. The best thing that happened in my lifetime to reduce greenhouse gas was fracking. And about 10 or so years ago that was the absolute devil because some ass clown set his tap water on fire and pretended that it was fracking that caused that. Disadvancement made natural gas cheaper and thus power plants were built to run on it. The emissions are 50% less than coal. I put the climate Doomsday prophecies in the same camp as the religious ones. People who make them are charlatans.
It very much is a religious belief. I would be willing to accept in fact I do accept that human activity does have an effect on the environment because of course it does. The conjecture is by what degree. Outside of toxic contamination of water sources which has happened all throughout human history there is not any evidence to suggest that if we stopped all technology that operates on fossil fuels directly or indirectly that it would change the course of temperature change over the next 500 years. And because I expressed doubt and that tiny little thing I am a heretic. It is a badge of honor to me to be called a heretic in this religion because the most devout are throwing soup at Van Gogh paintings and gluing themselves to vehicle manufacturer buildings. It is a compliment to be referred to as something detestable by those people. When scum detests you you're doing something right. The meta study done over the 97% of climatologists thing has been thoroughly and completely debunked as supporting this crazy climate religion. Really what the survey asked is do you think man has an effect on his environment. Of course he does. Could this be a detriment? Of course it could be it has been used that way in times of war all throughout our history. Poisoning water trying to sabotage crops that's a great strategy for disarming an enemy.
It absolutely is a religion. And that is why you can not argue science with them. Hell, every time WR tries to claim that the planet has never been as warm as it is now, I simply laugh. As we have proof that is a lie from fossils of palm trees in central Alaska. Now in the current US, the "palm tree line" is roughly at San Francisco. That is as far north as that plant can survive without human intervention to keep them alive. I live in southern Oregon now, and we do have a few small palm trees here and there. All as ornamental plants, and very small. Not the 80 foot tall and more giants as we had everywhere when I lived in LA. In other words, the climate in prehistoric central Alaska was more akin to that of LA today. And it is not even Plate Tectonics at work, because in that time period Alaska was actually farther north than it is today. And current LA was roughly at the latitude of central Oregon today. Hell, I blasted his screaming of "drought" quite thoroughly, yet I bet he will bring it up yet again when it suits him. We have factual records of rainfall in California reaching back over 200 years. And conjectured rainfall records going back over 4,000 years. And the rainfall has not significantly decreased in all that time. Spanish records to when California was still a colony of Spain give annual rainfall records almost the same as they are today. Like most of the US, the drought is not from lack of rainfall, but entirely manmade because the demands of the population are depleting the aquifers. That is not "global warming" at all, but simple overpopulation. So trying to attribute it to global warming is a complete fail. And we also know from geological records that interglacials are the wettest times on the planet, not the driest. He is actually trying to push a belief that is actually contrary to science. He equates heat with dry, which is the exact opposite. The warmest areas of the planet are almost always the wettest and most humid. The coldest are the driest. I am constantly slapping him with actual science like ecology and geology, and he can only return with his fake popularity contest.
Going to deal with these climate change religious fanatics is just telling them it's a religion that pisses them off. It's like veganism or the electric car people. I don't consider them anything more than Street corner preachers. They like to practice a lot of onanism about all the science they accept so pointing out that it's a religious belief cuts them right to the core. And we need to do this because that's what it is and this religion is being forced on kids in school because they pretended that it's not a religion.
Hell, want absolute proof that rainfall is not decreasing in the Western US? First of all, ignore any photos of reservoirs. Those are man made, and man controls the water level in them. I lived for years in Oroville, and it was the same very year. Come April-May, the reservoir was almost always in danger of overtopping (which happened in 2017 due to human mismanagement). And most of that water is held for irrigation and drinking water. And by October and water left in there is flushed for two reasons. Both to help assist the salmon migration, as well as to ensure it is as empty as it can be for the rains that will start falling by November. And by the end of the next spring, it will be full again. Most dams are created for irrigation and water as a major cause, so of course their levels will decrease dramatically once the wet season is over. Want a true gauge, look at the level of lakes that are natural that humans are not removing the water from faster than it can be replenished. Lake Tahoe has had a water level that has not appreciably changed in thousands of years. In fact, humans now pump water out of it for drinking water, and sometimes during heavy rainfalls pump out even more so it will not flood the surrounding area. In fact, the lowest it had ever been was way back in 1992 during an actual record drought when rainfall for over 7 years was negligible. The lake was an entire 11 feet below historic levels, and it has never been that low since. Almost every lake in the Western US that is natural is the exact same. Not counting that humans are increasing the water they take from them, their levels have not really changed at all. With the exception of course of the Great Salt Lake. But that is a terminal lake, and has been dying for around 15,000 years when Lake Bonneville "died", and that is the last remnant of the ancient lake that once rivaled the Great Lakes on the US-Canada border. I honestly laughed in the last year or so when fools started to grasp onto that as proof of "global warming". Anybody that knows the history of that lake, the basin, and what a "terminal lake" is knows it was dying even before Europeans first arrived on the Continent. And there is nothing that can be done to stop it. In fact, the best thing for that region will be for it to die, then a few thousand years of sentiment to cover it so it can become just another subterranean salt dome. In fact, if somebody wants to really "save the area", they would help hasten that along. Force the remaining lake into large evaporation pools, and help it vanish even faster. Then cover it with a few hundred yards of dirt. That will help the poisonous ground that is currently there recover faster, and a more healthy and viable ecosystem take its place.
There is no such "automatic assumption". You're missing what I said about science and "fact". Plus, science has no method of positive proof. It has falsification and allows any hypothesis. So, consensus in science is of significant importance, especially if it is among those who are experts in the field. There is NO question that the vast majority of climate scientists see the human contribution as being the superior conclusion. Other hypotheses concerning why our Earth is warming so fast do exist. Science is entirely open to that. So far, these alternative hypotheses receive far less support. For example, YOU claim some hypothesis that you see as superior. I really don't know what it is. But, I choose to go with the consensus of scientists in the field.
I see the warming as entirely natural, as it has been for the last 20,000+ years. And once again, you revert to a false popularity contest as your justification.
Well, again I have to point out that climate scientists don't support your conclusion. And, I would advise that people consult science rather than posters on this board.
A hell of a lot of them do not. And have said so publicly. Hell, we have shown you ad nauseum that claim is entirely fictitious and made up. But it is like a holy writ with you. You will continue to repeat it over and over again. Tell me, do you repeat that while counting on beads as well?
