Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

561 - 580 of 619 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,122 Posts
Impossible for man to impact the physics involved? Physics as different than the environment?

Is a heat sink city physics or environment? That which you can see and measure in a micro does not apply to the macro?

The dust bowl was physics? Impossible for man to have an impact? Impossible not to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
In 2020, if every human was given equal shares of habitable land on earth, they would each get a bit over 4½ acres. Now, go out on your land and change the average temperature of just your 4½ acres and see how much you clout you have. :lpf:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,122 Posts
In 2020, if every human was given equal shares of habitable land on earth, they would each get a bit over 4½ acres. Now, go out on your land and change the average temperature of just your 4½ acres and see how much you clout you have. :lpf:
Now do burn a fire there for a 100 + years. Now change a snow storm to a rain storm over an entire region and check your night temperature difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
If you naysayers can try to follow along.............My point is that the earth has experienced global climate change before WHEN it was impossible for mankind to have any impact on the physics of the changes.

Ergo: It is then logical to question if we are contributing much or any of the input factors now. It is also quite obvious that there is an organized group of people assigning blame. It is also obvious that their claims have not been proven out over time- this at an increasing rate. (I really don't think mankind will be extinct by global warming in 12 years)

In my opinion there is more of an influence of what you could call the "religion" of environmentalism. This movement is polluted with re-activism, pseudo social justice, animal rights, "earth first" emotion driven over science or common sense mentality. Not to be confused with environmentalism which seeks to limit pollution and preserve our legacy of natural resource beauty.

One of the biggest problems I see is the fact that most of our universities are activist driven. There is an atheistic socialism pollution in just about every area of study. This does not serve the cause of dispassionate science well. Neither does the lust for money produce worthy outcomes. Differentiating between the necessary need for funding to further science, and the greed of corporations who put profits above careful science.

So yes we need to be better stewards of the earth. Nuclear war on a large scale could wipe out mankind. Both facts.

However it does not empirically follow that we are the cause of global warming. This has been a recurring global phenomena and until we prove the cause we simply don't know.

Popularity does not prove anything, except perhaps the success of propaganda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,122 Posts
The old joke about an optimist applies your "proof" argument. Falling at the 2nd story of a ten story building: "so far, so good".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
The old joke about an optimist applies your "proof" argument. Falling at the 2nd story of a ten story building: "so far, so good".
Like I said, "naysayer" I'm not the one jumping off the 10th floor. But then, perhaps a logical argument isn't something some folks can follow. Simply denying something is not an argument of logic, it is a put off.

Science isn't based on emotional or political motivations. Scientific theory means you work hard to find flaws in ones theories, because if you find one thing that disagrees with your premise then you know your theory is faulty or wrong. What we have seen these last 40 years or more is a growing trend to only look for evidence of agreement. Everyone wants to be agreeable and be a part of something. Vanity, greed, dishonesty have all been increasing in the scientific community. When religeous faith is trampled underfoot and ridiculed there is a consequence. One such consequence is a lowering of moral values and virtuous character in people. The consequence of that is the bad behavior of a rudderless selfish society that merely seeks to get ahead for themselves instead of seeking the good of the greater community.

Consensus has NEVER proved anything, other than there are a lot of fools. Far more often consensus has been proven wrong. Lately it is the tool of an angry mob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
Trin - careful, you are heading into a Science versus religion domain. That alone could cause a lot of heat! I have never seen a technical problem solved by consensus - only quick decisions and dictated directions. I htink I go this right :scratch:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,122 Posts
So the more scientist converge around global warming, the more they are wrong?

My belief in Global warming is based upon the changes to cove I see nearly every day. The snow I do not shovel. The idea of using a snowmobile on my own land as now ridiculous. Ice out dates. The never ice up seasons. The stories of my grandparents taking a sleigh to Portland over the sea ice.

The temperature records, the simple observation burning fuel releases smoke, perma frost melts etc.., just explains the cause. No I do not believe the the volcano explanation or any such trivia. So call me an intellectual sheep if you wish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,122 Posts
Till man burns the forest down.
CO2 readings over time says the plants better get to it.
Ocean acidity says the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
It maybe too late to do much.

Just relocate into more desirable areas now, if care and still can afford it (otherwise, your kids will be saying few choice words later about you; especially down South, ironically).
Here is a good start for planning purposes:
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

The permafrost is already going - there is so much methane in permafrost (on top of CO2), no plants will ever consume it (because, well, they don't use methane).
This is a freight train - try and stop it - good luck.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
Well we can at least slow down how fast we keep adding freight to the train.
Based on the discussions here, Salty, most people don't care.
Decision makers don't care either - even worse.

On the brighter side, dinosaurs used to live far up North (because there were warmer global periods) - and so the elephant parks can, indeed, be setup in North Dakota or Siberia and the elephants maybe saved that way.
I already have a business plan too.
Kids gonna love that!
Don't you agree?
:)

The mass migration/mass die-off will just repeat the N-th time - nothing new, geologically speaking.
And so, this is how this current incident is developing too, the N-th time.
People are too stupid and greedy to do anything about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,870 Posts
I have seen people seriously discussing their strategies for winning lotteries! ----- T'is hard to help people like that.:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Science isn't based on emotional or political motivations.
Debatable. The science which is done is based on funding. Most funding comes from organisations with a political agenda - such as the government of the day.

Because one particular facet of the huge tapestry of life which we call "everything that is" is subjected to scientific enquiry, the conclusion which is automatically drawn is that it must be important. (or why else has someone shown an interest in it ?)

Then, once a subject area has established itself as being "important", then that alone justifies further research grants. Even more important, even more grants. And so the cycle continues ...
LJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
No one here has disputed my point. Instead it is simply inane denial.

If a university happened to be run by the Nazi party I would venture a guess it would follow specific biases. The same kind of thing IS going on in the USA with most of the universities practicing open hostility to anyone who objects to an atheistic, Darwinist, Marxist, approach to science. Peer review is then very problematic as many of the "peers" are indoctrinated with the same biases. Peer review, or any other populist agreement on virtually anything does not determine reality in the least.

It doesn't hold any value simply to say stupid things like "you're a climate denier" etc. It's just the same product of a system bent on controlling other people and silencing them. My belief is that we do this at potential great peril.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ Aside from some poor language I think the point is valid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_hC2T5PB9I

The system is broken. https://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763

It is noticeable that the "Hockey stick" graph was peer reviewed and many "so-called scientists" signed on to it's veracity. Only to find out that the data was fabricated. Did these afore mentioned scientists withdraw their assent? No way, that would be admitting they had been duped. Instead the cry about imminent doom by the earth boiling was renamed and repackaged as "climate change".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,083 Posts
Trin "to anyone who objects to an atheistic, Darwinist, Marxist, approach to science." You are putting labels on science. If I have ever seen anything independent of politics and religion it is the scientific method. It is one of the few things that seems to be able to separate itself from "faith" based conclusions. I am not sure how you can introduce "faith" into the process. Example " it is impossible for humans to have an effect on global change" - prove it by the scientific process and methods not slight of words. Darwin may be wrong and that is a possibility but it is in place until a better proven theory shows up. It is not inane denial but a "show me" approach and allow independent verification. Even Einstein had mathematical theories he did not believe but have been proven true - try "Entanglement" and disprove it. I have noted numerous scientist of all faiths have had their theories accepted. So what's wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
What is wrong is the growing trend of Marxist, atheistic educated scientists that have no moral compass. Because the United States was formed based on a Judaeo Christian ethic, it was in some extent infused with a system of morality and virtue. Our law and constitution is based on this. Separating scientific research from those values is a bad thing. The basic problem with Marxism is that man becomes "God" and any means is justified to the whim of whomever happens to be in power. I have met some scientists who are atheists that do have a conscience that is rigorous enough to hold themselves to humanitarian principles, but this is rare. On the other hand I know many more that are of various faiths that have a defined set of values based on virtues like honesty and integrity. I don't think I need to bring up statistics on the history of Marxist governments to make this point.

https://time.com/5103677/church-state-separation-religious-freedom/

Atheism, (Marxism) seeks to ban belief in God, This in and of itself takes on the framework of a religion. I glad our forefathers were wise enough to give us the freedom to practice how we choose. Banishing religion from the public square was never the intent.

Where did I mention "faith based conclusions"? What I am saying is that without religion, society is impoverished. So don't mischaracterize what I am stating. My earlier post pointed out that we have had unusual global climate change events before where it was impossible for man to have been the cause. There is no "slight of words" here.

Furthermore, the phrase "independent verification" is not a gold standard for truth. This is why I posted the links to the issues with "peer review" What really matters is the moral character of the scientists doing the reviewing. The simple fact is that we don't know who is doing the reviewing most of the time. I mean this from the aspect of how the public debate is carried out. I bet 99% of the people engaged in the post publication debate don't look into the reviewers. I don't trust the process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGBrfyOCCII Maybe this will bring some clarity.

So should we stand by the side and watch the moral decline of our nation and not be concerned and debate on causes and hopefully, remedies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,313 Posts
Trin: Where did I mention "faith based conclusions"? What I am saying is that without religion, society is impoverished.
I'm late in on this thread, but ... "faith" and "religion" aren't the same thing - religion is but one manifestation of faith. (Science is another :) )

Robert Holcombe: If I have ever seen anything independent of politics and religion it is the scientific method. It is one of the few things that seems to be able to separate itself from "faith" based conclusions. I am not sure how you can introduce "faith" into the process.
Again, "faith" and "religion" are being equated. The Scientific Method (and indeed all aspects of Science) are based on faith. Faith that the Scientific Method itself is adequate to explain anything and everything that it is applied to; faith that human logic is sufficient to understand the complexities of the phenomena all around us (ranging from that of the outer comos, right through to the sub-atomic); and faith that our human senses are comprehensive enough for this purpose.

Take electromagnetic radiation for example. It has existed for much longer than man has been here on Earth, and yet was only discovered very recently (when using an evolutionary time-scale). Are there still other phenomena around us of which we are still completely unaware, but have not even the slightest suspicion of their existence, because we have neither the senses to detect them, nor can fashion equipment designed for that purpose, because we lack any idea at all of what we might be searching for ? Hence we have 'faith' (as we always have had) - that our current state of knowledge encompasses 'all the phenomena that exists' (even though we might not fully understand those phenomena yet), and that there is nothing of significance which eludes us.

There are two documents which I think are worth reading when evaluating 'Science' - the first is Alfred Korzybski's 'Science and Sanity', and the other is Peter Medawar's 'Ís The Scientific Paper A Fraud ?' - copies of both of which can be found online.
LJ
 
561 - 580 of 619 Posts
Top