Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 122075 times)

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #540 on: January 06, 2018, 10:41:13 pm »

So, despite warnings from thousands of scientists who know WAY more about this than we do, we do nothing. 

Because, hey, those scientists all have an agenda.

I never once said any scientist has an agenda.

But if a scientist says they're research indicates we can literally and physically move a mountain when there's no proof we've ever been able to do such a task in the past, I'm going to suggest we stick to solving problems that affect us now and directly with the available resources and a proven history of accomplishing tasks of similar scale.

We do know how to clean up toxic pollutants and yet we don't do it and let the people suffer who have to live around such a horrid abomination to nature and humans.

Or we could just talk about the weather which basically scientists are doing with Global Climate Change.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #541 on: January 06, 2018, 10:47:23 pm »

So, despite warnings from thousands of scientists who know WAY more about this than we do, we do nothing. 

Because, hey, those scientists all have an agenda.
Scientists are, well, scientists.  Even if they are 100% right about the dangers of global warming, they are not economists or politicians.  They don't decide policy.  We live in a democracy.  The people decide how they want their money spent and select priorities.  Some people may feel it's more important to save their sick kid from some disease he's suffering from today than worry about a few inches of higher sea levels 50 years from now.  That's not an unreasonable decision.   In any case, voters through their representatives decide, not scientists. 

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #542 on: January 06, 2018, 11:34:20 pm »

The only one time I actually talked to a scientist (in this case a Texas Parks & Wildlife biologist) who provided data that clearly had an agenda and that being as a paid speaker to come up with methods and ideas on mitigating our towns deer population at my local park advocacy meeting six months ago. 

Only I had my own agenda in my line of questioning the biologist that centered around my 2 year relationship with a dominant female deer and her 3 offspring who likes me to dig in her ear and feed her peanuts. I kept asking what other foods I could give them and all of her answers were I was not to do this, peanuts build up toxins in deer digestive systems, corn has very few nutrients and protein, deer carry parasites, lime disease, etc. She was basically describing them almost as if they're considered as filthy vermin and dangerous.

Some of this info was conflicted with what I've seen with the four deer I've befriended. I even fact checked another park's ranger with a degree on a PBS Texas Parks And Wildlife program about white tail deer claiming it illegal to touch fawns because they have no scent and if a human puts their scent on them, the male deer will kill it.

The biologist told me that was a myth. It doesn't happen. OK, both officials are educated with a degree but one is wrong.

So the biologist was not interested in answering my questions on how to care for deer but only about reducing their population. I ended up doing my own research and buying a 50 pound bag of Sportsman's "Deer Nutrition" as an alternative to peanuts at my local feed & seed. It's mainly made up of soy protein and alfalfa meal. The deers devoured it out of my hands.

I learned on my own spending time with these deer that they are cleaner than the pets I helped raised including squirrels, raccoons, possums, cats and dogs. The deer's poop smells like freshly mowed grass, their ear wax doesn't smell like cats and dogs do, their saliva has no smell after the dominant female likes to lick my arm for 15 minutes as a way of putting her scent on me as her property and primary food provider.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2018, 11:40:30 pm by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #543 on: January 07, 2018, 11:37:37 am »

Tim, I didn't mean to suggest that you said climate scientists have an agenda.  It is continually used here, however, as a reason for scientists "promoting" their global warming "agenda".
What their agenda might be is never made clear.

BTW, I share your admiration of deer.  I have about a dozen living on my property.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #544 on: January 07, 2018, 02:09:27 pm »

Tim, I didn't mean to suggest that you said climate scientists have an agenda.  It is continually used here, however, as a reason for scientists "promoting" their global warming "agenda".
What their agenda might be is never made clear.

BTW, I share your admiration of deer.  I have about a dozen living on my property.

My main point using the deer biologist as an example is that information can readily be given out and concealed in order to control a situation such as the prevention of harming deer by treating them as pets. The more complicated and detailed the information the more it sounds official and authoritative even though it doesn't make sense. Scientists are good at doing this even though they think they mean well.

My priority is to enjoy my short stay on this beautiful miracle planet doing what I want to do that doesn't require I pay money. The best things in life are free and my town has so many white tail deer that befriending only four is not going to ruin the entire population especially considering Texas has deer farms where they raise them for hunters to shoot. Now does that make sense?

I bet a scientist who is paid to be an expert will find some kind of rationalized way of making it sound like it makes sense by pummeling you with complicated data and scientific language to convince you of their authority on the matter. Hey, they went to school and got a degree what else are they going to do with their education in order to get a paycheck?

Someone who's suppose to be an expert, a biologist, tells me I can't enjoy the deer by treating them like pets and that it's against the law to have them in your house or yard against their will, but yet it's OK to let them raise them on farms so they can shoot them for sport. But are they raising them? Or are they managing them by containment?

The biologist framed what those hunters are doing as "deer population control" to preserve the rest of the herd because white tail deer breed like rabbits. (Whaa?! so how am I hurting them by feeding them?) And do we really need a deer farm to do this? Pretty soon the only information I'm going to get out of this biologist or any scientist is an infinite loop of rationalization using authoritative scientific language where no matter how any of what they're saying makes no sense the expert will always find a way of making joe citizen wrong headed in what he/she wants as part of exercising their freedom in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #545 on: January 07, 2018, 02:18:52 pm »

Living in New Jersey, I have a different take on deer.  Sure they're cute but they are a major vector for Lyme disease.  I've had it once cured with antibiotics and my dog almost died from it.  Since deer move through neighborhoods frequently, you can pick it up just being in your back yard.  Texas appears to be free of Lyme.  But the Northeast is a disaster.  Over 50% of the ticks have Lyme and some other bad stuff like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and ehrlichiosis. I've pretty much stopped hiking and shooting in the woods it's that bad.  Check the map on the link for where Lyme is prevalent and check out the safety measures to take if you are planning to photograph in the woods.
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html

This is a good example of different priorities in climate chnage.  If you live on the shore in low lying areas, you might be a lot for it.  If you live inland, where the sea have no effect, you'd be more concerned with spending public money on other things then worrying about CO2.  I'm sure scientists who study heart disease cures would want more money spent on their stuff than climateologists who would favor spending on CO2 reduction.  In that sense, scientists do have agendas favoring their specialty.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2018, 02:28:25 pm by Alan Klein »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #546 on: January 07, 2018, 02:41:20 pm »

-100F (wind-chill factor) in New Hampshire's Mt. Washington, teing for second place coldest in the world (where's the first?)   http://www.nydailynews.com/newswires/new-york/latest-ski-lifts-closed-wind-chill-hit-100-article-1.3741168

+114F (actual) +47C in Australia https://www.businessinsider.com.au/sydney-weather-records-2018-1

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #547 on: January 07, 2018, 02:52:56 pm »

Living in New Jersey, I have a different take on deer.  Sure they're cute but they are a major vector for Lyme disease.  I've had it once cured with antibiotics and my dog almost died from it.  Since deer move through neighborhoods frequently, you can pick it up just being in your back yard.  Texas appears to be free of Lyme.  But the Northeast is a disaster.  Over 50% of the ticks have Lyme and some other bad stuff like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and ehrlichiosis. I've pretty much stopped hiking and shooting in the woods it's that bad.  Check the map on the link for where Lyme is prevalent and check out the safety measures to take if you are planning to photograph in the woods.
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html

This is a good example of different priorities in climate chnage.  If you live on the shore in low lying areas, you might be a lot for it.  If you live inland, where the sea have no effect, you'd be more concerned with spending public money on other things then worrying about CO2.  I'm sure scientists who study heart disease cures would want more money spent on their stuff than climateologists who would favor spending on CO2 reduction.  In that sense, scientists do have agendas favoring their specialty.

The biologist I talked to mentioned the Lyme disease statistics you posted, but she didn't get specific enough and made it sound like the deer cause the Lyme disease instead of saying you have to be bitten by a tick that bit a deer. The deer carry the disease but they don't transfer it to humans.

Texas has ticks everywhere. I grew up as a kid raising the animals I mentioned and ticks were so bad that my brother got one in his ear that had been there a while and had his fill of blood that made the size of a pinto bean. Ah! Life in the Texas country was so much fun and dangerous.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #548 on: January 07, 2018, 03:30:39 pm »

Tim,  I'm sure you don't let your brother forget about it either.  🤠

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #549 on: January 07, 2018, 10:51:23 pm »

Living in New Jersey, I have a different take on deer.  Sure they're cute but they are a major vector for Lyme disease.  I've had it once cured with antibiotics and my dog almost died from it.  Since deer move through neighborhoods frequently, you can pick it up just being in your back yard.  Texas appears to be free of Lyme.  But the Northeast is a disaster.  Over 50% of the ticks have Lyme and some other bad stuff like Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and ehrlichiosis. I've pretty much stopped hiking and shooting in the woods it's that bad.  Check the map on the link for where Lyme is prevalent and check out the safety measures to take if you are planning to photograph in the woods.
https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html

This is a good example of different priorities in climate chnage.  If you live on the shore in low lying areas, you might be a lot for it.  If you live inland, where the sea have no effect, you'd be more concerned with spending public money on other things then worrying about CO2.  I'm sure scientists who study heart disease cures would want more money spent on their stuff than climateologists who would favor spending on CO2 reduction.  In that sense, scientists do have agendas favoring their specialty.

There is a very good chance that the tick population in the northern parts of USA and Canada will decrease next year because of the cold winter.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #550 on: January 08, 2018, 02:48:16 pm »

Fair enough. So when does weather become indicative of climate change? Wouldn't we have to discount the warmer Summers that we've had the last couple of years as just weather?

Is it weather or climate? Quite easy to determine, actually, if you ask the alarmists: if it is warmer, it is Global Warming (i.e., climate). If it is colder, it must be Weather. 😉

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #551 on: January 08, 2018, 03:10:43 pm »

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #552 on: January 08, 2018, 04:31:08 pm »

Is it weather or climate? Quite easy to determine, actually, if you ask the alarmists: if it is warmer, it is Global Warming (i.e., climate). If it is colder, it must be Weather. 😉
And if you ask the deniers it's reverse, to me they're both equally religious in spreading their belief.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #553 on: January 08, 2018, 06:02:10 pm »

Ooch, that looks quite "cool", also what we see on television here about the cold spell in NE US and Canada is quite extreme. But they also said the Western US is much warmer than normal (as is large parts of the rest of world), so I think "Global Cooling" might be an overstatement :)

Seems like other parts of the world are getting cold too including the Sahara where they had over 15 inches of snow in places.  This is the second year in a row after 40 years of no snow.  Does two years of snow weather mean climate change or weather?  Nice photos if you want to look.  This is a photo site after all.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/901733/Sahara-Desert-snow-Ain-Sefra-Algeria-pictures-photos

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #554 on: January 08, 2018, 10:47:58 pm »

... It is continually used here, however, as a reason for scientists "promoting" their global warming "agenda".
What their agenda might be is never made clear...

Would you mind quoting who "here" said scientists have an agenda? We (or at least I) said scientists are human, thus responding to incentives just like the rest of us. Incentives like being published, quoted, interviewed, promoted, getting grants, symposium trips. Falling in line is oh, so human. There are no grants for sceptics, no fancy trips, no faculty positions, no promotions, nada. Instead they are ridiculed and ostracized. It takes almost super-human strength to remain sceptical.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #555 on: January 08, 2018, 11:01:12 pm »

Would you mind quoting who "here" said scientists have an agenda? We (or at least I) said scientists are human, thus responding to incentives just like the rest of us. Incentives like being published, quoted, interviewed, promoted, getting grants, symposium trips. Falling in line is oh, so human. There are no grants for sceptics, no fancy trips, no faculty positions, no promotions, nada. Instead they are ridiculed and ostracized. It takes almost super-human strength to remain sceptical.
No jobs at the EPA or Energy Department either.  Well, until Trump.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #556 on: January 08, 2018, 11:07:56 pm »

You might be surprised but I agree with the regulators not with Trump's Energy Secretary Rick Perry.  Actually his original plan a year ago to shut down the whole department was a better idea.  Of course, we shouldn't subsidize clean energy either like we do and let free markets operate.  Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. 


"Federal regulators on Monday rejected a rule proposed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have subsidized coal and nuclear power plants in some parts of the United States."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/regulators-reject-rick-perrys-plan-to-prop-up-coal-and-nuclear-plants.html

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #557 on: January 08, 2018, 11:09:51 pm »

Missed my opportunity,

Sorry, 556 replies with no sense that anyone is listening to each other. It really is embarrassing…

Please let it end,
Logged
Tom Brown

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #558 on: January 09, 2018, 04:32:47 am »

There are no grants for sceptics, no fancy trips, no faculty positions, no promotions, nada. Instead they are ridiculed and ostracized. It takes almost super-human strength to remain sceptical.
Feeling or fact?
Where do all the sceptic scientific papers on CC that some people have quoted in this thread come from?
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #559 on: January 09, 2018, 04:34:57 am »

Please let it end,
Why? there's no need to read it if you dont like it.



Logged
pieter, aka pegelli
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 32   Go Up