Recommended Posts

Today Many school Children bunked off school in protest of not enough is being done about this ever approaching disaster. We are losing nearly 1000 species every month. There are currently 36% human population, 60% cattle and domesticated animals and 4% wild animals inhabit this earth. Yes its shocking. The sea has also lost massive amounts of species also. As Dao followers what do you think we can do to help this disaster? Give us some ideas to help solve this problem. I know what I have done, but I want to hear what others think. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those claims are made by people with an agenda and one needs to be skeptical , but not to the point -of just declaring the reverse opinion as factually true.

 

Back in sixth grade they told me that the world would run out of oil in the next ten years. That hasn't even been shown close to being true , it was shown to be false. If predictions of five years ago have not been proven true, then those models need to be trashed , along with disregarding those who made the wrong predictions. 

 

If one makes a prediction about the end of the world as we know it , and they were flat out wrong.. they need to be discredited and ignored- forever more , end of story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

Today Many school Children bunked off school in protest of not enough is being done about this ever approaching disaster

 

 

what disaster would this be....remember the ice age that didnt happen in 70s 

always good to hear a long gone wise man

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I think those claims are made by people with an agenda and one needs to be skeptical , but not to the point -of just declaring the reverse opinion as factually true.

 

Back in sixth grade they told me that the world would run out of oil in the next ten years. That hasn't even been shown close to being true , it was shown to be false. If predictions of five years ago have not been proven true, then those models need to be trashed , along with disregarding those who made the wrong predictions. 

 

If one makes a prediction about the end of the world as we know it , and they were flat out wrong.. they need to be discredited and ignored- forever more , end of story. 

 

Trouble is of course that one can use evidence to debunk and to credit any scientific prediction. I think now people are seeing such significant changes in the natural world that is far beyond the normal changes that happen, that there really is no way to debunk climate change being made by human activity.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

 

what disaster would this be....remember the ice age that didnt happen in 70s 

always good to hear a long gone wise man

 

 

 

Well during some wars people have starved to death, become cannibals etc because there is no food. Because of climate change grain reserves have been dropping while the population has been rising. Given enough change.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

Because of climate change grain reserves have been dropping while the population has been rising. Given enough change....

 

 

Something wrong with that, a natural adjustment 

happens to any species who over populate...Problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, flowing hands said:

 

Trouble is of course that one can use evidence to debunk and to credit any scientific prediction. I think now people are seeing such significant changes in the natural world that is far beyond the normal changes that happen, that there really is no way to debunk climate change being made by human activity.

I think one should keep an open mind , for instance , how would you or I know what " normal changes" are? but regardless of that 

There is a principle , and it states , that data is rather neutral to begin with unless it has a lot of unattended errors( its essentially objective). The big problem is when people begin to try to interpret and come up with subjective  statements about how things should be put together making 'sense ' of the data. and then again when people start making subjective statements about what to DO about the conclusions, that's where the bias is introduced. 

We, the general public , often use silly rationales to decide which experts should be listened to. Scientists either put too much emphasis on correlations or on unsubstantiated theory. ( red lights do not actually stop cars , but there is a correlation) 

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson, a science guy I overall like , said he thinks that scientists should be listened to , but frankly I don't know that they can be trusted any more than The United Nations, because he has his agenda to promote science. 

 

So I annd any lay-person gets relegated the task of figuring out which experts to believe ! , when we know for a fact we are less well informed than they are! 

 

I'll die long before the ocean levels rise very far anyway , let the kids figure out what they want to do in their generation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Stosh said:

 

I'll die long before the ocean levels rise very far anyway , let the kids figure out what they want to do in their generation.

 

Good sentiment one I can resonate with.

 

The problem is that anything that has to do with climate is global.  The third world countries are major producers of the things that are said to affect climate. 

 

They will not change feeling that it's their right to move through the processes that allow them to become First world countries.

 

it's innovations by First world countries that have allowed total populations in the third world to grow beyond what would normally be expected for certain regions.

 

the US has done a lot to cut down on emissions and has been a major leader in technologies used to do so.  All of which allows people to live longer and longer life spans.

 

See a pattern here?

 

What are called the upper class and elite are often the ones complaining the most who benefit the most.  They will always have access or on the things that they say are major influences in climate change.

 

The science that I've read on it is really very inconclusive reflecting  the sponsors of the studies.

 

Not in favor of wealth redistribution or of some global entity in charge of all Nations which seems to be the point of the climate initiative.

 

 

Edited by windwalker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I don't often here addressed.

 

what if some country manages to do something using technology that radically changes its climate for the better.  

 

In most future movies is the asumption seems to be that humans will be able to control global climate.

 

As a living entity on this world indirectly we do. What happens when this is done directly purposefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Another point I don't often here addressed.

 

what if some country manages to do something using technology that radically changes its climate for the better.  

 

In most future movies is the asumption seems to be that humans will be able to control global climate.

 

As a living entity on this world indirectly we do. What happens when this is done directly purposefully.

It doesn't really matter, the rich powerful countries will always have the upper hand ,,,if we are smart and get that wall started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some examples of fake climate science. https://realclimatescience.com/

 

2019-02-14024322_shadow.jpg

 

The graph was taken from page 38 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment document released in November 2018.

 

But why did they choose the 1960s for their start date?  The US has excellent temperature records going back the late 19th century, and in fact the 2017 National Climate Assessment showed heat wave data going back to 1900. The 2017 data showed unambiguously that US summers were much hotter prior to 1960, and that the 1960s and 1970s had the fewest heatwaves of any period in the US. This very important data was excluded from the 2018 report.

 

2019-02-13193710_shadow.jpg

 

Or how about just rewriting history?

 

The pattern of climate scientists plotting to erase past warm (and cold periods) is well established, and completely fraudulent.  NASA has doubled pre-2000 warming over the past 19 years.

NASAGISSGlobalSurfaceTemperatureAnomaly_

Spreadsheet     Data

And NOAA has turned a long-term US cooling trend into warming.

2018-07-25175052_shadow-1024x831.png

NOAA US Data Tampering Update | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

This fraud is being committed blatantly, right in front of everyone’s eyes.

 

Edited by Jonesboy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

This fraud is being committed blatantly, right in front of everyone’s eyes.

 

 

Which is why unless one checks much of  what is being discussed has no merit 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

Here are some examples of fake climate science. https://realclimatescience.com/

 

2019-02-14024322_shadow.jpg

 

The graph was taken from page 38 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment document released in November 2018.

 

But why did they choose the 1960s for their start date?  The US has excellent temperature records going back the late 19th century, and in fact the 2017 National Climate Assessment showed heat wave data going back to 1900. The 2017 data showed unambiguously that US summers were much hotter prior to 1960, and that the 1960s and 1970s had the fewest heatwaves of any period in the US. This very important data was excluded from the 2018 report.

 

2019-02-13193710_shadow.jpg

 

Or how about just rewriting history?

 

The pattern of climate scientists plotting to erase past warm (and cold periods) is well established, and completely fraudulent.  NASA has doubled pre-2000 warming over the past 19 years.

NASAGISSGlobalSurfaceTemperatureAnomaly_

Spreadsheet     Data

And NOAA has turned a long-term US cooling trend into warming.

2018-07-25175052_shadow-1024x831.png

NOAA US Data Tampering Update | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

This fraud is being committed blatantly, right in front of everyone’s eyes.

 

 

You are confusing global climate with local weather conditions. Big mistake!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

You are confusing global climate with local weather conditions. Big mistake!

 

Local would be a city like Washington D.C.

 

The size of the U.S. or North American continent would show impacts of global climate change. The fact you are saying that North America is too small to register the dreadful consequences of climate change doesn’t make any sense.

 

Now then, can we use local weather in a city as a measure of climate change?

 

Climate alarmist do their best but again when anyone actually looks at the data it fails miserably.

 

Climate experts say Washington DC cherry trees are blooming earlier due to “global warming” and predicted that peak bloom this year would be March 17-20.

2018_03_22_07_23_00.png

It is March 22, and Washington DC looks like mid-winter. Perhaps all of the white stuff on the ground is fallen cherry blossom petals?

2018_03_22_07_18_47-1024x672.png2018_03_22_07_23_53-1024x676.png

EarthCam – National Mall Cam

But not to worry!  Experts have updated their failed forecast to March 27.

2018_03_22_07_26_37.png

Cherry blossoms nearing their peak in Washington, D.C. | CNN Travel

Just in time for the next snowstorm in DC.

2018_03_22_07_32_10.png

Weather Street:Clouds and Precipitation Forecast Movie

 

Cherry blossom bloom dates have been trending later in DC, not earlier. But climate experts cling to their illusion that CO2 controls the climate and are thus blinded to reality.

2018_03_18_08_04_06.png

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/cherry-blossoms_fig-1.csv

Climate is climate, and climate science is nonsense, and never the twain shall meet. Experts believe cherry trees are going to start blooming in January, in spite of the fact that the concept is ridiculous and there is no evidence to back it up.

Screen-Shot-2017-02-22-at-6.04.28-AM-dow

Could cherry blossoms one day be blooming in winter? – The Washington Post

March temperatures in the DC area show no long term trend, but recent years have been generally cold.

2018_03_18_07_24_11-1024x917.png

It wasn’t always cold in DC during March though – 1945 and 1946 had very early blooms.

2018_01_09_03_52_28.png

Ludington Daily News – Google News Archive Search

Prior to 1950, March 22 was frequently a warm day in the US, with 1907 and 1910 being the warmest. During those years, 60% of US stations were over 70F on March 22.

2018_03_22_07_46_43-1024x921.png

There was a sharp drop off in the frequency of March 22 eighty degree weather after 1940.

2018_03_22_07_46_56-1024x907.png

On March 22, 1907 much  of the southeastern US was over 90 degrees, and 80 degree temperatures were widespread as far north as New York.

US_03221907-1024x616.jpg

The belief that CO2 controls temperature is the most embarrassing and mindless mass superstition of the modern age.

 

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/experts-cherry-blossom-peak-bloom-over/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate scientists have been right so many times right?

 

EPA 1983 : Ten Feet Of Sea Level Rise In The Next Few Decades

Posted on February 16, 2019 by tonyheller

Apparently Florida is underwater. Experts say so.

2019-02-15190822_shadow-784x1024.jpg

01 May 1983, 1 – The Baltimore Sun at Newspapers.com

They also said the climate of New York will be like Florida (which will be underwater.)

2019-02-15194833_shadow-643x1024.jpg

19 Oct 1983, 2 – Messenger-Inquirer at Newspapers.com

Now climate scientists say global warming makes winters cold and snowy, and that they predicted it all along.

 

2019-02-15195217_shadow-1024x772.jpg

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/epa-1983-ten-feet-of-sea-level-rise-in-the-next-few-decades/

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any college course work in the hard sciences which teach the scientific method? My reason for asking is that if you did, you wouldn't be cherry picking, cutting and pasting from a web site. That is to say, you would be discussing in your own words and not relying on a questionable web site. Confirmation bias has no place in this discussion. Further, I am not deceived by unfounded non peer reviewed writing. 

 

BTW, check out the methane pools in the Arctic circle which are directly caused by AGW. Any idea as to what methane release will cause?

 

I suggest Thomas Kuhn's-https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

Edited by ralis
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

You are confusing global climate with local weather conditions. Big mistake!

 

How about California wildfires?

 

Extreme Wildfire Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

Posted on February 15, 2019 by tonyheller

Yesterday I showed how the National Climate Assessment is committing blatant fraud about heat waves, by hiding the data which shows their claims are inverted from reality.

2019-02-14031858_shadow-1024x714.jpg

Extreme Fraud In The National Climate Assessment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

In this post, I show how they are doing exactly the same thing with wildfires. They show US burn acreage rapidly increasing.

2019-02-15063144_shadow-1024x744.jpg

The graph was taken from page 38 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment document released in November 2018.

2019-02-14024252_shadow-1024x665.jpg

Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States

But why did they start their graph in 1983? The US has very detailed burn acreage data going back for more than a century, and it was much higher prior to 1970.

2019-02-15063804_shadow.jpg

Indicator 3.16: Area and percent of forest affected by abiotic agents

 

I overlaid the National Climate Assessment Graph on the Forest Service graph, and it becomes clear exactly what they are doing.  Like in the the heatwave graph, they picked the lowest point for their start date, so that they could show an upwards trend – and deceive the public.

2019-02-15064610_shadow-1024x726.jpg

They hid essentially all of the essential data, which shows that burn acreage is down 80% in the US over the past 90 years.

2019-02-15064955_shadow-1024x809.jpg

Burn acreage was very carefully tracked and reported during the 1930s. People split the atom and built the Golden Gate Bridge during the 1930s.  It is not surprising that they also knew how to do the basic mathematics which climate scientists seem to be incapable of.

2015-10-29-08-59-40_shadow.jpg

October 9, 1938 – NYTimes

The same story in California.  Last year had very high burn acreage, but the trend since the 1930’s is generally down.

DkBmI1uVsAAGHlO.jpg

incidentstatsevents_270.pdf

In 1936, forest fires were seen as the greatest threat to prosperity.

2015-11-20-06-41-201_shadow-1024x353.jpg

05 Dec 1936, Page 7 – Santa Cruz Evening News at Newspapers.com

 

And as always, the fraudulent work of the National Climate Assessment is backed by many other fraudsters, like the Union of Concerned Scientists.

2018-08-06122506_shadow.png

Is Global Warming Fueling Increased Wildfire Risks? | Union of Concerned Scientists

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ralis said:

Do you have any college course work in the hard sciences which teach the scientific method? My reason for asking is that if you did, you wouldn't be cherry picking, cutting and pasting from a web site. That is to say, you would be discussing in your own words and not relying on a questionable web site. Confirmation bias has no place in this discussion. Further, I am not deceived by unfounded non peer reviewed writing. 

 

BTW, check out the methane pools in the Arctic circle which are directly caused by AGW. Any idea as to what methane release will cause?

 

I suggest Thomas Kuhn's-https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

 

No I am not and neither are you so why are you cherry picking data?

 

Will the methane release cause the end of the world?  🤓

 

Maybe if we all went solar and electric cars it will save the world from artic methane. Fortunately for all of us the artic is expanding in ice not shrinking even with all the man made c02.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jonesboy said:

 

No I am not and neither are you so why are you cherry picking data?

 

Will the methane release cause the end of the world?  🤓

 

Maybe if we all went solar and electric cars it will save the world from artic methane. Fortunately for all of us the artic is expanding in ice not shrinking even with all the man made c02.

 

 

 

I have a degree in the hard sciences along with 50 credit hours of math/advanced mathematics. Arctic ice is receding and not reforming during the winter season, in general. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can argue all you want with cut/paste, but it changes nothing as to the causes of AGW. I am not wasting any more time with this!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I have a degree in the hard sciences along with 50 credit hours of math/advanced mathematics. Arctic ice is receding and not reforming during the winter season, in general. 

 

Niether of which makes you an expert. You were the guy who just said North America was local and shouldn’t be confused with global change.

 

Arctic sea ice volume is up 8% since 2008, with a huge expansion of the area covered by thick ice.

 

January21-2008-2019ArcticSeaIceVolume.gi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea as to what my expertise is. I said biosphere which is a non linear dynamic system. It is obvious you are lost with that size of complexity, so go ahead and have fun with your graphs. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ralis said:

You have no idea as to what my expertise is. I said biosphere which is a non linear dynamic system. It is obvious you are lost with that size of complexity, so go ahead and have fun with your graphs. 

 

Ralis,

 

There is this thing called ctrl f that can let one search for words in a thread like biosphere.

 

 You have never mentioned it 😮

 

Even using your term the North American continent would be impacted if things were so dire.

 

 You really aren’t making any sense.

 

Also, we can disagree on a topic but it shows the measure of a man if he has to start attacking others to try to win a debate. Just some food for thought.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Ralis,

 

There is this thing called ctrl f that can let one search for words in a thread like biosphere.

 

 You have never mentioned it 😮

 

Even using your term the North American continent would be impacted if things were so dire.

 

 You really aren’t making any sense.

 

Also, we can disagree on a topic but it shows the measure of a man if he has to start attacking others to try to win a debate. Just some food for thought.

 

I never mentioned North America so stop revising what I stated. You just accused me of not making sense which is an attack as opposed to requesting clarification.  I view the biosphere as a whole which it is, as opposed to separate parts. I believe that is the Tao. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Kuhn's book is about the sheeplike nature of scientists and how few are worth anything.

In any case by the time anyone gets round to taking any action, fossil fuels will have run out, so who cares.

What should be far more concerning is the degeneration of human culture, the reducing brain size of humans, the self-domestication, self-slavery, and loss of meaning and purpose, and the level of ill health in body and mind of people.

In the same way the lowest among them hurry to become their leaders, so they also become the teachers of the next de-generation.

Existence is impartial, it does not care which of the 10,000 acorns become oak trees.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites