PNW heat dome clam bake, or something stinks with how we treat the earth!

Again, people of a certain politicial group always seem to immediately discount what anyone else says who is not from their political group. This has been happening over the last 50 years that I’ve witnessed, so that covers a few different generations, therefore it’s no accident. IMO this shows how brainwashed and programmed the k-12 government ‘education’ system has been to tens of millions of children. College/universities are the finishing school of the intolerant cultural warriors.
Herbert marcuse, one of the fathers of marxist thought in the US was the one who said that there needs to be “repressive tolerance” of all thought/information not of their position. This is how the leftists justify their silencing of others not them. Back in the 70s-80s, it was “we don’t need to let them speak here because they have their mainstream media” justification of censorship on campuses/schools. As these marxists have gotten more and more power, they have come out in their blatant censorship, bullying, threatening and even assaulting of people, businesses and groups who have a worldview different than what they put forth as “the truth”.

This is why so many democrats/leftists can only discount what someone else says, yet know next to nothing about the actual nuts and bolts, even common sense answers to the issues they choose to support. The questions I put up earlier were excellent examples of this. They can only discount and name call…then threaten and censor as they have no other options. Look up how cults work, really, do it. The mechanics of them behavior and thought punishment and reinforcement and you will see the liberal progressives and now, the democrat party. They know little to nothing but are very adamant in their reactions to someone not of their group. That is programming. They even don’t have any intellectual curiosity to look into things. Cults punish that. They also punish and shun people who question their group and/or want to leave the group.
I put forth very simple questions that they never answer. What’s a trip is I’d love to know how they arrange it in their head where they just ignore those and continue their war march. How do they rationalize it? Or are they too busy demanding censorship of me/those that they can repress their intellect as a means of protection, self defense?

If you are a scientist, most of your money comes from govt. You don’t have a POV/agenda the govt also has, you won’t get funding. (also see ‘cancel culture’ now that it’s in the open).
If whatever they are putting forth is real…it should be able to stand up to scrutiny, analysis, especially if it’s a hard science. But more and more of the agenda is enforced as “settled science”. Again, programming, censorship, brainwashing.

There were no “97% of scientists”. That was a lie, just like the ‘hockeystick’ graph.
If opening our southern borders is good for this nation and is what the american people want, congress should be able to pass that law in the light of day and freely discuss these benefits to us. But it’s not, so they don’t.
If the elections of 2020 were not fraudulent, a forensic analysis of the voting machines and methods should be welcomed so people can be shown to be wrong when they doubt it.
If politicians/groups want to reduce the amount of crimes that people do using a firearm, then they should put out the data of who are doing these crimes and what can be done to stop/reduce it. But they don’t. They can’t as that’s not their agenda.

People should look up the word ‘epistomology’ and then think about they themselves when they interact with others. Do they think before responding? Where do they get their information from? Are they exposed to other POVs?

Look up Sharyll Attkisson and watch some of her presentations. She’s a journalist. A real one.
How Real Is Fake News?

1 Like

There is a Latin premise of law (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.) meaning (False in one thing false in everything.)

This idea is used a lot in court and that you don’t have to prove everything false in a statement when you find falsehoods it is safe to assume doubt about all the rest.

Most people don’t quite understand in a court of law the witness swears an oath to tell 1. The truth 2. The whole truth 3. Nothing but the truth. These are 3 completely different things and are the base many times of disinformation. Digging deeper as @Dago has done and the author of the article he linked is trying to point out the whole truth. NOAA has every right to counter the information put forth describing the whole truth or more truth that now swings the original information into question. I haven’t read that they did that. In today’s fast paced world stories fly by us and everyone is on to the next big story and the last big story has altered enough opinions and done its job and the smokescreen of the new story covers the old.

This is no different than my Lake Erie warming study with shocking headlines and then digging into the facts is less than convincing to an analytical testing.

It seems kind of logical to me if you are comparing temp data from 1900 to today and the location of the testing in 1900 was a remote air strip in the country and today the location is the same except now it is a big cities international airport there could be some effect on those readings when we are talking fractions of degrees F. I don’t really see stuff like that being brought into question as a conspiracy theory that is way out there. If anything it seems to me to be better science in noticing it.

Deflecting is when someone points out a discrepancy in temp measurements in NY state and the rebuttal is are polar ice cap photos being doctored? I don’t know maybe they are. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Ya know, that’s one policy I could get behind. Oh, wait, just who will be in charge of deciding who stays and who goes? Mebbe I better rethink that.
But yeah, depopulation desires goes hand in hand with the liberal progressive ideology. Hitler’s nsdap were very environmentally conscious, with himmler, hess and hitler himself promoting getting away from meat and living more naturally. In the nazi youth manual, “Nutrition is not a private matter!”.
The fascists in europe and progressives in america had a lot of overlayment and even overt support of each other. Hitler’s lebensraum was more about resources than anything else as germany had low grade (brown) coal and no gas/oil. Starvation as execution was also common back then. Both hitler and stalin did it and later, mao and north korea is an excellent example.
“Deplorables” of today were the “Undesireables/Untermensch, Kulaks, etc.” of before as justification for a lot of the policies of the totalitarian regimes. They always want to progress towards some fabian utopia and their means always are justified by that.
Margaret Sanger’s ‘planned parenthood’ came about because negroes/immigrants/non educated were “sprouting like weeds”. Sanger was also in favor of people having to get licenses to have children. It’s no accident that craineology came into prominence during the progressive era, in the US and europe.

OK, back to a different science. A very wise professor once said, “If you buy my assumptions, you’ll buy my conclusion no matter how absurd”. That is science.
Take an equation and it’ll have variables in it. The variables used and the weighting of them are ASSUMPTIONS.
I can write an equation for how cow farts cause the rotation of the moon to slow down during the day. If you agree with my variables and their weighting, you will agree that yes, cows farting causes the moon to slow it’s rotation during the day.

A lot of “science” has been by coerced consensus rather than actual scientific methodology. Agree with my assumptions and you’ll get tenure. If you come out in public doing so, you’ll get a research grant.

Global warming/cooling/weather is based in racism.
Disagree with me? you are a racist.

1 Like

Yesterday I dug a little deeper into the original cooked clam story and found it was covered by a few dozen news organizations. Most of them fell into lock step in their reporting a mixture of factual information (The Truth) and a few provided a bit more (The whole truth) and most switched at some point from a news story to an opinion piece giving the narrative that global warming was likely the cause. The way these are normally phrased I have noticed is there is a word or two like the word (possible or likely) used in the beginning and then the opinion turns news-like and continues. In some of these story the temp number 122F was used. The tidal condition was kind of played down also. I did find one source that explained the 122 number better as someone measured the temp of a black rock in the clam bed floor in the sun at 122. They then mentioned an air temp close to 100 and that it was a rare set of circumstances that one of the lowest tidal points of the year happened at the exact time of one of the hottest days of the year and at the hottest part of the day. That all seemed pretty logical as an explanation to me. That particular piece didn’t go on at length about this being a global warming event.

Paul Harvey used to do a thing on the radio called (The rest of the story) I’m missing old Paul lately and the simplicity of life then. Maybe someday we will know the rest of the story.

You have the only correct data. Undoubtedly it supersedes stacks of multi discipline research by not just government, but varied scientific disciplines, universities in this country, and other nations too. Although their research gets peer reviewed, before being published as creditable science, their science is a sham. If someone points out that it’s not a sham. That the scientific method is there to do it’s best to eliminate individual bias, and will be tested by other diverse individuals. Well they are labeled closed minded, and just wrong. Won’t listen to anything. Must be off a particular political persuasion because of this. They have a whole litany of other despicable characteristics. I concede to your point of view. You must of course be right. My mistake.

Incase you are wondering…Yes, there is a literary term for that reply.

I hope I have made a sound case for where the current scientific consensus is correctly based on all the mass of data that has been collected. I feel confident that if new data comes to light and it points to climate cooling it will go through the same rigorous review system, and if found to be correct, science will start testing to confirm it. That’s how it works.

By now I don’t expect to sway you. I think anyone who reads what has been posted here will make up their own minds. I won’t hazard a guess as to their political persuasion, or their character flaws (we all have them). They will be who they are, and as diverse as nature has made them. In other words individuals with minds of their own will decide. I won’t be offended by their choice. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder about what they choose. I hope they make a sound choice though.

For me this thread has run it’s course. I don’t see it as a waste of time, but plan on spending my time posting other stuff. Probably with photos attached.

1 Like

Wait; I’m bored! Let’s quantify cow farts.
What is the annual volume?
What is the % of methane emitted per fart?
Since people greatly outnumber cows, why aren’t we concerned about human farts, esp when we get caught in one?
I had a couple of days recently when I had to get away from my own.

I agree the thread has run its course and as a final thought I actually agree with you in disagreeing. Here is why.

There is a cascading effect of all these mountains of research. The average Joe doesn’t go to NOAA’s research files and sit with a statistical computer and analyze data. I’m only giving NOAA as an example it could be any pier reviewed scientific research on any topic they just don’t dig all that deep. NOAA I’m sure has people of both persuasions and like all organizations the guys at the top could have their thumb on the scale a little.

Lets say they are putting out accurate science and maybe they honestly missed the airport in 93 years changed its own climate after all that is an effect of man right? So they put out a report that average Joe doesn’t read.

Now it is outside of the scientific community and into the media and the political circus we call a democracy and the cascade of the information begins. Say CNN wants to write an article or John Kerry wants to write a book and set himself up for future relevance say being the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. These news medias and individuals could and likely do have ulterior motives maybe political maybe to drive change in the way they would like to see it. They do not go under scientific pier review they interrupt the data and reports and pick and chose what they like and often embellish the story as way of commentary. Lets say the way CNN jumped to the conclusion that a very hot day combined with lining up with a low tide on a commercial clam bed area placed on dark rocky soil also was a direct result of man made global climate change and if you don’t believe us we can show you NOAA charts to prove it.

The cascade doesn’t stop there no there is a feeding frenzy for all things man made global climate change and certain parts of the population don’t watch CNN or read their news feed, so maybe Bill Maher or some of the late night comedians like Jimmy Kimmel will pick up on it. and they add a little spin say showing Donald Trump eating a oyster and they now have a joke pulling along the story.

Lets not end the possibility of cascading pure science there. Someone will pull a screen shot from the Kimmel show and photo shop some text and now 50 million people on Facebook are sending it around.

Now comes the real filtering to the cascade if I rebut the Facebook story and make my own funny picture and send it out saying here is the true story. Facebook will sensor me if they want and say they do not condone climate change deniers.

After I see 100’s times by 100s of people I know and trust and that I want them to like me someone is evil and someone else is good or something is fact or something is fiction, I go with the flow. They have to be right how could I be right that would mean they all are wrong and they are smarter than me so I guess they are right and my life is all good then.

The bias can start small or maybe not at all. Maybe just one word like my report on Lake Erie warming the word (significant) when describing .1 degree F change in water temp in 20 years. First 20 years isn’t that long in the big picture IMO and .1 degree isn’t that much in a turbulent body of water as large as Lake Erie. The report only had one word I objected to I believe the numbers for what they are worth. But then the spin started and the cascading started and millions of dollars are being spent on projects to fight the significant warming to the lake by man made global warming.

Nuff Said.

I helped my nephew build a house a few years ago. He bought 10 nice wooded acres out in the country surrounded by over a 1000 acres of beef cows and dairy cows and hay and corn that all the waist products from the cows was liquefied and sprayed on the fields for fertilizer.

It came time to put in his septic system and we had natural drop to the land and wanted a septic tank and it run to a leach field. Lets be honest he is one human making one turd a day how bad can it be.

Oh no we applied for the permit and our plan failed we needed to hire an expert and reapply and $2000 and 3 months later after endless perk tests we were allowed to build a $30,000 waste treatment system with several 1000 gallon tanks and pumping lift station and a complex system to inject the waste product into a complex sand mound that was located 30’ above his home.

I told him enjoy it don’t think of it as expensive over the rest of your life it will only be about $5 per flush. He said but, but, but the cows. I calmed him down and said cows are different. :wink:

A lot of assumptions being made about population control here. The simple statement of the number of people in 1800 before industrialization comparing it to 2021 and the impact of 8 billon in tandem with industrialization, and the planetary harm being magnified. Suddenly becomes construed to mean Hitler style population control. Bud makes the suggestion I am implying getting rid of 7 billion (which I ignored), and Dago who states he “can get behind that” is off on a political rant, and runs with the ball. Do I see projection here?

Instead of thinking that another path might exist. That path logically would be to reduce the impacts of industrialization first and foremost. Which is exactly what the industrial nations have been talking about. Their consensus took the form of the Paris accord. Not massacring people.

Using absurd rhetoric to deflect from the science because they don’t like the findings. Defining those that disagree and lumping them all into a group. A sign of the times I suppose.

I apologize I said that kind of tongue in cheek and know you were not suggesting population reduction. On the other hand the population is the problem and industrialization is the solution and has been in this country for many years. What you don’t want to do is cut off the hand that feeds you as they say. We should be the model for the world and we have been the model for that world my whole life.

Thru the 80s I spent literally 1000s of hours showing people from China everything we did as part of a “Technology Exchange Program” We got nothing in return on the exchange except access to their markets short term. I hated it every day I did it but you do what you are told and my companies motto was “Automate, Emigrate or Evaporate” and we didn’t want to evaporate although we eventually did.

So how do you take care of every need of say 350,000,000 people in this country? We knew how to do it and we knew how to scale it up as the population grew and we even figured how to do it and keep the place in fairly nice shape with every generation doing better and living longer and working less than the one before it. At the same time we were making the rest of the world better when we could. Actually IMO we were doing good until the day Covid19 landed. But that’s my perspective and I realize many others were suffering thru 4 years of torture of us doing nothing correct and ruining the whole world.

The other day I said to a younger person about 20 isn’t it amazing we can eat fresh strawberries 365 days a year. They looked at me and said “right amazing”. I said do you know when I was 20 we only had fresh strawberries about 7 days out of the year and then we had to wait a year, 10 days if we were lucky. They said “what”. I asked them where do strawberries come from and they said “the store”. They are really good at Facebook though.

Like I said a lot of posts back the hardest point of view on any problem is to put yourself on the other side of the problem and look at it.

Hey Bud. I ignored it because I didn’t think you meant it, and if you did didn’t think it worth a responds. Believe me I waded through every post and link. I even looked to see what others had to say in the sciences. I have already said that my bias is in favor of the science having been trained in it. There is vigorous debates that rage about theories . It isn’t a monolithic block of thought. When there is a broad consensus then it is because the evidence is overwhelming.

Points of view are often founded on personnel bias. Scientific method is about eliminating bias. Precisely because bias impends acknowledging facts counter to the bias. The hardest thing to do is to suspend bias. Therefore a need to neutralize bias.

Really didn’t mean to get this started up again, but felt the need to counter the outrageousness of what was said after thinking about it.

Is fine. I also respect science as do you and even if my interoperation of the science is one way and I see someone abusing that same position being on the same side of the issue as me I’m appalled.

Science is science that we agree on. Now if I take that science and interpolate it out on my own and use that claiming it came from the science is when I have problems.

If someone says here is a picture of a polar bear on a ice float and tells me that concludes the world is ending in 12 years if don’t vote for me so I can fix it. That’s stretching the science too thin IMO.

I have friends that go crazy if they see me using a plastic straw even though I wash it and use it for a month, but then they buy water in a plastic bottle for twice the price of gasoline per gallon and drink K-cups all day long.

Most of it is not science.

1 Like

I would suggest that one should first focus on the science, if you truly want to understand climate warming. Hold the politics and News Media for a bit, just keep to the science. That is what I have to do for my job, if I want to understand where the science tells me my conservation actions should go. Not just for climate change, but any question that comes up for wildlife conservation. The key is to look at various pieces of evidence and evaluate how much confidence one can have in a given piece, then use all of them, carefully, to come to tentative conclusions. Only after that is it worth entertaining the politics and News media.

Even at that, there are a number of sources, scientists, one should take with a grain of salt, because they are scientists that are also “stealth advocates”, masquerading as objective scientists. I personally have to deal with that often. If that sounds confusing, a good book on the subject is The Honest Broker by Pielke:

Amazon.com: The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (9780521694810): Pielke Jr, Roger A.: Books

A good place to start, for climate warming, is the IPCC reports, which do a good job of collecting the wide array of evidence and giving some evaluation for the confidence you can put in it. Then a good discussion is possible. Up thread I gave a link for the IPCC website.

2 Likes

You make a great point. With wife and I, it’s our dogs that are gaseous maximus, so let’s get the flatulant canines of the world some representation!

science is science, like you said. And like delaware greg said, we should focus on science.
but the percentages of people that would focus on the science, track it down and read the research, or even the abstracts amount to a fraction of one percent of the population…and I think I’m giving humans too much credit at that.
“our leaders” and the people representing them have dumbed down the complex into simple slogans, and often lies, that use emotion to manipulate people. Anyone daring to care enough to look into something, is quickly overwhelmed by analysis paralysis. And that’d intentional. That’s why there are so many foundations and 501c3 groups–to launder money and prevent open, transparentcy. The government/financial classes want us to be little more than reactionary bots. I see this daily and even many times in this thread. And the people here allegedly care enough about this subject to invest time and effort to participate. Yet what they do is turn into reflexive bot mode so they can disregard what doesn’t conform to what they believe.
Individuals really should stop and think, “where did I get this belief?” If they ditch emotion and use common sense, they might be surprised where “their” beliefs came from.

I think most if not all people in the west should automatically disregard everything their respective governments say. They have repeatedly proven they are not to be trusted and treat us like children. I listed some examples in an earlier post and no one responded to those. Yet how many of those non responders believe what they were fed relative to those questions? Like I say, it’s fascinating to witness. It’s like I have a front row seat to the mass movements in the past where in the present, we think “wtf were they thinking?”.

Don’t flatter ourselves as we can’t make a difference–even if we could in our miniscule lives. Being respectful of nature is the best we can do as individuals. Asia and mexico are the sources of most of the pollutants in the world. Go there and clean up if you want to contribute. Our govt won’t stop them as they make hundreds of billions off of them.

After the “mueller russia circus/probe”, senators requested info from the dept of justice after they found out that multiple phones from the mueller council had been wiped clean of data. Took almost a year, but the doj finally responded that they could only locat 59 of the 96 phones. Tens of thousands of emails and texts were also “lost”. Even whole computers. Really?

Science?
noaa data reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend.

CO2 build up? It’s causing global greening:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50563

Wind/solar don’t work as a reliable source (see california) of energy. Many can’t survive w/o money given to them from me and you. Look to see how they succeeded/failed in europe and they live in higher density urban cities.

Many examples. “our” govt repeatedly lies to us and academia, in their “publish or perish” living, have to give what those that give them the money want. Give them it you’ll get a lot of money for research. If not, you/your dept/school won’t get $ and that’s a really big thing.

1 Like

It can seem as hopeless as you seem to be stating it.

But I am not as pessimistic as you. I think many people can discern which evidence is the most trustworthy and how well a logical argument holds up to scrutiny. Not all people, of course. And it is harder when so many lie and distort things. And people have to be willing to think, rather than simply repeat things.

I really believe it is quite similar to The Matrix: Red Pill or Blue Pill question.

Sorry to be missing out on all this great fun, youse guys. (Went to the ER Monday night and have been dealing with kidney stones - away from home and computer - since.) But perhaps I could briefly interject a notion here… As happens so often we get tied up in the “big picture” argument and debate the big problem while neglecting smaller solutions - we don’t consider the smaller things we can do in addressing the larger things we probably can’t do, at least in a timely fashion. We let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
If there is one grand scientific success story of the last century, I’d argue that it isn’t the harnessing of the atom (though that’s no mean achievement in human historical terms either…) - its the biological revolution. (If anyone is interested in the early stages of that exploration, you’ve really got to read “The Eighth Day of Creation” by Horace Freeland Judson. Its a book to get lost in.)

In driving here to check Emails and deal with home matters I drove by fields filled with huge corn - and it was WAY past the “knee high by the fourth of July” we always looked for. No weed that I could see… GMO corn, roundup ready, no doubt. We have golden rice, we’re making medicines using genetically modified bacteria, the list is endless.

Believe me, I don’t like the idea of screwing around with nature any more than the next guy, but nature already has been screwed around with. It can’t be denied. The extinction rate is known to be on par with that of other great planetary extinctions and, since it seems likely that we’re at the root of it through the thousand cuts we have (mostly inadvertently) imposed on the planet’s life forms, it seems appropriate that we should apply what knowledge we have to correcting the problem.

So maybe its time to use the genome cracking machinery of the human genome project, perhaps CRISPER or viral transfer technology for the benefit of the living organisms - like mussels - that do so much to support the living ecosystems of this planet rather than for things that are exclusively of human commercial value? To heck with Jurassic Park and reviving mammoths, passenger pigeons, dodos, and, yes, maybe even killifish and the L. Victoria Haplochromis - why not work on heat resistant mussels. Or atrizene or dioxin, or PFAS resistant freshwater mussels. I hear there are folks working on corals, but there are so many other species that are critical…

Just a thought… alas I’m otta’ here for a while longer. As Mr. Harrison says, “All things must pass”.

2 Likes

Yes… speaking of screwing around with our genes. I think we need to modify our genes so that humans can screw and screw as much as they please and make way fewer babies. Problems solved!

Uh, thought that was called birth control…and it is already available?