I have always viewed us as not masters of the earth but rather stewards of the earth.
We like to think we can control nature and natural events but we are still working around the edges and when she wants to she shows us how little we really control.
As of late there is a bit of a reverse to this that appeals to how we think. We are told at every natural event that happens that our prior actions are the direct cause of what is happening. If we get the hottest year on record we instantly assume it was man made climate change that caused it and we downplay something like a strong El Nino effect putting pressure on the climate as well.
Ironically oil in the earth was discovered just a few miles from my home in Titusville Pa in 1859 and started the ball rolling. As a kid we took great pride in story of Edwin Drake and this local history and look at all the advancements in the world that were made possible by such a simple discovery. I’m surprised I guess protestors haven’t shown up yet to topple his statue.
They get more money for out of state and foreign. Until the recent California decision to offer in-state rates to Citizens of Mexico living near (?) the border and to the undocumented living there. The duplicity is so blatant and insulting. I have no objection, since that is a state financial burden, as long as the reactiin is to suspend further federal funding, since all other 49 states contribute federal money but get no benefit. Twenty percent or more of the budget through the 12 grade goes to free education for children of unauthorized immigrants, yet my daughter moved 15 minutes from her previous home and her daughter was not permitted to finish the last two years in her school. 33 trillion budget deficit, 83 (?) billion deficit in California and we’re educating kids from all over the world, borrowing money from those countries, then giving it back to them as grants. Driving up inflation while shutting down energy production in our country. If this insane process is allowed to continue, why not keep a ledger on expenses and send it to the country of origin. $500 a night for lodging, $75 a day for food, $300 for a phone and $40 a month for phone service, airfare, living allowance/social services (fee for border processing and court costs), $26,200 annually for the free health care allowance, food card, $45k child education, annual subway pass, court and prison fees for the incarcerated, reparation for the victims of rape, murder, theft and other criminal offenses like human trafficing, drug enforcement cost, deaths from illicit drugs. Get that from the offending countries and you’ll have the money to curb the CO2 issue. Until then, I’ll deal with carbon emissions on a personal level. If you have no desire or clue about solving the human trafficing issue, there’s no way you can even hope to understand the CO2 link and ocean acidification. Seriously??? Baby steps first, please! I don’t doubt it’s real. I’m waiting to hear about shrimp on treadmills so they can run faster to cooler pockets of water.
Indeed, volcanoes do and can emit greenhouse gasses. They also emit sulfur dioxide which can lead to cooling. However, they haven’t been driving the current rise in greenhouse gasses. Humanity has been doing that. It can be measured and has been.
It was a simple microorganism that produced the Oxygen in our atmosphere to begin with.
You are probably thinking of this which happen about 66 million years ago. That is something mankind could do little about for sure. It’s not what is happening now.
No--------- not 66 million year ago. How about 1883 and Krakatoa which cooled the climate of the whole earth for 7 years. The years 1883 and 1884 were called “the years without summers”
And there was the Tambora eruption in 1815 which had catastrophic effects on farming all over the earth with some of the worst of it being in the southern hemispher.
And there was the Ilopango eruption which happened around 430 AD which caused the same kind of damage and is speculated to be the cause of the ending of the Mayan civilizations along with a huge famine spanning 10 time zones and causing the starvation of millions of people all over the southern zones.
There was also Vesuvius in 79AD. For several years after the whole of the known world experienced extreme winters from Eastern Europe all the way to Japan and Malisa.
These facts are some of the hundreds that the “scientists” don’t want to cover while they accept the bribes from tax dollars to force feed us all the “approved narrative” . Yet NO man made event EVER has even caused the weather to change— even enough to shorten a growing season 1 day. In fact all mankind combined for 6000 years of history has not done it. We are LIED to — and told it has, bit no historical even can be shown to prove or even suggest it’s true.
I have been looking for a term that I can label myself as. I don’t see myself as a “climate change denier” nor do I see myself as a “climate change alarmist”. I more see myself as a “climate change realist”.
I can accept that climate can change, will change and is changing. I understand some of the change is out of our control because it is the will of nature and or God to happen. I feel of that component we have little control over and the biggest thing we can control is how we react to that component. I also understand man has contributed to climate change in the past and will for sometime into the future. This component is what we call “manmade climate change”.
Being a (climate change realist) is where I honestly think most of the scientific community fall into. I feel our friend @castoff is also a climate change realist.
The question was posed to something like 1600 climate scientists world wide does man made climate change exist? Or is manmade climate change real? 97% answered yes. I’m in agreement with their honest answer to the question.
They didn’t pose the question say, is manmade climate change going to end humanity in the next 50 years? Or if something doesn’t change in the next 5 years the problem of manmade climate change will be beyond our ability to fix and will spiral out of control causing the end of humanity? These are common narratives of (climate change alarmists) and a lot of the media. I have no idea what percentage of the 1600 climate scientists would have answer those question with a strong yes. Even Joe Rogan a strong right leaning talking head has been arguing that even though he doesn’t understand science he knows 97% of all these scientists can’t be wrong and the 3% that are saying its not so bad it might even be good to up the CO2 a little as it might hold off the upcoming ice age a few thousand years. He like most (climate change alarmists) are jumping from 97% say yes to the doomsday end of humanity narrative.
Climate change realists and in general all realists will not just look at the problem and the simple solution, but also all the implications of all the solutions. When a realists finds in his studies of problems and solutions anything that smells nefarious in nature where some person or group is applying the problem or solution for reasons beyond simply solving the problem. That should raise a big red flag.
If you don’t seek out red flags and they are all around us you simply won’t see them.
Having spent a good 6 months on and off and not being a climate scientist or an economist or even a geopolitical scholar all the information is right there in print and video for any realist to find on line. Realists follow the clues wherever they go. Scientist follow the clues within science and build their reality based only around that.
We all have a version of the truth that we believe to be the true truth. Once most people reach that truth they dig in and hold their ground against anyone that goes against their truth and the group they now belong in with the same or similar truth.
I would have to say I was at one point strongly leaning to being a climate change denier. There is also a strong group of those to join with if that makes someone feel better knowing you are not alone with your truth. Now that I’m a climate change realist I find myself in discussion with both sides pro and con.
Once minds are set, there is a tendancy to prove being right and everyone else wrong. I’m dun, D U N, dun. Too hard on my eyes and too much like work typing on a tiny screen, especially opinions are set.
Here is a VERY SMALL sampling of some predictions (that “most scientists agreed on”) There have been dozens more in the last 100 years and most of those wrong predictions in the last century have been announced in the last 40 of those 100 years.
With a super high incidence of either incompetency or dishonesty the only thing that is provable beyond argument is that these kind of predictions have a 100% rating of being false so far.
Like it or not THATS’ being a realist.
As a side note, the jab is safe and EFFECTIVE according to most scientists that were asked. Keeping in mind those that disagree are not asked and are censored. (ignore the fact that MANY hundreds of thousands of folks that took the jabs got Covid anyway .
Why bring this up?
Because the same media and the same government departments and NGOs are the ones pushing “climate change story” and telling us all that if we just give up our rights and agree to higher taxes it will cure the problem. More taxes and less liberty are the answer.
The same answer to EVERY problem, real or imagined, no matter what it is.
None of your examples are greenhouse gases and CO2 caused warming events are they. Yet that was your assertion to which I replied. Now your say they have caused short term cooling. Which I agree has happened periodically over the last 2000 years.
The amount of human generated CO2 generated over the last 200 + years can be shown by the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere.
Basically, it adds up to the added CO2 we see in the atmosphere today over what was present before the industrial revolution.
Just a few points here. First, Paul Ehrlich, author of the controversial The Population Bomb, makes about half of the author’s points of your list. That’s not really a good representation of scientific predictions in the last half century. Second, “most” scientists certainly did not agree with many of his points. I mean, there’s a great Wiki page on him, his book, and criticisms of his work if you want to know more.
Other than Ehrlich, the list highlights the “looming Ice Age” predictions in the 1970’s. These have been very overblown by those looking to undercut current climate change science. In a review of relevant scientific literature from the time period, only about 10% of scientists agreed that a period of global cooling was probable. Here’s a handy graph for that:
Peterson, “The Myth of the 1970S Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” 2008.
Last, the American Enterprise Institute, as a policy front for corporate lobbying, is generally antagonistic towards government regulations, including the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, which they would no doubt like to see gutted in favor of corporate profits, undoing 50 years of environmental progress. As well, it would be a safe bet that they are antagonistic to public lands in general.
Predictions are educated guesses (sometimes more educated, sometimes less), but regardless of the subject, whether it’s football games, stock markets, elections, weather or anything else, their very nature means they’ll often miss the mark.
Making predictions of any sort may be a fool’s errand, but cherry-picking a few misses and citing them as evidence of “super-high incompetence or dishonesty” across an entire profession or field of inquiry is absurd. It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.
-Yogi Berra
Sure, it qualifies as a high rate of error, just as the Vegas bookies can’t reliably predict in August who will be NBA champions the following June, just Wall Street fund managers can’t tell us where the stock market will be next Christmas, and just as the weather forecasters can’t say whether we should plan on a Memorial Day picnic.
They’re just doing the best they can given what they have to work with. Will their predictions be 100% on target? Almost never. Indeed, that is a fact. But they’ll usually be closer to the eventual reality than an uninformed guess. That long-term, error-free predictions can’t be made is a function of imperfect humans with limited information trying to understand systems with many uncontrollable and/or unforeseeable variables. It is not evidence of across-the-board dishonesty or incompetence.
The past is a predictor of the future and beyond that it isn’t really important to me. People have been influenced for centuries and that is the basis of the progressive movement to cause change and influence beliefs very slowly such that people adapt and bend the direction you want. Once you have a population in part conditioned to accept the advice of those they trust as truth tellers then you can take the best most truthful science of the time and layer it out as embellished wisdom to the masses.
It actually works pretty good and quite a few cultures over history have used this method of directional control over the masses. It is a relatively new concept here as we have a long history of doubting authority and independent thinking as opposed to group thinking. We valued freedom over security and often chose the hard road over the safe and easy road for that reason. That concept for many has been slowly dissolved over time and the idea of a global governance is enticing as it promises security over freedom.
In this case those of a scientific mind reading the known facts that are likely true at least in their origin, and may or may not have social bias brought on outside their scientific norm, but strongly held by the group they closely associate with. I believe they see the problem thru a filter and will argue the science as truth without trying to reach across and see the reality.
Likewise those with say a strong capitalism background and freedom over security bias will do a shallow dive into the science look at the people proposing what they see as a radical disruptive change and see the whole picture as a giant scam.
I hold as a Manmade Climate Change Realist the truth is in the middle someplace. Just in my short life in terms of mankind’s life I have seen so many marvelous and helpful advancements for mankind and they all relate to energy. It could be said we advanced and populations grew to fast mostly because of the energy and tech advancements, but that is in the past and we are at the point we are at today and history can’t be changed.
I’m not about to give up my freedom or our countries freedom over any issue. We have our flaws, but we should lead by example. It has worked for 250 years.
I don’t think it should be that hard to view CO2 rise as a real thing and also a pawn in a global progressive movement at the same time.
This is an interesting viewpoint, but directing it solely at the progressive movement is a really limited view of our history and culture. Shaping beliefs, especially through fear, is also useful lever of those seeking to ingrain “traditional” values (and I use that term very loosely here) or maintain power. Let’s review a few examples. Take the Iraq War and the many New York Times articles supporting the discovery of weapons of mass destruction; those most certainly helped firm up support (shaping beliefs) in service of power. Or take Reagan’s famous most dangerous nine words in the English language; those helped to shape a generally new distrust in government. Even through the tumultuous 1960’s and Watergate, American confidence in government was running at 50% or more. Now, it’s much lower at 22% according to the most recent poll (from memory here; there’s a recent article in the Atlantic that explores this very issue). Or take the constant theme of eating bugs in this thread. Who shaped that belief and what purpose does it serve? The people who believe this is a threat didn’t see it in the grocery stores; they consumed media that engendered that fear.
I could also bring in rumors of slave revolts in the antebellum South, the depiction of women in post-WWII America advertisements (as a reaction to women entering the workforce at greater numbers), and, well, the most recent “Big Lie” that a significant minority of our population still clings to three years later.
