bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: Having fewer children is the best way individual people can help. Ah yes. The "population problem". Paul Ehrlich is still revered by so many yet couldn't have possibly been more wrong about pretty much everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: well the coral reef predictions are sure coming to pass. Which ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 56 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: Mar a Lago will likely be flooded before 2050, parts of the Keys have already been underwater for a few months now. About Hong Kong, thats probably what China wants. Did you read about how they didn't care when they had manmade earthquakes as a result of building giant dams? Not all flooding is caused by "sea level rise". Subsidence has far more to do with it. If those that talk a good game regarding climate change and sea level rise actually practiced what they preached, they would not be buying multi million dollar homes in areas where some claims say will be under water in a couple of decades. See also: Obama, Barack and Michelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: I'm wondering if their new climate can no longer support their old growth..... ditto with Siberia and California, where other multimillion acre fires have been occurring. We might be seeing a long term evolution towards a more desert or, at the very least, a grassland/savanna kind of climate. 57 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: I'm wondering if their new climate can no longer support their old growth..... ditto with Siberia and California, where other multimillion acre fires have been occurring. We might be seeing a long term evolution towards a more desert or, at the very least, a grassland/savanna kind of climate. Or it could just be cyclical, to go along with more population in areas prone to such issues as well as poor undergrowth management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement. That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt. The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation. That movement has a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field. The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations. The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific and medical understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of knowledge of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity, not to mention biodiversity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 52 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Good luck with that. And by that I mean...get your hands off my burger! Good news is that plant based burgers taste exactly the same and are gaining in popularity and are available at most fast food joints. Plant based dairy is driving "real milk" into bankruptcy also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 55 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Who is this "they" you speak of...that you are equating to nazis? the spreading of propaganda is something that FOX has taken right from the Nazi play book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 52 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Ah yes. The "population problem". Paul Ehrlich is still revered by so many yet couldn't have possibly been more wrong about pretty much everything. actually the majority of research has shown that the best way to limit the carbon footprint is to have one less child. It's one of the biggest problems in the developing world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 46 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Which ones? the ones about the Great Barrier Reef going bye bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 43 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Not all flooding is caused by "sea level rise". Subsidence has far more to do with it. If those that talk a good game regarding climate change and sea level rise actually practiced what they preached, they would not be buying multi million dollar homes in areas where some claims say will be under water in a couple of decades. See also: Obama, Barack and Michelle Is that why the Navy is moving their base in Norfolk 17 miles inland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 43 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Or it could just be cyclical, to go along with more population in areas prone to such issues as well as poor undergrowth management. ah so you see my point about more population being a factor. Just look at how bad the pollution is in some of the most densely packed cities in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 minute ago, donsutherland1 said: The attack on Dr. Michael E. Mann, one of the world's most-cited and visible climate scientists, provides just another illustration of the intellectual, scientific, and moral bankruptcy of the shrinking climate denial movement. That movement's success rests on total rejection of science, complete repudiation of evidence, and wholesale perversion of truth. Its arguments have nothing to do with science, evidence, or truth. Its arguments are nothing more than unsubstantiated (and more often, repeatedly discredited) public relations talking points aimed at confusing the public and raising doubt. The shrinking climate denial movement is currently engaged in an all-out noisy "Battle of Bulge" disinformation campaign. Its propaganda has largely recycled the discredited arguments made by the tobacco industry in the 1960s to counter unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of the link between smoking and, among other adverse health impacts, lung cancer. In this case, it seeks to evade the overwhelming and still growing body of scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, its causes, and its consequences. The climate denial movement does not seek to advance arguments through scientific peer review. Doing so would be futile, because its arguments could not survive rigorous scientific examination. In addition, doing so would not serve its purposes, because that movement is not interested in productive endeavors such as knowledge creation, along with the enormous positive spillovers that arise from new knowledge translated into innovation. That movement as a single goal: Sustain an indefensible status quo at all costs. Thus, its target audience is the general public, not the scientific community or others who have expertise in the field. The climate denial movement understands that as long as it can raise doubts among the general public, not all of whom are scientifically literate and many of whom are not connected to the scientific community, it is well-positioned to thwart effective public policy responses to the severe challenge of climate change. So long as the public policy landscape remains frozen in time, that movement can reap additional profits made possible from the status quo, while remorselessly shifting the burden of the costs of those destructive activities to future generations. The climate denial movement is nothing more than the 21st century version of the "tobacco prophets" who tilted against the windmills of scientific understanding. The climate denial movement is not scientific. It is not noble. Its intentions are not good. Just as those who knowingly and tenaciously fought to deprive the public of the devastating health-related risks of smoking, the climate denial movement knowingly aims to imprison society in a status quo that is hazardous to the economic, financial, and social well being of humanity. That movement has no concern whatsoever for the future generations who will be left to bear the full consequences of that movement's ruinous efforts. Wow. Lots to unpack there. However, I will say that your constant use of the term "climate denial movement" is rather telling. Why argue on merits when labeling your opposition is much faster and more effective. Amirite? My suggestion on this front would be using this invective a tad less often while accusing others of "spreading propaganda". Just an FYI. As to Dr Mann, being cited and published is what makes him an authority? Back when science was actually...your know...concerned with science I could see that being true. These days unfortunately "publish or perish" is the rule of the day. Add in the grant money needed to continue actually working in the profession, and there is little wonder why Mann and his ilk are so revered within the echo chamber that is the scientific community these days. Many papers these days, including the one cited in another thread regarding oceans warming, are nothing more than a pile-on to gets one's name on something to keep the grant money flowing. There is often an inverse relationship between the number of names on the paper and the quality of the work. That particular one being a prime example. You say that the "climate denial movement" is shrinking. Not entirely sure where you get that idea. Seems quite a few countries throughout the world are heading away from your way of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. What do I know? Whether there are a billion people or just one, being correct has nothing to do with the number of people who "believe" something to be true. You use the term propaganda. I would postulate that the propaganda has been on your side for decades. Simply substitute the term "climate alarmist movement" for "climate denial movement" and it is quite applicable to most of your above statement. Except for the scientific peer review part. Which, again, tough to penetrate an echo chamber that is so beholden to the money that flows only in one direction. Same with media. The more sensational the better. So alarmism wins every time. Gets more clicks. Science is not afraid of contrary views. It welcomes it. It is always pushing what is perceived to be accurate. If it didn't we'd all still be eugenicists. Wouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: Good news is that plant based burgers taste exactly the same and are gaining in popularity and are available at most fast food joints. Plant based dairy is driving "real milk" into bankruptcy also. Not really no. Plant based burgers aren't too bad. but they are about as unhelathy as they can possibly be. So what's the point exactly? I'm going to eat something that is full of things that are bad for me just to avoid meat? Sorry. Not happening. And plant based dairy is driving real milk into bankruptcy? Lol. Hyperbole much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: the spreading of propaganda is something that FOX has taken right from the Nazi play book. So Fox are Nazi like propagandists? Good to know. Please do continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: actually the majority of research has shown that the best way to limit the carbon footprint is to have one less child. It's one of the biggest problems in the developing world. Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 minute ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Not really no. Plant based burgers aren't too bad. but they are about as unhelathy as they can possibly be. So what's the point exactly? I'm going to eat something that is full of things that are bad for me just to avoid meat? Sorry. Not happening. And plant based dairy is driving real milk into bankruptcy? Lol. Hyperbole much? Haven't you been following the news? The two largest dairy conglomerates have gone into bankruptcy. Probably because of the hormone crap that was in their "product." And beef is about the worse thing you can possibly eat, for health and for the environment. When I stopped eating meat, my BP went down about 20 points. I'd rather do that than take some pill for the rest of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness. thats old news, try this on for size: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about By Sid PerkinsJul. 11, 2017 , 4:30 PM Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions. Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: So Fox are Nazi like propagandists? Good to know. Please do continue. Indeed- outside of sports, there is no reason to ever watch them. Murdoch has quite the checkered history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: the ones about the Great Barrier Reef going bye bye If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said: If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing. https://theaseanpost.com/article/coral-reefs-are-facing-extinction 90% by 2030 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: Is that why the Navy is moving their base in Norfolk 17 miles inland? Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: ah so you see my point about more population being a factor. Just look at how bad the pollution is in some of the most densely packed cities in the world. Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 13 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Wow. Lots to unpack there. However, I will say that your constant use of the term "climate denial movement" is rather telling. Why argue on merits when labeling your opposition is much faster and more effective. Amirite? My suggestion on this front would be using this invective a tad less often while accusing others of "spreading propaganda". Just an FYI. As to Dr Mann, being cited and published is what makes him an authority? Back when science was actually...your know...concerned with science I could see that being true. These days unfortunately "publish or perish" is the rule of the day. Add in the grant money needed to continue actually working in the profession, and there is little wonder why Mann and his ilk are so revered within the echo chamber that is the scientific community these days. Many papers these days, including the one cited in another thread regarding oceans warming, are nothing more than a pile-on to gets one's name on something to keep the grant money flowing. There is often an inverse relationship between the number of names on the paper and the quality of the work. That particular one being a prime example. You say that the "climate denial movement" is shrinking. Not entirely sure where you get that idea. Seems quite a few countries throughout the world are heading away from your way of thinking. Perhaps I am wrong. What do I know? Whether there are a billion people or just one, being correct has nothing to do with the number of people who "believe" something to be true. You use the term propaganda. I would postulate that the propaganda has been on your side for decades. Simply substitute the term "climate alarmist movement" for "climate denial movement" and it is quite applicable to most of your above statement. Except for the scientific peer review part. Which, again, tough to penetrate an echo chamber that is so beholden to the money that flows only in one direction. Same with media. The more sensational the better. So alarmism wins every time. Gets more clicks. Science is not afraid of contrary views. It welcomes it. It is always pushing what is perceived to be accurate. If it didn't we'd all still be eugenicists. Wouldn't we? The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs/ Many causes, most of them human “Coral bleaching is caused by global warming, full stop,” said Terry Hughes, lead author of a new studyon coral bleaching. The researchers found that bleaching events have increased from one every 25 to 30 years in the early 1980s to an average of one every six years since 2010. While coral reefs can recover from bleaching if given 10 to 15 years for their algae communities to recover, the increasing frequency of bleaching events means that many reefs may never be able to. In addition, the 22 million tons of carbon dioxide our oceans absorb every day are changing the chemistry of seawater and increasing acidification. Today, coral reefs are experiencing more acidity than they have at any time in the last 400,000 years. Acidification reduces the water’s carrying capacity for calcium carbonate that corals need to build their skeletons. Even a small decrease in the coral’s ability to construct its skeleton can leave it vulnerable to erosion. Some reefs have already begun to dissolve and it’s estimated that by 2050, only 15 percent of coral reefs will have enough calcium carbonate for adequate growth. One study showed that ocean acidification profoundly alters coral reef ecosystems. As C02 levels rise and acidification increases, the biodiversity of coral reefs drops, resulting in the elimination of key species needed for healthy reef formation. “The decline of the structurally complex corals means the reef will be much simpler and there will be less habitat for the hundreds of thousands of species we associate with today’s coral reefs,” said Katherina Fabricius, a scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 minute ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news. They already stated that climate change is the greatest national security threat the world faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Just now, donsutherland1 said: The use of climate denial movement was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical. right, and they are brainwashed and dont even know it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: Haven't you been following the news? The two largest dairy conglomerates have gone into bankruptcy. Probably because of the hormone crap that was in their "product." And beef is about the worse thing you can possibly eat, for health and for the environment. When I stopped eating meat, my BP went down about 20 points. I'd rather do that than take some pill for the rest of my life. That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 minute ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said: Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt. and plastic pollution as well as the way land is used as well overfishing (for marine problems) and other factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibertyBell Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said: That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk". the popularity of almond milk, coconut milk, avocado milk, etc., probably has a lot to do with it- consider how many commercials you see for those and none for dairy milk (I still remember the old days with the "Got Milk" commercials, you dont see them anymore.) Starbucks has also switched to plant-based milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobjohnsonforthehall Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, LibertyBell said: thats old news, try this on for size: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about By Sid PerkinsJul. 11, 2017 , 4:30 PM Recycling and using public transit are all fine and good if you want to reduce your carbon footprint, but to truly make a difference you should have fewer children. That’s the conclusion of a new study in which researchers looked at 39 peer-reviewed papers, government reports, and web-based programs that assess how an individual’s lifestyle choices might shrink their personal share of emissions. Many commonly promoted options, such as washing clothes in cold water or swapping incandescent bulbs for light-emitting diodes, have only a moderate impact (see chart, below), the team reports today in Environmental Research Letters. But four lifestyle choices had a major impact: Become a vegetarian, forego air travel, ditch your car, and—most significantly—have fewer children. Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now