So Long, Bugs....
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
I have read some of Rod Meldrum's productions on the Hopewell(mound builders) civilization. Now there's some fuel for Red's pipe. Literally the whole states of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and large adjacent areas were deforested during that era, and the sudden decline of that population, should surely have registered on the CO2 evidence accordingly, if Red's thesis is seriously "evidence".
We should also see some bounce around the forest fire cycles we have, too.
But I agree with IDT about the relative size of the carbon "sinks" in our system..... The largest is the fairly irreversible deposition of carbonate rock ongoing under warm shallow seas with light rainfall. Then changes in ocean temps effectively sucking in CO2 or outgassing it.
The photosynthesis process worldwide has never been well-researched, and the figures "scientists" throw out are about as accurate as child fishing reports.
None of all this "proves" the virtue of a political crusade to massively redistribute the world's wealth.
The global warming scare is perhaps the snake oil racket of the ages.
While the same people often support both, there is nothing specific to the notion of green energy that requires it to be part of a wealth redistribution program, nor does wealth redistribution require green energy.
Global warming is a fact, and it's consequences have been real and will continue to get worse.
lefties have overplayed their hand with "facts". Everyone knows science has gone political because of grant dependency and college staff politics.
In order to intelligently discuss the "fact" of "global warming", you need a reference line. Do you mean we have gotten warmer due to rising CO2 since the Precambrian geological epoch?
The data base can be disputed if anyone cares to..... how good were our thermometers, our measurements, the reasoned assumptions in all of our studies' extrapolations..... our ice core gas bubble samples, our sediment samples, etc etc. But even giving credulity.... call if credibility if you wish.... to the claimed 1.8 F rise across oh a hundred plus years..... how come nobody quickly adds the honestly necessary caveat line about the variance that is normal between temps of one century to the next. We have not gone off the charts for what is normal for interglacial warms so far as our evidence shows, yet.
We might be having anthropogenic global warming from all of our industrial combustion deployments, and we might have enough unmelted ice, still, to raise sea levels. If that is what is happening.... if rainfall patterns change and farming is disrupted in large productive areas, it would be far better to be making infrastructure and investment decisions that will enable us to adjust. The ideas of "political" solutions will not do any of that..... and our political "solutions" as they stand are not actually addressing the problem..... we can't disrupt China and India and other developing economies their reliance for some time on combustion.
Meanwhile, Brian Mudd (on the Mark Levin show) yesterday, in discussing AOC's green new deal, brought out some figures about how innovation has been making improvements in our ways.... how we have reduced our carbon use significantly. Some of it has been solar or other "clean" energy, but a lot has been in the improved designs of our appliances, heaters, cars.....a lot of individual decisions not to waste energy....
I am an advocate for new technologies. I have no actual concern about our carbon fuels. I believe warm is good. I believe we're overdue for ice age climate changes, and anything we can do to deflect that "catastrophe" is all good. But we should save our fuel for when we really need it....
We will have fusion energy within two decades. Hydrogen fuel, inert Helium product. We will not have any problem by then having competitive electric cars, which are mechanically simpler. The big thing there is to make them safe to sit in while travelling. I advocate a sort of suspended rail where you can dock onto a carrying unit, enter and exit like we do on freeways, undock and drive off. Long drives would be wonderful, relaxing, safe tours.... Such rails would be mounted above ground.... or run in tunnels as any level where needed, and be nearly as convenient as our freeways.
We have a great future. It is just stupid to sit in your little tank of fear and play the dirges of fascist globalists of today's ilk and support their stupidity, bro.
and, oh, how I hate to see our wonderful deserts turned into Chinese-owned seas of solar panels. To hell with that. Our environment should mean something better than that.
Red
Well-Known Member
This is great. Thank you for this detailed and cogent rebuttal of the study. I'm in no position to dispute what you say. If that's just off the top of your head, you should pick the study apart further, and get a rebuttal published. Somebody will, of course.
I also have no doubt the popular press zeroed in on the study specifically because of the study's claims of human induced climate change.
Conspiracy-mongers claim a many things, but have this tendency to take their distortions of the US scientific establishment and project them onto the rest of the world.
Scientists on every continent, in every major country, in every type of financial and political system, acknowledge the reality of human-induced global warming.
We weren't trying to grow enough food to feed 10 billion people in the Precambrian epoch. Global warming is not a threat to the continuation of life; while many/most population will die out, a few will evolve and life will continue. Global warming is a threat to human civilization as we know it, and possibly to continued human existence.
Red
Well-Known Member
Despite the several extinction events that are reflected in the geologic record, life itself has been nothing if not resilient. The greatest extinction event known is the one at the end of the Permian Period, roughly 250 million years ago. Some 96% of marine life(including all trilobites, perhaps the most popular fossils overall among collectors) and 70% of terrestrial life died out. Yet, the Age of Dinosaurs followed.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-end-permian-extinction-earth-species-instantaneous.html
At the end of the Cretaceous, an extinction event that has by many been attributed to a large asteroid impact, wiped out about 75% of marine and terrestrial life, including all dinosaurs, with the exception of avian dinosaurs, which are today's birds. Yet what followed was the Age of Mammals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
I believe global warming is real, but I admit I take it on faith, since I am not a climate scientist. I know politics exists within science. I know science advances one funeral at a time, reflective of the difficulty new findings and theories have in overturning received wisdom. I think historian of science Thomas Kuhn explained all this in his seminal 1962 work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". And I know having tenure is often necessary before a scientist can truly speak his mind. Best example of that most recently is Avi Loeb, the head of the astronomy department at Harvard's suggestion that the strange object known as Oumuamua, which entered our solar system recently, might be an alien probe. He's got tenure, and can say what he wants without fear. In fact, he sees thinking outside the box, outside the accepted paradigms, as an obligation of tenure:
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-oumuamua-mystery-shook-search-space-aliens-ncna950991
"One researcher, who asked to remain anonymous, disparaged the Bialy and Loeb paper as “irresponsible,” and said it was “just out to grab attention.”
Loeb shrugs off the reflexive dismissals, but partly embraces that last critique, saying his lofty academic position actually obligates him to be a pot-stirrer: “I can say these things other people can’t because I have tenure at Harvard. The whole idea of getting tenure is to allow you to be free in your mind. I used the opportunity of Oumuamua to make a statement.”
All this reflects the politics within science. But suggesting hundreds of scientists the world over are engaged in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the world where global warming is concerned is just too much for me to embrace. The belief that scientists are just one more class of elites we can dismiss is pretty strong among a percentage people right now. Including, apparently, our own president. It's a shame, and, in the long run, dangerous. If the scientists who keep track of Near Earth Objects announced there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, the science nihilists among us would cry "political agenda!!" right up to the moment the mile wide space rock landed on their head.
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-end-permian-extinction-earth-species-instantaneous.html
At the end of the Cretaceous, an extinction event that has by many been attributed to a large asteroid impact, wiped out about 75% of marine and terrestrial life, including all dinosaurs, with the exception of avian dinosaurs, which are today's birds. Yet what followed was the Age of Mammals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event
I believe global warming is real, but I admit I take it on faith, since I am not a climate scientist. I know politics exists within science. I know science advances one funeral at a time, reflective of the difficulty new findings and theories have in overturning received wisdom. I think historian of science Thomas Kuhn explained all this in his seminal 1962 work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". And I know having tenure is often necessary before a scientist can truly speak his mind. Best example of that most recently is Avi Loeb, the head of the astronomy department at Harvard's suggestion that the strange object known as Oumuamua, which entered our solar system recently, might be an alien probe. He's got tenure, and can say what he wants without fear. In fact, he sees thinking outside the box, outside the accepted paradigms, as an obligation of tenure:
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-oumuamua-mystery-shook-search-space-aliens-ncna950991
"One researcher, who asked to remain anonymous, disparaged the Bialy and Loeb paper as “irresponsible,” and said it was “just out to grab attention.”
Loeb shrugs off the reflexive dismissals, but partly embraces that last critique, saying his lofty academic position actually obligates him to be a pot-stirrer: “I can say these things other people can’t because I have tenure at Harvard. The whole idea of getting tenure is to allow you to be free in your mind. I used the opportunity of Oumuamua to make a statement.”
All this reflects the politics within science. But suggesting hundreds of scientists the world over are engaged in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the world where global warming is concerned is just too much for me to embrace. The belief that scientists are just one more class of elites we can dismiss is pretty strong among a percentage people right now. Including, apparently, our own president. It's a shame, and, in the long run, dangerous. If the scientists who keep track of Near Earth Objects announced there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, the science nihilists among us would cry "political agenda!!" right up to the moment the mile wide space rock landed on their head.
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, thank you, that's very nice of you to say. But I made mistakes as well. I knew, from his previous posts relating to climate science, that idestroyedthetoilet would rip into the Little Ice Age theory. And make me look like a fool, lol. I don't know if all his points were valid, but it's only because I could never speak with the authority he does on the subject of climate science.
That said, I do think we can speak of a 6th major extinction event, and not be laughed off the stage, so to speak, and I do not think global warming is a politically driven hoax. The decline of insects shown in recent studies should concern us. If studies have flaws, science is self correcting, or it ceases to be science. But even something as anecdotal as the "windshield phenomenon" is valuable and must be telling us something, I should think.
D
Deleted member 95
Guest
How much of the population will die out? You have proof of this? Credible sources?
That should have been a plural, "populations". There is no "the population", a population is a group of living things that, loosely speaking, have their genetic heritage mixed through breeding. Some populations cross the species line, and a species can have multiple populations.
I have no good prediction on how many populations will die out; we lose thousands every year.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
the dumbest ****ing thing ever is when opponents of climate change talk about scientists being biased because of their careers being dependent on it existing (lmao, such a reach) and conveniently ignore the much more immense bias of climate-denialism being in large part funded by the fossil fuel industry