The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by freebeard

True fourteen years ago, and still true today.

They kinda got me. I believe the global warming consensus, but it’s not untrue that climate science itself is in a bit of an infancy and therefore looks bad because of constantly updated projections.

Mind you, scientists SHOULD constantly update based on new evidence and knowledge. If you’re not always learning, you’re a dinosaur.

[freebeard]

"You can never learn less; you can only learn more. The reason I know so much is because I have made so many mistakes."

R. Buckminster Fuller

.

[jcp123]

So true. Back in the day, I was center right and took both the constant revisions as well as some old NatGeo articles as proof that this was a grand conspiracy to extort money from us. Later, I just felt that everyone was taking money to show a preconceived projection. Now, I do think the science is real, evolving, and kinda scary. Almost 10 years ago, I re-evaluated how I perceived basically all issues, and realized that I can’t have my values dictated to me from some gang of folks more interested in elections than actually solving anything.

Says the guy who drives 400mi per day at ~9mpg.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Here's some additional research (From S0 today)

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4728
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a00000...te_1080p30.mp4
________



Princeton Plasma Physice laboratory: scientists-deepen-understanding-magnetic-fields-surround-earth-and-other-planets

The anthropogenic carbon contribution equals burning Earth's entire forest cover,fifteen times each year.That's the forest fire you want to pay attention to.It's larger than the entire surface of the planet,including all the oceans,times 1.6.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by jcp123

So true. Back in the day, I was center right and took both the constant revisions as well as some old NatGeo articles as proof that this was a grand conspiracy to extort money from us. Later, I just felt that everyone was taking money to show a preconceived projection. Now, I do think the science is real, evolving, and kinda scary. Almost 10 years ago, I re-evaluated how I perceived basically all issues, and realized that I can’t have my values dictated to me from some gang of folks more interested in elections than actually solving anything.

Says the guy who drives 400mi per day at ~9mpg.

I've been reading the raw research papers for over a year and a half now.And some of the denial/skeptic literature.
A novelization of some of the tenets of the denial/skeptic community would be:
*'It is the tension between creativity and scientific findings that has produced the stunning and unexpected skepticism.'
*'No science is immune to the infection and corruption of the fossil-fuel industry.'
*'Sowing doubt is the queen of fossil-fuel hegemony, and is the goal of all skepticism.The strongest arguments of experimental science can prove nothing so long as their conclusions and policy implications remain under continuous assault.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far,the denial literature has been unable to effectively debate the science.Reading their literature probably reveals more about their tortured,reactionary, inner soul than they should have ever let see the light of day.They may be regretting some of the propaganda by now.It's my opinion that they've completely given the game away.
It's always been the policy implications of climate change that is the real issue.And it's why we've seen over 60-years of stasis on the climate issue.
Real education would be a good idea.If you don't personally know someone in the oil,gas,coal,chemical,chemical intermediates,power production,distribution,storage,transfer,prospecti ng,extraction,processing,etc.,it might be a good idea to remedy that.Walk around in their moccasins for awhile.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

And as retired CIA's Chalmers Johnson's trilogy points out, Al Qaeda and ISIS are merely blow-back,in response to Americans imposing their filth by trespassing on the rest of the world via the atmosphere and other pathways.

Well, that guy is clearly very bad at understanding history and applying it to current behavior, is stupid, or has an agenda.

That region has experienced tribal violence forever. ISIS being the result of changes in the air is ridiculous. That's not to say we haven't had our part to play in certain groups rising to power, but violent gangs have always been competing for power, and they will continue to do so until something changes, and I'm not talking about the climate.

Sounds like another one of those people that loves to self-loath, as if he will gain the pardon of his sins from humanity, and as if humanity has the understanding and authority to pardon sins.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Well, that guy is clearly very bad at understanding history and applying it to current behavior, is stupid, or has an agenda.

That region has experienced tribal violence forever. ISIS being the result of changes in the air is ridiculous. That's not to say we haven't had our part to play in certain groups rising to power, but violent gangs have always been competing for power, and they will continue to do so until something changes, and I'm not talking about the climate.

Sounds like another one of those people that loves to self-loath, as if he will gain the pardon of his sins from humanity, and as if humanity has the understanding and authority to pardon sins.

*Well,if you have a top-secret clearance or above,and spent a career in U.S.intelligence, then I suppose you'd be in a position to judge.If you read the three books you might discover that its just information.I myself do not pretend to supernatural powers.
*That region has suffered violence from Britain,France,Germany,Russia,The Ottoman Empire,the United States,and Zionists.
*Perhaps he's just someone with exclusive knowledge,who thought an informed populace would be better for a democracy.And perhaps he was just casting pearls before swine.

[redpoint5]

As always, I'm open to being wrong about anything, but the evidence I've seen doesn't support such a viewpoint. Sunni and Shia kill each other for who gets the right to kill Israelis, so there seems to be a cultural value of killing somewhere in there. Someone might claim it's the weather or the US (or any other nation) causing them to be violent, but that's too simplistic an explanation for me.

In general, the world has gradually become less violent, and I expect that trend to continue. Some regions will be slower than others to move away from violence, and it seems like the Middle East is one of those regions.

Of course, this is necessary as humans have never had more destructive capabilities.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As always, I'm open to being wrong about anything, but the evidence I've seen doesn't support such a viewpoint. Sunni and Shia kill each other for who gets the right to kill Israelis, so there seems to be a cultural value of killing somewhere in there. Someone might claim it's the weather or the US (or any other nation) causing them to be violent, but that's too simplistic an explanation for me.

In general, the world has gradually become less violent, and I expect that trend to continue. Some regions will be slower than others to move away from violence, and it seems like the Middle East is one of those regions.

Of course, this is necessary as humans have never had more destructive capabilities.

The British Admiralty,at the time the world's first oil-fired battleship,the HMS Spiteful sailed in 1904,had already studied the strategic importance of petroleum,as the British Empire basically didn't have any.
When Germany's oil-fired Panther sailed into Port of Agadir,Morocco in 1911,it set off a world arms race.The next year,The British Admiralty committed to an all,oil-fired navy. The Middle East was the Turkish Ottoman Empire at the time,and the world's powers were lined up to destroy her,and take her oil,with zero concern for the indigenous peoples.The United States was in on it.Memories survive there,just like the British-American War over here.
The entire human history is written in violence.
It's what we do for oil that's the issue.Over half the fuel in our gas tanks is foreign.There are consequences for that.This is the world that Johnson saw.

[freebeard]

It all part of Saharasia, what else should we expect?

JAMES DEMEO: SAHARASIA

Welcome to the
S A H A R A S I A
Resource Page

The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse,
Sex-repression, Warfare and Social Violence,
In the Deserts of the Old World

Evidence for a Worldwide,
Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern
in Human Behavior

James DeMeo, PhD

If you like big data, then consider "It employed standard cross-cultural correlation tables on over 60 different variables, plus geographical mapping and quadruple blind research procedures to insure objectivity, and all the basic starting assumptions are clearly elucidated in advance."

You certainly don't have to have a top secret clearance to know what's been happening for the last 6000 years. Radiating waves of misery.

Originally Posted by aerohead

The anthropogenic carbon contribution equals burning Earth's entire forest cover,fifteen times each year.

That seems to be a recurring theme. Reconcile with this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=atmospheric+carbon+from+volcanoes+vs+forest+fir es

Scanning the results suggests forest fires equals half of all fossil fuel or all the [ICE] cars. Volcanoes are "carbon neutral"(?) but can ruin your whole day.

New post 'Evidence'

I've been watching this channel on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel

https://youtu.be/ar04557d1ZM