The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Which one is that? I'd like to know which political group is the gatekeeper of truth.

Right back 'atcha.

Do you think "rich" people have a different genetic composition than the "workin'" man? Do you think they are motivated by entirely different things? If so, please reveal the dollar amount in which a person switches motivation for behavior.

The same thing that drives a person to go from a $20k salary to a $40k salary is at play when a person wants to go from $1M to $2M.

We know the facts of anthropogenic climate change - the driving force is our activities; mainly our burning of fossil fuels. To deny these basic facts is to deny reality.

Scientists are working hard, and are pursuing knowledge and data, so that we can better understand how the universe works.

Oil companies are mainly motivated by the massive profits they can make - Billions and Billions of dollars, and they know the facts about the results of their products. They have know the scientific facts about climate change, since at least since the 1970's.

But they have been lying to their shareholders, and to the public. They have been funding FUD and they have been attacking science - in order to be able to continue to gain Billions and Billions more. We have burned more oil since 1989, than we did up until that point.

You are right on this point: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

[freebeard]

One of the areas where humanity falls short is [in not] feeding seaweed to cattle. It turns out that it's one specific seaweed native to Australia. And cows like it.

https://boingboing.net/2019/08/20/gassy.html

five years ago, research from Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) found that adding small amounts of a pink seaweed called Asparagopsis to cows' diets eliminated the gut microbes responsible for methane production and "completely knocks out" cows' methane emissions.

Asparagopsis grows on the coast of Australia, and cows actually seek it out and eat it without encouragement. Replacing 2% of cows' feed with Asparagopsis is sufficient to end their methane production.

Tastes like Asparagus?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We know the facts of anthropogenic climate change - the driving force is our activities; mainly our burning of fossil fuels. To deny these basic facts is to deny reality.

Scientists are working hard, and are pursuing knowledge and data, so that we can better understand how the universe works.

Oil companies are mainly motivated by the massive profits they can make - Billions and Billions of dollars, and they know the facts about the results of their products. They have know the scientific facts about climate change, since at least since the 1970's.

But they have been lying to their shareholders, and to the public. They have been funding FUD and they have been attacking science - in order to be able to continue to gain Billions and Billions more. We have burned more oil since 1989, than we did up until that point.

You are right on this point: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Sure, but we don't pay oil companies to provide research data on climate change; we pay them to fuel up our vehicles, provide the fundamental materials for pharmaceuticals, synthetics, etc. Oil companies have done much, much more for my well being than scientists "working hard" ever did or will do.

We aren't held at gunpoint to purchase organic-derived products; it's voluntary.

BTW- bonafide scientists work for "Big Oil". If their research is manipulative, then it suggests that scientists as a group aren't the benevolent people we might hope they would be.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So, scientists volunteer their time? Job security has no value?

I'm kinda seeing how this is a 1-way bias.

So far,I've not seen any examples of 'volunteer' scientists.
What I have seen,is graduate students signing up as research assistants (Lonnie Thompson for example) who receive tuition and a stipend.The work can lead to a Master's Thesis and graduate degree.After many years of servitude,they can achieve a PH.D.,and at that point,they're in a position to get funding for their own research.
Grant money will come through committees,and if a scientist is seen to be competing with an established theory,they may see a wall,regarding funds.This would be funding bias.
During some presidential administrations,certain government agencies had to warn their scientists 'not to go' certain places,where is wasn't politically Kosher,for fear of retribution from the Senate committees which has oversight of funding.Some administrations outright threatened to actually do away with certain federal agencies,to make research go away,which was unpopular to those who funded certain re-election campaigns.(another source of funding bias)
The Thompson's for instance,will spend a month at 26,000 feet drilling ice cores on a glacier or ice cap,sleeping in ten sleeping bags,eating frozen SPAM and hot water,while some of their team members are killed,paying some of their expenses out of their own pocket to capture the data and get it safely to the lab for analysis.
A very sexy,opulent lifestyle,with less income than an average plummer.

[redpoint5]

Hiring an oilman to be head of the EPA is an outrage. We don't tend to act reasonably though; instead we prop up one extreme position and counter it with another.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I didn't know dirty ice cubes and tree rings were as accurate as satellites and digital weather stations.
People living below sea level are going to get it first.
I wouldn't mind having summer like weather into December. 2010 it was fall like in January winter didn't hit till mid december, then in 2017 it was summer like well into November and that works for me.

The ice cores,sediment cores,corals,speleothems,and tree rings have all been used to construct a timeline reaching back at least 4-Ice Ages,with accompanying carbon-dioxide ,methane,and temperature curves which represent Earth's paleoclimate record,with extremely high resolution.
It's a way for the scientists to look at the past and understand the dynamics which drove climate on millennial time scales.
The remote-sensing satellites can't provide that 'nano-scale' look at the planet.
The modern,satellite-linked weather stations are certainly an improvement.Many of those were placed during the expeditions to capture the dirty ice and and the rest.
You may be correct about people living below sea-level.I've only been aggressively studying this climate stuff for about 23-months now.
What was said up to 2005,was that the mountain glaciers will go first.Anyone who relies on glacier melt water,or snowpack will be impacted.That could certainly affect people below sea level.
You may make out like a bandit where you are.None of the numerical simulations can predict regional conditions even at the 'state' level.
One theme that runs through the climate literature,is that all civilizations that relied on irrigation in the past have failed.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Daniel Christian Wahl is doing good work.
.
We are undergoing a species level right of passage — the generations alive today are challenged to come together in unprecedented levels of cooperation to fundamentally redesign the human impact and presence on Earth. Our species is called to step into mature membership of the community of life and to become a regenerative rather than destructive influence on the ecosystems we inhabit. The window of opportunity is closing! It is “all hands on deck” and too few of us — but rapidly growing numbers — are responding.
.

https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/...n-fbd0dfda3cc4

There was a journalist on the PBS NEWSHOUR last night talking about a recent business round table event took place,where the CEOs of corporations were talking about modifying their activities to address more socially-minded concerns .
As a united front,no single corporation could be singled out by their shareholders, as going against single-minded profit-making.
It may be a signal of change.
It's available on the PBS website,under 'Making Sense'

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

My water is starting to come from my well. I have secured my water supply.
Just in time as I got a mailer begging me to conserve water.
Planting tons of fruit and nut trees.
Not going to be nearly as screwed as everyone else.



Not long enough to use to diagnose climate change based on the definition of climate change.

Hope you don't have the brackish water like in the Las Cruces area. New Mexico was under ocean around 17-times until the Colorado Plateau was thrust up.A lot of the underlying soil has the remnants of salt from those times.Truth of Consequences will turn the Rio Grande on and off,making it difficult for irrigation.Which forces some to irrigate from wells.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We know the facts of anthropogenic climate change - the driving force is our activities; mainly our burning of fossil fuels. To deny these basic facts is to deny reality.

Scientists are working hard, and are pursuing knowledge and data, so that we can better understand how the universe works.

Oil companies are mainly motivated by the massive profits they can make - Billions and Billions of dollars, and they know the facts about the results of their products. They have know the scientific facts about climate change, since at least since the 1970's.

But they have been lying to their shareholders, and to the public. They have been funding FUD and they have been attacking science - in order to be able to continue to gain Billions and Billions more. We have burned more oil since 1989, than we did up until that point.

You are right on this point: FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The (monopolistic) American Bar Association appears to produce a particular species which appears willing and able to facilitate the behaviors of those whom might use the advantage of their wealth to un-level the playing field,when it comes to certain legal affairs.
I've yet to see any public discourse concerning this predatory species,and the organism which spawns them.

[freebeard]

I've yet to see any public discourse concerning this predatory species,and the organism which spawns them.

Shakespeare: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".

The ground water in the South Hills in Bleugene, OR, contains arsenic.