Suffering...should we be thinking about the bacteria???

[TomSeller]

I wonder how many of our tax dollars were spent on that drivel?

You beat me to that comment. Probably some grad student on a federal Obama Grant. I can't believe this carp gets funded.

 

[TCJatko]

OK, that's it; I'm fed up with insect suffering. I'm starting a new organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects (PETI). Of course I'll need money, lots of it, and maybe a Gulfstream so I can spread "my message of hope to insects all over the world". Anybody know some good grant writers?

 

[4get gto]

OK, that's it; I'm fed up with insect suffering. I'm starting a new organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects (PETI). Of course I'll need money, lots of it, and maybe a Gulfstream so I can spread "my message of hope to insects all over the world". Anybody know some good grant writers?

I don't know but a Go Fund Me page might work.

 

[DieselBound]

Those pushing the global warming agenda had to change to "climate change" when temps started to dip. "Climate change" is generic so one can argue for lots of new regulations based on any up or down change in temps. Twice as effective as just ... increasing temps.

For interesting reading, google "Mauder minimum" which occurred in the 1800's. Many scientists think we are entering another one-- which upsets the apple cart about .... global warming. Ooops I mean climate change. :laughing:

You can worry about conspiracies (everyone is going to look to make a buck off anything- I have no horse in this "race," other than I prefer to go through life on the less-ignorant side), or you can understand facts. There are ZERO facts showing that the climate/earth is in stasis. Climate-change deniers have to hop all over the place to answer this one: "oh, it's always been that way" - well, yes, the climate is always changing, and REAL physical evidence shows that it also changes in abrupt and significant ways (which could be stated as being detrimental to humans).

Because something has not happened doesn't mean that it will not. Because one has not had cancer to-date does not mean one will not: I'm sure that even climate change deniers cannot refute this logic.

Look up Greenland Norse: all was fine until the climate changed on them (of course, their religious dogmas also doomed them, but that's a separate story [but also speaks to the ignorance that underpins most human hubris]. Or, you can actually look at ice core samples. Glacial activity is nature's way of re-tilling the soils: after long periods of weather cycles during inter-glacial periods the loss of top soil tips the scale.

Back on topic, bacteria is the reason we're alive. As a matter of fact, we harvest and hunt in order to feed bacteria (in our guts- who is in control?). And while still on topic, the "report" has value in its acknowledging the meaningfulness of bacteria and insects in nature's balancing work.

And for the climate change deniers, if you're reading this then that means that time has occurred. Time is proof that stasis does not exist, which follows that, the climate, and all, IS changing.

NOTE: those that base their arguments on how much humans are affecting the climate's changing I have no real beef with- the complexities of such analytics are almost certainly outside the ability of human thinking (there are extreme under-thinkers here as well as there are extreme over-thinkers; but, regardless, this still has little bearing on the fact that the earth WILL go through another glacial period, and then on to its next inter-glacial period; no clue as to what comes out That other side).

 

[mcfarmall]

I believe we humans give ourselves way too much credit on how much we can control what the planet does. If humans have so much influence on our planet then why hasn't Al Gore et al found a way to stop hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, floods and wildfires? Probably because the Koch brothers are the ones really controlling the earth!

 

[DieselBound]

I believe we humans give ourselves way too much credit on how much we can control what the planet does. If humans have so much influence on our planet then why hasn't Al Gore et al found a way to stop hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, floods and wildfires? Probably because the Koch brothers are the ones really controlling the earth!

Al Gore is a handy wiping post, ain't he?

GROWTH will be our un-doing. Perpetual growth on a finite planet is only a premise an idiot would believe*. Sadly, humans are signed up lock-stock-and-barrel. I figure all the high-growth folks know that it's going to end one way or another anyway (and I agree). Gore, Koches, et al, are merely convenient distractors: they rely on manipulating the masses such that the masses don't figure it out, and panic (sadly, it's only ever an issue of WHEN, not WHETHER)- they're really all the same (only flying different flags- same game).

* Irony is that it's the strategy of bacteria (which are effectively controlling us) and cancer cells.

 

[TCJatko]

You can worry about conspiracies (everyone is going to look to make a buck off anything- I have no horse in this "race," other than I prefer to go through life on the less-ignorant side), or you can understand facts. There are ZERO facts showing that the climate/earth is in stasis. Climate-change deniers have to hop all over the place to answer this one: "oh, it's always been that way" - well, yes, the climate is always changing, and REAL physical evidence shows that it also changes in abrupt and significant ways (which could be stated as being detrimental to humans).

Because something has not happened doesn't mean that it will not. Because one has not had cancer to-date does not mean one will not: I'm sure that even climate change deniers cannot refute this logic.

Look up Greenland Norse: all was fine until the climate changed on them (of course, their religious dogmas also doomed them, but that's a separate story [but also speaks to the ignorance that underpins most human hubris]. Or, you can actually look at ice core samples. Glacial activity is nature's way of re-tilling the soils: after long periods of weather cycles during inter-glacial periods the loss of top soil tips the scale.

Back on topic, bacteria is the reason we're alive. As a matter of fact, we harvest and hunt in order to feed bacteria (in our guts- who is in control?). And while still on topic, the "report" has value in its acknowledging the meaningfulness of bacteria and insects in nature's balancing work.

And for the climate change deniers, if you're reading this then that means that time has occurred. Time is proof that stasis does not exist, which follows that, the climate, and all, IS changing.

NOTE: those that base their arguments on how much humans are affecting the climate's changing I have no real beef with- the complexities of such analytics are almost certainly outside the ability of human thinking (there are extreme under-thinkers here as well as there are extreme over-thinkers; but, regardless, this still has little bearing on the fact that the earth WILL go through another glacial period, and then on to its next inter-glacial period; no clue as to what comes out That other side).

I don't think anyone denies that the climate is changing; the main beef is that the liberal "solution" is always more governmental control over every aspect of our lives. I'm fairly sure that the much-vaunted Paris Accords are based on the "fact" ( I parenthesize the word because the bulk of this climate change program seems based on hypotheticals) that if everything they proposed was implemented a virtually negligible change in climate would occur. There seems to be no consideration of cost vs. benefits, the costs appear to be substantial, and most of the costs are borne by the US and by extension US taxpayers. More government has proven to be a poor fix for anything.

 

[plowhog]

I believe the debate over climate change is polluted by those seeking to make a buck (Al Gore, etc.) and overzealous government bureaucrats itching to find new ways to pass regulations and tax things. Didn't Gore predict that the Arctic would be ice-free by now, with his show that brought him lots of $$$? If you watched that show, you saw a heavy reliance on innuendos with little science to back it up. Not very convincing. If he believed his own pitch I don't think he'd fly his jet all over the world promoting his ..... money making pitch.

The government folks are also easy to figure out. Serving up an issue that can allow bureaucrats to promote more regulation and taxes is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Of course, according to them their motives are pure as they are only acting in our best interest. That leads to demonizing those who don't follow their lead: referring to them as "climate change deniers."

Finally, NOAA changed regulations a few years ago to allow local weather observers to make "adjustments" to reported high temperatures if they didn't think the equipment was reporting a high enough temperature. This took the entire measurement system from objective to subjective.

I confess I'm in the category that simply doesn't know what to believe. What bothers me most is that it is generally accepted science that there have been at least five ice ages on Earth, with very warm periods in between. Actual evidence supports this-- such as carving of land by glaciers in areas that are warm and dry today. These all occurred long before we were driving SUV"s and tractors belching out carbon dioxide emissions. My question: "how did the Earth warm up on its own to recover from these ice ages?" Scientists cannot explain that-- they have only theories. So there are only "theories" about how the planet warmed itself and came out of ice ages, but supposed "certainty" about a warming spell that is believed to be taking place right now, and what is causing it (us.)

From Wikipedia: "There have been at least five major ice ages in the earth's past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes."

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

I have two friends who are space physicists. PhDs who work every day in that field. (Didn't even know that existed until I met them.) AFAIK, they don't know each other - move in completely different circles.

They do not laugh at anthropogenic global warming.

They understand the seriousness of the agenda behind it.

The supposed scientific claims? Yeah, those, they laugh at.


When you have to silence dissent, make up data, and push phony computer models that somehow manage to produce exactly the results you want no matter what data is fed into them, it's not science.

 

[Baby Grand]

I have two friends who are space physicists. PhDs who work every day in that field. (Didn't even know that existed until I met them.) AFAIK, they don't know each other - move in completely different circles.

They do not laugh at anthropogenic global warming.

They understand the seriousness of the agenda behind it.

The supposed scientific claims? Yeah, those, they laugh at.


When you have to silence dissent, make up data, and push phony computer models that somehow manage to produce exactly the results you want no matter what data is fed into them, it's not science.

It's fake news.