Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: kenarman

I wonder if the Wiz was at Burning Man this year. Environmentalists set up a road block and had 100s of vehicles stopped. The local tribal police when they couldn't talk them into removing the blockade smashed a vehicle through it even with a few protestors chained to the trailer set up as the blockade. They then arrested them at gunpoint.

Is at Burning Man
Yes he is there now

Quote: terapined

Is at Burning Man
Yes he is there now

Yes it was at Burning Man. Wonder if he got caught in the road block for several hours. I assume we will get a report eventually.

Quote: kenarman

I wonder if the Wiz was at Burning Man this year. Environmentalists set up a road block and had 100s of vehicles stopped. The local tribal police when they couldn't talk them into removing the blockade smashed a vehicle through it even with a few protestors chained to the trailer set up as the blockade. They then arrested them at gunpoint.

Burning Man trashes a delicate ecosystem? that would be pretty ironic

edit: answering my own question, the protestors say "commodification" is their concern "... their protests were aimed at the “popularisation of Burning Man among affluent people who do not live the stated values of Burning Man, resulting in the commodification of the event.”"

Quote: odiousgambit

I don't disagree that there are too many who are ready to claim it's GW as a reflex. I already made my case that the recent Hawaii wildfire is not necessarily meaningful as GW considering the things that are getting blamed otherwise

surely nobody thinks fires are igniting from extra heat

it would be a case of the climate changing, getting droughts where they were rare before at least to the extent of it. But how much is natural climate change?

You and I would not be able to evaluate the evidence, while we have reason to suspect bias in those who can. I'm just saying I can't debunk everything as a reflex, then complain about the opposite reflex

Think about it this way. Remember growing up people would say something like it seemed like we got more snow when they were kids. Or the storms seem worse the last few years? One day you are the old person saying this. Some of it does cycle. Sunspots. Hurricane cycles. El Nino.

The difference is now we think that weather is supposed to be stable and if it is not then we must be causing it. Years ago I read that the years 1950-1970 was weirdly stable weather. Not much change year to year. Why? Nobody knew or knows. But after that it made it seem like something was wrong when there was not a problem.

It is best to just not buy the hype. The road to tyranny almost always starts by getting the masses worried about something. Global warming has people the world over begging to have their freedoms taken away. Thus pols will keep blaming it for things.

I watched three videos yesterday of countries greening deserts.

In the past, all the deserts were likely green.


Then came precipitation manipulation of water in a closed system.

Meaning, some folks will burn and some will grow food because the precipitation patterns will shift.

It's not man causing the climate shift, it's politicians of countries (warfare).


The underground aquifers will only last as long as sufficient precipitation exists and population is less than can be supported.

---------------------

Eight States Are Seeding Clouds to Overcome Megadrought

March 16, 2021
.
.
.
Humans have been experimenting with weather control for the better part of the last century.

Vincent Schaefer, a researcher with General Electric, is often credited with the first cloud seeding experiments in the 1940s. Much of Schaefer’s work during and after World War II centered on preventing aircraft from icing over in midair. So he designed a special homemade freezer to help him better understand the way ice forms inside clouds.

As the story goes, Schaefer entered the lab one day to discover that his freezer had been turned off. Hoping to cool it as quickly as possible, he placed a block of dry ice inside the box. A cloud of glistening ice crystals instantly formed in the air.

In 1946, Schaefer conducted the first true cloud seeding experiment by aircraft. He dropped 6 pounds of crushed dry ice into a cloud in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. Almost immediately, snow began to fall.

In later experiments, Schaefer and other GE colleagues would discover that certain types of particles are more effective at helping ice crystals form. Silver iodide, they found, is one of the best.
.
.
.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eight-states-are-seeding-clouds-to-overcome-megadrought/

---------------------

So if contemplating a sense of guilt for consuming and emitting carbon, look a little deeper.

I'd guess someone in Saudi Arabia and China figured out a new machine to manipulate the ions in the atmosphere.

Because they have huge deserts.

Quote: AZDuffman

Think about it this way. Remember growing up people would say something like it seemed like we got more snow when they were kids. Or the storms seem worse the last few years? One day you are the old person saying this. Some of it does cycle. Sunspots. Hurricane cycles. El Nino.

The difference is now we think that weather is supposed to be stable and if it is not then we must be causing it. Years ago I read that the years 1950-1970 was weirdly stable weather. Not much change year to year. Why? Nobody knew or knows. But after that it made it seem like something was wrong when there was not a problem.

It is best to just not buy the hype. The road to tyranny almost always starts by getting the masses worried about something. Global warming has people the world over begging to have their freedoms taken away. Thus pols will keep blaming it for things.

I certainly don't think that in the current situation that even unreasonable Skeptics are doing any harm. I want my skepticism to be respected so being reflexively skeptic I figure is not good

I do have to fight it. Even the matter of the spike in CO2 measured in Keeling data, the recording of which I really trust is free of bias.* Getting this kind of data is what scientists are good at. BUT it occurs to me we may not be getting the full story. In this case, how much do we know about spikes in CO2? The implication is that they are rare, but all we are going by are these ice core samples and it stands to reason they wouldn’t record spikes of short duration.

So I go to Wikipedia and the first thing that happens is I get turned off by what’s there. A statement about the CO2 spike should say maybe something like “current theory puts the source of the spike as likely primarily human activity” and as the article goes on to show this is well supported. But instead I see the immediate statement “The increase is due to human activity. Burning fossil fuels is the main cause of these increased CO2 concentrations and also the main cause of climate change.“

Of course I can recognize this as a political statement, the motivation for which is to crush any other input, just about the least scientific attitude possible. And, in order to ‘advance the cause’ in case some victim of idiocy from Sri Lanka was reading it, it has the obigatory continued remark about climate change. I’m sure you would find out any attempts to eliminate that unscientific certainty have been edited out with vigor. Has anyone tried to insert a question about the matter of it not being known whether spikes are unusual? Would it explain the 1930s? Such a thing clearly would never survive in that Wikipedia article

So yes my skeptical instincts are once again ignited. I’ve shrugged it off, like I say the assertion is well supported. But it bothers me to see the political input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

* boy wouldn’t that be the scandal of all time if we found out different

I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me]

Quote: odiousgambit

I certainly don't think that in the current situation that even unreasonable Skeptics are doing any harm. I want my skepticism to be respected so being reflexively skeptic I figure is not good

I do have to fight it. Even the matter of the spike in CO2 measured in Keeling data, the recording of which I really trust is free of bias.* Getting this kind of data is what scientists are good at. BUT it occurs to me we may not be getting the full story. In this case, how much do we know about spikes in CO2? The implication is that they are rare, but all we are going by are these ice core samples and it stands to reason they wouldn’t record spikes of short duration.

So I go to Wikipedia and the first thing that happens is I get turned off by what’s there. A statement about the CO2 spike should say maybe something like “current theory puts the source of the spike as likely primarily human activity” and as the article goes on to show this is well supported. But instead I see the immediate statement “The increase is due to human activity. Burning fossil fuels is the main cause of these increased CO2 concentrations and also the main cause of climate change.“

Of course I can recognize this as a political statement, the motivation for which is to crush any other input, just about the least scientific attitude possible. And, in order to ‘advance the cause’ in case some victim of idiocy from Sri Lanka was reading it, it has the obigatory continued remark about climate change. I’m sure you would find out any attempts to eliminate that unscientific certainty have been edited out with vigor. Has anyone tried to insert a question about the matter of it not being known whether spikes are unusual? Would it explain the 1930s? Such a thing clearly would never survive in that Wikipedia article

So yes my skeptical instincts are once again ignited. I’ve shrugged it off, like I say the assertion is well supported. But it bothers me to see the political input.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

* boy wouldn’t that be the scandal of all time if we found out different

So, as a gambler, if you're required to bet a lot of money, which side are you betting on today?

This is a good gambling question. Just as much as which sports team will win.

Is man-made climate change aoccurring and a real issue or is it a natural cycle?

the recent gambling lesson for me is "don't let someone freeroll you"

Quote: DoubleGold

I watched three videos yesterday of countries greening deserts.

Not Iran.

"Condition Critical: Desertification Threatens To Turn Iran's Future To Dust"

"The desertification of Iran is occurring at a staggering pace, with officials last month warning that more than 1 million hectares of the country’s territory -- roughly equivalent to the size of Qom Province or Lebanon -- is essentially becoming uninhabitable every year."

That is an area 2.5 times larger than Rhode Island, turning into desert every year in Iran.

1 Hectare = 2.47 acres