The correlation between industrialization, population growth and temperature rise is so tight that arguing against the truth of man-made climate change is ignorant and stupid. Now, the real question is what to do once we've recognized that it's real. I don't necessarily believe that vehicle carbon emissions is the thing we should be focused on. I work in this industry. It's not the primary source and customer expectations will drive to lower fuel consumption naturally. Putting pressure on India and China (where most of it's coming from) is where our focus should be abroad, and at home, the sources of our electricity and our agricultural industry should be our focus. Sadly, we are probably too far gone to make the big dents. The only viable (magnitude and consistency of output), carbon free electric source is nuclear, and despite decades of advancements in output, material recycling and waste reduction, no politician will champion it. Caving to political pressure over facts is our downfall.
Your ignorance is showing. Just because you can't take a picture of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By definition, a black hole is an object with gravity so intense that light cannot escape its event horizon. Thus, you won't "see" one unless it has an active and significant accretion disc. We've had hard evidence since the late 90s that black holes do exist, and the best evidence is the massive one at the center of our milky way galaxy.
I have not called you any names and yet you repeatedly do it to me. Why do you think it's ok? I disagree with your first statement. When temperatures were going down in the 70s and the scientific community was predicting an ice age coming soon, was the temperature falling also caused by industrialization and population growth? Or did it briefly have an inverse impact? Do you see how someone might become skeptical if they consider this information?
I can't disagree with anything you've said here. This part of your post seems logical and well thought out to me.
You and I disagree on much, but I am with you 100% on this. The loss of civility, IMHO, has been caused to a large degree by the impersonal nature of discussions created by the anonymity of the internet. No surprise there. We tend not to "name call" and insult face-to-face. I don't think that is because people are "braver" in online discussions so much as people are detached from the fact they are talking to another human being. Empathy is lost in this medium. It will get worse and worse as the people have a decreasing level of personal contact.Honestly I feel sorry for all of us. We live in a world where everyone is perceived to have an agenda, either financially or politically based. There is no truth, no one we can believe in. I grew up in a far less than perfect world. That said we turned on the evening news and believed every word out of Uncle Walt’s mouth. We had some politicians who actually worked with each other regardless of their party. We aspired to become millionaires because that was part of the American dream. What I hate more than anything is our loss of civility. Not it’s not alright to call people names just because you do not agree with them. Be it an Internet forum or any other form of social media we have lost the ability to be civil with one another. You do not need to like what I (or anyone else) has to say or agree with it. But at least let the other person have their say without denigrating them. Is that really too much to ask. Sorry, been a tough morning, rant over.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Unfortunately this happens when the idea is planted that everything is a conspiracy and FAKE NEWS... I have an issue when people routinely reference blog sites and other non-accredited and clearly heavily bias news sources... Just because mainstream news sources are not reporting what you WANT to believe, does not make it untrue and a conspiracy....Yes there is bias and yes they might overstate certain fact but SIGNIFICANTLY less than what you will find on these blog sites. Just because you agree with the information does not make it unbiased and true.
To bring it back to Mustang related issues
it’s like on other threads here where certain people (R. Pobst, Speed Phenom) are villified and skewered, until they say something that the villifiers agree with (my GT500 ran 10.7... GT500 with fresh tires would beat ZLE on a track). Then their word becomes the new Gospel. At least until the next time they do or say something not in line with the group think. Or maybe it’s just that that was the one and only time they “got it right”.
I don't think NASA is the most credible source of climate information. There have been many problems with their data in the past.
Great points.
)
Clearly, there are people whose perspective on the climate comes down to this: Climate Change = Al Gore = Profits = Lefties = Bunk.
I have a long time friend, incredibly bright guy, a truly unique intellect, got involved in machine learning decades ago, founded several consortiums for open source ML library development. He eventually wound up doing support for all sorts of global projects, using super computer cycles and ML for cancer research, DNA mapping, and also plenty of earth sciences like climatology. When I was still on Facebook (been gone for ~3 years), I would occasionally bump into an old acquaintance whose perspective on "global warming", was purely political, his support for his view, was always a narrative of some kind of global left wing cabal, altering studies, interfering with peer reviews to push their agenda (what that agenda was, he could never say ...).
I invited my aforementioned friend into a debate one time, where the latter guy was asking all sorts of questions, I knew the research/ML guy had some perspective on - while he's not a climatologist, in working with plenty of PhDs in earth related sciences (spent years in Europe with some of the brightest people in the field), he got to have a decent understanding of the subject matter (like I've picked up some understanding of clinical trials and law enforcement processes as a developer of such systems). Anyway, he divulged what he could, was unbelievably cordial, attempted to explain things, and my acquaintance? Nope, wasn't having any of it - always a mix of you can't prove that, it's been tampered, that's based on fake news, clearly the data is a results of political agenda and not objective measurements and reviews.
Anyway, I think this a __bad__ topic for anything other than the designated PRSI area (which is why I steer WAY away from there ...
It’s one thing to “touch on” the topic of climate change. A completely different thing to become hyper-committed to the proof of its existence or lack there of. Reminds me of a joke I heard that bears real truth.