But if the visible shit, that light- brown rusty blur, has enveloped the planet, then you can bet the invisible shit has too. The lights at night, from space, are another example. Anyone who thinks the Earth is too big for little old us to trash just doesn't get it. — James Riley

Very true! How do we convince the powers that are?

How do we convince the powers that are? — SoftEdgedWonder

You can't fix stupid. You have to wait until Nature fixes it. Like Covid.

My take is that there used to be room in the world for stupid. If I had to date when that ended, 1946. By then most of the evidence and science was in place, and much of it of longer standing. And stupid at work at a large-scale corporate level since much earlier.

For a long time, skirmishes. I'm satisfied that whether declared or not, it's war, the war that stupid has been forcing on the world itself for generations. It's war whether we acknowledge it or not; we may as well acknowledge it. It just leaves the question of how best to fight it - while there's still time for the question to be meaningful.

But the great dumping places, the oceans and the sky, have been telling us for years, NO MORE!

You can't fix stupid. You have to wait until Nature fixes it. Like Covid. — James Riley

I tend to agree. Maybe disaster, natural disaster, has to hit their capital houses firstly. An inconvenient truth (it didn't need a disaster to make the maker of this beautifull and informative documentary see though). Will they ever learn though? Musn't we take the power from them (maybe even gun-wise)?

I'm not sure how to parse your comment but I know some plant hobbyists, not exactly real gardeners, but I don't recall them complaining about the seasons. I'm curious, what did you have in mind? — TheMadFool

I infer that you operate on the basis of out of sight, out of mind, and your eyes are closed. Warmth is moving north and has been for years. Gardeners note earlier planting times and longer growing seasons. Also the northern movement of the limits of the habitats of all kinds of animals and plants. And changes in rainfall. In short, greater and lesser changes in everything. An example, pond hockey through the 1960s, but not now. I'm pretty sure if you took your blinders off, you would astonish yourself at what you've overlooked.

Musn't we take the power from them (maybe even gun-wise)? — SoftEdgedWonder

It might get to that. But we trained up the best on our nickel, and they've gone over to work in the private sector, providing security from the great unwashed. I wonder who will make their shit paper and other things they've grown accustomed to?

:100:

Do you mean their fat asses? — SoftEdgedWonder

Well, some of them are, but I was referring to the plutocracy protecting themselves from the peasants.

I infer that you operate on the basis of out of sight, out of mind, and your eyes are closed. Warmth is moving north and has been for years. Gardeners note earlier planting times and longer growing seasons. Also the northern movement of the limits of the habitats of all kinds of animals and plants. And changes in rainfall. In short, greater and lesser changes in everything. An example, pond hockey through the 1960s, but not now. I'm pretty sure if you took your blinders off, you would astonish yourself at what you've overlooked. — tim wood

Thanks. I learned something today although I vaguely recall reading it somewhere. :up:

In my defense, the northward migration of plant species only evidences global warming but, climatologists have more work to do, proving that climate change is due to CO2 emissions from human activity. That's why I suggested that they need to do two things:

1. Explain the rise in earth temperatures with the greenhouse effect of (raised) CO2 levels.

2. Make a prediction of how temperatures will rise in (say) the next 10 or 20 years.

Don't you mean monocracy? — SoftEdgedWonder

No, I think there are more than one.

Or do you mean eclectic opportunistic nepotism? — SoftEdgedWonder

Plutocracy is shorter.

1. Explain the rise in earth temperatures with the greenhouse effect of (raised) CO2 levels.

2. Make a prediction of how temperatures will rise in (say) the next 10 or 20 years. — TheMadFool

I am generally satisfied that they have many times over. By that I mean I am a student of the discussion though neither an author nor usually a reader of scientific papers. Are you averring the case has not been made?

The @TheMadFool is only provoking. A mad fool as he might seem, he knows damned well.

Are you averring the case has not been made? — tim wood

Not in the format I gave, no.

Not in the format I gave, no. — TheMadFool

In what format you do?

Graph from the latest IPCC report (2021).

What's the best gameplan for us given that we don't know the truth about climate change? Should we assume climate change is real or should we assume it isn't and act accordingly? — TheMadFool

We do know the truth about climate change, with as much certainty as we can know about anything. It's now easy to see all around us, and to anyone who can read a graph.

But even if there were a 10% chance of catastrophe, we should still do something about it, yes -- especially given that there's almost no downside.

climatologists have more work to do, proving that climate change is due to CO2 emissions from human activity. That's why I suggested that they need to do two things:

1. Explain the rise in earth temperatures with the greenhouse effect of (raised) CO2 levels.

2. Make a prediction of how temperatures will rise in (say) the next 10 or 20 years. — TheMadFool

Unless you've been living in a cave somewhere, this information is readily available. Perhaps you missed the latest IPCC report as well. Made some news a few weeks ago.

CO2 levels and increased average temperature of the earth are very well correlated, with data going back tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

Predictions about temperature rise have been made, shown to be accurate, and continue to be made. There are many scenarios taken into account -- business as usual versus a real shift in fossil fuel use, for example.

The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is rampant because it's a difficult thing to accept and because of a massive propaganda campaign from the fossil fuel industry, especially around 2009 -- of which you seem to be a casualty.

Rather than place the burden of proof on climate science, how about we place the burden of proof upon those who do, and propose to do, that which has never been done before? Or post a bond. Or take out insurance. I mean, if you want to pump shit in the air, maybe you first prove there will be no harm?

I'm going to have to ask you to stop exhaling CO2 until you can prove it isn't dangerous (also all that hot air).

We should stop dead trees from decaying, too.

Furthermore, we apply the experimentally derived decomposition function to a global map of deadwood carbon synthesized from empirical and remote-sensing data, obtaining an estimate of 10.9 ± 3.2  petagram of carbon per year released from deadwood globally, with 93 per cent originating from tropical forests. Globally, the net effect of insects may account for 29 per cent of the carbon flux from deadwood, which suggests a functional importance of insects in the decomposition of deadwood and the carbon cycle.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03740-8

A petagram is a billion metric tons.

I'm going to have to ask you to stop exhaling CO2 until you can prove it isn't dangerous (also all that hot air). — frank

Hi Frank and NOS: Your comments are fundamentally stupid on two counts:

1. The individual human biological contribution of CO2 has been factored into the environmental baseline for 200k years or more (millions of years if you count our predecessors). Thus, there is no new, elective straw being tossed on the camel's back by human exhaust. (Besides, the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was “inhaled” from the atmosphere by the plants we consume.) Insuring/bonding are for non-baseline activities.

2. Individual action works at cross-purposes. If I save a gallon of gas, I increase supply, lowering price, stimulating demand so NOS can roll coal in his penis truck. The CO2 example works on the same principle. That is why it is necessary for government to regulate everyone under threat of violence.

Now, because I'm magnanimous, and in a tip o' the hat to the Republican misunderstanding of free-market capitalism, I offered the idea of bonding/insuring. You know, so the markets could decide if the industry is FOS when it says their actions are innocuous.

Hope that helps.

That is why it is necessary for government to regulate everyone under threat of violence.

All that for a non-sequitur? Didn’t help at all.

Didn’t help at all. — NOS4A2

It probably didn't help because you don't know what a non-sequitur is. Government regulating everyone under threat of violence is not a non-sequitur. It's the logical anticipatory argument to the tired libertarian whine about government ultimately relying upon violence or the threat of violence.

You stand corrected. Hope that helps. No? Didn't thinks so. Like I said, frank and your initial comments were fundamentally stupid.

frank and your initial comments were fundamentally stupid. — James Riley

One's a climate denier and the other either is one or tries to sound like one. So don't expect too much.

Climate change denial.

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[3][4][5] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics"] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description. Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda.

One's a climate denier and the other either is one or tries to sound like one. So don't expect too much. — Xtrix

One aids and abets a virus. The other is just your standard, run-of-the-mill, tired old libertarian; you know, the one that sucks down the benefits of society while pretending to be apart from it. I remember some of them in Idaho who made their own license plates and said they were "sovereign." All while driving on our roads we built and paid for. LOL! The cuff links snap the same on all of us.

You two are just fun to pick on. Be well.

Unless you've been living in a cave somewhere, this information is readily available. Perhaps you missed the latest IPCC report as well. Made some news a few weeks ago.

CO2 levels and increased average temperature of the earth are very well correlated, with data going back tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

Predictions about temperature rise have been made, shown to be accurate, and continue to be made. There are many scenarios taken into account -- business as usual versus a real shift in fossil fuel use, for example.

The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is rampant because it's a difficult thing to accept and because of a massive propaganda campaign from the fossil fuel industry, especially around 2009 -- of which you seem to be a casualty. — Xtrix

I stand corrected then. Nevertheless, in my defense, climatologists, probably because they aren't trained in the scientific method like physicists are, have done a bad job of making their case. Why else is there so much controversy? Compare climate science to physics and consider how the latter has a better reputation than the former.

Climate scientist are as versed in, and likewise use the scientific method just as physicist do. There is very little controversy among the scientists. The controversy surrounds money. Follow the money. You will find Al Gore and Gretta Thunberg have shit for money compared to Exxon, et al. The controversies in physics don't threaten the pocket books of the billionaires.

https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/1333221973237886978/photo/1

You two are just fun to pick on. Be well. — frank

:ok: