Honda VTX Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,099 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We had our 1st snowfall shortly after Thanksgiving. Usually we're into January before we see snow.
Been like that for years.


I was thinking back to when I was a kid in the '60s.
There was almost always snow on the ground by Thanksgiving, and we
always had a shot at a White Christmas.



As a matter of fact, there were a couple Christmases that it had snowed so much
we didn't leave the house to visit.


:dontknow:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
You know, there is global warming. But, it ain't caused by man. It is some sort of natural occurrence and happens periodically over geologic time. There is some evidence that the Earth's orbit about the sun changes with time, some sort of cycle over geologic time.

~80 million years ago, what is now Kansas was several hundred feet below water. And it is suspected that it happened millions of years before that.

"The Cretaceous Period is a geologic time designation from 144 to 66 million years ago, when much of central and western Kansas was under water. The relatively deep sea advanced and retreated, leaving behind sandstones and shales of the Lower Cretaceous, such as the Dakota Formation, and the Upper Cretaceous limestones and chalk of the Greenhorn and Niobrara Chalk Formations. Much of the Dakota Formation consists of colorful clay shales, as well as beds of lignite that were used by early pioneers for heating (The Geologic History of Kansas)."

Here are a couple of maps depicting the sea level. A=Obviously, it's all based upon fossil finds.

Regards,
Joe T.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
YEAH! Some day california will not be part of the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,976 Posts
Unfortunately and fortunately

Unfortunately, what political party one belongs to is a stronger factor in people’s beliefs about climate change than is their level of knowledge and understanding about science.




Fortunately, the majority of Americans think protecting the environment and dealing with climate change should be a top priority of Congress and the president.




Fortunately, those climate change deniers (largely Republican) are in the minority, and millennial Republicans are twice as likely to say the earth is warming due to human activity (your old fart minority thinking soon will not matter).



Fortunately, a MAJORITY in other countries see climate change as a major threat.








Fortunately, the more educated people are, the more likely they are to see climate change as a threat.








Unfortunately, the uneducated and politically swayed (you know who you are) keep spreading ignorance. nojoke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
Well, I guess if the majority of educated people, and especially millenials tell us that we can affect climate change, we should ignore all of the bad science that tells it's so, and the educated climate scientists that tells us it's a natural process, and just believe the majority. Please don't try critical thinking, it will lead you astray ... one must follow the masses or forever be labelled as ignorant by the resident authority on such things.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,976 Posts
Well, I guess if the majority of educated people, and especially millenials tell us that we can affect climate change, we should ignore all of the bad science that tells it's so, and the educated climate scientists that tells us it's a natural process, and just believe the majority. Please don't try critical thinking, it will lead you astray ... one must follow the masses or forever be labelled as ignorant by the resident authority on such things.



I wasn't and haven't argued that if the masses are in agreement about something it must be true. Sometimes the masses are right, but too often and to your point, they are wrong. I was simply pointing out that studies indicate people in America are largely letting political affiliations sway what they believe concerning Climate Change/Global warming, but Fortunately the majority (masses) in this instance see the threats and care about their impacts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
Keep following Greta, hop...that way her followers won't have to "put you up against the wall." :roll:
I don't blame the masses at all for following the leader on this one. The narrative is in every aspect of our lives. We see that educated people are more likely than not to believe what they are being told. The problem is that how many of the educated understand what they are being told. How many choose to look critically at the data, beyond the frame as it were. How many people think that socialism is the answer? I think that makes my point. How many educated people think that is is okay for one to identify as something they clearly are not ... and that the masses must accept that? Citing the educated as some authority on climate change is as ridiculous as posting charts where the numbers mean absolutely nothing out of any context. Following those that have been thoroughly indoctrinated into complete leftist thinking, just because they are educated is equally silly. One must follow good science on this, anything else is opinion. Even a consensus among experts in the field should be open to scrutiny by other experts. Following the money and motive on this topic reveals much about why the narrative is so driven.


None of this means that the masses are wrong. None of this means that the experts following their data are wrong. What it means is that it is not correct just because the majority thinks it is. It is either correct or incorrect on it's merit, the opinions of the majority is irrelevant, as it is only opinion.


We see this continuous lack of any critical thinking in the far left regarding almost anything they champion. It's a popular opinion, ergo it must be correct. Much cannot withstand scrutiny where the narrative champions will repeat the same rhetoric over an over again, never offering anything new, rarely able to refute a counterpoint.


I am not a climate expert, therefore I cannot directly refute any scientific findings by any other that is an expert. What I can do is look at the findings of those experts look at the findings of those experts that come to a contradicting conclusion and decide which makes the most compelling argument, for or against. As such, some will be convinced one way, others will be convinced the other. They are only formed opinions after that. I have never been one to follow popular opinion, just because it is popular. This is, to some degree critical thought.


Sorry if this bounces around, I was interrupted about a dozen times while writing this. Such is the plight of the working class, eh?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
I wasn't and haven't argued that if the masses are in agreement about something it must be true. Sometimes the masses are right, but too often and to your point, they are wrong. I was simply pointing out that studies indicate people in America are largely letting political affiliations sway what they believe concerning Climate Change/Global warming, but Fortunately the majority (masses) in this instance see the threats and care about their impacts.
I believe you didn't intend it that way, as you say, but you did choose to support your argument by citing popular consensus.


In my above post, I blame no one for their belief by popular consensus. Such convinces many.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
I was always told "Follow the Money" Until I see US coastal land drop in value, no need to worry. Miami is a prime example; investors do real research and wouldn’t invest millions of dollars in property that will be under water in 10-20 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
If liberals are serious about reduce energy consumption in the USA, lets start with this. Remove the A/C in all federal, state local and school buildings plus all colleges. Also, include the energy used to make the A/C units and the factory expenses. This is an instant doable move forward. Open the windows and turn on the fans, we lived without A/C until around the late 60's. I went to school for 12 years without A/C in school and did not have a car with A/C until the mid 70's. Our country did fine without it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,189 Posts
Or just remove the HVAC AC blowers that are blowing on the left side of the aisle in the House and Senate while leaving them cooling the right. See how long the dems go without complaining about it. And turn it off in the dems' offices. It would cut the carbon footprint needed to cool the pols by 50%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,366 Posts
I was always told "Follow the Money" Until I see US coastal land drop in value, no need to worry. Miami is a prime example; investors do real research and wouldn’t invest millions of dollars in property that will be under water in 10-20 years.

Exactly, follow the money. People are getting rich off of global warming.



If liberals are serious about reduce energy consumption in the USA, lets start with this. Remove the A/C in all federal, state local and school buildings plus all colleges. Also, include the energy used to make the A/C units and the factory expenses. This is an instant doable move forward. Open the windows and turn on the fans, we lived without A/C until around the late 60's. I went to school for 12 years without A/C in school and did not have a car with A/C until the mid 70's. Our country did fine without it.

Well, they're not THAT serious. Only that we don't have any mobility. Easier to control, easier to subdue. A/C ... well that's just inhumane! What was it you said ... follow the money? Tell everyone they can't have A/C anymore and see how quickly your support drops.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts


https://e360.yale.edu/features/could-abandoned-agricultural-lands-help-save-the-planet#

A study earlier this year in Science calculated the potential tree cover on “degraded” lands worldwide and found, according to senior author Thomas Crowther of ETH Zurich, that a massive program to plant trees and grow them to maturity “could cut carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … to levels last seen almost a century ago.” That study, which elicited sharp criticism from other researchers, called for planting at least 6.6 million square miles of degraded land not currently used for urban or agricultural purposes. More than half the planting would take place in six countries that are, conveniently, also major contributors to climate change: Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and China.

Crowther calls it “the best climate change solution available today,” with the potential to remove 25 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions humans have added to the atmosphere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
Get out you Freshman biology and Botany books.

One thing we're missing: Plants require CO2 and sunlight, along with trace elements, and H2O to thrive. No plants, the CO2 in the atmosphere increases.

Plants 'inhale' CO2 (not really inhale, just an analogy) and 'exhale' oxygen.

Mammals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 (literally) created by the metabolic processes within their bodies. ICE creates CO2 from combustion.

So, we need to balance the CO2-O2 load by having sufficient plant matter to 'inhale' all of the CO2 mammals, cars, etc., create.

It ain't ROCKET SCIENCE!!!

Regards,
Joe T.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top