We like a tree are deeply rooted in reality but the basics may be lost forever... ☮️UT!

I don't understand what that means.

He's just being Jamison.

enorbet,

I don't honestly disagree with what you wrote. I 100% agree that it's simply not in the interest of the big oil companies to be truthful about "climate change", let's face it, if it involves them losing $$$, then there is no reason for them to tell the truth about it.

I also think you raise a key point, and I think probably the most important point of all: the rate at which it's happening, rather than it happening - if I make sense there.

So I guess we could look at this in one of two ways: on the one hand we could ignore that and say something like "well it's still been happening before man come along". Or, we could say while fundamentally speaking it's natural process at it's core, BUT, we are indeed responsible for the increase in the rate at which it's happening - and I do agree with that. But, my concern is that, if we just focus on the rate at which it's happening, then I think there's a danger of losing sight of the bigger picture, which is: yes, it's still fundamentally a natural process, but one that we have "supercharged", and spun out of control.

But all of that said; I think it's also important to be realistic about the issue too - we can't stop it per se, but we CAN manage it. And yes, this must involve better technology's that don't produce so much carbon emissions.

See, you done it again; made me look at it in a different way - told you so didn't I?

But anyway and don't mean to go off-topic here, but I've really gotta get back to learning C - so I'm not ignoring you if I don't respond back right away.

I think he basically means that some people seem to confuse proper science, with politics, religions, opinions, and mix all of that together.

@ChuangTzu - re: OpenMindedness ---

Your definition of Science and open mindedness is actually not accurate. ALL "theories" (when theory is used in the common manner as opposed to Scientific Theory which is much more rigorous) are not up for discussion simply because someone proposes so. "Turtles all the way down", for example, is utter superstitious nonsense and a waste of time. The real definition of "theory" in the scientific or logical argument sense is a proposal that explains an observable and repeatable phenomenon that has withstood repeated and rigorous attempts at falsification. Theory is never just a 'what if?". That is a question and if answered without evidence and attempts at falsification, it is mere speculation. s Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Please, I urge everyone here to view this 9 minute video on open mindedness, even if only the first 2 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI It can demonstrate in 2 minutes what would likely take me 30 minutes to compose as text. Nobody needs to just believe it, but it is demonstrably true and will likely make good sense to everyone on any side of this thread.

and now we return to the the triple threat of freedom:

Jefferson, Tyranny of the Mind
https://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...-god-quotation

The Tyranny of Science
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...nny-of-science

Alexis de Tocqueville, tyranny of the majority
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

Something that cannot stand up to ridicule, debate, open dissection (even if repeated), is not worthy of the title science, otherwise Science becomes another religion unto itself. With the doubters subject to the modern inquisition.

Science: the religion that must not be questioned
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-be-questioned

The era when Science became Scientism, the post modern religion.

You just had to say in your very first two words, "the left" didn't you? This is an immediate warning that what follows is more political puppet show.

Citation please or it is merely your opinion. This thread itself has considerable evidence against your claim. I am most definitely not a leftist but I do propose that the rate of climate change is in fact human-caused and is urgently in need of action. I want to see that problem fixed before it gets worse and I strongly oppose replacing Democracy with any authority, with my life if necessary. I am a trained scientist and anti-religious and I see no co-opting of Science by scientists, only political pundits on both sides.

In response to my
You replied ---
You see this that way strictly because you believe human caused climate change to be a hoax and that such disaster will not ever occur. I hope I am wrong and you are right but I have no evidence to support that and expert scientific evidence, and lots of it, to the contrary. If I told you "You'd better toss that grenade whose pin you just pulled or not only could your arm be shredded, you could suffer a long and agonizing death as you bleed out" would that be apoplectic and sensational hoodwinkery or would it be good advice?

I do agree that Socialism would destroy our economy, that's a historically proven risk with very bad odds, but it is not likely to occur in the US anytime soon and certainly not because of "global warming". However C02, continuing at even the present rate when it shows every likelihood of continuing to increase instead can very well reach a level at which many plants will not grow especially when combined with rising temperatures that is a package deal with CO2 rise. This isn't mere speculation since there are examples of this happening right now where plants are being exposed to destructive pests for which they have no defenses now that those pests can survive further toward the currently frozen poles.

This is but one example. Hazel noted that some very long cycle trees in Africa are dying out at an extremely accelerated rate and they cannot possibly reproduce fast enough to keep a balance. Unchecked, they will go extinct... not theoretically but actually never to be seen ever again and this is just one more example (there are hundreds) and this is just the beginning since if we ceased ALL fossil fuel burning (ridiculous in reality but useful as an example of the problem) right now the global average temperature will continue to rise until it finally levels off decades from now. Then it may possibly begin to reverse as the systems begin to adapt but nobody knows how long, or if, that will take. Now consider much closer to reality where we continue to burn fossil fuels and probably at an increased rate, at least for several years, and you begin to get a glimpse of the reality of the threat, and you, Sir, are part of that reality. "Nah. This grenade is probably a dud" Eh?

This is from the video, and it exactly describes leftists: And a big Amen to this quote: The only problem with the video is the insidious, implicit acceptance of materialism. That is, the belief that every question has an answer based in the testable, observable material world.

Well. ChuangTzu, it doesn't look to me that the speed with which you responded allowed you any time to check out that video on open mindedness especially considering the minutes it took to paste all those links. I will check those out now, though some of them I am already quite familiar with, but you may recall it isn't a conversation if only one considers the others position. If all you choose to do is talk AT me, and not participate quid pro quo, then I must decline. Hmmm which is the closed-minded one here?

Oh here we go again with Politics. <sigh> Since it specifically states that some things are unexplained and that situation is perfectly OK, how do you arrive at your conclusion that it assumes every question has an answer of any kind? Or more to the point, what manner of "answers" can be derived from the non-material, non-testable, non-observable?

The issue is the claim that man's CO2 emissions cause global warming. As I mentioned previously, I myself have observed that the acceptance or non-acceptance of that claim seems to correlate strongly with political views. Politics is NOT irrelevant to this issue.

I can't think of an example that would be directly relevant to this thread.

But the major example is creation. People who have faith that man evolved from microbes seem to start with the assumption that creation by God has to be thrown out because they think it can't be proved by science. So they throw out one contending solution before they even look at the evidence. And then they proudly declare the evidence proves the one solution they examined, no matter how poorly it fits.

I agree that politics is relevant to some degree with peoples'perception of this issue but that politics is irrelevant to whether it is likely real or a hoax. That is a matter of evidence and would exist apart from anyone's perception or politics. That is why politics only barely belongs in this thread. Politics is not evidence since politics is primarily how we solve internal conflicts without resorting to (much) violence. The choices are Negotiation or Force. Negotiation is largely based on compromise solely for the purpose of "getting along". There is no compromise in Logic. 1 + 1 == 2. Period. If a conclusion is proven wrong, always one of the premises is fallacious.

That's quite alright since this is my thread and I asked you for this answer to avoid my making an assumption.

I truly don't understand such a conclusion since I personally know people whose beliefs include that The Creator created Evolution, but we are not here to argue this point since I only asked how you personally base your conclusions if not materially and IMHO Spirituality is a private matter that is your business regardless of anyone's opinion or position. That belongs to you. In this thread it only matters in how it reflects on how you evaluate data. Now I know. Thank you.

Well ChuangTzu I very much enjoyed the last links you posted though I don't see the connection to any point. Now that might be because the link for Alexis de Tocqueville connected me to a site with over 200 other links and admittedly I didn't read them since I am quite familiar with de Tocqueville and find his assessment of the possible pitfalls in Democracy an excellent cautionary tale which actually seems to me personified in what I would call the despotism of Big Oil. Big Oil is not in the majority in numbers excepting their bank accounts and the degree of political power but I speculate that in the late 1700s and early 1800s nobody could imagine that one industry could dominate an entire nation. Granted the British East India Company came close since it was so intertwined in the monarchy they became nearly indistinguishable. My knowledge of de Tocquevill tells me he saw this as having a safety net because it was essentially created through Government edict, created from the start and from within, where in a Democracy individuals can rise and take control in a manner he thought impossible in a monarchy, from the outside. If I missed something linked on that page that applies please let me know. All the others I read in toto.

Naturally I chose the Thomas Jefferson link first as I am rather a big fan of his and read//view everything I can get my grubby lil' paws on. In this case, since Thomas Jefferson did not suffer fools or waste his very valuable time on obvious nonsense, I don't see how "Tyranny of the Mind" applies here.

I am familiar with Paul Karl Feyerabend and while he brings up some important points where an establishment is created within the community of scientists that makes it difficult to dissent, I think he misses the point that any system of men has flaws but that Science, over time (sometimes a very long time, but nevertheless...) is self-correcting exactly because refinement, even errors are a given, to be expected sort of like navigating the ocean by the stars and having to continually make slight course adjustments. So while his views and research show true foibles, it is by no means a wholesale debunking of the scientific method. It isn't perfect but nothing is and it's the best tool(s) we have.

The article from The Guardian was new to me, oddly enough, and I loved that article. While it, too points out some of the same issues that Feyerabend reveals and dissects, it doesn't disregard that it still functions quite well and the major failing is "elitism" lacking good communication with the general public. I did come away with something I doubt you paid much attention too though... this ---

It is my regarded opinion that articles and exposes like these are a sign that Science is improving. One cannot solve a problem that one doesn't even see. I notice that back in the 60s many "real" scientists looked down their noses at Carl Sagan as if he were 'slumming" and doing it (horrors!) publicly! Some 20 years later Stephen Hawking was far better accepted for his work A Brief History of Time and these days people like Neil de Grasse Tyson suffer far less ostracism or snobbishness than did Carl Sagan. Not only that but Carl's image and acceptance became upgraded when it was seen how much of his work withstood the test of Time. It is rather amazing and laudable how little of the original Cosmos series had to be modified/corrected between 1980 and 2014. Additionally since so many rocket scientists have admitted they "got the bug" for Science by watching Science Fiction like Star Trek it has only become a natural evolution to outgrow Victorian elitist sensibilities.

I apologize for being so long-winded on a tangent but I did indeed enjoy your links and it did also make me take notice that serious Science Journals have many articles expressing serious concern and study over the disconnect on Human Caused Global Climate Change, and a great lesson is being learned since it is finally getting the attention it deserves appropriate to the Information Age, and I see that as a very good thing.

All things are open to interpretation but the reality "we" twist over time‽

Gonna be 71F here locally tomorrow

https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/pe...orecast/335929

Think I will put on my T-shirt and jeans and go for a ride. Thank you for making my winters nice and mild. With just few cold wet fronts messing with my riding time.