Do we care about the enviroment !!! ????

650Skull said:
@Wordman @Charles13

That is enough. Read post #1.

Post #1
Edit.....Added this article to remind us, we have to rely on ourselves to navigate life, people and the media.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...l-of-propaganda-and-manipulation-f3798079fea6

I'm not going to get into debates or arguments. ...............It is up to individuals what they want to believe, but i am going to post information that is factually based and pear reviewed. Where there is some speculation surrounding a hypothesis this will be mentioned a well although some speculation will be based on past historical accounts that would be relevant to existing situations..........

Post links to your assertions. If you can't back up a contentious statement with a link to. Don't bother posting.

A meme or a graph without an article means nothing.

I have no problem vering off into scientific tangents about biology but for fuck sake just using an example of a statement one person couldn't answer, ( shows a lot of political bias), that shows ignorance rather than a good discussion.

If you haven't heard of People who are born neither male or female, (intersex), where the the foetus develops with a range so wide between what is defined male or female, then here is an example of one biological male who was born looking like a female with all female parts but when she didn't have her period by the age of 16 knew she was different.

Got an ultrasound done, found testicles where her uterus should be.

She is classed a biological male because her testes produce a normal amount of tostesterone. Has a vagina, she had to stretch the canal to be able to have penetrative sex with a male.

A link for proof. Listen to the video as well.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/blume-intersex-interview/

If your against genital mutilation then listen carefully to what this intersex biological male in a female body says about how doctors and society try to make babies born intersex either a male or female with surgery when they are babies.

I get we believe different things or maybe don't believe science can prove something, because once proof is found that usually opens up more questions that could prove the finding are not 100% with more studies needed around the questions raised.
Not the other way round where the % that raised, (those other questions), proves the original findings false so no further studies need to b done.

Sorry I had to explain how science works.

If you don't believe in global warming and don't need weather balloons to predict weather patterns to warn of impending climatic patterns that are dangerous, or NASA scientists or science in general then this thread is not for you.

This is proof of the balance of nature.
By introducing 1 apex predator, ( that had been removed buy ignorance and fear), it not only restored it's territory it created a whole new environment, (restored), of fauna and flora. Not only that but it stopped erosion, with the environment restored weather patterns changed due to the reintroduction of trees. Moisture in the trees and cooling due to moisture trapped under the tree canopy.

Documented proof

https://www.sciencealert.com/how-31...onal-park-wolf-reintroduction-trophic-cascade
Click to expand...

Now, as I have said about a thousand times in this conversation, I don't think we should be stupid in polluting the earth. In other words, I can look at the evidence (real, manipulated, and imaginary) and think, "yeah, I don't think we know shit" and still think we need to be more mindful of the environment.

It's you who seems to think the two are mutually exclusive.

In your early post, you brought up plastics. Plastic everything was foisted upon us by the government (at least here in the US) because it was recyclable and therefore good for the environment.

And now micro plastics are everywhere and in everything.

The same people pushed MTBE into the gasoline supply (even though the oil companies said it was an environmental nightmare).

And now MTBE is everywhere and in nearly everything.

And I could go on and on.

So you'll excuse me if I am skeptical concerning the claims supported by the US government. From gun statistics to the food pyramid to the above mentioned items to Christ only knows what, they've been wrong, sometimes criminally wrong, again and again and again and again.
 
650Skull said:
@Wordman

We are not here to change your mind. If by chance you read something that makes you question a belief, or make you want to pursue that idea then that is up to you, not me.

Dismissing that info wholeheartedly then "saying I thought you were going to change my mind"
Shows your not interested in having an open critical thinking mind......on this subject at least.
Click to expand...

I ABSOLUTELY want real fact, not just 97% of scientists know the 97% of scientist talking point that's spouted 97% of the time.

I posted this chart earlier. It has its sources right on it.

1753222060605.png


Why is this spike "man made" while the last eleven spikes, many of which are higher in temperature, "just nature."

Start with that one. Please.
 
Wordman said:
I ABSOLUTELY want real fact, not just 97% of scientists know the 97% of scientist talking point that's spouted 97% of the time.

I posted this chart earlier. It has its sources right on it.

View attachment 354471

Why is this spike "man made" while the last eleven spikes, many of which are higher in temperature, "just nature."

Start with that one. Please.
Click to expand...


Link where you got the graph for a response
 
650Skull said:
Link where you got the graph for a response
Click to expand...

Apologies for the snarky remark. Uncalled for (and deleted).

Says right on it the info came from NOAA, and the propagator of that particular chart is The Heritage Society.

I know, a right wing think tank...

But it's the same chart as this (only this one moves the ending date a bit closer to today),

1753223481914.png


And this one comes from https://climateseed.com/climate-change
 
Last edited:
Wordman said:
Apologies for the snarky remark. Uncalled for (and deleted).

Says right on it the info came from NOAA, and the propagator of that particular chart is The Heritage Society.

I know, a right wing think tank...

But it's the same chart as this (only this one moves the ending date a bit closer to today),

View attachment 354473

And this one comes from https://climateseed.com/climate-change
Click to expand...


Yea so? that link goes on to discuss climate change and global warming.

Everything in that link supports/states what your questioning.
 
650Skull said:
Yea so? that link goes on to discuss climate change and global warming.

Everything in that link supports/states what your questioning.
Click to expand...

Because that link simply goes on to say the same stuff everyplace says while never actually explaining why this time (but none of the past eleven times) it's man.

Remember that saying about extraordinary claims? No one gives extraordinary evidence.

They all say the same things, using each other for support, and never addressing how we know this time is different.

Is the climate warming? Yup! No doubt about it. Has been since the last ice age. But that ice age came after the warming period before it, which had an ice age before that, which...

Are we shitting all over the earth? Yup!!

But while they yell at me for using my charcoal grill or my R12, they build heat islands of unprecedented proportions and send up rockets that dump more ozone depleting chemicals in one trip than man ever installed in mobile A/C units.

And lets not forget the road they built through the four-lane highway cutting through tens of thousands of acres of protected Amazon rainforest they built for the COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazilian.

Ice Cores: Forget what it did 10,000 years ago, show me that the information from 100 years ago coincides with what we know happened.

While we're at it, explain why Glacier Girl (and the other aircraft like her) were found under 82 meters of ice, which in Greenland should equate to over 250 years ago. Last I checked, WWII wasn't 250 years ago.

Computer models: Show me they put the info they have up through 1900 and the model then accurately predicted 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 climate states. If they can't do that, the model is bunk.

These aren't unreasonable questions. And it doesn't mean I think we should go balls to the wall, dump the oil in the river, damn the torpedos. That's what gets my goose, so to speak, about this thread. As soon as someone poses a question, they are "deniers" who should be denigrated and scoffed at.
 
Here's a couple of pics of my back yard. The areas of brush and young trees you see are a portion of my yard I've let grow because the local wildlife thrive in them. We have several different kinds of nesting birds, cotton rats, chipmunk, and groundhog.

IMG_2186.jpeg


IMG_2187.jpeg


A groundhog lives under my garage,

Every year a house wren makes a nest inside my garage. I need to seal the thing up, but I love that she has her nest there so...

We get tons of turkey, deer, and skunk. Hawks regularly hunt our yard, as does the occasional bald eagle.

Plans for other parts of the yard include fruit trees, along with native trees. I also want to plant native plants, vines, etc..

We wear the same clothes until they're warn out.

I fix oil leaks on our vehicles absolutely as soon as possible.

I put a newer (2003) engine and overdrive transmission into my Jeep Grand Wagoneer (LY5/4L60E) including a catalytic converter and a feedback fuel injection system (GM).

I carry bugs, spiders, bees, and wasps out of my house (if I can) rather than kill them.

My '87 Mustang will get a 3.7-liter Ford V6 backed by a 5-speed, with catalytic converters, because it will get great fuel mileage, pollute less, and still have more horse power than a hopped up 5.0 Windsor V8.

I try not to buy from China, India, etc., because of their dismal environmental records.

None of these things is because I'm a "denialist."
 
@Wordman, @Jim, @650Skull.
You guys have had a very interesting discussion.
I don't think the debate is if the climate is changing but why.
I think everyone could agree that mankind has influenced what is going on. Are we speeding things up or slowing them down?
I don't know. There are a lot of people that claim they know. But do they really, is what they say 100% for correct? I don't think so.
Science is great. If you believe in science it's gospel until it's proved false. Then something else is gosple.
What clouds things is when poeple make statements that are embelleshisted just to make/prove their position.
I don't consider 3 out of 11 many. 2 is a few. 3 is just 1 more than that.
I think we need to consider the big picture. How does what we do affect things. Does it kill animal habatae, pollute lakes, rivers and streams or the air?
Humans are very self centered.
If we ride our bikes, take a cruise in a car or any thing that expends energy we are hurting the enviroment.
 
GLJ said:
@Wordman, @Jim, @650Skull.
You guys have had a very interesting discussion.
I don't think the debate is if the climate is changing but why.
I think everyone could agree that mankind has influenced what is going on. Are we speeding things up or slowing them down?
I don't know. There are a lot of people that claim they know. But do they really, is what they say 100% for correct? I don't think so.
Science is great. If you believe in science it's gospel until it's proved false. Then something else is gosple.
What clouds things is when poeple make statements that are embelleshisted just to make/prove their position.
I don't consider 3 out of 11 many. 2 is a few. 3 is just 1 more than that.
I think we need to consider the big picture. How does what we do affect things. Does it kill animal habatae, pollute lakes, rivers and streams or the air?
Humans are very self centered.
If we ride our bikes, take a cruise in a car or any thing that expends energy we are hurting the enviroment.
Click to expand...

My belief is, it doesn't matter whether or not we're having an effect, and I don't believe we really know, but we 100% should start doing smart things.

But it's not just whether you take your aluminum cans to recycling or buy into (or against) anthropomorphic whatever, but whether or not you eat preprepared meals, eat at Burger King 6 days a week, and replenish your wardrobe with the latest fashions every season.

It's holistic. In the last neighborhood we lived in, there was a guy who drove a Prius and made snide comments about my Jeep, yet had Chemlawn come dump Christ knows what all over his lawn every week. That's not good stewardship!

And again, I firmly believe one can not buy into the 97% of the 97% who quote the 97% and still be a good steward of the earth.

I try.
 
Jim said:
I guess there's a fine line between attacking a person to change the subject, and questioning his professional credibility. To commit an ad hominem, I need to change the subject, no?
Since the the subject is still climate change/hoax....
You know, I give up. I just read the comments what just popped up here, and I give up. You deniers win, it's all a hoax. No, I don't need evidence, you've convinced me.
Click to expand...
That still leaves the carbon tax tell me why we need to double the price of everything when our government admits it can’t quantify the tax reducing Canada or the worlds greenhouse gases, and still they are telling us that CO2 is bad for the world. I know what you’ve called me but I’m not buying any of it.
 
Charles13 said:
That still leaves the carbon tax tell me why we need to double the price of everything when our government admits it can’t quantify the tax reducing Canada or the worlds greenhouse gases, and still they are telling us that CO2 is bad for the world. I know what you’ve called me but I’m not buying any of it.
Click to expand...


Google search, or read the link that graph came out of it tells you.

Asking a question with the answer in it, then rejecting the answer before a reply
= No constructive input or genuine inquiry,

Think that is trolling as well
 
Back
Top