Bucco, my friend,

I have tried and tried to figure out this behavior, too. These would be interesting times if they were not so terrifyingly Orwellian. (Remember, "The Ministry of Truth" was the name of the propaganda machine in Orwell's 1984.)

A few months ago, I asked a relative what he thought of children being taken from their parents at the border. I really did want to know what he thought. I was looking for discussion.

His answer to me was, "I have not heard anything about it."

"Change the channel," said I.

That was when I learned that he believed he was getting the real news because he had given up on F and found a new channel that "told the truth." Turned out, he was watching a channel that I had to look up because I had never heard of it. :eek:

I asked him if he would watch PBS news, just for that evening. His reaction had a touch of the irate. You would have thought I had asked him to drink poison.

I had not tried to get him to watch CNN. I just wanted him to have a look at PBS. But he is so completely immersed in his new "news" channel that I know I have to give up. He lives across the country from us so, now, I guess weddings and funerals will be it.

Another part of believing, or wanting to believe, lies has a lot to do with personality types.

Then there are those who, whether consciously or subconsciously, subscribe to the philosophy that if they do not acknowledge a reality, they do not have to deal with it.

I really think this thread is going to be closed soon. Probably should be. If not, I am going to try to stop beating my head against this wall. Wall? (chortle, snort)

Sincerely,
Disengaging Boomer, maybe

PS: Forgot to say that a young person I know said now that his 401(k) is tanking he could see what his friends are talking about. Goes to show that motivations vary.

Crazy for sure.

Some seem to shrug off substantiated, easily proven facts, and embrace false, never proven (actually totally disproven and proven false statements, most of them laced with false and incredibly mean accusations) statements.

I suppose I could care less except for the serious damage done, and being done, to my country.

I grew up told that truth and honesty mattered. I was told to never trust a proven liar and crook. I was told to never trust thieves.

Now it appears we are told to ignore truth and honesty and embrace "shaking and jivin" as if there were no consequences for these action.

These action do and WILL have serious consequences.

To this specific topic, now that Syria finally agreed, the United States of America is the single only country in the world to not sign, and my bet is that most have never even read the accord, only judges based on grossly inaccurate statements made by our leaders.

PS..your young person, had he listened was warned well in advance the cut was for the rich and companies who have used it to one pockets of their own ilk. Reading what is happening you deficit, and how quickly it is happening, and hearing that our leaders don't care because they are rich and will not be in any office when this collapses makes me sad.

Boomer & Bucco.....



:bigbow:...:bigbow:...:bigbow:

Let us know when she stops using fossil fuel cars, gives up central air, and washes her clothes in a local river.

"There are none so dumb as those who preach utopian solutions"

Thank you for those well researched, informative, and helpful responses. I'm sure your grammar school teachers are very proud.

My assumption is that the individual does not have the expertise to analysis the problem and this is more a stunt put on at the UN. What we need is options to switch too and not talk and taxes.

What Is Global Warming?

Always liked and respected National Geographic and their stories on issues that matter.

Well said. I remember giving the graduation speech in High School. It was lofty, it was full of sentiment firmly felt by 16 year old me. It made my family get all teary and earned me much applause. It was about the Statue of Liberty and immigration. I still believe most of what I wrote and presented but a good part has been somewhat altered by my observations of the world as I got older.

I am glad I was me then, and I am glad I am me now.

One need not look any further than the "yellow vest" protests going on in France, over a big jump in fuel taxes, to observe the practical difficulties (economic impact) of making significant change.

That indeed is a very good example of no solution but taxing the problem.

If you wish to use NASA to support a view that ice is increasing in the Antarctic, you may want to rethink that reference. There will be more data in the spring of 2019, but the latest report is here
Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise | NASA

Unlike the 2015 report, which NASA itself said was not consistent with the findings of other investigators, this 2018 report agrees that ice loss is greatly exceeding new ice formation and contributing to the observed rise in yearly ocean levels.

This of course is in addition to the massive loss of sea ice in the Arctic and the loss of land ice from Greenland.

Science is never "settled" and any argument using the lack of finality as a justification for inaction should be seen for what it is, denialism. Faith is settled. Science is always open to revision and exploration, testing, and retesting. That goes on in biology, in medicine, and in physics, and of course in climate science. Scientists reach a consensus when the evidence strongly points in one direction. Tobacco causes cancer, DDT is not good for the environment, clean air and clean water are better than dirty water, wash your hands and get some exercise, and the activities of humans are a significant factor in the rise of temperatures over the last 50 years. There never was a consensus or even serious consideration about global cooling. The potential impact of solar variation, and of volcanoes have been included in climate models and are not significant drivers of the rise which has been observed.

Claims that predictions have failed to be met by reality are the result of cherry-picking the most dire models. Even Dr. Hansen, one of the most vigorous and outspoken scientists in the climate science field would be proud of the accuracy of the predictions he made in 1981.

Your two statements highlighted in RED are not true. There have been published papers regarding the impact of the missing solar forcing (part of which is the impact on cloud nucleation from solar effects) as a cause of the over sensitivity of climate models. Essentially, the impact of the missing solar forcing can be up to a watt per square meter - more than enough to explain the over predictions. Climate models have consistently over predicted temperature trends by a factor of two when used in a hindcasting format. This is directly from the IPCC reports when compared with actual measured temperatures. This has been well documented by Christy and Spencer. This should not really be a surprise as it is very difficult to get the clouds correct in the model and if you don't get that right then you have no chance. Also, when you are missing important forcing then you also have no chance. In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result. I have seen this. As I previously stated, in my opinion, climate models are not ready as a tool for setting public policy as they are still in the R&D stage. Climate dynamics are not well understood. The inability to diagnose how much of the recent warming is due to climate cycles and how much is anthropogenically driven is evidence of this. Numerical models make a large number of assumptions due to lack of understanding of physical processes, omission of important physical processes, lack of computer power, and the individual biases, as to what is important, of the developers. I know this because I have been there. In addition, there are a number of parameters that can be tuned in a model to achieve the desired results. The reason for these parameter is a lack of understanding of physical processes and as a way to compensate for errors you cannot explain (often because of incorrect assumptions). Also, your analogs have no applicability to climate science and your graph is hopelessly out of date.

Bingo. That is the reason that lots of "studies" for many issues are not totally "fact" and need to be looked at with a little skepticism.