[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MorTech

This is just plain laughable...There really is no helping you.
Just how long is the growing season in Colombia compared to Illinois?
You do know that fertilizer raises crop yields...Riiight?
How exactly does soil get "over used"? Soil is just soil.

Crop yields and productivity in the Mississippi river system are - By far - the highest in the world...Even with the short growing season.

It's a simple concept: Atmospheric H2O and CO2 rise as global temperatures rise...Permafrost thaws and deserts revert back into forests and steppes...Plant life flourishes and crop yields increase and growing seasons lengthen...More natural nitrogen fertilizer is
created from increased lightning energy. This is literally GRADE SCHOOL science.

Looking at it scientifically, the Earth is very near to being a cold and dead planet (most of the earth surface is permafrost and desert) with low temperatures and low atmospheric CO2 and low cloud cover/rain.

Anyway...Why bother.

Up to a point fertilizer raises crop production, but US farmers have gotten greedy and are NOT rotating crops (which they KNOW they should do.) The way to farm and keep the soil alive for the future is the way the Amish farmer goes about farming. There is no question that the US crop yields have DECREASED in recent years. That is EASY to look up. Obviously, farms in South America have stopped producing. Just look at the world population movements.

[TimTinNewell]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

We have all kinds of weather events here in Florida that can and do kill people. Thanks to all the weather people who look out for us.

Not much thanks to the flat earth society members who deny science because Fox tells them to do so that big oil can make more bucks.

Yes, The weather guys on t.v. are the real heroes.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MorTech

Environmentalism is obviously just another religion.

I really wish that were true !

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Then explain how exactly the same climate changes have occurred dozens of times before humans were walking upright?????

Classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Here's an analogy:

Every year on July 4th for over a hundred years millions of fireworks are set off. Next year I'm going to eat a cupcake on July 3rd, and convince everyone else to do the same. Therefore, cupcakes will have CAUSED noise on July 4th. An entire cult of anti-cupcake minions arises, funded by the popsicle industry that will make a fortune if they can convince people to switch to "combat" cupcake eating. They permeate government, media and universities. "Scientists" publish studies claiming cupcakes will cause imminent worldwide catastrophes. Corporations push popsicles over cupcakes. The news does "hit pieces" on the evil of cupcakes. The weak minded give in to this Jedi mind trick.

But in reality, ONE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.

Simply look at a graph of temperature increases in the last 30 years for THE answer. ........which is just worldwide data and CANNOT be refuted in ANY WAY.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Does she have a degree in weatherology? Is that a new word?

Many just read what the teleprompter tells them to say.

Not sure. She sure looks good while doing it.


Some of the other people I follow on Facebook do have various degrees related to weather forecasting.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I am skeptical of anyone saying that the US government, or Climate professors, are ALL OVER THE WORLD lying for the purpose of SOMEHOW ???? controlling peoples minds. That is strange and sinister like a BAD horror movie.

OK, I'll post it ONCE AGAIN---the challenge is:

Get a degree in climatology and a job at a major university. Then apply for a grant for your research to prove global warming has nothing to do with human activity. See how far you get. See if you get published. See if you get tenure. Starve. Then you can read the divorce papers from your wife that left you for a climatologist who understands academia, has a huge grant for playing along with the powers that be to advocate the MYTH of anthropogenic global warming, and is the future fraudulent chairman of climatology at Harvard.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Sorry, NOT true.

Unfortunately, in all too many instances, it is true.

For example, no one doubts the idealism of PETA. But their actions, far from putting their altruism, on display, seem instead to advertise their ignorance. Examples abound: one in particular stands out to me because it occurred not far from where I used to live. In July 2017 near Eden Valley, MN, activists snuck into a mink-farming facility and opened the cages of the animals, allowing between 30,000 and 40,000 animals to escape. Unfortunately farm-raised mink are not equipped for life in the wild; approximately half the animals that absconded died of the July heat within a day or two of being released. The rest that were rounded up were put haphazardly into pens, where their social structure meant that they pretty much killed one another.

Also their ill-thought-out public shenanigans end up being more laughable than instructive. Pouring blood on furs is just one: in Canada PETA as an organization was threatened with being classified as a "terrorist group" because of their ill-thought-out actions against those who they saw as people detrimental to animal welfare.

And let's not forget their duplicity when it comes to animal rescue. In an article appearing in The Atlantic, titled "PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals", (James McWilliams, March 12, 2012), contains the following quote which contains data that is NOT very supportive of their supposed altruism: "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.

These figures don't reflect well on an organization dedicated to the cause of animal rights. Even acknowledging that PETA sterilized over 10,500 dogs and cats and returned them to their owners, it doesn't change the fact that its adoption rate in 2011 was 2.5 percent for dogs and 0.4 for cats. Even acknowleding that PETA never turns an animal away -- "the sick, the scarred and broken, the elderly, the aggressive and unsocialized..." -- doesn't change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent. And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn't change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly "unadoptable" animals within 24 hours of their arrival."

PETA certainly doesn't stand alone among environmentalist groups in their misguided idealism. There are uncounted instances of idealistic but misguided environmentalists doing more harm than good--far too many to list here. But one article concerning not so much the activities but the mindset behind them deserves mention. The article, "Misguided Misanthropy: Why the “Humans are the Virus” Mindset is Damaging to the Environmental Movement" appearing in the bard dot edu, May 31, 2020, is frightening in its analysis. The title and first sentence, "We’ve all seen the tweets lately: “Humans are the real virus!” “The earth is healing in our absence” and so on. Their message is clear: humans are a plague on the earth..." really says it all. The kicker is that the article is actually PRO environmentalism, but scathing in its criticism of some environmentalist tactics.

In all too many instances, idealism and knowledge are at odds. And it seems the greater the idealism, the less the idealists seem to know about the subject in question.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Simply look at a graph of temperature increases in the last 30 years for THE answer. ........which is just worldwide data and CANNOT be refuted in ANY WAY.

Really???? A WHOLE 30 years???? Wow. Except it's not that simple, not even close.

OK, I'll play.....

Let's look at 30-year snippets. Your (and others) claim is this is unprecedented warming due to human activity. So you (plural you) must have a comparison. So please show me the 30 years between 880 and 910 AD, between 4670 and 4640 BC, and between 4,660,000 and 4,659,970 BC to convince the rest of us rational people that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming. Note I've done you the courtesy of not requesting 87,954,340 BC to 87,954,310 BC when Earth was much, much warmer.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

All the hoopla aside, it is pretty much undeniable that the human race does better when things warm up, worse when it cools off.

But there is some scary stuff out there. Back in my younger days I was aware, through friends and some attendance on my part, of the "environmental" movement. A lot of the organizations that are now (unfortunately or not) part of our lives as Americans got their beginnings back then: the Environmental Justice Movement of the early 1980s, save the ozone, PETA, Denis Hayes and the Earth Day movement, etc. etc. Without going into details, there were a fair number of extremists flying under the radar; people who saw this stuff as gospel as well as others who may not so much have believed in the hype and hoopla quite as strongly as the True Believers but who were nevertheless adept at organizing, indoctrinating and demonstrating.

One of the topics that got a fair amount of play, at least among the folks I knew, was that North America, in an ideal situation where human activity was NOT harming the environment, could support at most eleven million hunter-gatherers. I'm not joking when I say that such a prospect was given serious thought by the more extreme folks. It was ludicrous then and even more so now, but one has to consider just what ARE the long-term goals of the more extreme environmentalists, especially considering the practice of no goal reached is ever enough: I seriously doubt that if an extreme environmental group saw all of their goals achieved one day, that they'd NOT have a list of even more extreme goals on the table the next.

What ARE the long-term goals of the more extreme environmentalists? We don't know, and I doubt we ever will.

With respect to the 1st sentence, "the human race does BETTER when THINGS warm up". If that general statement were TRUE, we would ALL be packing up and moving TOWARD the equator. Now due to Global Warming and crop failure the populations are moving the OPPOSITE way from South to North (which is a current and future PROBLEM).
........And what does BETTER mean? More population? How about the IDEAL population for a country (like the US) based on infrastructure like roads and QUALITY OF LIFE. Have scientists ever studied that? I would say that the US currently has the CAPACITY for 275 million people to live IDEALLY. But, too many people are enamored with a MORE is ALWAYS BETTER philosophy. Try putting a half pound of sugar in your breakfast bowl and eating it......Oh too much, what a surprise?
....Scientists know that EVERY animal species has a HOLDING CAPACITY, which when exceeded causes that species to die out. Most animal species make that adjustment before it is too late. HUMANS may NOT have that inherent capacity as they always seem to go for the MORE is BETTER philosophy.
......But I respect the posters post.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

We should be thinking more about what kind of world we are handing over to our grandkids and great grandkids and not just the price of gas and groceries in the present.

Great summary. We should determine scientifically what is the US ideal population and use that as an important factor in order to give them the IDEAL country as much as possible.

[jimjamuser]

Agreed.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Again ... you don't know how much man-made CO2 warmed the earth last year ... which is why the media and so-called experts won't say ---- because it's soooo tiny it exposes the CO2 control-knob scam.

Just look at a graph of Earth's temperatures for the last 30 years. That is the key.

[buzzy]

Originally Posted by sounding

This is the ridiculous part -- how the media (and complicit experts) twist the facts in order to protect a myth that CO2 is a control knob. Find out more Sep 6, 4 PM, at Lake Miona -- for the weekly Philosophy Club meeting.

I was already planning to attend. Are you the presenter?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Unfortunately, in all too many instances, it is true.

For example, no one doubts the idealism of PETA. But their actions, far from putting their altruism, on display, seem instead to advertise their ignorance. Examples abound: one in particular stands out to me because it occurred not far from where I used to live. In July 2017 near Eden Valley, MN, activists snuck into a mink-farming facility and opened the cages of the animals, allowing between 30,000 and 40,000 animals to escape. Unfortunately farm-raised mink are not equipped for life in the wild; approximately half the animals that absconded died of the July heat within a day or two of being released. The rest that were rounded up were put haphazardly into pens, where their social structure meant that they pretty much killed one another.

Also their ill-thought-out public shenanigans end up being more laughable than instructive. Pouring blood on furs is just one: in Canada PETA as an organization was threatened with being classified as a "terrorist group" because of their ill-thought-out actions against those who they saw as people detrimental to animal welfare.

And let's not forget their duplicity when it comes to animal rescue. In an article appearing in The Atlantic, titled "PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals", (James McWilliams, March 12, 2012), contains the following quote which contains data that is NOT very supportive of their supposed altruism: "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.

These figures don't reflect well on an organization dedicated to the cause of animal rights. Even acknowledging that PETA sterilized over 10,500 dogs and cats and returned them to their owners, it doesn't change the fact that its adoption rate in 2011 was 2.5 percent for dogs and 0.4 for cats. Even acknowleding that PETA never turns an animal away -- "the sick, the scarred and broken, the elderly, the aggressive and unsocialized..." -- doesn't change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent. And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn't change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly "unadoptable" animals within 24 hours of their arrival."

PETA certainly doesn't stand alone among environmentalist groups in their misguided idealism. There are uncounted instances of idealistic but misguided environmentalists doing more harm than good--far too many to list here. But one article concerning not so much the activities but the mindset behind them deserves mention. The article, "Misguided Misanthropy: Why the “Humans are the Virus” Mindset is Damaging to the Environmental Movement" appearing in the bard dot edu, May 31, 2020, is frightening in its analysis. The title and first sentence, "We’ve all seen the tweets lately: “Humans are the real virus!” “The earth is healing in our absence” and so on. Their message is clear: humans are a plague on the earth..." really says it all. The kicker is that the article is actually PRO environmentalism, but scathing in its criticism of some environmentalist tactics.

In all too many instances, idealism and knowledge are at odds. And it seems the greater the idealism, the less the idealists seem to know about the subject in question.

Obviously releasing 40,000 minks is illegal (and did not EVEN BENEFIT the minks). It sounds to me that PETA has some over-zealous people that give them a bad name. Since they do succeed in getting some stray animals adopted, I would have to do an intensive study to determine whether the good outweighs the bad. Almost ANY situation can be thought of like that. Take for example US FOOTBALL. i was on a MIDGET (yes they call them that then) FOOTBALL team for players 13 years old and younger. One player was underweight for a lineman, yet he was so over-zealous that he hit the opposition so hard that he would literally "knock himself out" 3 or 4 times per game. He did not even play in high School. His brother was bigger and ended up in the PROS. I don't know how long either brother lived. But, I believe that the life span of Pro football players is less than 60 years. I have not looked it up to be accurate. But, the point is, "Is football good or bad for an individual player and society? Football for the average high school player has BOTH positives and negatives.
......I would guess that the same can be said for PETA......both negatives and positives.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Really???? A WHOLE 30 years???? Wow. Except it's not that simple, not even close.

OK, I'll play.....

Let's look at 30-year snippets. Your (and others) claim is this is unprecedented warming due to human activity. So you (plural you) must have a comparison. So please show me the 30 years between 880 and 910 AD, between 4670 and 4640 BC, and between 4,660,000 and 4,659,970 BC to convince the rest of us rational people that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming. Note I've done you the courtesy of not requesting 87,954,340 BC to 87,954,310 BC when Earth was much, much warmer.

The comparison is to look at the graph of temperature worldwide for the last 50 years (from 1974) to today. You will find that the graph INCREASES big time from 1994 til today. It is very similar to a graph of world population for that same time period. Climate Scientists feel that the reason for the HEAT increase (Global Warming) is that excessive world CO2 allowed a high altitude layer to block the infrared wave energy from the sun that then hit the Earth and bounced upward. 30 or so years ago the layer had not yet formed and the infrared would continue into space. Today, the radiation is refracted back to earth and has caused Man-caused Global Warming.