If you needed further proof of impending disaster... (Phoenix: estate, health)

[Sno0909]

All of this seriously reminds me of the Covid disaster. There is just too much misinformation out there. It's overwhelming and, frankly, I'm starting to lose interest in all of it. Everyone has an agenda, and it's usually driven by power and money.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I see what he means. Our family has a septic system at our MN home. Because we are so green, we harvest our man-made methane gas and it powers a turbine into electricity. That electricity powers my EV and it heats our house. Next, we sell the remaining back to the gas company. So my carbon footprint is pretty crappy. But in a good way!

All kidding aside, someone with a brain needs to lead. Too many of our "leaders" can't see the forest for the trees.

It is sad, with all the great technology out there everything from water to forests (pun intended) to nuclear to farming should be making huge leaps but instead we'll probably just continue to throw money away to buy votes.

[DetroitN8V]

Originally Posted by Sno0909

All of this seriously reminds me of the Covid disaster. There is just too much misinformation out there. It's overwhelming and, frankly, I'm starting to lose interest in all of it. Everyone has an agenda, and it's usually driven by power and money.

Only took 17 pages for the thinly veiled conspiracy nonsense to come out. In that aspect, we're doing better here than with COVID.

[waltcolorado]

If you really want to get to the bottom of this issue, here is something from a former president of the US

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Sno0909

All of this seriously reminds me of the Covid disaster. There is just too much misinformation out there. It's overwhelming and, frankly, I'm starting to lose interest in all of it. Everyone has an agenda, and it's usually driven by power and money.

People hear what they want to hear. Then social media platforms that are driven by AI algorithms are tailored to their individual bias. In the end, the downside is that the algorithms often favor certain groups or viewpoints. Next, a person turns on their "News" channel of choice and the rest is history. This happens to all of us to various degrees.

As I said before, if there is a controversial topic with technical data involved, statistical lies come out and hardened opinions can never be changed.

With technical topics, a stringent peer-reviewed approach needs to be used. Normally, a brilliant technical mind presents their findings and they can be shredded for their methodology. Most often, the technical peer group asks many questions outside of the public eye. Then, they send it back asking the author to correct and modify their work before they publish the paper. While this isn't perfect, it's a Hell of a lot better than assuming someone with a technical pedigree automatically got it right! Because often, they have holes in their approach and have a wrong conclusion because of it.

Our son has published about 20 medical papers. He said that The New England Journal of Medicine or NEJM is a lot more stringent than say, JAMA. As in, less than 5% of articles are published in NEJM. Smart Docs realize if it hits NEJM, they can much more easily trust the information. And when it came to COVID data, smarter Docs were not believing what the layperson read. So if you want the closest to the truth about COVID, here you go https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus

For the most part, peer reviews didn't remotely occur during COVID. It was all about getting the info out as fast as possible. Hence, the misinformation happened on both sides. People were reading heavily flawed research combined with their AI-delivered "News" that often matched their political POV.

So no, not "everyone has an agenda, and it's usually driven by power and money." Surely outside of the technical community, getting elected (power) and handing out money is problematic. As always, the real truth takes a lot of sorting. I propose it is easier for technical minds. I think a good deal of skepticism is healthy. But at the end of the day, you need to make a good decision or your family might suffer. When it comes to manmade global warming, it's a fact. The only question is how much (the weighted average as compared to things that are out of our control). I have concluded that at least 50% of the warm-up is manmade. But not all of it. Therefore, mitigation efforts are in order. But our world leaders are doing a terrible job at leading. As much as anything, I suspect it is because they are not technical and are easily swayed.

[Burning Madolf]

I for one am very happy that the USDA is doing its job to tackle climate change:

Specifically, the grant will support research into using municipal landfill waste to feed crickets that will later be harvested for human consumption.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nut...ts/ar-BB1ip2nc

[waltcolorado]

Last link on chickens and crickets had nothing to do with climate change but its always interesting to see what sort of denial marketing gets folks numbers.

A point was brought up - what percent of climate change has been caused by humans? There is of course a huge amount of peer reviewed research on this. As time goes on, the effects of green house gas more and more swamped out natural variations. From a graph in the link below, it looks like the last time human contribution was only 50 percent may have been around 1960. The human caused contribution is of course much larger than it was in 1960.

You will find almost no one reads links in these CD threads (some dont even read links they post) but here is one on this particular subject https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...sment%20report.

There are lots of details regarding aerosols, volcanoes, sun power, Enso variation but the bottom line is this

Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

This link was posted earlier but it shows another way to look at the amplitude of natural variations to human caused steady increases

https://berkeleyearth.org/global-tem...port-for-2023/

There is a plot in the section causes of the warmth 2023, the relative magnitudes of factors impacting the global average temp are given. This is just for a 10 year period.

Man made climate change is .2 C and on a steady increase of .2C per decade
Enso variations are on the order of +/- .2C so in just a 10 year span, can match the man made variations.
Solar is only .03C
Hunga Tonga volcano was also about .03C

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by waltcolorado

Last link on chickens and crickets had nothing to do with climate change but its always interesting to see what sort of denial marketing gets folks numbers.

A point was brought up - what percent of climate change has been caused by humans? There is of course a huge amount of peer reviewed research on this. As time goes on, the effects of green house gas more and more swamp out natural variations. From a graph in the link below, it looks like the last time human contribution was only 50 percent may have been around 1960.

You will find almost no one reads links in these CD threads (some dont even read links they post) but here is one on this particular subject https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...sment%20report.

There are lots of details regarding aersols, volcanoes, sun power, Enso variation but the bottom line is this



This link was posted earlier but it shows another way to look at the amplitude of natural varations to human caused steady increases

https://berkeleyearth.org/global-tem...port-for-2023/

There is a plot in the section causes of the warmth 2023, the relitive magnitudes of factors impacting the global average temp are given. This is just for a 10 year period.

Man made climate change is .2 C and on a steady increase of .2C per decade
Enso variations are on the order of +/- .2C so in just a 10 year span, can match the man made variations.
Solar is only .03C
Hunga Tonga volcanoe was also about .03C

“Conventional protein production poses a substantial strain on the ecosystem, requiring unsustainable quantities of water, land, and feed as inputs,” the grant description reads. The grant description also calls “conventional” farming a “significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.”

[waltcolorado]

The grant description also calls “conventional” farming a “significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ok then... important stuff for sure.

[Sno0909]

Originally Posted by DetroitN8V

Only took 17 pages for the thinly veiled conspiracy nonsense to come out. In that aspect, we're doing better here than with COVID.

It's no longer a conspiracy, but nice try. For example:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-h...le-11673203704

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/ar-BB1iuvvi

Or another snippet I found: "the impact of vaccination on transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 needs to be elucidated. A prospective cohort study in the UK by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues2 regarding community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals provides important information that needs to be considered in reassessing vaccination policies. This study showed that the impact of vaccination on community transmission of circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 appeared to be not significantly different from the impact among unvaccinated people."