Congrats to joj, who has just made one of the most significant, thought provoking posts ever here. With profoundly significant points related to powerful human behavior traits which are deeply embedded in our DNA and subconsciously control the way we think.
This recognition, pales as a reward compared to the massive benefits to his own understanding of human behavior and self, which can be applied the rest of his life...........and he's sharing it with us. Thanks very much, joj!
There is nothing more powerful than gaining the ability to step outside oneself to view the world thru eyes which are capable of seeing it objectively. Filtering out the human emotions, wanting to believe, cognitive biased tribalism and innate traits that subconsciously impact us in a way which sabotages our ability to discern authenticity.
Especially in a world that has amplified the powerful sources reinforcing the brain washes by 1,000 compared to before the age of technology.
Make no mistake, what joj notes is exactly what the gatekeepers of messages completely understand and exploit to the max to control the masses.
It defines Donald Trump on one side and the fake climate crisis on the other side, for instance.
Those are just 2 extremely dysfunctional/destructive realms out of hundreds but show the great harm, which exploit this human weakness and use it to control us.
We all like to go to echo chambers and places that tell us the news that we want to believe in! (I actually enjoy going to places that tell me news that I disagree with too). In this age, those sources have been magnified by several orders of magnitude!
Thanks for the kind words Mike.
As I have grown older I have been able on occasion to break out of the biases. First on the subject of abortion. My "tribe" was always pro-choice and so was I. I have evolved into a more nuanced position. I'm still pro-choice, but I no longer deny the fact that this beating heart is alive, even if not viable. I no longer feel hostile toward those who are zealots about protecting the unborn. I do wish they would also acknowledge the fact that there is a woman's body involved in this issue. She is not an inanimate object for them to control.
The other issue that I have moved on is global warming. I went from my "tribe's" absolute faith in its approaching disaster to a more agnostic attitude. Partly from our moderator's voluminous postings on the subject and partly from visiting my cousin's condo on the beach in northern Florida. I've been going there for 30 years and the beachfront hasn't receded a bit. Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater by now?
I've still got my blind spots I'm sure. But I think my movement is due to aging and an evolved ego. As a young man, I had not made my mark yet so probably I was less flexible. Now, I know who I am, and changing my beliefs (ever so slightly) is not a threat to who I am.
Perhaps that might be called wisdom?
I'm interested to hear from anyone else who has experienced breaking out of their limiting beliefs.
Youre adding some bonus points to your post of the anthropocene.
I’ve always viewed you as somebody that’s frequently able to see the points of others and adjust their views As well as being blessed with the ability to see your own flaws/humility.
That are pretty rare attributes to have in todays world.
You mentioned wisdom Being the cause.
I think that wisdom is actually the RESULT and not the cause.
the cause is your open mindedness and objectivity. Those traits are what determine our rate of learning.
Our IQ or intelligence determines our potential rate to learn. However, we have to have a humble heart and open mind to learn things that mean admitting that we are wrong.
The climate crisis and sea level increase for you for instance.
weve been told for 3 decades by the experts that coastal areas will soon be under water, so that’s what most people believe.
,it takes your own independent observations and rationaliaing, using critical thinking to question mainstream climate crisis narratives. Especially one who has a subscription to the NYT.
Wonderful source for most topics.
On climate, just the opposite much of the time
you will be surprised to know that I strongly believed in several parts of the climate crisis thru the entire 1990s.
In the 1980s/90s the warming had accelerated.
there was no internet, so I had limited access to scientific papers or data. And the authentic data showed warning, so the global climate models, not runderstanding all the factors, including natural cycles were programmed with equations to replicate all the accelerated warming during those 2 decades was from CO2s impact.
As somebody with keen,observational skills and access to the internet,it became increasingly obvious that the warming had slowed down In the early 2000s.
wAfter a decade it was clear that the models were too warm and the disasters were not happening.
as somebody with a massive vegetable and flower garden back then, as well as trading crops and studying agronomy, I learned about how increasing CO2 was benefiting plants grately.
During that time and continuing today, we hear false narratives about how climate change is going to lower crop yields and hurt global food supplies. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I was also pro-choice through a reasonable point in a pregnancy during my young adult years. But then I saw my soon to be nephew's ultrasound at 3 months after conception. As a result of ignorance, I was quite surprised at how well developed he was that early. I decided at that moment that 3 months was clearly too far along for an abortion to be allowed. And then I asked myself when should an abortion be allowed through. 2.5 months? 2 months? 1.5 months? Subsequently, I realized that there is no black and white answer to my question. There's no clearcut line to draw. A fetus doesn't at some magical timeframe suddenly go from not being well developed to being well developed. Thus how can politicians possibly draw a line? Thus, I pretty suddenly became less pro choice and more anti-abortion.
joj said in regard to his cousin's condo in N FL:
"I've been going there for 30 years and the beachfront hasn't receded a bit. Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater by now?"
From what are you basing that FL was "supposed to be underwater by now"? That sounds extreme. What exactly does that mean?
Being that I don't live too far from the coast, I've been following the sea level rise pretty carefully. Up here in GA, it has risen on average about one foot in 90 years at Ft. Pulaski:
Over the last 30 years, alone, it has risen along GA probably no more than ~6". The rise is largely due to a combo of warmer ocean water expanding in volume (warmer water expands) and melting land based ice. Evidence for the rise is the sharp increase in the frequency of non-storm related coastal flooding events at and near high tide over the last 10+ years, sometimes called "King tides". I know this partially because the road to Tybee (US Highway 80) has been flooding more frequently vs when I was younger. Now, granted, some of this increased flooding is likely due to settlement.
Thanks much, Larry!
You left out runoff from pumping out underground aquifers.
It's funny, but some good reports came out on how much ground water is running into the ocean and contributing to sea levels increasing........then, suddenly the scientists/climate science needed to defend their position (which is what they always do) and they generated the needed science with studies to tell us that it really isn't a big deal, which is part of the hijacking of climate science.
Objective scientists tracking it equipped with enlightened, authentic data which represents the fields they distort with manufactured, convincing sounding science, have seen this play out thousands of times the past 20 years.
I only make statements like this after observing it and being able to prove/show it with more than words.
16 November 2015
December 19, 2015
May 3, 2016
This is NOT to claim we aren't experiencing an increase in sea levels, which have risen a foot the past century and currently are increasing a over an inch/decade and increasing/accelerating slightly.
There are other important factors.
The land along the coast in many place is also changing. Some places in the higher latitudes with isostatic rebound have land rising faster than the seas.
Other places along the coast that are pumping out ground water, are causing the land to subside and it adds to the sea levels rising.
Here's a thread that covered some of that, started by joj:
Regardless of the science, we have politicians and others with an over amplified voice telling us things like this(4 years ago):
Climate science as most people know it is NOT authentic climate science. It's one side(including a bunch of biased climate scientists acting with their tribe in cahoots with dishonest media/politicians/misled environmentalists) trying to convince everybody that we have a climate crisis using ANTI science methodology.
They're selling fear with an agenda.
I have no doubt that most of them truly believe what they say.
20,000,000 Rs are convinced the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump too.
People that know the 2020 election was the most secure in history and believe in the climate crisis, especially scientists will think that comparison is absurd, even insulting.
The psychological dynamic that causes human's to behave this way is not just limited to 1 party, 1 field or based on intelligence or education............though people with higher educations have better opportunities to NOT be that way because they've experienced more POTENTIAL enlightenment via exposure from their academic environments.
But they too suffer from tribalism, cognitive bias and wanting to believe in their own forecasts/studies and making assumptions that they are right and interpreting everything thru those eyes.......instead of practicing the scientific method and trying to sincerely see what they MIGHT have wrong.
This, really is what made joj's original post so profound.
The last graph is where the people in this field mess it up so badly. Climate charlatan great visibility like Al Gore, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, Greta, and many others, including scientists sell us the high end, almost impossible projection in yellow. .........as if that's the path that 99% of scientists agree on.
So we have a climate emergency and need to act now.........when the most likely outcome is oceans being a bit over a foot higher in the year 2100.
I agree that groundwater being pumped out from aquifers is also a factor. I mentioned "settlement" above.
The point of my post was to respond to joj saying "I've been going there for 30 years and the beachfront hasn't receded a bit. Wasn't Florida supposed to be underwater by now?"
I have no idea from where this came, "Florida underwater by now" and thus would like to know. The increase in sea level has only been gradual as you and I both agree (about one foot the last 100 years). I assume mentioning FL being underwater by now wasn't meant to be an intentional extreme exaggeration. If it were, I'd consider it a straw man fallacy:
"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."
"There have been several other studies, similar to this one, using the same devious tricks to mislead people into thinking almost all scientists believe there is a climate crisis. Just the fact that they do this, tells us they must either KNOW it's a lie or their brains are so caught up in the climate religion that they do it to serve the cause of the religion which justifies the means to accomplish it."
thanks much, Larry!
"I have no idea from where this came, "Florida underwater by now" and thus would like to know"
I understand the strawman argument that you want to make but I thought you understood the example of where it came from:
"Regardless of the science, we have politicians and others with an over amplified voice telling us things like this(4 years ago):
"Bernie Sanders: ‘Major Cities Going Under Water’ in ‘8 or 9 Years’ Due to Climate Change"
In addition, to help you to understand the point:
"Some of the most memorable images from Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are the graphics that show how rising ocean levels will dramatically alter our planet’s coastlines. As Greenland’s ice sheets collapse, Gore predicts that our shores will be flooded and sea-bordering cities will sink beneath the water leaving millions of people homeless. His narration tells the audience that, due to global warming, melting ice could release enough water to cause at 20-foot rise in sea level “in the near future.”
Larry, you and I may not consider Gore a reliable source (or joj either) but he won an Emmy Award and Nobel Peace Prize for the movie well over a decade ago and his extreme predictions for oceans increasing 20 feet in the near future. Statements like this but not as extreme have been repeated thousands of times by various sources for their political agenda.
And they WERE STATED, just like with Bernie Sanders saying what he did and it making headline news. I gave you the exact quotes. Nobody is trying to distort the meaning of what these sources were claiming to create a strawman argument.
Regardless of what the authentic science says, these greatly exaggerated OVER predictions have been everywhere the past 2 decades. That's where joj heard it from.............all over the place.
While the NYT is a wonderful source for most information, they lead the charge with sensationalizing the fake climate crisis, including the sea level increase.
Let's take this extremely well thought out article 7 years ago that must have taken a tremendous amount of time working with several people that have accurate topography data for all these locations. I'm actually very impressed and learned some things from it. However!
Note that their top category, a rise of 25 feet is the one they claim is coming with no cuts "in coming centuries based on historic climate data"
Their objective is clearly not for readers to think "dang, that's a long time from now, nothing to worry about"
Instead, it's to alarm and scare people into taking actions now because of the catastrophic increase in sea levels that's already begun. That's the message they want out there for people who read them.
Set the dial at 25 feet and look at the massive flooding of our coastal cities. It really is scary as hell.
Remember too, Al Gore told us this would happen "in the near future" back in 2006.
Bernie Sanders stated "in 8 or 9 years" in 2019.
The widespread narrative from 1 side has been that we've got catastrophic sea levels coming up if we don't act now.
Obama said it here:
April 22 2015
"But it doesn’t even take rain to flood Miami these days—a high tide on a clear day in October 2012 produced a bigger flood than a hurricane that hit just 13 years earlier. According to an analysis of tide gauge data by Brian McNoldy, a meteorologist at the University of Miami, the pace of sea level rise in South Florida has more than quadrupled over the last five years compared with the previous 15. Climate change is already changing Florida, and it’s happening fast.
The mounting evidence is terrifying scientists who, after years of delays and funding shortfalls and political jabs from federal and state officials, can do little but watch as the encroaching sea slowly transforms the state’s marshes and swamps into open ocean, inch by inch."
Joj is using his own observations of the changes in the sea level of a particular location in FL the past 30 years and comparing it with some of these extreme statements............from top politicians in HIS party.
It's the extreme statements and worst case scenarios that get way over weighted by politicians and media, intentionally because hijacked climate science is about scaring people to support their cause in order to "save the planet"..........while they enrich themselves with their share of the 100s of trillions and power that the actions can generate. ............to, ironically wreck the planet (which have been massively greening up from the REAL green energy we use now-fossil fuels and CO2, a beneficial gas).
Ask yourself how many times you've read articles about rising sea levels being a problem or other coming disasters and how many articles you've read about CO2 fertilization yielding many trillions from global human food increases and more than that for the planets creatures that rely on it to grow their food? (and the booming biosphere because of the increase in CO2)
The Positive Externalities
of Carbon Dioxide:
Projecting the monetary value of this positive externality forward in time reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050.
For me, I get the impression that 1,000 articles are written about negatives related to climate change for every 1 that are about benefits, like this one that is the biggest impact of all from CO2 on our planet.
That proves right there that it can't be authentic science.
Authentic science tells us ALL the facts about the realm being discussed. The good and the bad. The truth based on empirical data and observations. Not busted speculative models based on a theory trumping the observations and being used to sell fear of a non major problem.
Polar bears, trees frogs, honey bees, bunny rabbits, humans, crops, plants, ecosystems, oceans and all the good life can't all be dying from the exact same climate and CO2 conditions that are the best thing that ever happened for ticks, fleas, rats, mosquitoes, bacteria, virus's, weeds and so on.
They want us to believe that the perfect temperature and CO2 level for all the good life was 100 years ago, before fossil fuel pollution started destroying the climate.
The warmer and more CO2 poison we spew into the atmosphere the stronger the bad life gets as it preys on the good life which is already adversely impacted from the climate crisis.
It's actually pretty funny to think humans are being bamboozled by such junk science/nonsense. But then, alot of people are being harmed, some dying because of it and the planet is being wrecked to supposedly save it.
I don't count overhyping politicians like Gore and Sanders as CC/AGW experts. They're not climate scientists.
Back to my original concern. Not that joj is doing it on purpose, but others have posed similar questions about why the overhyped, non-scientific extreme scenarios that some liberal politicians have spouted and that the vast majority of climate scientists haven't come close to predicting haven't verified. So, these folks knock down the "straw-man" spread by these attention seeking politicians that weren't even predicted by most of these experts. This leads to the mistaken conclusion that if this exaggerated straw-man conclusion is not true, then the rest of climate change is not true.
So, in essence, overhypers of CC actually do a disservice to those trying to get the realistic CC messages across.
Example: Bernie Sanders says in 2018 that Miami is going permanently under water in 2027. When that doesn't even close to happening, some folks then jump to the wrong conclusion that any sea level rise due to CC is BS.
Another example but a bit different: talking about the 101F SST buoy reading just off S FL as if it were a legitimate SST. People later realize when that buoy's SSTs fall off a cliff that it wasn't legit and thus they attack it (kind of like a straw-man) as being misleading. Then they start questioning all news about record warm SSTs, like the coral bleaching 92F at Key West, as bogus when it really isn't. That's why Dr. Masters was smart to insist that the 101F isn't legit. He attempted to get rid of the straw-man before anyone could knock it down.
So, in essence, overhypers of CC actually do a disservice to those trying to get the realistic CC messages across.
Agree but the problem is that almost EVERY message exaggerates and climate science isn't even science any more.
This includes almost all messages by the media. Almost all messages from mainstream climate scientist's. All messages from one political side and most governments.
The climate science bible which defines mainstream climate science are the junk science IPCC reports.
The UN used the IPCC(INTERGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change) to hijack climate science:
Those reports aren't designed to tell us about natural variation and cycles or to tell us 1 benefit from CO2. That would be objective, HONEST science.
Their sole purpose is to show the human fingerprint and tell governments what actions need to be taken using money. That is NOT science, it's corrupt politics!
They're not just doing it with sea levels. They do it with drought(which is NOT increasing. https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98304/
Extreme rains events that have 7% more rain from CC but the CC narrative, blames the entire event and every flooding event on CC.......turning them into 1 in 1,000 year flooding rains(even in places where the same thing happened 4 times in 100 years)
Heat waves that are 2 deg. F hotter from CC are supposedly being caused by CC.
Hottest temperatures in 1,000 years are called the hottest in 120,000 years, including many mainstream CC scientists doing it.
Hurricanes have not increased according to data/records but CC narratives tell us the opposite and blame the biggest ones on CC.
Extreme weather has NOT increased. The opposite of the mainstream CC message.
Wildfires are not close to what they were a century ago......the opposite of the mainstream science CC message.
Strong to violent tornadoes down sharply BECAUSE OF CC. The CC narrative never tells us this.
The planet is greening up. Even deserts are greening. The CC narrative almost never tells us this.
The growing season is almost 2 weeks longer, part of why the last 30 years has featured the best crop growing conditions in the last 1,000 years and best for most life. Adding in the +130 ppm CO2 and for our booming biosphere/plants, its the best in over 1 million years. The added CO2 is boosting crop yields by 26%. All animals either eat plants or something that ate plants. When have you EVER heard mainstream CC message gatekeepers tell us this?
Cold still kills 10+ times more humans and 200+ times more life, even after this warming. Mainstream CC is silent on this.
It's much, much more than some outlier politicians or media sources over hyping or sensationalizing as you seem to suggest and that the real mainstream scientists all have it right.
NO THEY DON'T!
If they did, they would be telling us about the above which is all authentic science based on rock solid empirical data to back it up at those links(I have 100+ more just like that).
Again, the entire field of climate science was hijacked and almost ALL the messages we get, including from mainstream climate science is blatantly biased. Based on busted models, not empirical data. Based on cherry picking the extreme places. Based on defending a speculative theory with proven flawed equations. Based on NOT telling us any of the wonderful elements to climate change that outshine the constantly exaggerated bad stuff.
cutworm brought up early frost fears earlier on Tuesday based on a sources comment, so I thought that would make for a great comprehensive study.
I'm still not done and am trying to get as much data as possible but it didn't just confirm what I knew about the lower and lower risk of freeze damage to crops because of global warming, which is a no brainer but when I dug deeper, it showed how profoundly beneficial climate change has been by expanding the growing season by 2 weeks.
Some of the most crop damaging events in the past have been from major, widespread freezes in parts of the Cornbelt.
There's only been 1 like that in the last 49 years(1995).
The growing season has increased in the colder places by enough to make a significant positive contribution to crop production.
I was NOT looking for this data with that in mind but its just another piece of evidence to prove that we're having a climate optimum.
If one looks at the US drought history in the Midwest (where we grow crops), we find the exact same thing. Droughts have increased in the Southwest (where we don't grow crops-they are deserts, man)
Climate change is greatly helping to protect our crop growing region from widespread, major droughts as well as from major freeze damage.
The US Cornbelt is the most fertile/productive ground on the planet.
The biggest threat, every year by a huge margin has always been from the weather. Climate change has greatly reduced that threat.
Outside of here, when was the last time you read that?
Global climate models that mainstream climate scientists use, based on greenhouse gas warming have been saying for 2 decades that warmer temperatures and an increase in drought would be increasing stress on crops and reducing yields.
They've been wrong and will continue to be wrong based on observations, agronomy and photosynthesis.
Look at what happens when we, instead use a model based on photosynthesis and observations of the real world:
That model has been nailing the real (greening) world and booming biosphere and predicts that it will continue for the next 80 years.
Why don't we ever here about this????
On the increase in the length of the growing season.
1. This is also increasing the length of the wildfire season, a bad thing which is all we hear about.
2. Increasing CO2 is also increasing fuel loads from the increase in plant growth another thing causing wildfires to be WORSE (still not as bad as 100 years ago with lower CO2 but worse drought and firefighting)
But it’s absurd to rationalize that C02, the building block of life and beneficial gas is pollution because of its role in photosynthesis which increases wildfire intensities.
However, that’s the narrative we get from many in the CC club.
Serial killers all ate/eat food, right? Is the food they ate/eat harmful to humanity because it went into a body that used it for fuel when they killed innocent victims?
Mainstream climate science cherry picks all the negatives, then spin, exaggerate and sensationalize them and never discuss the positives.
That’s not authentic science.
That’s exactly what we do in politics…..which this is all about.
That's exactly what we do with religion, based on faith in something that can’t be proven. In this case, faith in busted climate models that have 42% more CO2 forcing than measured with empirical data but they refuse to adjust the equations, which authentic science would do immediately.
My statement was uttered without any citations. I didn't mean it literally. I meant it as a general statement to characterize the alarmist declarations I've heard.
I'll leave it to our expert to cite actual alarmist warnings that have not come true.
Further, I consider myself solidly agnostic. The Florida beachfront of my cousin is but one data point.
I am open to others on both sides of the debate.
I Had numerous conversations with Alex M. the 2 years before he passed suddenly, so I got to know him a bit.
He would call here trying to twist my arm to take over as moderator but I resisted,though we hit it off conversing.
You wouldn’t have known that he was very liberal from casual conversations but he was also open minded.
I didn’t find out how liberal he really was until having conversations with his cherished wife, Kate After he passed.
she also was very liberal but insisted that Alex was MORE liberal than her.
He worked as a reporter for Reuters for decades, so that makes total sense. I was on broadcast tv for 11 years as the chief meteorologist for WEHT in Evansville.
Most of the people I worked with were Ds and some pretty liberal.
Kate told me that her and Alex agreed on everything, especially in politics…….except for one thing.
The climate crisis!
10 years earlier, they agreed on that too but after reading all my posts on the topic, he changed his view.
I didn’t realize that until she told me.
That Was powerful evidence of an opened minded person Who used critical thinking, not tribalism, not political affiliation, not wanting to believe things because they line up with an ideology.
Joj, you remind me of Alex In this thread.
Larry, you‘re not liberal enough to qualify (-:
Thanks. I'm in the middle. I strongly dislike the alarmism/overhype including blind blame by the MSM and many mainly liberal politicians placed on seemingly every major wx event on CC, extreme model runs (I don't trust them), and alarmists being close minded to discussion/debate. But at the same time I accept the general ideas surrounding AGW like Mike does, including that it has caused 2-3F warming so far and about a foot on average of sea level increase due to warmer oceans and melting land based polar ice. I also dislike those conservative politicians who totally dismiss AGW.
I agree since I'm a proud moderate!
I’m with you on being a moderate or centrist or independent….whatever you want to call us.
on your climate change belief, you continue to be able to see both sides and have been gifting us with numerous posts on that topic recently for which we are grateful!
Let's make the world better and stop the fear-mongering
|Fear-mongering and the suppression of truly inconvenient truths are pushing us dangerously toward the wrong solutions.|
Jordan Peterson and Lomborg highlight how the meaningful exchange of truly diverse ideas and perspectives has withered over recent decades.
Instead, we need to foster critical thinking and constructive discussion. This is the goal of the new Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), an international coalition of politicians, business leaders, public intellectuals and cultural commentators.
One of the crucial goals is to help the poorer half of the world focusing on the 12 best policies identified in Copenhagen Consensus’ Halftime project.
The book shows how the world’s 12 most efficient policies, for just $35 billion a year, could save more than four million lives per year, and generate annual economic benefits worth over a trillion dollars.