Climate Change

Science and Technology
625

You can put it any way you want. It is the idea that I am after, and this is simple thought. If you have a psychological problem because of religion and can only relate creation to religion. Then we can use another word if you like. I am mainly taking about creation before religion and way before the timeline of deities.

As far as dogs. I use dogs because they have been debated for years. The 40 or 42 breeds depending on which data you are using claimed all dogs were created in Europe. Then over the years it was argued that some of the breeds were created in the India area. And only a couple years ago the debate ended because of the DNA studies showed that all breeds came from the India area.

The 12,000 years ago number you used is a datum point on the historical timeline. The 130,000 years is in line with the pre-history thinking coming out of India for years. They even claim it goes back as far as 300K. I set my perimeters at 74K and do not spend any time going past that point. But the 130K does have logic and follows some thinking in India.

A few years back on this site you would have been called out for going past 40K because the exit from Africa did not start until 40K ago. Today it is looked at as three exits out of Africa. Going back 180K and now open to going back further.

The start of civilization in my lifetime. Started in Egypt. Was moved to Jordan. Was moved to Israel. Was moved to Syria. Then was the fertile crescent which covers the Mesopotamia area. But the seeds that show the wild grass to domesticated grains are still not found in the fertile crescent. Today the scientists have given up on finding the start of civilization because of reaching the end of history and having to get into pre-history and the access to India and China.

Nature uses the survival of the fittest. Creation does not.

“Let’s make one thing clear. Natural selection does not create anything.” I agree. Yes, that is what I am saying too.

The way I deal with the subject is using three pathways. Natural, Creation (Domestication) and Laboratory (scientists). The root is always nature.

If it is ok with you we should talk about these items in another posting and get back to Climate Change.

We should look at where the earth is at in the warm and cold cycles. Then, agree if mother nature is still operating as in the past cycles. Then how much Climate Change is changing mother nature. And how can we do this. As the public we should watch what ideas are being emboldened by the dollar.

What do you know about the GSM? And why don’t you know about the GSM? I brought the GSM years ago when the climatologists were telling us about GSM. And clouds. Before that I brought up the clouds not being used in models. CC claimed that clouds zero out and the sun cycle were too small to have any effect. And CC was right with the thinking of the tax dollar paid scientists at the time.

Today the scientists are studying the clouds. I believed forced to because of the none taxpay paid scientists still backing the sun and clouds as a part of Global Warming. So, who oversees the taxpayer money used for Climate Change?

I believe the private sector would have had the computer programs up and running years ago.

Has Climate Change been hijacked by the government for political goals?

“Who are big players in Climate Change. Well Michael Mann for one.

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING

                            HEARING
                           BEFORE THE
                          COMMITTEE ON
                  ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                      UNITED STATES SENATE
                   ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
                         FIRST SESSION
                           _________
                       SEPTEMBER 28, 2005

……………
Second, the flaws in Mann’s work were not caught by climate
scientists but, rather, by outsiders, in this case, an
economist and a mathematician. They had to go to great lengths
to obtain their data from Mann’s team, which obstructed them at
every turn. When the Canadians sought help from the NSA, which
was the funding Agency, they were told that Mann was under no
obligation to provide his data to other researchers for
independent verification.”

Does this sound right to you? Is this how science works? Why in the hell is the NSA funding Climate Change? In the 16 years since this hearing how far have we come in Climate Change science? How far have we come in Climate Change regulation? Red flags all over the climate science. For one, Pennsylvania State University has partnered with the NSA for NSA projects. Mann, Penn State.

Point being. Is this bad or good? Well, good if it moves Climate Change forward. Bad if it slows up the progress of Climate Change. In 1961 we took on the moon landing project. By 1969 we were on the moon. There are no signs that the Climate Change project is nothing more than a damn political project.

Mann, a head Climate Change scientist writing books (The Madhouise Effect,” about climate-change denial. Is that political or science?

626

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:625, topic:7916”]

I am mainly talking about creation before religion and way before the timeline of deities.

Why do you insist in the word “creation” as if complete “irreducibly complex” things just appear out of nowhere. That is not how it works.

The correct term is evolution over long periods of time creates (results in) speciation. This is not intentional creation of something new. Natural selection is the uncreation of something old and the passive way of “allowing” evolutionary progressions of something new and better (more complex).

627

(Last paragraph from that). As for why humans might have become domesticated in the first place, hypotheses abound. Wrangham favors the idea that as early people formed cooperative societies, evolutionary pressures favored mates whose features were less “alpha,” or aggressive. “There was active selection, for the very first time, against the bullies and the genes that favored their aggression,” he adds. But so far, “Humans are the only species that have managed this.”

Would it be a safe conjecture that what was happening was evolution - the human mind was processing ever more information, reflection and introspection, constant new experiences leads to more reflection and introspection. Leading to different ways of dealing with new situations.

Also thinking about it, sound like it could be more a case of Human “Free-Won’t” developing, as much as “domestication”.

In a related way something I’ve found missing from articles about humans and stone tools, is that the copy cat factor is never mentioned.

In my own wonderings I’ve stumbled across may excellent stone tools of natural origin - after all stones break, that’s a natural constant you can count on - shales especially seem to break up into useful sharp fragments, even sharp awls.

So I’m thinking tool making started all over the place about the same time - because the mind was the original limiting factor. The Earth’s biosphere, had rock tools laying around all over the place. But it’s the ability to recognize, understand, copy, imagine, experiment, execute that took time to develop, bit by bit, the way an infant learns to crawl.

At every step of the way Earth’s biosphere was there teaching these new brainy creatures, with their intellectual abilities relentlessly increased.

I think it’s fair to imagine that using fire, created the first (forced?) cooperation situations (although can’t even say that cooperation was always needed), it’s also what supercharged our nutrition and made our super brains possible. Building, maintaining fire, food gathering, prep’ing food, eating together, making and breaking camp, all that required cooperation and the a-hole in the crowd probably stood out, and one thing leads to another.

Also, these scientist take our “domestication” as something incredible, but heck, come on, look at mammalians, the breast feeders. Countless examples of caring, cooperative, nurturing families, domestic tranquility even, only thing different about human “domestication” is all the luggage we bring along and live with.

But, the trend to civil social intercourse is no invention of the Homo sapiens.

628

I used creation because of how it was used in the translations of our past history.

What word would you like to use?

Another word passed down in translation that is very confusing for people who start studying history today is “GOD”. It means knowledge in most translations. But people today relate it to deities as used in Paul’s pathway of Christianity. The Egyptians use the system of titles. Like happiness, fairness, caring. God meant a person of knowledge. A title. That’s why all pharaohs were also gods because they controlled knowledge. Like Mexico today, people in Egypt were known by three or four names in the past.

629

FIRST REALITY - Michael Mann’s paper was a ground breaking study, THERE WAS NEVER ANY CLAIM THAT THE PAPER WAS FLAWLESS!

Flawless science doesn’t exist you idiotic creature. The paper itself discussed its own limitations, it was a work to be built upon!!! And it has been. Besides today’s reality fits very neatly with Mann’s calculation.

The life blood of science is debate and skepticism and controversy - But the foundation of science is TRUTH, something you MikeYohe rejects with cynical glee, as repeatedly demonstrated in your criminally fraudulent accusations against honorable trustworthy experts.
Your malicious deceptive slander is contemptible.

630

Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, the year’s globally averaged temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit (1.02 degrees Celsius) warmer than the baseline 1951-1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The year 2020 edged out 2016 by a very small amount, within the margin of error of the analysis, making the years effectively tied for the warmest year on record.
NASA Climate Change

A Tale of Two Hockey Sticks

9 AUG 2021 BY Mike Mann

Two decades ago, the so-called “Hockey Stick” curve, published in 1999 by me and my co-authors (Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 1999), was featured in the all-important “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM) of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment report. The curve, which depicted temperature variations over the past 1000 years estimated from “proxy data such as tree rings, corals, ice cores, and lake sediments”, showed the upward spiking of modern temperatures (the “blade”) as it dramatically ascends, during the industrial era, upward from the “handle” that describes the modest, slightly downward steady trend that preceded it.

The Hockey Stick became an icon in the case for human-caused climate change, and I found myself at the center of the contentious climate debate (I’ve described my experiences in “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”).

Featured two decades later now in the AR6 SPM is a longer Hockey Stick with an even sharper blade. And no longer just for the Northern Hemisphere, it now covers the whole globe. The recent warming is seen not only to be unprecedented over the past millennium, but tentatively, the past hundred millennia. …

Screen Shot 2021-08-27 at 12.14.43 PM
Screen Shot 2021-08-27 at 12.14.43 PM1236×742 176 KB

The relevant statements in the SPM and Technical Summary are: … source

631

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:628, topic:7916”]

What word would you like to use?

Evolution!

1 Like
632

I will try and be carful in this reply because I understand that Climate Change is a type of religion to you, and you feel I am criticizing your god.

Having no problem with scientists making mistakes. Happens all the time. My views as a layman of what the court records show is that Mann published reports and got assigned to high government appointments that controlled the flow of grant money. Then got questioned on his reports. But would not share his data so that his reports could be checked by peers.

The Penn university legally went after anyone criticizing Mann. One scientist not wanting to share data is really not that uncommon. But a university backing up that movement could really hurt the scientific system that is used in America and Europe. And being endorsed by the Government by high appointment smells of a swamp action.

Then no reaction by America’s academic community raised the hair on all the climate change enthusiasts and retired scientists and working climatologists. As American universities work by grants. The bulk of resistance came from Canada as an effort to move the court actions out of America where they can take decades to process.

Then the rights of journalists became tangled up by lawsuits over First Amendment rights.

National Review July 30, 2021
“Still, this is not how we should want to settle political or scientific questions in American life. If the Michael Manns of the world were to prevail, the United States would become a tremendously cramped place, in which journalists, advocates, teachers, and everyone else would be obliged to engage in debate with one eye turned back over their shoulders. In effect, Mann is attempting to set up a real “court of public opinion,” and to have it serve as an arbiter of truth. There are many ways of describing such an attempt, but “science” is not among them. We can only hope that the jurors who will be called upon to bring this case to a close will have enough sense about them to agree.”

633

[quoteSure, I can figure out how to connect it to the three pathways with more wordage. Manmade evolution or Scientific evolution like the Covid-19. =“write4u, post:631, topic:7916”]
Evolution
[/quote]

634

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:633, topic:7916”]

Sure, I can figure out how to connect it to the three pathways with more wordage. Manmade evolution or Scientific evolution like the Covid-19. =“write4u, post:631, topic:7916”] Evolution

Scientific (Darwinian) evolution does not start with an irreducible complex pattern. It starts with the evolution of Abiogenesis, the gradual evolutionary change from " chemistry → bio-chemistry → evolved living patterns → living complex micro-biomes.

Man-made evolution starts with a reducible complex pattern and forces unnatural manmade selection on the evolutionary process i.e. “evolved species → man-made selection for desirable traits → further evolved species”.

635

Evolution is different than creation. Evolution has to do with traits that mostly have to do with survival. Creation is more about genetic manipulation. Evolution takes a long time in nature. Creation takes a very little time.

Medieval farmers created the plow horse. Huge. Miners created the pit pony, mine pony or we call the Shetland pony. Small. Google “Belted Cow” and go to Images. Neat.

The goal is to communication over time without losing the meaning.

636

This is basically trolling, but I know you don’t mean it. I recently read an article about conspiracy theorists. They demand 100% proof for anything they don’t agree with, and use the slightest bit of information that partially agrees with them as evidence for their position. That’s you Mike. That’s not science. You have never demonstrated an understanding of scientific methods. I hope you continue to keep your participation here tolerable.

637

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:635, topic:7916, full:true”]

Evolution is different than creation. Evolution has to do with traits that mostly have to do with survival. Creation is more about genetic manipulation. Evolution takes a long time in nature. Creation takes a very little time.

Creation of what takes very little time? Do you know the definition of creation other than a Creator God.
Let’s get the definitions established, shall we?

CREATION, noun

  1. the act or process of creating
  2. the fact of being created or produced
  3. something that has been brought into existence or created, esp a product of human intelligence or imagination

EVOLUTION

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3]
Including evolution by “human selection” for desirable traits.

Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population.[4]

It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules.[5][6]

Medieval farmers created the plow horse. Huge. Miners created the pit pony, mine pony or we call the Shetland pony. Small. Google “Belted Cow” and go to Images. Neat.

No they did not create these horses. Horses existed long before humans.
Humans evolved (verb) a prior existing horse breed into a plow horse. Miners evolved the pit pony from a prior existing breed of pony. A variety of horses had evolved long before man even walked the earth.

Evolution of the horse

Evolution of the horse

Evolution of the horse over the past 55 million years. The present-day Przewalski’s horse is believed to be the only remaining example of a wild horse—i.e., the last remaining modern horse to have evolved by natural selection. Numbered bones in the forefoot illustrations trace the gradual transition from a four-toed to a one-toed animal.

image
image690×388 63.7 KB

The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all paleontology. The history of the horse family, Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch, which lasted from about 56 million to 33.9 million years ago. During the early Eocene there appeared the first ancestral horse, a hoofed, browsing mammal designated correctly as Hyracotherium but more commonly called Eohippus, the “dawn horse.”

Do you know what man created? Man created a Higgs boson in the Cern collider, which had never been possible before. This particle appeared for a single instant and promptly decayed (devolved) into simpler forms. They created this particle inside the collider by applied mathematics.

The goal is to communication over time without losing the meaning.

I agree and we must begin by using the proper scientific nomenclature.

638

You are utterly contemptible. IT’S ABOUT HONEST AND DEMONSTRABLE FACTS

Having no problem with scientists making mistakes. Happens all the time. My views as a layman of what the court records show is that Mann published reports and got assigned to high government appointments that controlled the flow of grant money. Then got questioned on his reports. But would not share his data so that his reports could be checked by peers.

Right there you acknowledge that you actually don’t understand anything about what’s what. You’re just repeating propaganda lines as thought that’s the most natural thing in the world.

Mike Yohe you don’t actually understand anything about the details, you are unschooled and have zero interest in learning. - All you want is to slander Dr Mann, because you and your ilk, hate the message, truthful though it might be, and Republican’s believe ignoring the problem is your only option to the continued u’all are so desperate for. So proudly pathetic and destructive in the long run.

I notice you totally ignored those explanatory links and Mann recent article -
Mike Yohe, if you were acting in good faith. you’d focus on this before continuing with your sanctimonious sermons. But you don’t, instead all we get is more lip flapping and Republican scripted science by rhetoric and misdirection.

First Amendment Right to endlessly repeat and stand by utter and demonstrable lies?
First Amendment Right to stop the public from seriously learning about climate science?
First Amendment Right to vandalize careers?
First Amendment Right to engage in tactical malicious dishonest Slander
First Amendment Right to disregard proven facts and figures?
First Amendment Right to refuse to learn anything?
First Amendment Right to simply continue with your lie you’ve staked your everything on?
First Amendment Right to show utter contempt for others valid achievements?
First Amendment Right to be a sociopath?
and on and on

639

No that doesn’t hold water either. Evolution can’t be over simplified that way, it has to do with adapting to changing conditions and environments, and of course in the end everything we do can be said to have to with our survival. It seems you’re drawing distinctions where they don’t really exist.

Don’t that expose a certain state of mine.
Like trump claiming he’s a “self made” man.

Or mine and factory owners and the like: This is mine, all mine. I made this! I am the Lord and you shall bow down to me because I am a master of the universe and you are my chattel to be bent to my service, by the force of my ego and will-power. BEHOLD I CREATED ALL THIS

1 Like
640

Now, if Mike had said, man created the mule, I would have tacitly agreed, because the mule is mainly human bred and both hinnies (male mule) and mollies (female mule) are sterile and are unable to procreate themselves and thus cannot establish a separate species.

Origin of Mules

Mules are hybrid animals resulting from the crossbreeding of a horse mother and a donkey father. While it’s possible for horses and donkeys to breed in the wild, the vast majority of mules have been created by humans through selective breeding. Mules have been human companions for millennia, highly valued for their unique physical traits and amiable personalities.

Where the two animal types coexist in the same habitat, it’s possible for horses and donkeys to breed in the wild to produce mules. This happens rarely, however, and while horses and donkeys are able to breed, nearly all the mules humans use they bred themselves. Humans have bred mules for thousands of years.

According to the American Mule Museum, the ancient people of Paphlagonia and Nicaea, a region now within north and northwestern Turkey, were the first to breed mules. Heiroglyphic records indicate that the ancient Egyptians used mules as their preferred pack animals over camels. In many ancient Mediterranean, European and Middle Eastern cultures, mules were considered a much more valuable animal than horses or donkeys and were often reserved as the steed of royalty.

Christopher Columbus is credited with breeding mules for the first time in the New World. Since then they’ve been used throughout North America for a variety of purposes.

https://animals.mom.com/did-humans-create-mules-3306.html

641

I do appreciate what mules are, and where they came from, but I still don’t see the distinction. “Create” is such an arrogant and inappropriate term for breeding. Heck they even say it happens in nature.

Although now with genetic manipulation, splicing, mixing and matching genes and seeing what that gets us - there I think I’d have to admit “create” feels appropriate.

1 Like
642

If I could find a scientist, a completely objective one, and he wouldn’t have to be a "climate scientist who’s been magically asleep for the past 40 years and ask him after he woke up; "Can you tell me if the earth is warmer than usual, colder than usual or roughly the same temperature and I informed him that there’s been no nuclear winter from thermonuclear explosions, there’s been no larger than normal volcanic activity, no climate altering comet or asteroid impact, he would say this; "All I need to know is one very simple fact; what’s the CO2 level of the atmosphere? I would say in return “It’s abnormally high.” He would then say, "Well then your world’s temperature is also abnormally high because carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global temperature always, (repeat) always travel in tandem. This has been true for the entirety of earth’s history and will remain so for it’s entire life. The primary thermostat for our planet’s temperature isn’t clouds, oceans, oscillations in it’s orbit around the sun or the cycles that change the tilt of earth’s axis over time, its carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and this is why CO2 is square at the center of the raging debate about global warming. Human activity is the source of this overloaded CO2 level in our biosphere, nothing else.

1 Like
643

On that note, here’s a golden oldie from 1958:

greenman3610

greenman3610

Support Climate Denial Crock of the Week- go to: http://www.climatecrocks.com The famous Bell Telephone Hour clip, with the all knowing Dr Frank Baxter explaining a very modern understanding of climate science in 1958. Enlightening and infuriating.

Show this to your ditto head buddy who thinks global warming was invented by Al Gore (or Dr Michael Mann). Many people have seen this on other sites, but I thought it would be good to make it part of the Climate Crocks playlist.

1 Like
644

Are you really reading articles about conspiracy theorists! Sorry to hear that.