Global Warming & Deforestation – Do You Continue Doing Art?

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Altair

Belief in Santa wasn't and isn't a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a set of principles that are based on empirical observation and are established facts. Gravity is a 'theory', as is biological evolution. They're not ''just theories like Santa''.

I haven't implied that believing in Santa is or isn't a scientific theory have I . I simply gave an explanation of how a belief that falls upon the majority doesn't make it true . Potentially there are millions that believe the world is flat, is doesn't make it true, even when many refer to science that backs this theory up .

Originally Posted by Altair

a pity, because soy (and palm oil) are main causes of deforestation (SEE ALSO THREAD TITLE). IOW, directly related to the thread. OP asked if we are justified to do nothing, or not focus on this all the time. To that I say, yes and no. We can't focus on it 24/7 and shouldn't (we have a life to live) but it's still, in my opinion, good to ask where our food comes from and how it is produced, and what impact it had on the environment. This all directly relates to the topic.

Casting doubt on the science is not related to the topic and not what OP was interested in. People who have an interest in that are the ones with an agenda here. It's so obvious.

I didn't read it because I am not disputing certain effects that have an impact on our environmental climate change . I am just not buying into what is immediate as discussed already .

Originally Posted by Altair

it goes so deep ''in all fields of work'' that you happen to know all about it, and all those silly scientists either don't know it or they're part of the plot. Brilliant narrative, would make for a good plot in a work of fiction or a video game. Less so in real life.


Not the topic.

Maybe you could give your thoughts to the questions raised by OP. You know, talk about the actual topic?

There are many fields of work that contain theories built upon agendas .

I don't profess to know them all, it's just rife and have given examples .

In regards to agendas and the scientists that fall in line with the governments objectives, there can be both an alignment into believing a theory to be true and also not . Each to their own . It appears that you speculate in what I mean and then portray that speculation in a way that makes me out to be as mad as a hatter . Why do you do that?

In regards to keeping to the topic at hand, climate changes and the reasons why hasn't been to far from my thoughts .

Like said it's relevant to know that not all scientific results give a true reflection of the actual, it's not going off topic if it relates to how one comes to scientific conclusions regarding the reasons for why the climate is changing is it .

Otherwise everyone would believe everything they are told .

You don't see a government environmental theory being promoted by a scientist that says the opposite do you .

This is why I have said that certain Dr's get stuck off the list because they are not falling in line are they .

It wasn't that long ago that mainstream Dr's were saying eggs were bad for you until it has been completely reversed .

Not all information is correct is it . All the research made wasn't true . All these so called experts were not correct .

So it doesn't matter if these Dr's at the time knew that eggs or certain fats and salts were good for you or not, it depends on the foundation that they are working for doesn't it . One either follows their guidelines or they are out .

It's no different in other fields of work .. That's all I am saying . No conspiracy here . No science fiction film in the pipe line either .



x daz x

[Altair]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I haven't implied that believing in Santa is or isn't a scientific theory have I . I simply gave an explanation of how a belief that falls upon the majority doesn't make it true . Potentially there are millions that believe the world is flat, is doesn't make it true, even when many refer to science that backs this theory up .

Of course not... you just happen to bring up Santa as a 'theory' that people believe in, and somehow that is related to the topic at hand. Well not really, G-L. Nice try, but it won't wash. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Look it up.

Originally Posted by God-Like

There are many fields of work that contain theories built upon agendas .
I don't profess to know them all, it's just rife and have given examples .
In regards to agendas and the scientists that fall in line with the governments objectives, there can be both an alignment into believing a theory to be true and also not . Each to their own . It appears that you speculate in what I mean and then portray that speculation in a way that makes me out to be as mad as a hatter . Why do you do that?
In regards to keeping to the topic at hand, climate changes and the reasons why hasn't been to far from my thoughts .
Like said it's relevant to know that not all scientific results give a true reflection of the actual, it's not going off topic if it relates to how one comes to scientific conclusions regarding the reasons for why the climate is changing is it .
Otherwise everyone would believe everything they are told .
You don't see a government environmental theory being promoted by a scientist that says the opposite do you .

Much of the above is conspiracy rhetoric. It's about casting doubt on the science. It goes like this: ''because the government says there is climate change it cannot be true, can it?! It must be wrong because they say it is true. I don't trust the government and I don't like how covid 19 is handled therefore no climate change, and certainly no human impact on the climate!'' I'm tired and done with all this ''government says X and therefore it must be Y, cuz me is smart!''

I'm not interested in what the government says about it when I can observe things myself and talk to people working in the field, to farmers experiencing the changes across decades, and to other people interested in ecosystems and animal behaviour. I don't depend on the government for the information, and if said government acknowledges the science then good. It's a start. I suppose you think the previous US administration were all Red Pilled, weren't they, when they denied the science and called it all a hoax?

Originally Posted by God-Like

This is why I have said that certain Dr's get stuck off the list because they are not falling in line are they .It wasn't that long ago that mainstream Dr's were saying eggs were bad for you until it has been completely reversed .Not all information is correct is it .
So it doesn't matter if these Dr's at the time knew that eggs or certain fats and salts were good for you or not, it depends on the foundation that they are working for doesn't it . One either follows their guidelines or they are out .
It's no different in other fields of work .. That's all I am saying . No conspiracy here . No science fiction film in the pipe line either .

Conflating topics again. First with covid 19, now with eggs..

Incidentally, the issue may just be with you not understanding the complexity of any of these topics. Perhaps eggs are healthy and unhealthy, depending on context (how much you eat, the quality of said eggs, health of the chickens involved, etc.). Many times we deal with complex topics but many people just read some news article and don't look into the research behind it, instead remembering the big headlines and screams of the media. The issue is often with the reader. I don't need an answer from you but your initial post in this thread also showed you lack complex thinking when you believe one or two cold winter weeks here in Europe disprove decades of research into general trends.

But to each their own. I'm glad most people take the topic seriously. And when the lockdowns are over, playtime with conspiracies will be over for many people.

[Lucky 1]

Altair......deforestation is one of the real enviromental issues i will agree with you on.

Along with human reliance on polymers, it is a real and pressing problem

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Altair

Of course not... you just happen to bring up Santa as a 'theory' that people believe in, and somehow that is related to the topic at hand. Well not really, G-L. Nice try, but it won't wash. Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Look it up.

I am bringing Santa into the fold to explain how not all beliefs are true even if the majority hold them to be . I gave the flat earth theory as an example also, both arguments are based upon certain scientific theories .

Originally Posted by Altair

of the above is conspiracy rhetoric. It's about casting doubt on the science. It goes like this: ''because the government says there is climate change it cannot be true, can it?! It must be wrong because they say it is true. I don't trust the government and I don't like how covid 19 is handled therefore no climate change, and certainly no human impact on the climate!'' I'm tired and done with all this ''government says X and therefore it must be Y, cuz me is smart!''

I'm not interested in what the government says about it when I can observe things myself and talk to people working in the field, to farmers experiencing the changes across decades, and to other people interested in ecosystems and animal behaviour. I don't depend on the government for the information, and if said government acknowledges the science then good. It's a start. I suppose you think the previous US administration were all Red Pilled, weren't they, when they denied the science and called it all a hoax?

You're speculating again, and making something out that isn't true .. Casting doubt on science reflects the agenda and the foundation . This is why I gave the eggs as an example . There was enough research over the years to suggest. that fats, salt and eggs to name a few was bad for the heart and brain . Now the science behind this research was flawed . So one has a right to question the validity of science and how results and conclusions are made .. You have many peeps that have worked in fields of biochemistry for a life time to say the opposite of what the government bodies are saying against the virus/vaccine, so again you have to look at the agenda and the science provided . You have to look at the financial investments peeps have made into promoting the virus etc etc .

Have you seen the list of government officials and their partners that stand to make a lot of money promoting the vaccine?

I understand that you're interested in peeps on the ground level like farmers and such likes, but they are speaking about the immediate aren't they, they are speaking about life now compared to how it was 10 years ago or a generation ago . This isn't the whole story is it . No one is arguing the fact that things are changing now . No-one is disputing that the rainforests play their part or any one of these points made on this thread as contributing factors .

But alas despite the evidence of the immediate farmers observations and perhaps keen wildlife enthusiasts governments do have agendas and make money from them and you don't have scientific experts saying the opposite . They are shown the door . If science is king then how can you have different scientific theories conflicting in nature . This is the point when you can use science and medicine in a way where you can spin your own agendas from it . In other words you make it fit .

Originally Posted by Altair

topics again. First with covid 19, now with eggs..

Incidentally, the issue may just be with you not understanding the complexity of any of these topics. Perhaps eggs are healthy and unhealthy, depending on context (how much you eat, the quality of said eggs, health of the chickens involved, etc.). Many times we deal with complex topics but many people just read some news article and don't look into the research behind it, instead remembering the big headlines and screams of the media. The issue is often with the reader. I don't need an answer from you but your initial post in this thread also showed you lack complex thinking when you believe one or two cold winter weeks here in Europe disprove decades of research into general trends.

But to each their own. I'm glad most people take the topic seriously. And when the lockdowns are over, playtime with conspiracies will be over for many people.

I said that agendas are rife in all fields of life .. so I gave examples .. this is why I have spoken about foods, medicine and vaccines ..

You keep on putting me down mate, which is not cool for you to do so and you make me out to be some kind of idiot and mad hatter .

For the record if you actually read what I said about this cold winter I gave this example in relation to mainstream global warming reports where we are to expect a common trend of warmer winters ..

This isn't the case is it . We have had also drier summers as said also .

So please stop speculating in regards to what you think I mean and what I say when you're not even doing that accurately yourself .



x daz x

[Altair]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I am bringing Santa into the fold to explain how not all beliefs are true even if the majority hold them to be . I gave the flat earth theory as an example also, both arguments are based upon certain scientific theories .

Not really. Santa and Flat Earth ''theory'' are not based upon ''scientific theories'' ((a theory based on theories, also confusing...)).

Originally Posted by God-Like

You're speculating again, and making something out that isn't true .. Casting doubt on science reflects the agenda and the foundation . This is why I gave the eggs as an example . There was enough research over the years to suggest. that fats, salt and eggs to name a few was bad for the heart and brain . Now the science behind this research was flawed . So one has a right to question the validity of science and how results and conclusions are made .. You have many peeps that have worked in fields of biochemistry for a life time to say the opposite of what the government bodies are saying against the virus/vaccine, so again you have to look at the agenda and the science provided . You have to look at the financial investments peeps have made into promoting the virus etc etc .

Lets not whinge about eggs and coronavirus. They got nothing to do with this thread, G-L. How are these very different topics a discredit to observations made by climatologists, ecologists and environmental scientists?

Originally Posted by God-Like

Have you seen the list of government officials and their partners that stand to make a lot of money promoting the vaccine?

I am not really interested in anti-vaxx arguments. No doubt some make money out of it (some work in that field). But it got nothing to do with the topic. The fact that you think it does, or that there is some doubt about climate science because elsewhere other scientists make vaccines (apparently bad?) is mind boggling (at least, to me).

Originally Posted by God-Like

But alas despite the evidence of the immediate farmers observations and perhaps keen wildlife enthusiasts governments do have agendas and make money from them and you don't have scientific experts saying the opposite . They are shown the door . If science is king then how can you have different scientific theories conflicting in nature . This is the point when you can use science and medicine in a way where you can spin your own agendas from it . In other words you make it fit .

This is just more conspiracy. It's the same old story of there being some cover up and the truth has to be the opposite of what the government says, obviously. Just more Ickean/Jones styled logic. It's how they make their money. They need to sell you the alternative story because that is how THEY generate an income.

Nonetheless, it does not change the reality that climate change happens and that humans make it worse. We already did thousands of years ago when we hunted megafauna to extinction, changing regional and even continental environment. If large grazers disappear from a region then that will impact the climate. If you make changes to the environment (say by destroying forests) on a global level then you impact global climate.

Government doesn't have to give space to a climate change denier nor do they have to listen to a young-earth-creationist or an anti-vaxxer when implementing policy. They got better things to do, I reckon.

Originally Posted by God-Like

For the record if you actually read what I said about this cold winter I gave this example in relation to mainstream global warming reports where we are to expect a common trend of warmer winters ..

Which is true if we look at the last couple of decades. Winters are becoming milder throughout much of Europe. Throughout the 20th century we had many ice skating (outdoor) events here, in the 21st century we've had none. We've had a few icy weeks in the early 2010s, likely related to one of those natural cycles, but the overall trend is still one of warming. One (maybe two) cold weeks right now don't change the trend of milder winters and hotter summers. It seems all those hot and dry summers were just a coincidence? Or perhaps not, and there's been a trend for decades that does reflect what scientists have said. Having said that, it would actually be great if they were wrong about it, and we have a proper winter period like this each year, and some damn rain in the summer. I would prefer if they were wrong about it but sadly they aren't.

[running]

Originally Posted by Altair

That's what it all comes down to eh, Running? Your interests. It's not about the environment, or communities hit by impact of climate change, or loss of biodiversity. It's all about you and your stocks. Of course you align with Fox and with fossil fuel lobbyists. Why listen to scientists anyway? They're all nasty elitists. Instead we're all much better off taking the word of random Americans not studying the actual topics over that of the scientific community when it comes to understanding the natural world!

i couldn't disagree more with your discernment. i don't watch fox or tbe others. i dont even own a tv. my girlfriend has one and she watches the weather. its not from fox. its local. nothing wrong with watching news with discernment. i just happen to not watch. you may believe whatever. i don't care. you keep bringing up what your going to do about it. i said im buying oil stocks. whats going to happen? should do well. i could make multitudes more in my uranium stocks. why? its the only reasonable energy source that creates far less co2 by magnitudes to conventional and alternative energy. takes a lot of co2 to build the alternative and it doesn't give back much. uranium blows everything away as it relates to energy density and concerns to co2. heads i win. tales i win more. so to all the people pumping the co2. my wallet thanks you!!! lol. if it was about money i would be right there with you pumping the co2 nonsense.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by running

i couldn't disagree more with your discernment.

I know how you think about it. Well excuse me 'running', but I place more stock in the conclusions and work of scientists working in the field than in a truck driver who has vested interests in fossil fuels. But... each to their own. In America it's all possible, eh? You can work at a Subway doing the dishes and say you know more about science than scientists. And people will love it!

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Altair

Not really. Santa and Flat Earth ''theory'' are not based upon ''scientific theories'' ((a theory based on theories, also confusing...)).

What are you on about . Flat earther's explain their theories based upon using scientific reasoning . It doesn't have to be true does it . Just because there's science behind it . That's all I am saying . Not all scientific reasonings are true . I have given examples . Some are completely wrong .

Originally Posted by Altair

not whinge about eggs and coronavirus. They got nothing to do with this thread, G-L. How are these very different topics a discredit to observations made by climatologists, ecologists and environmental scientists?

I am not whinging about anything, I am giving you examples of how scientific research in other fields of work can be equally incorrect . They can be equally incorrect for many a reason, what I am saying is that science can be used to fit agendas . Big pharma isn't interested in curing illness ..whereas nutrition is all about wellbeing . I am pointing out obvious differences in regards to their foundations .

Originally Posted by Altair

am not really interested in anti-vaxx arguments. No doubt some make money out of it (some work in that field). But it got nothing to do with the topic. The fact that you think it does, or that there is some doubt about climate science because elsewhere other scientists make vaccines (apparently bad?) is mind boggling (at least, to me).

is just more conspiracy. It's the same old story of there being some cover up and the truth has to be the opposite of what the government says, obviously. Just more Ickean/Jones styled logic. It's how they make their money. They need to sell you the alternative story because that is how THEY generate an income.

Nonetheless, it does not change the reality that climate change happens and that humans make it worse. We already did thousands of years ago when we hunted megafauna to extinction, changing regional and even continental environment. If large grazers disappear from a region then that will impact the climate. If you make changes to the environment (say by destroying forests) on a global level then you impact global climate.

Government doesn't have to give space to a climate change denier nor do they have to listen to a young-earth-creationist or an anti-vaxxer when implementing policy. They got better things to do, I reckon.

You're welcome not to be interested in anything I have pointed out, that's fine, but you keep on making it out to be conspiracies when they're not . They're facts . Maybe you don't see a connection between those that invest in the vaccine and those same dudes that promote it .

Originally Posted by Altair

is true if we look at the last couple of decades. Winters are becoming milder throughout much of Europe. Throughout the 20th century we had many ice skating (outdoor) events here, in the 21st century we've had none. We've had a few icy weeks in the early 2010s, likely related to one of those natural cycles, but the overall trend is still one of warming. One (maybe two) cold weeks right now don't change the trend of milder winters and hotter summers. It seems all those hot and dry summers were just a coincidence? Or perhaps not, and there's been a trend for decades that does reflect what scientists have said. Having said that, it would actually be great if they were wrong about it, and we have a proper winter period like this each year, and some damn rain in the summer. I would prefer if they were wrong about it but sadly they aren't.

I can say that I have had flowers bloom a bit earlier each year and such likes and I can agree with certain trends that illustrate a warmer climate, I for the record haven't been disputing any of these signs .. I have been pointing out different perspectives other than what is in the immediate . I had been addressing what has been said regarding a continuous pattern of warmer winters ..

It has been also said that global warming hasn't a complete consistency and it allows for colder winters .. I haven't been addressing this aspect . If you had listened to exactly what I have said then you wouldn't of carried on as you have .

All I have mentioned is that scientific explanations through research are not always correct for it depends on many factors . What are agenda based will reflect only one perspective and will use scientific research to back up that one side of the coin . It's not conspiracy based .

I will leave it there ..



x daz x

[Altair]

Originally Posted by God-Like

What are you on about . Flat earther's explain their theories based upon using scientific reasoning . It doesn't have to be true does it . Just because there's science behind it . That's all I am saying . Not all scientific reasonings are true . I have given examples . Some are completely wrong .

I could ask you why you think it's based on science, but it would get further off topic. Needless to say, no G-L, there is no science behind the ''Flat Earth'' belief. Science rests not just on reasoning but more so on empirical observation. If reasoned argument was enough by itself than theological arguments would be scientific too.

Originally Posted by God-Like

I am not whinging about anything, I am giving you examples of how scientific research in other fields of work can be equally incorrect . They can be equally incorrect for many a reason, what I am saying is that science can be used to fit agendas . Big pharma isn't interested in curing illness ..whereas nutrition is all about wellbeing . I am pointing out obvious differences in regards to their foundations .

Yes, you like to talk about these ''other fields of work'' as a means to cast doubt on the observations and work of ecologists and environmental scientists. You also like bringing in ''big pharma'' as to say that climate science is similar. Your argument rests on conspiracy and intrigue, not science. Calling things ''big pharma'' is a clue, as is mentioning ''agendas''. You could instead focus on what the science says about climate change and skip all the politics and intriguing words, G-L.

Originally Posted by God-Like

You're welcome not to be interested in anything I have pointed out, that's fine, but you keep on making it out to be conspiracies when they're not . They're facts . Maybe you don't see a connection between those that invest in the vaccine and those same dudes that promote it .

What facts? And again this stuff about vaccines. Why do you continue to bring this up? I've no interest in it.

Originally Posted by God-Like

It has been also said that global warming hasn't a complete consistency and it allows for colder winters .. I haven't been addressing this aspect . If you had listened to exactly what I have said then you wouldn't of carried on as you have .
All I have mentioned is that scientific explanations through research are not always correct for it depends on many factors . What are agenda based will reflect only one perspective and will use scientific research to back up that one side of the coin . It's not conspiracy based . I will leave it there ..x daz x

Yeah, the science can be incomplete, nobody disputes this. Accusing scientists of having some hidden political agenda and lying to us all is accusing them of conspiracy. I've no interest in the politics and SF isn't for politics anyway.

Check the OP. The thread doesn't ask for a debate on the science. It takes the science as a starting point and asks us if we're justified to look away in the face of these environmental problems and instead focus on other things. It seems a lot of people didn't read the post.

[Native spirit]

Please respect that everyone has their own beliefs there is no need to argue this thread is now closed


Namaste