I saw headlines a few days ago that they say the earth has tilted on its axis a little because we have pumped so much ground water.

If true, lets go through the stages of discrediting again:

Say it ain't so.
Deny
say the earth has tilted before
say man didn't do it nor can fix it
oh well, carry on

Kabob, the earths wobble aside, we brought up all this info 8 yrs ago getting impervious surfaces law passed.
You complain more than anyone on here, but refuse to do anything. Get a group started. Take pictures showing what runoff is doing. Erosion, to roads and waterways, carrying contaminants all the way along it's course. That water should be diverted into swales to sink back into the aquifer. Nothing you can do about the west's use for irrigation. But you can do something in your own state, just as we did. Everything helps. Stop complaining and do something, waiting on legislators is pointless. The data needs to be put in front of them. Small things make a difference, it's simply breaking the status quo. Not harder or even more expensive to do things right, just needs to be done differently.
You are retired, Myself and others that got this through here, all had businesses to run and we still stuck with it.

the core is shifting -
look at the rapidity the Magnetic North pole has moved in the past 10 years 9faster than in the past 50)

Its mangina's fault!!!!!

He keeps running his outboard and diesels!!!!


.

I saw a story yesterday, but lost it before I could post.

I figured JTEX especially would enjoy it.

The headlines went something like "they", whoever that is, discovered trees have heartbeats, just so slow they haven't been noticed before.

The article was accompanied with a picture of a sweet looking woman hugging a tree.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the core is shifting -
look at the rapidity the Magnetic North pole has moved in the past 10 years 9faster than in the past 50)

Google search: has the earth axis changed in the past:

https://www.google.com/search?...oAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

Google search: why was the arctic once warm:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the core is shifting -
look at the rapidity the Magnetic North pole has moved in the past 10 years 9faster than in the past 50)

Google search: has the earth axis changed in the past:

https://www.google.com/search?...oAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

First you tell us that the scientists say that the earth’s axis is shifting because we are pumping too much groundwater, which is difficult to fathom due to the minuscule amount of water that is moved.

And then you post a link that claims that the poles are shifting due to melting polar icecaps??? I find that premise far more plausible at first thought.

But how do we know which science to believe?

Do those in one camp call those in the other camp “deniers”?

Is there an expert who can tell us what to believe?

It doesn’t matter what climatologists tell us. A certain percentage will not believe them. Hell, there are still fools who think Trump won………

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
It doesn’t matter what climatologists tell us. A certain percentage will not believe them. Hell, there are still fools who think Trump won………

Jerry, isn’t that true of absolutely everything single fact or opinion? It doesn’t seem exclusive to the scientific realm.

And isn’t science a process of inquiry, as opposed to a system of belief?

quote:

Science

Basic principles:
1. Doubt
2. Search for answers
3. Look for an alternative explanation

Vs.

Religion

Basic principles:
1. Don't doubt
2. God is the answer
3. There is no alternative explanation
4. We don't know, but we will study it
4. We know

It sure seems that a lot of people who profess faith in science are using the religious model to call those who are applying scientific principles “deniers”.

I’m sure that they don’t see it that way, but then neither do most religious kooks.

quote:

It sure seems that a lot of people who profess faith in science are using the religious model to call those who are applying scientific principles “deniers”.

Heb. 11. [1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The secular meaning of Faith is trust.

Big difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

The secular meaning of Faith is trust.

Big difference.

“Trust the science!”

Is the difference really so big?

How about when the science that we are implored to “trust” is proven to be false following further investigation?

The gap seems to be closing.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Her timing is interesting considering that tomorrow morning is Summer Solstice.

Frankly, I hope she doesn't have the last laugh...


.

Doesn't say the world will end in 5 years, it said we had 5 years to make changes. Lots of science says we are approaching a point of no return on reversing any damage. Come to think of it, millions of people in Texas are probably changing their thinking right about now.

We're all turning the thermostat down

Just another average Texas summer.

That does not appear to be correct given a record heat wave.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...ve-forecast-records/

Yesterday my temperature gage by our pool was showing 117 degrees F.

I sent the picture to friends in Sweden.

Their reply was “not for humans”!

Funny thing was I did feel too hot at all doing some work there.

Bloody wimps!

So much for an average Texas Summer;

https://apple.news/AtrVQCFtKRNWkk4gWPgrw4Q

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

And isn’t science a process of inquiry, as opposed to a system of belief?

quote:

Science

Basic principles:
1. Doubt
2. Search for answers
3. Look for an alternative explanation
4. We don't know, but we will study it

Vs.

Religion

Basic principles:
1. Don't doubt
2. God is the answer
3. There is no alternative explanation
4. We know

It sure seems that a lot of people who profess faith in science are using the religious model to call those who are applying scientific principles “deniers”.

I’m sure that they don’t see it that way, but then neither do most religious kooks.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

Heb. 11. [1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The secular meaning of Faith is trust.

Big difference.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

“Trust the science!”

Is the difference really so big?

How about when the science that we are implored to “trust” is proven to be false following further investigation?

The gap seems to be closing.

BS.

The nature of science is, in part, skepticism.

The nature of trust in science has an inherent dose of skepticism.

Scientific conclusion is a sort of oxymoron.

Religious conclusion requires no proof, thus it can't be disproven following further investigation. It's independent of investigation.

Religious faith leaves no room for skepticism.

quote:

Originally posted by rabbithabit:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

Her timing is interesting considering that tomorrow morning is Summer Solstice.

Frankly, I hope she doesn't have the last laugh...


.

Doesn't say the world will end in 5 years, it said we had 5 years to make changes. Lots of science says we are approaching a point of no return on reversing any damage. Come to think of it, millions of people in Texas are probably changing their thinking right about now.

We're all turning the thermostat down

If every building that is air conditioned just opened their windows and doors and ran down their thermostats , global warming would disappear…..

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That does not appear to be correct given a record heat wave.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...ve-forecast-records/

In 1977 or 78…we had 30 straight days above 100°F, 10 straight days above 110°F, and the hottest day was 117°F in Jacksboro, TX about 50 miles SE of Wichita Falls.

2010 was the next year in my lifetime like it…pretty similar. It has yet to go much above 100°F (a normal temp for the season and area in north central Texas) this year.

Just an average Texas summer…nothing more…nothing less.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam

The nature of science is, in part, skepticism.

The nature of trust in science has an inherent dose of skepticism.

Scientific conclusion is a sort of oxymoron.

Religious conclusion requires no proof, thus it can't be disproven following further investigation. It's independent of investigation.

Religious faith leaves no room for skepticism.

All very true, and yet it has become common for some(you specifically) to go around calling anyone who is skeptical of the “scientific conclusion” a “denier”, as though your science is a religion that should not be questioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Stages of denialism:

1. Just say the scientists are in cahoots and lying.

2. Say climate has always changed.

3. Say there's nothing we can do about it.

So are we allowed to be skeptical, or not?

If “scientific conclusion” is an oxymoron, then is “denialism” as you put it, actually possible?

Is it possible that it isn’t science that the “deniers” are skeptical of?

Let's not be silly.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Let's not be silly.

Is that your way of saying that you are unable to you point out the failure in my logic?

What logic?

An attempt on my part to delve into those (silly) questions would be to let you drag me into argument about something that isn't the heart of the matter.

Backing up and looking at this from a distance perspective, it's about worldview as much as anything.

On the individual level, or group think, (excluding the extraction industry) the resistance to the reality of the climate science is psychological protection of a worldview. To do otherwise risks ID collapse into a pool of mud. Ask yourself - what happens to a person who's worldview dissolves quickly? Yank one's personal ID out from under them? That will be resisted and avoided at great cost. Bias confirmation is a mild term to describe it.

So, in that context where is the line crossed from skepticism into denialism?

I think one clue is when one argues that climate has always changed. They accept some science and reject/deny the part about current change because it conflicts with worldview. So, the argument fails when we look at what's really going on there.

Another clue about the psychological safety net for worldview is the shifting rational/excuse for denial.

First they said the scientists made it up and the leftist politicians latched onto it for control. In cahoots with lies.

Next comes the climate has always changed, which is still denial because it dismisses the science on emissions.

Next, they say we can't do anything about it anyway. That may be true, since we have so many deniers stonewalling.

So, you see the gradual shift to accept the science of change, but not yet the part about man's contribution.

Let's project the future. When the rightists finally recognize the science is correct all along, what do you think is the probability of them going full fascist zero-sum?

Rightists are already doing just that with servitude (worldview protection) to Trumpism. Why wouldn't climate change be included when it becomes too obvious to deny?

I don't want to be a doomer, but the evidence suggests that some or great stress is gonna happen as the heat rises, sea levels, displaced cities, etc. In times of stress, rightists freak out, even though much of the stress is of their own making. Fascism loves stress and chaos. I think we are headed for deep doo doo with the combo of climate change and rightist worldview.

Let's call it the Red Tide.

Maybe this will help clarify what I'm saying:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...x?ocid=msedgdhp&t=70

there remains a difference in opinion as to the water extraction theory and :
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...ore-reverse-rotation

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
the core is shifting -
look at the rapidity the Magnetic North pole has moved in the past 10 years 9faster than in the past 50)

Google search: has the earth axis changed in the past:

https://www.google.com/search?...oAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

Google search: why was the arctic once warm:

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...a13a91040532768&ei=9

Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere | Fact check
Story by Kate S. Petersen, USA TODAY • 1h ago

What is “significant”

We know that at times earth has had substantially higher CO2 in the atmosphere… well before humans evolved.

We know major volcanic eruptions can dwarf f human emissions.

How do they determine human causation?

Deforestation and ocean pollution probably are more significant reasons for the increase in CO2 than use of hydrocarbon fuels… and the bugaboo about “renewables” doesn’t really address that.

quote:

How do they determine human causation?

https://climate.nasa.gov/cause...p_the_role_of_humans

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750 (footnote 2). This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.

Footnote 2: Friedlingstein et al 2022: “Global Carbon Budget 2022”, Earth System Science Data, 11 Nov 2022, doi 10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/c14tracer.html

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
What logic?

An attempt on my part to delve into those (silly) questions would be to let you drag me into argument about something that isn't the heart of the matter.

Backing up and looking at this from a distance perspective, it's about worldview as much as anything.

On the individual level, or group think, (excluding the extraction industry) the resistance to the reality of the climate science is psychological protection of a worldview. To do otherwise risks ID collapse into a pool of mud. Ask yourself - what happens to a person who's worldview dissolves quickly? Yank one's personal ID out from under them? That will be resisted and avoided at great cost. Bias confirmation is a mild term to describe it.

So, in that context where is the line crossed from skepticism into denialism?

I always gain something by hearing your perspective.

Once again I see things from the opposite perspective: why do the climate change believers seem to lack any skepticism? Can they get past the bind acceptance of their doctrine, and gain a minimal level of skepticism without compromising their identity?

Think of it another way: doubters, like me, have been doubting the BS spewed by the doomsdayer since day one. Every time I heard something about glaciers disappearing by 20xx, or polar icecaps melting by 2019, polar bear populations crashing, etc. I have had major reservations. The projection seemed too drastic.

And time has proven all of these projections to have been wrong.

Do you think that has increased my confidence in the climate doomsayers?

But somehow it hasn’t decreased the level at which the “believers” believe.

But those believers still believe, even after their false prophets have been exposed. But that’s not a fair thing to say, as you “believers” would disagree that Al Gore and rest of the climate pimps living in ways that run counter to how they tell us that we need to live to save the planet.

When I ask you guys to explain how someone like Gore can live with himself knowing that his enormous carbon footprint is, according to his own dogma, destroying the planet for all future generations what is the explanation??? And the question that follows: why should we follow such a false prophet?


And of course there is no answer.

And I don’t expect you to waste your time answering any of this. I’ve never met a believer who could look at both sides both enough to even attempt it.

from sub surface mass effects
to atmospheric gas expansion theory

trying to cover all the theoretical bases

poorly i mght add

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...a13a91040532768&ei=9

Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere | Fact check
Story by Kate S. Petersen, USA TODAY • 1h ago

Remember that until recently, carbon 14 dating (isotopes) was felt to be constant.

They now know it’s not.

Putting spectroscopic analysis as your proof is a problematic claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

How do they determine human causation?

https://climate.nasa.gov/cause...p_the_role_of_humans

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750 (footnote 2). This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.

Footnote 2: Friedlingstein et al 2022: “Global Carbon Budget 2022”, Earth System Science Data, 11 Nov 2022, doi 10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/c14tracer.html

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I don't want to be a doomer, but the evidence suggests that some or great stress is gonna happen…

The earth is just one big pasture. Every pasture has a carrying capacity. Every rancher worth his salt knows what happens when you overstock a pasture. Population growth seals the fate…change will be affected — one way or another.

Tell us again that it is just an average Texas Summer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/b...y-break-records/amp/


https://www.tdi.texas.gov/tips...the-summer-heat.html


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/0...th-monday/index.html

Just an average Texas summer for sure.
It will likely break 100°F today at my house for the first time this year. Often we have several 100+ days through June. In 2003…we had a 99°F day in the end of March!

Played baseball all weekend (Fri-Sun) at the DFW World Series event. Was out standing in the sun from 8am - 8pm. Not as hot (never broke 100°F) as last year (every day 100+).

Texas summer as usual. Been living in it for 60 years.

When I was in elementary school…we didn’t have AC. When we started in August…most days are ~100°F highs. Just normal life in Texas. I don’t even remember it being bad without AC.

Normal Louisiana summer. Some very hot days and some not so hot. Off today getting ready for Africa, if not would be in Nomex, hard hat, gloves, googles and in a refinery for 6+ hours.

Putting forth the answer to your question is not MY proof. It's the evidence which people with far more knowledge and smarts than I have, said so.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Remember that until recently, carbon 14 dating (isotopes) was felt to be constant.

They now know it’s not.

Putting spectroscopic analysis as your proof is a problematic claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

How do they determine human causation?

https://climate.nasa.gov/cause...p_the_role_of_humans

Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by nearly 50% since 1750 (footnote 2). This increase is due to human activities, because scientists can see a distinctive isotopic fingerprint in the atmosphere.

Footnote 2: Friedlingstein et al 2022: “Global Carbon Budget 2022”, Earth System Science Data, 11 Nov 2022, doi 10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/c14tracer.html

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

I always gain something by hearing your perspective.

Once again I see things from the opposite perspective: why do the climate change believers seem to lack any skepticism? Can they get past the bind acceptance of their doctrine, and gain a minimal level of skepticism without compromising their identity?

Think of it another way: doubters, like me, have been doubting the BS spewed by the doomsdayer since day one. Every time I heard something about glaciers disappearing by 20xx, or polar icecaps melting by 2019, polar bear populations crashing, etc. I have had major reservations. The projection seemed too drastic.

And time has proven all of these projections to have been wrong.

Do you think that has increased my confidence in the climate doomsayers?

But somehow it hasn’t decreased the level at which the “believers” believe.

But those believers still believe, even after their false prophets have been exposed. But that’s not a fair thing to say, as you “believers” would disagree that Al Gore and rest of the climate pimps living in ways that run counter to how they tell us that we need to live to save the planet.

When I ask you guys to explain how someone like Gore can live with himself knowing that his enormous carbon footprint is, according to his own dogma, destroying the planet for all future generations what is the explanation??? And the question that follows: why should we follow such a false prophet?


And of course there is no answer.

And I don’t expect you to waste your time answering any of this. I’ve never met a believer who could look at both sides both enough to even attempt it.

From my perspective here's some of the clues:

Stemming from the word "trust"; "doubters" as you say have basically claimed that scientists are lying and in cahoots with those who have a "doctrine", as you say. IMO, that a lie in and of itself, and it's based entirely on doctrine.

I can't speak for "they" as you say, but I have no problem with skepticism. I think it's healthy, as well as evolutionary, for self preservation. I can't imagine that "they" have shunned evolutionary traits somehow.

"doubters", emotional skeptics, ID preservationist deniers, have taken it to another level with their mix of non-critical thinking and reactionary BS based on belief. Using "doomsdayers" as an excuse to deny is transparently weak. Using Al Gore to bolster your denial is also weak. It bypasses the science and gets indignation and emotions all stirred up.

Doomsdayers, fear mongers, extreemists, are not representatives of rational science. Perhaps that includes Gore. So what?

And BTW, ALL projections have not proven wrong, drastic maybe, but not wrong.

I already explained the relationships of believers, skeptics, deniers, etc. No need to repeat.

Another clue:

This is one that we see often. As a starting place, a basis, for your argument, you use the words false prophets, belief, etc., like in a religion, and distort the use of the word "Trust" and "faith". This is a worldview issue, not a science issue.

And another clue: "doubters" as you say completely ignore the facts around the climate science denial machine of Rightists, such as heritage foundation, the oil and gas industry, with their pseudo-science. Their mission is clearly to sow doubt, fodder for the "doubters". That, of course, means that you and your rigid worldview sre being manipulated. Figure that, in combo with where it starts and ends? Such is an Inconvenient Truth.

Man, when I see the sort of chit the rightist disinformation, doubt, propaganda machines spew, my reaction is to look the other way for reality and truth.

So, who ya gonna call - ghostbusters?

Science changes
and
as new information emerges is typically debated heavily
until the new "information" is replicated by other independent and respected sources.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
Science changes
and
as new information emerges is typically debated heavily
until the new "information" is replicated by other independent and respected sources.

I don't think that's correct.

The endeavor of science is rather steadfast.

Scientific "discoveries" may be superseded with new info or discoveries.

Peer Review is not "debated heavily". That happens in the political world and otherwise outside the science community.

In science, information, knowledge, discovery is generally not "replaced" but addendum.

I'm sure that the debate on climate science, outside the science community, is for the most part hinged on your definitions, not mine.

and your PHD is from where (other than MSN)