Expert prognosis for the planet

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

My point is that it isn't even an "And". The increase is anthropomorphic....

Now we're into semantics. I get what you are getting at and I don't completely disagree with you, but if even if it's a small percentage of the increase, it's still an and.

You know like "1 Trillion and 01/100 dollars".

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Now we're into semantics. I get what you are getting at and I don't completely disagree with you, but if even if it's a small percentage of the increase, it's still an and.

You know like "1 Trillion and 01/100 dollars".

Right, we can include the CO2 in soda consumption and methane from bean farts into the CO2 from cars and methane from natural gas plants and from cows, but the CO2 and methane from soda and from beans is so small that it is within the margin of error of calculating the emissions from cars, cows and natural gas plants. I don't know if the 'And' component is significant enough to mention.

For instance, there is more biomass in the world of ants than cows--3,000 million tons versus 520 million tons, respectively. Ants can produce methane, and maybe they produce more than cows, so the vegans would seemingly be best to put their foot in their mouth suggesting the methane from cows is a problem compared to other animals, but then again, cow populations are huge because we eat them, so one has been there and is likely in balance with nature, and one has grown rapidly with the rise in the human population. Similarly, we could talk about the melanin in the skin of Africans being high and having a large natural production from tissue turnover that would dwarf the melanin stimulated from a day in the direct sun, and yet, if the skin of the African got even slightly darker, we would be remised to suggest it was because of natural causes when we know the changing factor was the sun.

I'm not picking on you when you were just trying to say it is always two sides for anyone suggesting it is was just one, but I'm just saying, sometimes it is just one, even when there is two.

[Irace86.2.0]

There is a line in the book/movie A Time To Kill where Sandra Bullock's character and Matthew McConaughey's character are talking about the expert opinion, in which case, "The jury success rested almost wholly on the..." "Defending psychiatrist regardless of the quality of the psychological testimony." Meaning, the testimony was believable based solely on the quality of the character of the expert and not in the quality of the information they were providing.

This is analogous to so many things. Who do we believe? It becomes ideological. While science has paved the way for advances and provided understanding of the world beyond any other method humans have ever invented for discovering truth, it isn't perfect or infallible. It has a method of self-correction, but it can take time.

Someone can watch a video like this, and despite his message at the end, they would feel validated in their view that science is no more often right than someone guessing. Listening to "experts" can also be no more better than a novice, especially when "experts" are gurus with no real expertise, or when the expert is not an actual expert in the field they may be studying or commenting on. This could be the case for a scientist in an unrelated field to global warming chiming in with their own climate science study. This all makes it hard to know who to believe.

Conservatives, by nature, tend to hold onto the past and are reluctant for rapid change, so they are more likely to find "expertise" in the leaders they trust who hold old knowledge and wisdom, and liberals are more likely to want to change and move forward, so they trust sources from progressives who hold new knowledge like scientists.

Besides struggling with who to trust and besides losing confidence in our institutions, government and media, the future is bleak, as it pertains to misinformation. When deep fakes and general CGI becomes much more ubiquitous and indistinguishable from real life, it will be near impossible to distinguish between what is real and what is not when looking at anything on a TV or phone. The media is terrible at even attempting to distinguish fact from fiction these days, eager to push out stories before verifying the sources or validity, that they have run fake stories and repeated satirical articles, as if they were real. The second an AI or a super computer starts to run fake news with deep fakes of politicians saying anything it wants indistinguishable from the real thing, digital communication will end.

[x808drifter]

I'll just put this in here cause this is where I see us heading eventually.

Followed by...

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by x808drifter

I'll just put this in here cause this is where I see us heading eventually.

Part of me (I don't know which part, maybe my left knee) hopes I will be around for a massive decline whereas another (also unknown) says I hope I'm not around if/when the shtf.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Part of me (I don't know which part, maybe my left knee) hopes I will be around for a massive decline whereas another (also unknown) says I hope I'm not around if/when the shtf.

Having read a good bit of history I have to say that I'm happy to have lived in this particular time rather than any other. The far past gets romantized quite a bit but if you weren't royalty, it was a shit show.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Having read a good bit of history I have to say that I'm happy to have lived in this particular time rather than any other. The far past gets romantized quite a bit but if you weren't royalty, it was a shit show.

Literally, in many cases

[Lantanafrs2]

I predict that Florida will experience a strong hurricane in the next 20 yrs.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

I predict that Florida will experience a strong hurricane in the next 20 yrs.

I am going to make a more accurate prediction: there is a greater than 50% chance Florida will experience a strong hurricane in the next 20 yrs based on my ability to make predictions.
I won't go into details as to why my prediction is better than your prediction.

[soundman98]

there's a 50% chance anyone reading this is taking a dump right now.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by soundman98

there's a 50% chance anyone reading this is taking a dump right now.

How big is the sample size?

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by soundman98

lol. obvious facts.

you mean like chemtrails?

or the earth being flat?

Obvious facts like the archeological record.

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

So allegedly you, as an individual, have the authority to decide who get's funded. You use this authority to to fund those who's research matches your preconceived ideas by fraudulently manipulating information.

I am also very interested on what sort of ROI you are looking at in their budgets.

As the senior finance individual I decide what asks see the light of day and no, I don't have to agree with the premise. ROIs as you should know vary. If the ask
is for profit how much and how fast is the pay back. How well supported is the analysis. Is it factual, models, or both.

If no ROI what's delivered. Continued operation, life extension, or a feasibility study. Same support criteria in varying degrees.

Then there's the it`s for the common good as was common in the beginning of covid. Lots of bogus modeling like we have presented here for this subject with no factual support and only a few with scientifically factual support with supportive and predictive modeling.

I am predominately financially based in education to the MBA level, but also have a B.S. and masters in physics so most feel I'm qualifed for my decisions.

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings.

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a4...efeat-devices/