Use of any language is far from simple, even if that is the honest intention on the part of some.

As for the "settled science" line of argument; it is just that = a line of argument, nay propoganda even, to be disseminated at each and every opportunity. Any self respecting scientist would consider this very idea to be utter tosh; an idol no less.
There are many who have demolished the settled science line in every facet; not least in the earlier references to blogs, particularly Ridleys', and websites.
I have to recognise that you do consistently stick to "natural" and steer away from the more controversial man-made version of the storyline.

So, junk science remains exactly that, junk, and those who perpetrate it could well be accused of denial of the search for truth, the end of the enlightened era and heralding the approach of a new dark ages.
A new "Spanish Inquisition" at the very least, while those in positions of power would rub their hands in glee.

__________________
Dave

Scientific understanding does and will change that is a fact and proven over and over again throughout history.

Throughout this post people seem to be confusing 3 separate issues

Natural Climatic Change - something that is established with significant scientific evidence

Outright denial of Climate Change of any type (climate change denial)

Skepticism - questioning current scientific, political and commercial arguments to make us more informed.

The deniers position that all the research and scientists are tied into to some huge conspiracy is simply ludicrous. It's just not the way the scientific world works

Unfortunately there are a lot of very eloquent people stood on their soapboxes shouting loudly and think that makes them an expert (not referring to anyone here) they range from nutters, journalists pseudo scientists. Most have little capability to back up their claims

Then you get the skeptics who will challenge politically funded research using science to ensure we are using fact to base our understanding of the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's easy to see why so many apparently deny the science, EXXON, Kosh Brothers, etc, spent untold millions on subversive propaganda campaigns - and only had to sell an idea that people already wanted to buy - that we don't have to change our lifestyles or reduce our impact on the physical world, we don't need to feel guilty because our actions don't really have consequences.

Even if we do collectively accept this, few are going to elect politicians whose manifesto is banning gas guzzling automobiles, or rationing red meat, etc and corporations are only motivated by short-term profit. I don't eat meat, it's the least I can do, but most people I meet won't change because 'it's tasty'.

In the States, the science of climate change became politicized, and like everything else, polarized. This has been disastrous really, with any concern for the planet being reduced to 'lefty crap' and anti-business.

Lastly, our media is owned and tightly ran by a small minority whose interests are very much in continuing the status quo, apparently at really any cost - plain old hubris or something more sinister?

To answer the OP, I think with climate change, resource wars and the serious knock on effects that will all have, ending RTW moto travel will be the least of our problems. Just the other day I read that globally we've got sixty years of arable top soil left. Sixty years! But as usual Al Qaeda 2.0 were dominating the hysterical media.

Have you ever worked with Scientists? They are fallible and subject to their own biased and bigotry which is unfortunately human nature.

Correct, on both sides of the Fence.
Most who tell me to read "Science" probably only listen to a blurb now and then on CNN or other nonsense type of programming and do not follow their own advice. It is merely a way of putting others down without having to back up their own statements.



Meat is how our brains were able to grow, why on earth would anyone quit eating it? Indeed we should research our consumption overall, and we should push for higher quality meat standards, that by no means is an excuse to go backwards in evolution.


BTW, how many of "Inconvenient truths" benchmarks have been made?

Yes I have thanks, often an interesting bunch but at least their work is based on fact and scientific process, unlike politicians and their own bias and bigotry rarely effects the work they do.

But have you actually read the science to confirm if its merely a way of putting others down without backing up their own statements or whether the science is correct?

lol ok.




But have you actually read the science to confirm if its merely a way of putting others down without backing up their own statements or whether the science is correct?[/QUOTE]

Again, I come from the other side, research taught me otherwise

Your post is riddled with logical fallacy. Saying just because science is sometimes wrong, which by the way is the whole point of it, therefore the 90% plus consensus that the release of carbon is causing an unnatural and unprecedented warming of the earths atmosphere is wrong, is like saying just because it has rained often today it will rain tomorrow. Nonsense basically.

As for not eating meat, regardless how how our brains evolved trying to link it's original evolution, which by the way if you have any evidence please provide, something that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago to what should reasonable be done today, is also a fallacy. For reasons why we can't afford to eat meat, see Cowspiracy.com

I'd agree with you that the media often misrepresents science and that most people don't have the time or knowledge to view peer to peer reviews scientific journals, they must rely on journalists who can, and that is often flawed due to poor journalism and because of clandestine propaganda campaigns by the big polluters.

For me, I don't know for sure what is happening in the world and I try to apply a few filters and review my sources the best I can, but what, you seriously think that globally, thousands of scientists from institutions like NASA and the U.N, are all wrong? But based on what? The difference seems to be they have evidence to prove what they think is the case, where you do not.

If we are entering an ice age that may slow us RTWs down a bit, but if it is global warming coming, no problem, *just tape ice cubes to your wrists, this will cool your blood and the cooled blood will journey to all parts of your body and brain.
Also, resting in a hammock and gently swinging the hammock tends to lower body temperature by keeping the body at rest as opposed to exercising, and because of the slight movement of air created by the swinging hammock. It helps if you can find an assistant to attach a rope to the hammock and swing you in the hammock thus allowing you to remain even stiller, and in between swings, your assistant might replace the melted ice taped to your wrists with fresh ice. Remember not moving is the key, just stay calm and don't worry.
*leaned many years ago in hot and humid Puerto Limón, Costa Rica while serving as a U S Peace Corps volunteer,

Or, not finding anyone willing to help out, which is often the case, just attach a rope to a nearby tree - a few feet to one side or other of the hammock and swing yourself so the outbound swing of the hammock puts you within reaching distance of your catch of ice, usually some kind of ice chest, and you can scoop ice in a cupped hand without too much movement and then gently replace the melted ice under the wet tape on your wrists with the fresh ice. 9 out of 10 scientists agree this process cools the body below ambient temperatures if the ambient temperature is above 98.6 F. The one dissenting scientist was old school and no one really took him seriously anyway.
Hope this helps.

xfiltrate eat, drink and stay kool

LOL so do you know otherwise, or someone TOLD YOU what to think?
BTW, what are the odds the weather report in your area is correct next week?

I am going to do something I rarely do, BWAAA HAAAAA
Sorry bro but I am literally laughing hard here. Meat has Vitamins, Minerals and fat which your brain and body need.
Some can be substituted by a vegetarian lifestyle as you still gain some of the fats you need via dairy, eggs etc. a vegan lifestyle is simply idiotic.
There are vitamin substitutes however extraction methods are often suspect.
Lots more on that topic I am not getting into, link below with others.
It also is to note that hunting is the worlds largest wildlife conservation movement. In america alone over 1.5 million deer are smacked down on Americas highways, so why not help cull the herd so to speak?
Good healthy meat, you get to see where your food comes from, donate to something positive and get to spend time outdoors
This is true


One more time.
Most of the supposed solutions are not new at all. Most are not only a waste of money but dangerous to the environment in their own regard.
Going balls out and throwing money around is what gets people into problems to begin with. We need to sit down, relax and figure out whats up.
I would ask you again, if Climate change is such a dire threat to the world, then why is the US consistently time and time again the main country taking measures nobody else is taking? Money, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
Further again the west in general is allowing unprecedented amounts of pollution to come from factories it in a sense SPONSORS in third world countries is completely counteraction to the supposed panic state we are in.

Now again, I am very much against pollution in general, in a big way, I want my Children and their children to live in a happy content Eurphoria on Earth, which probably will never happen since Governments do indeed know how to control the weather. If you control the resources, you fully control the people. Period.

Links for your consideration.
How Has the Human Brain Evolved? - Scientific American

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-of-the-brain/
around 2 million years ago would have been essential for the expansion of the human brain, since meat is such a rich source of nutrients. A richer diet, in turn, would have opened the door to further brain growth.

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/RainMake.htm

Who Controls the Weather? - Businessweek

Moscow Testing Cloud Seeding; Promises Winter Without Snow | Meteorologynews.com

Links on Automobiles which helps you understand, hopefully why oil was chosen
History of cars: The story of automobiles from prehistory to today

The History of the Automobile - Gas Engines

Algae IMO is our only real solution to substitute oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxyvVkeW7Nk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_HbQ5cWSk

The discourse has developed well, while following predicatable lines.
By "lines" I mean specific unifying themes that are to be promoted, if necessary over and over again - just one of the techniques that is taught nowadays, including to those in the media industry.
Sometimes this is also called the storybook (fairytales comes to mind) or the "lines to take" but the principle remains constant.

There are other techniques such as the strawman approach:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Look out for these as the thread arguments and counter-arguments continue.

__________________
Dave

Not just in the States.
These factors are common across much of the so called developed world.


If there is a general agreement in here by now (there will be some deniers of this!!!) that the global warming concept is not the wolf nearest the sledge of homo sapiens then it might be useful to try to identify what is that wolf.
For instance, the parlous state of the international methods of financial investment and fiscal control of individual nations is considered by some to be on the point of meltdown; even the chinese have belatedly woken up to the reality of their current condition.
This money system could implode well inside a 60 year timeline; some would argue that it is imploding now as an ongoing consequence of earlier financial crisis.

__________________
Dave

I do believe that climate change is man influenced. Even if you do not I think this is the case. I think most of us can agree the climate is changing, weather patterns are changing and seem to be getting more extreme.

Also as a species how many of us can this world support? That is in a way that is acceptable to the many. After the world wars the difference between the have's and the have not's was far smaller, perhaps because of the guilt of the ruling elites to the many for their sacrifices? Now these memories ere fading and things are going backwards.

The top 1% now own 50% of everything! Also the the Population is getting bigger, much bigger and world resource is finite! So it seems a reasonable assumption that the vast majority will have to make to with less?

Could and should we manage our populations?

How can we decide what a fair system is to do this? Let a lone manage and enforce it?

I want to travel (by land) as I see a lot more of this world, rather than my air as I only ever get to experience the world in small bubbles about my landing points, never really joined up! Traveling more slowly on a bike is very efficient especially if it is not that bigger one! But the way things are going I see things sadly getting more polarised and therefore harder for us to explore the planet!

We will still be able to do it but the risks and obstacles will be more. I hope and believe it is still worth it though!

Lol, ok bro, in other words you got nuttin.

No, I wouldn't say that I got nothing.
I was simply saying that it assists in grasping points made by contributors, assessing the validity of proposals and the like if only to be able to understand how these techniques are in use today.

e.g.
I made this statement on the basis of https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
(the UK criminal courts have a term something like "beyond reasonable doubt" or words to that effect; the civil courts have a lower burden of proof).
Anyone can scroll through that whole list of fallacious techniques to see further ways in which arguments are made.
All of that is without any recourse to actually tampering with the results of experimentation, direct political interference in the practice of science or any of the other issues raised in this thread to date.

By the way, I have been reading your blog entries: not all of them by any means but some of the more recent.

__________________
Dave