2024: Leas snow than normal

[maineguy]

Sorry, I have a Ph.D. I simply cannot be bothered to take the time to respond to silliness like this.

This is what these arguments always boil down to...I'm smarter than you...you are ignorant. I'm pretty sure that Ph.D has nothing to do with hard science.

These arguments serve no good purpose other than to get people pissed off at others. Nobody is going to have their opinion changed. Nobody. The ham radio forum that I frequent has an absolute prohibition on politics...no exceptions. There are zillions of forums where people can voice their political opinions.

This board should be for the exchange of information by hikers who share a love of the outdoors and especially hiking in the Northeast.

 

[DayTrip]

So go seek the snow while you can. Or make it.

I worked in Jaffrey, NH this week and on FRI I took the back roads home past Wachusett. I was shocked to see patches of snow on some the slopes from snowmaking efforts. Talk about an uphill battle. Been well into the 70's and sunny just about every day for weeks now up until this week.

When I was still downhill skiing it was pretty normal to have 2-3 trips in before Thanksgiving weekend. Now you're chancing wasting a lot of money booking a Christmas week ski trip.

 

[DayTrip]

Nobody is going to have their opinion changed. Nobody.

That is the problem in a nutshell. We have lost our ability to make rational assessments of facts and information and adjust our beliefs accordingly. We have accepted being told what our point of view is by whatever sources of information we expose ourselves to, are too lazy to research this information to ***** the validity of what we are being exposed to, and vigorously defend those "beliefs" in the face of contradictory evidence.

It is like some kind of perverted fight-or-flight mechanism that causes us to shut down mentally and block the processing of information when our world view does not match what we are exposed to. Only catastrophic "I told you so" moments seem to break through and hit the point home.

 

[KRooney]

This is what these arguments always boil down to...I'm smarter than you...you are ignorant. I'm pretty sure that Ph.D has nothing to do with hard science.

These arguments serve no good purpose other than to get people pissed off at others. Nobody is going to have their opinion changed. Nobody. The ham radio forum that I frequent has an absolute prohibition on politics...no exceptions. There are zillions of forums where people can voice their political opinions.

This board should be for the exchange of information by hikers who share a love of the outdoors and especially hiking in the Northeast.

These arguments serve no good purpose other than to get people pissed off at others. Nobody is going to have their opinion changed. Nobody.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[NHClimber]

That is the problem in a nutshell. We have lost our ability to make rational assessments of facts and information and adjust our beliefs accordingly. We have accepted being told what our point of view is by whatever sources of information we expose ourselves to, are too lazy to research this information to ***** the validity of what we are being exposed to, and vigorously defend those "beliefs" in the face of contradictory evidence.

It is like some kind of perverted fight-or-flight mechanism that causes us to shut down mentally and block the processing of information when our world view does not match what we are exposed to. Only catastrophic "I told you so" moments seem to break through and hit the point home.

It's even worse really. There is so much bias and so many agendas that it has become hard for people to even determine what makes sense anymore. Once integrity is lost, whether it be in the media, politicians or the private sector (whether or not related to the specific topic being discussed), people shut down, and understandably so. Some people also stand behind "science" only when it suits their agenda -- they may be 100% right but there are also times when science naturally evolves and positions are changed. It makes it hard for folks to follow much less develop any appreciation for the scientific method. And of course, the worst thing anyone can do is dismiss other people's perspectives particularly in a nasty manner, which with social media and in politics today is pretty much the norm. So it's no wonder there is so much polarization. I knew this thread would devolve fast and it delivered.

 

[dug]

Sorry, I have a Ph.D. I simply cannot be bothered to take the time to respond to silliness like this.

What the actual ****??

Great summary of being an elitist. I would've assumed this was sarcasm, but sadly I honestly think otherwise.

 

[Cartophile]

But the natural and physical science of climate change should not be political. I grant that the work of mainstream scientists has, in our time, become politically charged, through no fault of their own. (And so has, to a lesser extent, the science behind our understanding of the shape of the earth.) But all the same, it shouldn't be so, and the subject of climate change legitimately entered this thread because of its relationship to our interest in winter trails and their future. What *is* and should, by its nature, be political, and beyond the scope of this forum, is the matter of policy for addressing climate change.

 

[B the Hiker]

There is snow today on Monadnock if snow is your goal.

Global warming is happening. Human activity is a major part of that, if not all of that. Reversing or stopping global warming at today's level will not happen, with the possible exceptions of nuclear winter (sadly seeming more and more likely with each passing day) or a global pandemic killing 90 percent of humans alive today. Global warming rate reductions are possible, and probably a good idea. The reduction of the amount of CO2 put in the atmosphere over the last 20 years is totally inadequate for the magnitude of the issue. Get over this. Or maybe to paraphrase Freeman Dyson - embrace it. Learn to live with it. Learn to like it. Learning to live with it is the most important, and reducing the rate of change gives us a better chance at doing that.

So go seek the snow while you can. Or make it. In either case you will be contributing another small piece to the global warming, with the possible exception of walking or bicycling to the snow.

Reducing carbon emissions so as to slow (or reverse) the rate of global warming is my goal. That is obtainable.

"embrace it. Learn to live with it. Learn to like it."
Learn to like global warming?!? No thank you. I choose to despise it, and since we can do something about it, I choose to do so. I suggest you do so as well, if you care about future generations.

 

[B the Hiker]

What the actual ****??

Great summary of being an elitist. I would've assumed this was sarcasm, but sadly I honestly think otherwise.

Let me see if I can summarize: you couldn't counter the argument so you decided to attack me personally instead. Got it.

Well, at least you conceded the argument is true...

 

[dug]

Let me see if I can summarize: you couldn't counter the argument so you decided to attack me personally instead. Got it.

Well, at least you conceded the argument is true...

I haven't said anything about the argument, I only laughed at how self-important you make yourself sound.

 

[B the Hiker]

I haven't said anything about the argument, I only laughed at how self-important you make yourself sound.

Oh, I see, so you have the ability deny the fact of climate change with science, but you just decided to attack me instead. Yes, I believe you!

I think you believe that people who employ science are condescending to you, and I believe that people who deny the fact of global warming are...well, that gets us nowhere.

I'll tell you what, since you "never said anything about the argument," let's just focus on that, you and I. On level ground. But, of course, to have level ground, let's start with introductions. You see my photo, my name is Brian Glenn and I live in Middletown, CT. Now your turn: tell us your full name and give a photo, and tell us where you live.

Then we can have a respectful conversation.

 

[skiguy]

This board should be for the exchange of information by hikers who share a love of the outdoors and especially hiking in the Northeast.

Unfortunately the existence of politically charged issues were allowed to happen if not even created by former Moderators even when they were challenged by members not to do so. The Ship has sailed and without the existence of any moderation currently that Ship is going down wind fast.

 

[skiguy]

Sorry, I have a Ph.D. I simply cannot be bothered to take the time to respond to silliness like this.

If you can't:
* join the AMC, the AAC, the Access Fund, the Sierra Club, or Protect Our Winters;
* watch David Attenboro or Al Gore;
* read the scholarship of Gary Yohe (Nobel for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) or essentially any other reputable scholar
* subscribe to Outside or National Geographic
* follow The Dirtbag Diaries (most recent episode is on a new book on global warming) or Outside/In podcasts
* listen to NPR, or read any newspaper

then you aren't going to listen to anything I have to say.

Somebody posted boxes of popcorn, as though this is some sort of joking matter. The inconvenient truth is that we are right at the horizon of being able to hold back the temperature increases science tells us we are likely to see unless the planet drastically and quickly reduces the quantity of carbon we are putting into the air, and the actions we take as individuals and (more importantly) as nations today will have a massive impact upon future generations.

Could you please qualify your Ph.D and it’s relevance to this topic.

 

[TCD]

Agree with Skiguy. This thread is an embarrassment. I miss Peakbagger. Is there someone (maybe "Tech Admin"?) who can shut this down?

 

[dug]

Oh, I see, so you have the ability deny the fact of climate change with science, but you just decided to attack me instead. Yes, I believe you!

I think you believe that people who employ science are condescending to you, and I believe that people who deny the fact of global warming are...well, that gets us nowhere.

I'll tell you what, since you "never said anything about the argument," let's just focus on that, you and I. On level ground. But, of course, to have level ground, let's start with introductions. You see my photo, my name is Brian Glenn and I live in Middletown, CT. Now your turn: tell us your full name and give a photo, and tell us where you live.

Then we can have a respectful conversation.

Again, I am not entering into a discussion about climate change because I avoid political topics on here. In the 30 years I have been on this board, I never wade into political discussions. PhD or not.

 

[Lone Stranger]

Climate change is not a political issue. Arguing with people about facts is dumb. Now that stupidity has been weaponized we are doomed. Go for a walk and enjoy what time you have left instead of wasting it arguing.

 

[rocket21]

Uh no. My graph is WORLD emissions, not US emissions.

I specifically cited United States emissions, because in theory "we" can control those. Our EPA says we've reduced CO2 emissions. Should we not be seeing some progress if the problem and solution are as theorized?

Or is the problem that China's CO2 emissions have grown 500%+ during the same timeframe? Surely if we ask nicely, they'll clean up their act (and stop slavery)?

 

[DayTrip]

I specifically cited United States emissions, because in theory "we" can control those. Our EPA says we've reduced CO2 emissions. Should we not be seeing some progress if the problem and solution are as theorized?

Or is the problem that China's CO2 emissions have grown 500%+ during the same timeframe? Surely if we ask nicely, they'll clean up their act (and stop slavery)?

I agree that we have reduced emissions in the US. My table and your table say the same thing. We obviously can control our emissions. We have cut them quite a bit.

But why do you expect progress if the US and world is still adding to emissions? To see progress, we need to REMOVE c02 from the atmosphere. We're not removing any emissions at all. All we are doing right now is adding emissions more slowly than we were doing. But we are still adding. It might be buying us sometime but it isn't "progress" in my opinion. And as you point out, other countries have not reduced their emissions at all.

 

[JoshandBaron]

I specifically cited United States emissions, because in theory "we" can control those. Our EPA says we've reduced CO2 emissions. Should we not be seeing some progress if the problem and solution are as theorized?

Or is the problem that China's CO2 emissions have grown 500%+ during the same timeframe? Surely if we ask nicely, they'll clean up their act (and stop slavery)?

Unfortunately our world's economic system incentivises China's poor behavior. US patting itself on the back for emissions reductions because we moved all our manufacturing over to countries with no environmental policy. As long as consumerism reigns supreme overall progress won't be made.

 

[dave.m]

No! The impact of humans is definitive.

Furthermore the symptoms are not distorting nature's equilibrium and compensation mechanisms, it is the volume and rate of production of greenhouse gases that humans have created and are creating that are causing the catastrophic distortion. This isn't news, we've known this for more than generation. Literally.

When I was a younger man, I drove up from Boston with my dad and his brother to open up my grandfathers camp on Lake Champlain. My uncle was not a moron. He has a PhD in Chemistry from Princeton and taught at BU for a few years.

He's also a religious fundamentalist and for 4 hours, I endured his lectures on the various chemical reactions that explained a the 7-day creation narrative in Genesis and a 6500 year age of the earth.

Years later I found a study (long since lost it) that showed a positive correlation between self-identification in conservative religious or political organizations and human caused global warming denial.

Stepping back a bit, one might ask how our media outlets became tools for oligarchs and corporations and put the blame with first Reagan's and second Clinton's dissolution of the fairness doctrine. Or one could point to the the Powell memo (of '71?) that galvanized the explicit capture of the government by capital. Or I suppose one could simply point to the anti-democratic structures on the Constitution that Madison and others explicitly added to protect the interests of landed elites (e.g., the Whiskey Rebellion). Regardless, Shegloff was right. Control the frame, control the outcome.

I heard Cornell West and Noam Chomsky discussing humanity's response to global warming. Chomsky flatly asserted that humanity isn't intelligent enough to survive. West, ever the optimist, said he wants to believe that humans are, but he admits being increasingly convinced by his anarchist brother.

As for me... I drove up to Belvedere this past weekend for hunting camp and because I suck as a hunter and because I don't know how to hunt the big woods when there is no snow on the ground for the second year in a row, I'll be driving back up after Thanksgiving for another (ahem) shot at it. I'll camp in the back of our gas guzzling Tundra and I'll be wearing clothing and boots that aren't sustainable and eating food that isn't sustainable.

As a socialist, I no longer fault my science denying brothers and sisters, nor even the capitalist who manipulate them with their media outlets. My deepest frustration is with the left. The current left is long on its criticisms of capitalism but short on believable alternatives for a future that is democratic, durably just and sustainable.