puppypower

Fear can be used by science to get funding, because if you make enough people afraid, they will help you leverage funds via their representatives to the government. Back in the 1970's, this was the beginning of the OPAC oil shortages, as well as the movement toward more efficient cars with stricter emission standards. It is funny how big business and government coordinate. The speed limit was also reduced to 55 mph in the USA by President Carter-D, who was presiding at the time. The smog from cars you could be seen over LA and other large cities. This was an example of the aerosols that needed to be addressed. Some in science and media took advantage of the opportunity that presented itself, to come up with a theory that conformed to the needs of the times. The environmentalists connected to the democrat political party were the most behind the need to do something about man made global cooling. I was a democrat back and saw the need, being young and naive. This movement did not gain the same traction as today, but still cars were forced to change anyway. That may have been due to President Carte only having one term, the Iranian Hostage crisis and President Reagan appearing on the scene. If you were around back then, you could see the parallel to today and the same political party running the football. As far as a consensus of data and publications, who ever gives money to science can buy a consensus. If you go to a tobacco company, the consensus of their scientists will find that cigarettes are good. They will not publish if a study says cigarettes are bad. They might fudge data or change the experiment to get what they are being paid to do. The consensus of scientists working for big oil think oil is good, based on the experiments they do to that end. Who would bite the hand that feeds it? There is more money spent on climate science than ever before. For this large gravy train to continue, they need to keep their eye on the ball and the goal line defined by those with the money. There was no outrage when data was fudged because they were team players. The CO2 running flat is not the result anyone would have published, even if this was anticipated by someone. It would makes the cigarette look bad, so to speak, and may be a grounds of losing funding. If you divided the funding 50/50 between pro-man made and anti-man made, each could buy half a consensus, since each team will tailor to the needs of their employer.

Form is connected to appearance, while function is connected to utility. The SUV, the sports cars and the pickup truck, each have different functions, with their respective forms, best suited to that function. The cat and dog each survive differently in nature, with the form of the cat and the form of the dog optimizing survival utility. If you place an automobile in a wind tunnel, certain body shapes are better optimized in terms of wind resistance. The wind tunnel and all the censors can help the designers shape the final form so it is optimized by the utility of the wind. However, since all cars do not default to the same basic wind optimized design, this suggests that a secondary function is being added to the form. That secondary function is market appeal. The car has to look appealing, while also reducing wind tunnel function to sell. Sometimes the total utility can be a result of two competing functions, that are average into a single form, not optimize to either. When humans get involved, this equation of form equal function, does not always add up logically. Market appeal is often faddish. The pet rock was a rock that was sales pitched to be a low maintenance pet. From a rational POV of form and function this does not add up. However, it was popular so its unorthodox form appeared to equate function, due to a subjective factor. If you notice I tend to accumulate warning points. This is because I don't always design the form of my writing to meet any preconceived function such as confirming to the status quo. The forum function is defined and if the form of my writing does not match this function, there is a warning or sometimes even worse. But in my mind, form and function match, since I see my function as pointing out new ways to look at things, to open up the mind.

A good example of form and function is found in automobile design. The form of most modern cars is based on doing well in wind tunnel testing for aerodynamics. Everyone is concerned with MPG, therefore form needs to follow this function, with most new cars forms designed to make sure they are aerodynamic; functional. Since all cars are not exactly the same, then form does not exactly meet this function, since form, by itself, will sell cars. If you look at animals in nature, form and function are much more closely related. All the attributes of a lion are highly suited to its functions in Africa. Natural selection chooses genetic parameters optimized to function; bigger teeth and sharper claws. If the climate is always hot, natural selection will choose form that tolerates heat. An interesting example of form and function is homosexuality. This is an example where form and function diverge. The form is defined by genetics; born with certain physical attributes, yet the function is assumed to be the opposite. In marketing, the pet rock had the form of a rock, but is was given the function of a pet. Many people went along with this for reasons that were not rational. As we depart from cause and effect, form and function can diverge. In the case of car designs not being all 100% aerodynamic, form will diverge slightly to take advantage of subjectivity.

Did anyone see the data that said that the level of CO2 flatten in 2014. CO2 did not increase in 2014. Was this predicted by the models that are making 50 year predictions? Recently, aerosols were revisited. Back in the 1970's, the climate fear was connected to global cooling and a new ice age. The young people may not remember this; clean slate of newbies. Back in the 1970's, aerosols were studied because it was assumed this was culprit for the global cooling. Aerosols come from many manmade sources, such as factories, and these were blocking the sun light cooling the earth. After careful investigation, a climate model aerosol number was set. When man made global warming became the new rave, these old aerosol numbers were used as part of the CO2 driven global warming computer models, since the two affects offset each other; aerosols cool and CO2 warms. Recently aerosols were revisited and the old numbers were revised downward. What this means is the CO2 should be revised downward, since the CO2 numbers were estimated based on the old higher aerosols numbers. Now CO2 is weaker that thought and it appears that the weaker CO2 has leveled off. Maybe this is why they predict 50 years instead of 10-20 years.

If you look at human nature, science/atheism is inferior in terms of allowing humans to optimize socially, with the least amount of resources. Resource usage can be used as an objective measure for comparison. The least resources needed places the least strain on the natural environment and there is closer to the efficiency of nature. For example, many religions define marriage between a man and woman. Let us look at this in terms of the objective standard of resource utilization. This is the most efficient way to procreate and raise children. All the alternatives are far more resource intensive to get the same utility. If it is not a man and a women, procreation needs extra resources. Gay couples can still have a baby but this requires science using extra resources and techniques not found in nature; unnatural. The value of using the less efficient approach is by being less cost effective, this means it is profitable for someone. This brings up another aspect of human nature; greed, which might be maximized . The sales angle brings up another aspect of human nature connected to lying and deception, which further drifts culture from objective reality.

The triune brain theory has the brain evolving from the center outward. This is consistent with anatomical observations in nature. I am not an expert at this theory, but from a quick read, one consideration that does not appear included in the theory, is as each layer of the triune brain is added, the complexity of the lower layers of the triune, will also continued to evolve, to keep up with the demands of the newer regions. For example, the thalamus region of the brain, connected to the core of the brain, is the most wired part of the brain, with connectivity to all aspects of the brain. The thalamus is wired into all three layers and therefore continued to evolve, as layers were added to the brain. The net result was the first layer always remained the most advanced part of the brain. As an analogy, say you start a small one person business in your garage. You and your business idea is the core of this new business. As the business grows, you add some employees and build a small building to house the business. You are still the CEO and the core idea is the same. The difference is, now your role has become more sophisticated taking into consideration all the needs of the idea, the business, the employees and your new assets. Later the company continues to expand, you create a secondary factory, a separate corporate headquarters, form a chain of command, and even sell stock. You are still the CEO, the core idea is the same, with your role becoming even more complex. You may not be working in the factory any longer, but you are still at the helm of the ship.

It seems I am censored differently than everyone. This is not mainstream, but uses my keen common sense. If you assume there is no preferred reference in the universe, than one cannot do a universal energy balance. Conservation of energy requires a preferred reference and reference hierarchy, so energy be properly added. As an example, say we have two rockets ships in space, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. They are in relative motion with a velocity V. Looking out the window at each other, we cannot tell who is in motion; no preferred reference. If we do an energy balance, if M was in motion the kinetic energy will equal 1/2MV2, while if ship 2M is in motion the kinetic energy will be twice that or MV2. If we assume no preferred reference, we cannot guarantee an accurate energy balance. Dark energy might be an artifact of assuming ship M is in motion, when in fact ship 2M has the motion. This makes us underestimate energy by 1/2. There is a preferred reference in terms of an energy balance. Since in this example, we have under estimated the total energy of the universe, we may need to postulate another source of energy, to account for observations beyond our relative energy balance; dark energy. If I was on a train in motion, I may think I am stationary and the mountain range in the background is moving at V. That is a lot of extra kinetic energy that is now added to my energy balance. Since this is not real, eventually other observations will appear that show we have too much energy. We may then need to postulate an energy leak to other dimensions.

The bottom line is the earth's water played a pivotal role in abiogenesis. Water was not just a reactant for most of these abiogenesis mechanisms, but water via the generation of lightning was a major source of high energy needed for making organic materials from simple gases. If we start with an atmosphere of varied gases plus water, with the water forming huge thunderstorms with lightning, many of the gases will be sequestered into higher boiling point liquids, such as amino acids and humus. Reduced gaseous material will be stripped from the atmosphere and converted to liquids that will enter the oceans. This cases the atmosphere to evolve toward simpler nonreactive gases like CO2, N2. Miller based experiments show that even these can form animo acids with the less reduced atmosphere, allowing animo acids with resonance structures. The water is cleaning and changing the atmosphere while adding materials to the ocean water and land, for further development. Once life begins to generate O2 through photosynthesis, there is a shifting with CO2 sequestered and traded for higher O2. This ends the Miller aspect, since O2 tends to reverse its reactions. Life has been jump started.

If you use special relativity, time stops at the speed of light. Based on my own ideas, at the speed of light the fabric of space-time breaks down into separate threads of time and threads of space. Thus allows one to follow a timeline without space restriction as well as follow a spaceline without time restrictions. If we follow a thread of time without restrictions of space we knows the history of the universe at all points, since we are not limited to a given place in space. If we follow a space thread, without restrictions of time, we can be anywhere in zero time. In terms of ancient thinking these two states were called omniscience and omnipresence, respectively. To form the universe, as we know, we need a timeline to intersect a space line to begin the weave. This intersection places restrictions on time and space that limits omnipresence and omniscience. We can no longer be everywhere but now need to be somewhere, specific, while we can't know everything but need to focus on this one thing; brooding.

The original Miller-Urey experiment used a reduced gas mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water which had been in vogue, for the early earth, at the time of his experiment. Variations of the original Miller experiments have demonstrated that neutral gases could also be used to make amino acids. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment. MacNevin did an experiment where he was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." His experiments suggests abiogenesis fossil fuels may have been made without life and fossils. Life may have infiltrated after the fact. ​ ​

One contemporary example where science sets up a roadblock to common sense is connected to the observation that proteins, in cell, fold into unique folds without statistical variation; probability=1.0, yet cells and life continue to be modeled with statistics and treated as random. Before biology had tools that could see the unique packing of proteins, it was assumed there would be statistical variations in packing due to thermal vibrations. They assumed we live in a random universe. But when this was proven wrong; no statistical variation, and there was no statistical explanation for this state of the art observation, biology did not evolve and seek a logical model. One explanation is statistics is a useful tool for making predictions. It appears that reality is being tailored to the needs of an old tool, and not the tools tailored to needs of the new reality.

The sword is a metaphor; If you look at history, the sword/word, after the death of Christ, began to penetrate minds and hearts with people becoming more divided. This division made it easier to judge in terms of true Christians. As an analogy, say I was King and I was not able to tell who were my closest allies in my kingdom because I am surrounded by so many smart quick talkers, sales men and yes men. I need a way to divide by true and loyal subjects, from the yes men who skillfully fly below the radar. What I will do is isolate myself and start a rumor that I am deathly ill, on my death bed. The idea of a power vacuum will be the dividing sword, to catalyze a power play. This will reveal the tyrants. The sword/word of Jesus penetrated the ancient hearts and minds, and divided the flock; everyone starts to disagree. With so much entropy, the wolves in sheep's clothing show their true colors. This allowed pure Christian to appear and find each others and it also allowed the wolves to hunt and kill until they shed their sheep's clothing and could be recognized. If the dividing sword had not be used, and wolves had infiltrated the early church, they could have undermined its purity with worldly needs. The wolves did not wish to be prey and separated from the herd of sheep to hunt them. The church become pure. In the end it all payed off when Christianity becomes the official religion of Rome. The lion invite the sheep in and offers protection against the wolves. The lion is not afraid of the sheep. The sheep helps him draws in the wolves for the lion to kill and eat; predators become prey.

Your are assuming that all these predictions will come true, 100%. You're a good company man. However, there is a difference between the doom and gloom predictions, and what will be in reality. Name me one prediction, over the past 20 years, of that global scale of doom and gloom, that was supposed to happen by now, that has come true? The analogy is the consensus says lightning will strike you if you go outside. But it does not happen with the urgency it was sales pitched Even though it never seems to happen, you still want to be believe it will happen this time. The northern polar cap was supposed to have been melted by now, with all the connected doom and gloom. Here we are with the ice getting larger again. The good side of climate change, which I predicted was more of the same and not a doom and gloom melt down. I did better than the consensus, which is why I don't recognize their authority. What I would like to see is those who make these doom and gloom predictions have to put their money where their mouth is. The way it is now, there is no accountably if they get it wrong. Why is that? If they get any more predictions wrong, they should be stripped of their funding and sent back to back of the funding line. But what happens is the same people get to make more predictions. If you don't fire the fool, some will think he is a genius. Maybe we can go back to the forum archives of the first discussions of manmade global warming and see what has happened; doom and gloom or upside.

One of the important molecules for star birth is water or H2O. Water is the second or third most abundant molecule in the universe behind hydrogen gas and maybe carbon monoxide. The water in the gas cloud will be frozen as ice. What water brings to the table is when ice melts into liquid water, it contacts. Ice floats on water because the ice is less dense than liquid water. Water is only one of the two natural things that show this freeze and thaw anomaly. All other materials expand when they melt and contract when they freeze. What this water anomaly brings to the table is as the star begins to collapse the gas cloud, and the ice is compressed and heated by the work, instead of the water expanding like all the rest of the minerals in the cloud, the water contracts. This result in a collapse hammer effect; ball implodes. The higher the percent of ice the bigger the core hammer. The slamming of the core, by the imploding ball, helps lights a fusion fire. Water can be H2O, of D2O and T2O; heavy water. Water, as you increase temperature and pressure, will change phases. The core water will start as solid ice, then collapse to liquid, then heat and pressurize to hydrothermal, then superionic, then ionic and then metallic. Once water become a metal it can conduct electricity like any metal. The core starts to light up with currents that help to spark the fusion.

If you give to politicians, you will get special treatment. This was not even a good investment since they had to declare bankruptcy. Crony Capitalism is not good at picking winners. I am sure Solyndra thought this windfall was a good side of global warming. Another good side of climate change is the political capital that socialist, liberal and communists politics will gain. If we assume manmade is real, and business and freedom of choice is corrupt and guilty, we will need government to take over control. Government and socialism will be winners. Small countries, via the UN, will also get to play the victim, by blaming all their woes on climate change. It has little to do what corruption and incompetence. They will then be able to extort recompense from the larger countries who will be accused of causing all their problems. This is a windfall for them which is a good side of global warming. The downside is bad, since these change will cripple economies, leading to turmoil in once prosperous countries. The chaos will then require government get even bigger to fix the problem That is again good for government, but like you said there is more downside to this.

This may be true if you only think in terms of space-time. But if you think in terms of energy conservation, then there has to be a hierarchy of references, including zero, or else the law of energy conservation is rendered void. For example, if I was traveling on a train, I will see the train station moving at V, while someone at the station will see the train moving at V. Fo many things, motion appears relative. If we do an energy balance, the train (t), moving at V, has kinetic energy 1/2 M(t)V2, while the station (s) has kinetic energy, 1/2M(s) V2. If these are not the same, we have added or subtracted energy from the universe by simply assuming all references are relative, which is in violation of a law. You can't have it both ways, with a law of science (energy conservation) trumping a theory guideline. In the twin paradox, where one twin travels near the speed of light and the other remains on earth, the twin in the space ship returns being younger than the stationary twin. Both see relative velocity or both see each other moving at V, but only one ages slower. This is connected to energy conservation. Only the twin with real energy has real relativistic affects. If we don't include an energy balance, both references might assume they have the real affects. This works as long they don't meet to compare. If they do meet, then energy conservation will separate the real affects from the relative affects.

In all due respect, reality is based on Newton Law of action and reaction; balance of forces. It is unrealistic to assume all will be bad. That is more important for a sales pitch, like this new car is the best. The salesman will not say the brakes are undersized and there may be future engine problems. More realistic computer models should be able to show both the bad and the good to know the model is not a used car trick. Say for the sake of argument, there is climate change going on, but this is natural and therefore whatever we do, well intentioned or not, will not matter. Then the models will need to show the good and the bad so people can avoid the storms and find the safe zones. Shouldn't we plan for all contingencies? It is not like the ocean levels will rise overnight. The process will occur slowly, like an old man dipping slowly into the hot tub. We have time to mobilize people to the good zones. But we need to know where, when and what to have a safe mobilization and the hope for rebuilding.

Another good side of man made global climate/warming is many people have made lots of money from this, such as Al Gore. If carbon credits had been mandated, and people had to pay for not doing anything, with middlemen taking a skim, other money could have been made. This has also been a boom for weather science with many jobs created. This has also allowed certain industries to benefit, through crony capitalism; solar energy.

One difference that needs to be pointed out, is the warm fall I talked about was an actual event in reality, while the doom and gloom you quoted is predicted to happen, with the history of prediction not that good. If prediction counts for more than actual events I could also make good side of global warming predictions with the same track record and we can then compare. I see a warmer world with more rain and more fresh water. The longer growing season with more water means more crops per season to feed the hungry world. There will be weather events, but this is normal for all climates.

Many people are afraid of change of any kind. Because of this fear of change, they won't allow themselves to see any good side connected to the potential of change. If you ask a child whether they want to move to a new town, where your new job might be, most children will only be able to see the doom and gloom of leaving their friends and all they ever knew. You'll have a hard time getting them to discuss the good side, like they will make new friends, have a better house, and have new places to explore. I have noticed only a few people are capable of an objective brain storm session. What we say in this topic, will not change anything. So why the fear of brain storming? Where I live, the skilled craftsmen who have to work outside for a living, have had one of their best years due to a warmer than average fall. I am sure they could get used to that extra money, when the snow begins in a few weeks and jobs dry up. The Debbie Downers cannot see this as plus, but will prefer the dwell on the bogey man. This irrationality is not suited to scientists. A real scientist does not data stack based on sentiment. One explanation for the contrast of styles is, if you are taught to be self reliant, than change can still be scary but it is also a challenge to be faced and overcome. If one is taught to be dependent change can be scarier since so many things are not under your control and one is not used to having to act on their own. The self reliant plans to move to higher ground, while the dependent remains in the flood zone and wait for help. If things remain the same, thing feel more under control in a dependent environment.

Have humans ever, in the history of the earth, caused the earth's temperature to rise? The answer is no. The temperature in the middle ages, was also high, but that is not attributed to humans. If manmade is true, this is a unique event in the history of the earth; man causing global warming. That means we really don't know how this works, 100%, because there is nothing in history to compare this too. You would need another similar event, that has all the same variables, and not just one variable in common. If I developed a new auto engine that can get 150 MPG on grape juice, and ran it through all the tests in my garage and collect all types of data, nobody will just take my word for it, because this engine is unique and is hard to predict. This is still a totally unique engine no matter how many tests I say I ran. Any investor will want to run a second series of tests. The reason is, when dealing with unique things, one series of tests, in the hands of con artists, can be used to fool people. The fact that there is so much resistance to any good news about climate change, appears to be in part media conditioning, and part the needs of a sales pitch connected to the angle of the curve. The pitch needs fear to create the irrationality needed to see the angle that has been assumed. If we add good things, this will alter the angle. There is resistance. In the early days the predictions were 5-10 years in the future. This was not panning out. Now the predictions are 30-50 year range so if they don't pan out few will remember. The good news is all the doom and gloom that was to be today, did not happen as pitched by that angle. We need a new angle that included both the good and bad, since the good has its own logic.

I don't think genes have too much to do with these. The reason is ,the DNA is assumed to be highly conservative and changes very slowly over time. If you go back even 20 years, there were not as many cases of such disorders. It can't be genetic since this rate of change is too fast to be consistent with other biological claims of genes. These have more to do with changes in culture. One possibility is, back in the day, people were taught to be more self reliant. Now it is more about dependency on government, drugs, technology,or PC telling how to talk or when to get upset, etc. When one feels self reliant, one feels they have the ability to alter situations, so there is less reason to get depressed or have anxiety. If you are dependent, many more things are not under you control, so when one hits bottlenecks this can lead to depression and anxiety. A good example is consider when you are doing something you are good at. This could be sports, video games, singing, etc. When you are doing that thing, you will rarely feel depressed or anxious due to a feeling of control and self reliance. The negative feeling appear when things are not under your control. If culture teaches one to be dependent, than so little is under your control and that these feelings can appear more often and will start to appear genetic. But again, genes don't change that fast.

If the earth is getting warmer due to CO2, that means more water will be in the earth's atmosphere at any time (water concentration increases with temperature) and therefore there will be more rain and more CO2 available to help grow more plants for food, while providing more fresh water for the bulging world population that is anticipated. This is for those who still doubt manmade global warming. If we assume manmade global warming was real, this would be the first time in the history of the earth that man has caused the earth's temperature to rise. This time in the earth's history is an unique event that lacks all precedent in the history of the earth. In spite of a unique events, this is the first time I have ever heard of science forming a consensus, with one unique data point. Can anyone think of another time or area of science this is done? Maybe the good news is, science has found a way to use a singular unique data event to draw universal conclusions thereby saving ton's of money and time when doing research. With this new science, they might be able to test a new unprecedented drugs, on one subject, and then go right to market. The reason old fashion science did not, as a rule, trust a curve through one data point of a unique event, was any curve that touches that point can be pitched as valid, if you have a good angle. This would make old fashion science, dirty, since some angles will benefit by recruiting political types who know how to pitch angles with conviction to the masses. Maybe the new way of one data occurrence science has found a way to get good results for cheap while eliminating all politics from science.

I want to do something that nobody seems to do; look at the upside of climate change and global warming. I live in NE USA and this fall has been beautiful in terms of mild weather and sunny skies. Normally it will be cooler and drearier. This data is not doom and gloom and therefore might seem alien, since climate change is usually pitched with only doom and gloom in mind. Why is that, since a climate shift will redistribute who will be the new winners and new losers. If you look at the media news, did you ever wonder why the news tends to present more bad news than good news? This can make some people can lose a sense of natural data proportion; don't think there is any good news. One plane crash can make it appear like flying has become the most dangerous thing to do, since the crash is not pitched in the context of all the on time flights, so the audience can maintain a rational sense of data proportion. Why is this? Bad news sells more commercials and products and creates jobs for expert analysis. If you saw a news story of a child with a lemonade stand, this will make you feel good, when you ago about your business. If that same child was hit by a car, there is no sense of closure, so you will stay tuned longer to learn what happened; rubber necker. Bad news has been found to allow the media to maintain a larger audience, longer, so they can pitch mores products by selling more commercials. It also means they can parade a legion of experts saying a lot about nothing, often extrapolating into other doom and gloom, for a multiplier effect. If I discuss the good side of climate change, this may not be how most people are conditioned to address news. It may make people feel good and they go their own way causing the discussion to stop. Or some will try to move the discussion back to doom and gloom since this feels more natural. This was also a good summer. We didn't get any 100 plus degree days and had very few severe storms, instead there were plenty of sunny warm days. I could learn to live with this new normal. The only real negative side was the large amount of winter snow due to a polar vortex effect; cooling affect. Who else has been the beneficiary of the good side of climate change?

The problem I have with the concept of manmade global warming or manmade climate change is, even if this is true, for the sake of argument, this is a unique occurrence in the history of the earth. There is no precedence any other such global manmade event, in the history of the earth. The uniqueness of this event, is similar to a prototype that has only operated once. For example, lit is like running one test on a new drug and then going to market pitching the consensus says this is a miracle drug. In spite of this singular data event, the majority of science is claiming this is a done deal. In contrast, natural global warming and cooling has happened more than once in the history of the earth, allowing science to have data that can draw a real curve allowing science to see deeper trends and complexity, yet anyone who assume natural causes is called a denier. If you have one data point or one data event, you really don't have enough to know how to draw a reality curve, since any curve that touches that one data point might appear to be fine, if it is supplemented with a political spokesman pitching that angle to the masses. But if you have many such points, like natural global warming, political spin does not work as effectively, since the data defines the curve. One can see this effect in the political arena, with third world dictators helping to spin the one data point angle, like experts, while renowned scientists, who explain natural, are driven out by activists and politics. If you look at every prediction that has been made with the angle of the consensus curve, through the one data point, these have not work out with the same level of confidence they are sold. The poles did not yet melt, Antartica is making more ice, the oceans did not rise, the seacoast is still a safe place to vacation, the polar bears are still there, hurricanes in the Atlantic did not get worse and worse. Now the sales pitch are more geared toward longer term forecasts 40-50 years down the line, which is long enough for almost any career in one data point science to run its course before jobs might be cut due to poor predictions. The question becomes should all future science consensus be based on political angles using a unique data occurrence, or should at least two data points be needed to claim a consensus?