DarkeWeather

I hope not. I have 150ac of hay to bale yet today.

Sorry I was talking about the one that was by Connorsville.

Yeah the couplet was tight for quite a while. Surprised a warning was not dropped.

The issue with the general public arguing about issues such as this... and honestly most other topics, is the belief that their opinion and biases carry any merit. I really hate to both sides this issue but in this case I have to. Those in the general public and political realm that interpret data and conclude that climate change is anthropogenic tend to overgeneralize the issue. They recognize the very real changes happening in the world, but in the global world that we live in they tie it to every small issue occurring in the world. This unintentionally leads to an opening for those that interpret data and conclude that climate change isn't real or is naturally occurring or is overhyped. When any issue is over generalized, all it takes is a small localized incident antagonistic to the generalized theory to "disprove" said theory. Are these people actually disproving said theory with their individual data points? No, absolutely not, but the doubt has been created. And here is where the argument loop starts... one side says that the other is being ignorant, anti-science, and peddling misinformation and the other side says the other is being naïve, pseudo-factual, and authoritarian. Are they both correct? Yes! Are they both wrong? Absolutely. Because one side overgeneralized, it created doubt, which leads to more over generalization to "disprove" said doubt, which creates more doubt, and so on and so on. Another thing that irks me is when both sides use individual weather to " prove" what side they are on. No; record cold does not disprove climate change. No; record heat does not prove climate change. Individual weather occurrences are no more than that; individual weather occurrences. Whether the world is warming or not, there would still be multiple locations throughout the world setting extremes. This is why we average information and smooth information out. These averages are what is important. In a previous life I worked in a climate research center. The scientists I worked with were true data types; spending years in the field. They looked at the public and politicians in general with a sense of annoyance and trepidation because of these arguments. Neither side gets the science right at all, and yet both parrot as if they do. The data DOES show a dramatic change of warming globally; especially in the polar regions. Most of the glaciers throughout the world are receding. This is happening; one can go to each location and verify. However, not everyone is going to die because of it (although many animal species have and will continue to), and not every bleeping news story is tied to climate change. The good news is that every ecological issue that we can see throughout the world can be reversed or remedied. The Aral Sea disaster was directly caused by humanity and can be reversed by reversing the actions that lead to it. The Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone, The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, The Ozone Hole (Almost remedied), and the Amazon degradation are all excellent examples of humanities collective ability to mess up the world on a regional level. Thus if we have the ability to change the world on a regional level, is it out of the range of possibility that these regional changes could add up into a larger world wide issue? A general rule of thumb: If someone uses anecdotal evidence to prove a point but simultaneously refuses to accept the anecdotal evidence of another, they are being scientifically and logically inconsistent and should be able to accept the fact that neither sufficiently understands the issue at hand. Contrarianism is often mistaken as intelligence. But who is the true contrarian? Roughly 50% of the population of the US believes in climate change, roughly 50% doesn't.

Minus the three days prior to Christmas... Winter in my area has been non existent. I say bring on the heat and storms.

Now this would be something.