Posted on Jun 6, 2017
PHOTOS: Here's What Climate Change Looks Like To Uganda's Coffee Farmers
3.01K
13
14
5
5
0
Sad News for Coffee Enthusiasts
PHOTOS: Here's What Climate Change Looks Like To Uganda's Coffee Farmers
Posted from npr.org
Photography
Climate Change
Uganda
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
UGANDA?? Climate Control?? In the middle of the Congo?? Hold on back up, You are comparing Apples and Pineapples First off UGANDA has not changed since they broke away from British Rule. Their Government started out corrupt and has only gone down hill. Since its independence from Britain in 1962, the east African nation has endured a military coup, followed by a brutal military dictatorship which ended in 1979, disputed elections in 1980 and a five-year war that brought current corrupt President Yoweri Museveni to power in 1986. The people are only marginally better now than they were under Idi Amin, Now if you disagree with the leadership they try to throw you in prison where you are tortured and killed instead of being murdered on the street. Transparency International rates Uganda as one of the most Corrupt Governments in the world, so its no big surprise you will see some pictures like this. HELL I can show you some pictures like this shot last week in America in Appalachia. Global Warming/Cooling/ Climate Change is BOGUS SCIENCE! It has been proven. ALGore said Miami was supposed to be under 5 Ft. of water 2 years ago. WHAHAPPENED?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Those pictures look like every other picture I've seen of that part of Africa over the course of my 37 years of life. It's very easy to pair words that push an agenda and pictures of places that most people don't see or pay attention to to try and sell something.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Sad fact that the richest nations in the world are likely to suffer the least, even though they are most responsible for the problem.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Seid Waddell - Some of this still over my head, but thanks. I would create a thread about it but I know it would quickly become poli-tricks-driven.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Anthropogenic (primarily human caused) Climate Change is recognized by climate experts and governments around the world as a real threat, based on real evidence and the consensus of subject matter experts. Does that mean there is a 100% chance that they are correct? No, they are likely to be correct… however, there is a small chance that some unknown factor or factors will alter their calculations to the point that much of the risk will be mitigated. It’s highly unlikely at this point, however it is of course possible. Sort of like relying on Powerball for your retirement plan, it’s unlikely you will be able to live off Powerball winnings, however it is possible. There are plenty of people who will enjoy a comfortable retirement because they won at Powerball, you just aren’t likely to be among them.
If you are convinced Powerball is a realistic retirement plan, the best thing you could do is find someone honest and successful and put them in charge of your finances at this point. The same applies when it comes to climate change, well sort of… climate change is a lot more complex than figuring out how to retire comfortably and doesn’t just affect you and your family, it effects billions of people over many generations. The similarity is that it is important to recognize the difference between what we want to see happen and what is actually likely to happen. Few want to see drought and famine kill millions, or entire countries sink below the ocean. I might joke about how nice it would be to have ocean front property in Arizona, however I would never wish for such a thing. So before we begin to discuss why Climate Change should be taken seriously, we can hopefully at least hopefully agree that if it is real, it is indeed a terrible thing that could kill billions of human beings. Easily the most slow rolling and deadly disaster the human species has ever faced. Now if you are rooting for the death of billions, there is no point in reading any further… denying anthropogenic climate change is (in your case) a logical position. OK, so now we at least agree that, if most Climate Scientists are correct, Climate Charge is indeed horrific. We return to the question of is anthropogenic climate change real, or is it a global conspiracy by climate scientists and government officials to rob us of our liberty.
Looking at scientific evidence is problematic, I am not a climate scientist. I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things, however climate science isn’t really one of them, and odds are good it’s not in your wheelhouse either. So we have a problem, how do we decide if something is true or not when we don’t have the expertise to make such a determination? 1. We could simply pick the one we wanted to believe in, cite the evidence that one side was spreading and call it a day. 2. We could examine both camps and choose the one that appealed to us the most. Hey, if Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change… I’m not going to accept it either, or if Sting accepts anthropogenic climate change it must be true. 3. We could find peer reviewed journals published by subject matter experts and see what they say about climate change. Finding those peer reviewed scientific journals isn’t always easy, nor is understanding what it is they are saying… however if you really want to understand what happening, it only makes sense to seek out the real experts. I suggest you go to google scholar https://scholar.google.com/ and type in Anthropogenic Climate Change, you will see a list of scholarly peer reviewed articles. https://scholar.google.com/ What you really want are articles submitted to journals like these: Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography, Journal of Biodiversity, Bioprospecting and Development, Environment Pollution and Climate Change.
If my car starts making a funny noise, I’m going to confer with a mechanic… if my chest starts hurting, I’m probably going to confer with a cardiologist, if either one of them tell me what I don’t want to hear, I might go see another one. Once I am certain that the vast majority of specialists / subject matter experts agree… I am likely to act on the advice of the majority of them. I will rely on the people who know the most about a subject, to help me make a decision on that subject.
I’m going to recognize that just as big tobacco spend loads of money muddying the waters around the risks of smoking, Big Oil, Coal, and even Natural Gas are going to do the same. I’m going to apply Occam’s razor and recognize that the chances of their being a vast international conspiracy across scientific communities and governments around the world is also slim to none. I’m going to trust news media that relies on those peer reviewed scientific journals and discount media that relies on science that doesn’t stand up to peer review. I’m going to expect our understanding of climate change and its implications to continue to evolve, while also recognizing that we have more than enough information right now to treat this as a serious issue. I’m going to try and be a part of the solution instead of the problem.
If you are convinced Powerball is a realistic retirement plan, the best thing you could do is find someone honest and successful and put them in charge of your finances at this point. The same applies when it comes to climate change, well sort of… climate change is a lot more complex than figuring out how to retire comfortably and doesn’t just affect you and your family, it effects billions of people over many generations. The similarity is that it is important to recognize the difference between what we want to see happen and what is actually likely to happen. Few want to see drought and famine kill millions, or entire countries sink below the ocean. I might joke about how nice it would be to have ocean front property in Arizona, however I would never wish for such a thing. So before we begin to discuss why Climate Change should be taken seriously, we can hopefully at least hopefully agree that if it is real, it is indeed a terrible thing that could kill billions of human beings. Easily the most slow rolling and deadly disaster the human species has ever faced. Now if you are rooting for the death of billions, there is no point in reading any further… denying anthropogenic climate change is (in your case) a logical position. OK, so now we at least agree that, if most Climate Scientists are correct, Climate Charge is indeed horrific. We return to the question of is anthropogenic climate change real, or is it a global conspiracy by climate scientists and government officials to rob us of our liberty.
Looking at scientific evidence is problematic, I am not a climate scientist. I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things, however climate science isn’t really one of them, and odds are good it’s not in your wheelhouse either. So we have a problem, how do we decide if something is true or not when we don’t have the expertise to make such a determination? 1. We could simply pick the one we wanted to believe in, cite the evidence that one side was spreading and call it a day. 2. We could examine both camps and choose the one that appealed to us the most. Hey, if Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change… I’m not going to accept it either, or if Sting accepts anthropogenic climate change it must be true. 3. We could find peer reviewed journals published by subject matter experts and see what they say about climate change. Finding those peer reviewed scientific journals isn’t always easy, nor is understanding what it is they are saying… however if you really want to understand what happening, it only makes sense to seek out the real experts. I suggest you go to google scholar https://scholar.google.com/ and type in Anthropogenic Climate Change, you will see a list of scholarly peer reviewed articles. https://scholar.google.com/ What you really want are articles submitted to journals like these: Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography, Journal of Biodiversity, Bioprospecting and Development, Environment Pollution and Climate Change.
If my car starts making a funny noise, I’m going to confer with a mechanic… if my chest starts hurting, I’m probably going to confer with a cardiologist, if either one of them tell me what I don’t want to hear, I might go see another one. Once I am certain that the vast majority of specialists / subject matter experts agree… I am likely to act on the advice of the majority of them. I will rely on the people who know the most about a subject, to help me make a decision on that subject.
I’m going to recognize that just as big tobacco spend loads of money muddying the waters around the risks of smoking, Big Oil, Coal, and even Natural Gas are going to do the same. I’m going to apply Occam’s razor and recognize that the chances of their being a vast international conspiracy across scientific communities and governments around the world is also slim to none. I’m going to trust news media that relies on those peer reviewed scientific journals and discount media that relies on science that doesn’t stand up to peer review. I’m going to expect our understanding of climate change and its implications to continue to evolve, while also recognizing that we have more than enough information right now to treat this as a serious issue. I’m going to try and be a part of the solution instead of the problem.
... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SGT (Join to see), there is a great deal more data to illustrate the point, if you are interested. One other point that casts doubt on the contribution man is making by releasing CO2 is that manmade CO2 has a very minor greenhouse effect when compared with water vapor.
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG (Join to see), "Anthropogenic (primarily human caused) Climate Change is recognized by climate experts and governments around the world as a real threat, based on real evidence and the consensus of subject matter experts"
These same "experts" have been caught altering data to bolster their arguments many times around the world.
And "consensus" is not what determines fact in science - only data does that.
"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat
These same "experts" have been caught altering data to bolster their arguments many times around the world.
And "consensus" is not what determines fact in science - only data does that.
"A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-05/climategate-2-noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-fake-global-warming-dat
ClimateGate 2 - NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data | Zero...
Dr John Bates' disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the so-called 'Pausebuster' paper is the biggest scientific scandal since 'Climategate' in 2009 when, as Britain's Daily Mail reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a 'trick' to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google