Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
The google says he graduated with a mechanical engineering degree Â
And using this video to attack his position on the very real position of climate change that is already increasing global conflict around the world, once again, shows the true colors of BBI.
One thing's for certain -- if he's "off the rails", theres a substantial amount of people in some very important positions who are far, far, far, far, far more off the rails.
In fact, this is actually pretty much along the same lines of what Bill Nye *has always* done - present things to younger people in an off-the-wall, whacky format. This is why everyone my age (1989) remembers Bill Nye (and learned from him, growing up).
I've never seen this show, but it's clear to me this lacks context. If this was just some goofy number at the end of the show, it's obviously intended to be mostly a joke.
I'm tempted to reverse google search this link and see which blog you picked it up from. Probably would answer a lot of questions (and provide us our own context).
And please, for the love of all of us who will be alive in past the next 25+ years, can you not shove aside climate change and call into credibility people who are educated enough to explain and warn us about the dire, disastrous consequences of climate change?
Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It's a political and anthropological one, and its effects have already caused some of the biggest issues that are being debated by developed nations today.
RE: The google says he graduated with a mechanical engineering degree Â
With all his lecturing on climate change I always thought he was a climatologist or something climate related.
Anyway that video was super weird.
It's almost like you don't need to be a climatologist/meteorologist to understand the immense danger facing the entire human race. And shit, it's almost like someone with a background in science can understand the scientific basis for why climate change is occurring, and when it'd be too late to do something about it.
Bill Nye has not "gone off the rails" for making a goofy/weird video (yes, I agree it was weird) - it's pretty clear, given his recent keynote position in the Science March, as well as activism regarding climate change (which has, unfortunately, become politicized), that this is at the very least a tangentially political thread.
Sure, you wrapped it up with a nice bow of plausible deniability. But people on BBI aren't stupid enough to not understand what's going on here.
(I hope I gave my post enough plausible deniability to not get attacked or banned).
I mean, the threat of imminent nuclear war should scare anyone. So should rising sea levels, and devastation of ecosystems that have enormous effects on the global economy among other things.
Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
And does so with less apparent knowledge than the average undergrad cramming for an A&P final, perhaps the fault isn't society's. Likewise Tyson musing about some sort of rationalist Utopia reinforced the limits of his expertise.
be an expert on everything, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to give their opinions. If you're a public figure, you are likely going to have to at some point comment on things you may not be as knowledgeable on. I have a much bigger problem with lawmakers and politicians actively denying and censoring science.
If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Each side has their own things regarding science, Â
but I would be pretty comfortable with the assertion that anti-Vader a are a little more fringe than those who don't believe in climate science or evolution, in their own respective parties.
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
I think it's an issue on both sides and I have no hesitations of calling out anti-vaxxers and anti-GMOers as well when the science is overwhelmingly proving these are safe.
I am just against the politicization of science and while it goes both ways I think its hyper political on one spectrum. I am also biased and admit my worldview may be slanted.
but I don't think climate change, which is universally accepted at this point, requires someone to be an expert in that particular field.
Overall, I agree that I wish science wasn't political and was accepted fact - universally. I know there will always be a line in the sand but I can't believe it's as far out as it is.
RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Science and public policy is now dictated by the swamp in lower Manhattan called Wall Street. Unfortunately, this isn't reality TV and there are consequences.
RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
Listen to the idiots in this administration discount/ignore science.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
RE: Each side has their own things regarding science, Â
but I would be pretty comfortable with the assertion that anti-Vader a are a little more fringe than those who don't believe in climate science or evolution, in their own respective parties.
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong in that.
RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
Thank you.
You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
The discussion of "science" here needs a clarification Â
Science is really a process rather than a product. What most refer to as "science" are facts that have been produced by the process of making and testing a hypothesis. But science the product is not immutable. The process is perpetual, and new facts are being produced pretty regularly. Climate change is a good example of that. Unfortunately there all also bad examples: policies based on eugenic science from the 50's are completely abhorent today. So policy based on yesterdays science doesn't always work today, and that gives the naysayers wiggle room.
A good scientist shouldn't have any problem with the dynamics of it, and would probably do very well in politics or law. But in the same way that librarians aren't gregarious, a career in science tends to appeal to those with relatively fixed thought processes. And many of them don't tend to do well outside of their comfort zone.
RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
No Eric. You have to be careful. Those who don't practice the scientific method aren't scientists. They are bullshitters. Just like the kid who told the story about scientists planting trees to compensate for helicopter fuel....
RE: RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
Because, in practice, they support their claims with evidence thereby negating the need for truth oaths.
So was it a lawyer, banker, teacher, or some other non-scientific profession that developed ways to harness energy? Or launch a rocket to the moon? Or develop life saving medical technologies?
Creativity isn't solely expressed by fashion designers and artists.
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science... Â
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science... Â
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
RE: RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
I don't think that scientists in general have the ethical fluidity of politicians. And I don't believe that most would alter what they regard as truth because funding depends on a certain outcome.
However, I think that it is absolutely true that scientists can be bound by dogma and that dogma can shape perceptions. And, that can (and has) drive what gets funded and what get published. The danger is that you eventually select for a certain type of thought or belief.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
I guess I need to hang out more with the scientists you know. The ones I know would have a tough time with a matching quiz putting together a city, a team name, and the sport. And, trust me, that's an experiment that I have repeated many times.
And, no, it's not every scientist or even every scientist I know. But it sure isn't uncommon or even a minority.
RE: RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science... Â
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Well, of course a scientist can have as shitty an opinion as anyone else. That's clear. And yes, because Krugman is a brilliant economist doesn't mean that he's right about politics. But Politics and science are different subjects. If we're talking about opinions regarding global warming, for example, some are much better than others because they are supported by actual evidence. And they are better in those cases, regardless of the credentials of the person who has the opinion.
People like Nye and Tyson (and Sagan before them) do the world (and especially the U.S.) a great service by trying to empower people to make decisions according to what we know is true as opposed to based on the mythology that informs so many of the decisions of the voting public.
People like Nye and Tyson (and Sagan before them) do the world (and especially the U.S.) a great service by trying to empower people to make decisions according to what we know is true as opposed to based on the mythology that informs so many of the decisions of the voting public.
Absolutely. But I think it's only a component of a problem. And one that different people can weight differently when formulating policy.
Listen to the idiots in this administration discount/ignore science.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
"No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society"
That is false and sounds like something that would come from alternative fact, truth challenged pres
RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science... Â
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
If we're talking about opinions regarding global warming, for example, some are much better than others because they are supported by actual evidence. And they are better in those cases, regardless of the credentials of the person who has the opinion.
There's really two issues to the 'global warming' debate:
1) Is global warming occurring?
This is a scientific question and opinions shouldn't enter the equation. The evidence collected and the results of verified models are what matter.
2) What should humans, or more specifically the US, do to try and combat GW?
This is almost entirely a political question and whether you are a PhD in environmental science or a custodian, your thoughts on the matter are your opinions. A carbon tax is likely to help decrease emissions, but it's also (likely) a regressive tax that will disproportionately impact the poor. How you weigh the importance of those (environment vs poor) is your opinion and a scientist giving his opinion doesn't make him/her any more correct.
Note: I'm not advocating either side in this debate.
RE: If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
Why is it sad?
What's sad is the people making policy who completely ignore data so their friends and donors can make a few bucks
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
RE: RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science... Â
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
Regarding the scouting, we agree. That's what I meant about falling into the credentials trap.
But the larger point is the notion of attaching importance based on credentials is not how science works. A scientist has a theory, he designs an experiment, tests it and the outcome is determined. Another scientist reviews that opinion. They seek to improve the experiment and repeat the results. They can either validate or disprove the findings from the earlier experiment. From this, scientific knowledge is obtained. The credentials are more or less a measure of a scientists current grasp of knowledge in a particular field. It doesn't mean that the scientist opinion is right. Evidence does. All a PhD really can tell you is that the person has a track record of being a decent scientist.
RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
There is no argument. Science, data and the truth are the enemies of the current administration.
RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
I'm not talking about a granola-eating soccer mom who believes Jenny McCarthy for some reason.
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
I assume this thread is likely headed for deletion so I won't put a ton of effort into it. I agree with your characterization and I loathe that phenomenon. But there are very consequential issues on which people go to great pains to avoid some pretty obvious conclusions supported by medical improvements and/or empirical evidence. It's easy to sneer at the rubes touting creation science and throwing around insipid polar bear memes, but without speeding this thread toward deletion there are ways in which the other "side" is as bad or worse, worse in that their folks are quite capable of doing otherwise but make the decision not to.
RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
My god what a terrible post.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
Not remotely in the same quantities.
RE: RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists... Â
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
I don't think it's good enough to simply look at numbers of people. There's other types of impact. I would guess right now, that climate change skeptics have the greatest economic impact, in so much as they influence policy, but I don't know. I don't know how you measure the impact of Creationists because the harm is more intangible. But, things like GMO and gluten-free seem like huge industry drivers with large financial influence. Anti-Vaxxers have caused palpable harm to health and influenced mortality.
Then again, astrology, which likely cuts across all political barriers probably has adherents which dwarf anything else.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province... Â
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
I think you framed it well. It's a gov't thing as opposed to a vaccination thing. Personally, I'm as big a vaccination proponent as you can find but I am on the fence about gov't mandated vaccination. I do feel, however, that if you choose not to vaccinate, then you (and your kids) should be separated from contact with other people. I guess that's a de facto mandatory vaccination, but I'm saying that you still have a choice.
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
*every* opinion? Ok. I've encountered plenty that were not. At any rate, it seems you concede that some opinions are better than others so there's no reason to belabor the point.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun... Â
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
You must hang around some select group of extremely boring scientists.
I've spent a lot of my career as an engineer working around scientists and researchers, from theoretical physicists, mathematicians and nuclear chemists down to the current set of data scientists. Flat is the last thing I'd ever describe most of these people. Odd? Unusual? Socially awkward (which applies to about half, fewer than most people would imagine). Yes. Flat? Limited set of interests? Absolutely not.
While I wouldn't have a big group to take to a ball game, they usually have a very diverse set of interests. No TV? Not these guys. Plenty of music, although not usually my cup of tea. All kinds of crazy hobbies. One physicist I worked with was a big origami guy (yes, apparently folding paper is a thing). Another has a wine collection that required him to build a temperature controlled addition to his house to store. My latest group has a scientist that is apparently 11 countries shy of having visited every country on Earth, and he's been to Antarctica. None of these people could ever be considered flat in any way (except athletically, they need a good gym membership in the worst way).
Back when we were starting Beakman's World, it came down to Paul Zaloom and Bill Nye to play Beakaman. And Zaloom got it because it was felt like he was more kid friendly. Nye loses the job. Anyway, we do the first season of Beakman's World and while we are doing the second season, Bill Nye the Science Guy comes out and it's a total fucking ripoff of the show he did not get.
Ask the people in Kiribati if climate change is happening Â
And when flooding in Bangladesh and other poor countries in southeast Asia continues to worsen the refugee crisis there will make Syria's seem like a joke by comparison.
Climate change is happening. It's a fact. The politics is in how we react to that stated fact.
We can choose like we did last fall not to make it a priority. In that sense every opinion did have equal value. Whether enough of those opinions were sufficiently educated in and accepting of science is another matter entirely.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
I think you framed it well. It's a gov't thing as opposed to a vaccination thing. Personally, I'm as big a vaccination proponent as you can find but I am on the fence about gov't mandated vaccination. I do feel, however, that if you choose not to vaccinate, then you (and your kids) should be separated from contact with other people. I guess that's a de facto mandatory vaccination, but I'm saying that you still have a choice.
I don't think thats an appropriate way to run a society. Are we going to have separate school for kids who aren't vaccinated? How are you going to get people to stop from interacting outside of whatever de-facto segregation (which would actually not even be defacto as it'd have to be gov't mandated)?
the thing about vaccination is herd immunity. Vaccinations aren't nearly as effective if everyone isn't vaccinated. This is one of those rare instances where even small government proponents should understand that the gov't should be allowed to step in and mandate vaccinations.
On a macro level, many libertarians say "do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others". This actually does hurt others.
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
We have a spirited discussion every year here...
but just for yourself, when was the last year you failed to get a flu shot?
Back when we were starting Beakman's World, it came down to Paul Zaloom and Bill Nye to play Beakaman. And Zaloom got it because it was felt like he was more kid friendly. Nye loses the job. Anyway, we do the first season of Beakman's World and while we are doing the second season, Bill Nye the Science Guy comes out and it's a total fucking ripoff of the show he did not get.
while folks who work in the science world may not be everyone's cup of tea, it's unfair to judge their personality (although, I overall agree with Bill, so consider me unfair). they're different, but that's not a bad thing.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Anti-vaxxers are extremely frustrating Â
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
We have a spirited discussion every year here...
but just for yourself, when was the last year you failed to get a flu shot?
I come from a family of physicians with my Dad being a GI, my sister literally in med school now, and my Mom being a cell technician before she had me... so I'm probably an outlier case, but I get one every year. I can't really remember not having one.
while I know influenza can become a epidemic and can kill people, I think there is a sliding scale of vaccines with regards to which should be mandatory. I don't think you can treat them all the same. Staying consistent with my previous posts, I think it's important to take into account the amount of danger you place others in by forgoing the vaccination.
while I know influenza can become a epidemic and can kill people, I think there is a sliding scale of vaccines with regards to which should be mandatory. I don't think you can treat them all the same. Staying consistent with my previous posts, I think it's important to take into account the amount of danger you place others in by forgoing the vaccination.
The flu is somewhat different too in that a. you'll never have herd immunity and b. the vaccine is just an educated guess as to what strands are likely to predominate in a given year.
McClintock: “I think we can agree that global warming has been going on for a long time. It’s been going on and off since the last ice age.”
“In fact, I attended the president’s address at Yosemite this last year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me, had he given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before he would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice,” he said.
“Doesn’t that predate the invention of the SUV?”
Goldfuss: “What I can speak to is the facts that scientists are pointing to now. So, as has been rightly pointed out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I have been…”
M: “And neither am I, but I do know history, and our pre-history tells us the climate’s always changing. We know that during the Jurassic period 150 million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide were five times higher than they are today and it was the planet’s prolific period for new species.”
“Do you deny this science?”
G: “… 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened since 2000. We have now had 16 months of global averages broken.”
M: “I’m glad you brought that up because we know in recorded history that during the Roman warm period from about 250 to 400 A.D., much of Rome’s grain supply was grown in what are now the deserts of North Africa.”
“We know that during the Medieval warm period from the 10th through the 13th Centuries wine grapes were grown in northern Britain and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving agricultural economy.”
“And we also know that during the Little Ice Age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every winter and advancing ice sheets destroyed many towns in Europe.”
McClintock: “I think we can agree that global warming has been going on for a long time. It’s been going on and off since the last ice age.”
“In fact, I attended the president’s address at Yosemite this last year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me, had he given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before he would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice,” he said.
“Doesn’t that predate the invention of the SUV?”
Goldfuss: “What I can speak to is the facts that scientists are pointing to now. So, as has been rightly pointed out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I have been…”
M: “And neither am I, but I do know history, and our pre-history tells us the climate’s always changing. We know that during the Jurassic period 150 million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide were five times higher than they are today and it was the planet’s prolific period for new species.”
“Do you deny this science?”
G: “… 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened since 2000. We have now had 16 months of global averages broken.”
M: “I’m glad you brought that up because we know in recorded history that during the Roman warm period from about 250 to 400 A.D., much of Rome’s grain supply was grown in what are now the deserts of North Africa.”
“We know that during the Medieval warm period from the 10th through the 13th Centuries wine grapes were grown in northern Britain and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving agricultural economy.”
“And we also know that during the Little Ice Age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every winter and advancing ice sheets destroyed many towns in Europe.”
For the one billionth time, nobody is denying that climate has changed before. What is being debated is the RATE of change. The earth is warming at a RATE that we have not seen before. The GOP loves to take things out of context and present them as valid arguments. It's laughable. Like Jim Imhofe trying to use a snowball on th senate floor, it is completely irrelevant to the topic.
isn't even relevant. What's relevant is that unlike in prehistoric times:
1) Millions (billions?) live in coastal areas that will be flooded/destroyed by raising sea levels.
2) There's at least a chance that humans can do something about it
The earth will be fine. The people in coastal areas and the world's economy may not.
McClintock: “I think we can agree that global warming has been going on for a long time. It’s been going on and off since the last ice age.”
“In fact, I attended the president’s address at Yosemite this last year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me, had he given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before he would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice,” he said.
“Doesn’t that predate the invention of the SUV?”
Goldfuss: “What I can speak to is the facts that scientists are pointing to now. So, as has been rightly pointed out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I have been…”
M: “And neither am I, but I do know history, and our pre-history tells us the climate’s always changing. We know that during the Jurassic period 150 million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide were five times higher than they are today and it was the planet’s prolific period for new species.”
“Do you deny this science?”
G: “… 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened since 2000. We have now had 16 months of global averages broken.”
M: “I’m glad you brought that up because we know in recorded history that during the Roman warm period from about 250 to 400 A.D., much of Rome’s grain supply was grown in what are now the deserts of North Africa.”
“We know that during the Medieval warm period from the 10th through the 13th Centuries wine grapes were grown in northern Britain and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving agricultural economy.”
“And we also know that during the Little Ice Age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every winter and advancing ice sheets destroyed many towns in Europe.”
For the one billionth time, nobody is denying that climate has changed before. What is being debated is the RATE of change. The earth is warming at a RATE that we have not seen before. The GOP loves to take things out of context and present them as valid arguments. It's laughable. Like Jim Imhofe trying to use a snowball on th senate floor, it is completely irrelevant to the topic.
Actually the rate the temperature is rising has been seen before. Just not since our species has been in existence, and that isn't a given. The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, us, just the wink of an eye. We do know that the pole reverse, what every 250 million years and it's close to doing it again. Right now we are actually in a low carbon based era compared with earth history. Does that make a difference? The earth had an O2 level of 35% ~ billion years ago. Could we have survived as carbon creatures in that with the gas make up? Beyond my pay grade. problem is fanatics on either side stick a flag in the ground saying their prediction for a thousand years in the future is the absolute. Things can and will change both ways in the future because something else will be added to the mix. Either we adapt as a species or we don't. Species go extinct every day and species are created everyday. Everything in context.
Most of those species are not active participants in their own Â
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
Renewable jobs far outweigh the jobs in oil, gas, and coal. Â
over the top, but basically you learn to live with climate change, unless you really think you can avert it. That's where the science community breaks down. the majority knows there's change. are we the cause? can we do anything about it at this point? Should we put our money into weathering the storm?
I don't have a problem with using the situation to pass rational and logical pollution control. Mostly what I see, though, is just using the situation to promote hysteria and political agenda. Sure I'm concerned, but I think Climate Change is mostly about selling a brand of hysteria. I don't think there are many individuals who do shit to alleviate the situation, but it makes them feel good to rail against corporations, government, and their fellow man, all the while telling you a very complex situation is simple and well understood.
RE: for another point of view here is Tom McClintock talking history Â
McClintock: "I think we can agree that global warming has been going on for a long time. It’s been going on and off since the last ice age."
McClintock's "point of view" is funded by Occidental Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, and Valero Energy. I guess the fine journalists at Daily Caller accidentally left that out.
over the top, but basically you learn to live with climate change, unless you really think you can avert it. That's where the science community breaks down. the majority knows there's change. are we the cause? can we do anything about it at this point? Should we put our money into weathering the storm?
I don't have a problem with using the situation to pass rational and logical pollution control. Mostly what I see, though, is just using the situation to promote hysteria and political agenda. Sure I'm concerned, but I think Climate Change is mostly about selling a brand of hysteria. I don't think there are many individuals who do shit to alleviate the situation, but it makes them feel good to rail against corporations, government, and their fellow man, all the while telling you a very complex situation is simple and well understood.
Exxon knew in the 1970s, from one of their own reports, that we were a main driver of climate change. Instead of releasing this information to the public, they spent millions of dollars over the next 30 years on a disinformation campaign to misinform the public on the topic. The science shows a direct correlation between our contributions so far as greenhouse gases go, and warming temperatures. Whether you want to believe it is hysteria or not doesn't matter when you observe the facts that are available to us.
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
Yes, we must, for the survival of our species. This is not just an environmental problem. It will have dire sociological consequences. It will lead to war, famine, political upheaval, the collapse of international cooperation and mass migration.
This isn't fully directed at you, but people need to come clean and say "I don't care about the future as I'll be dead/prefer short term gains" instead of ignoring the magnitude of this problem.
Also, the truth comes out - capone using the segment to attack climate change and Bill Nye from the back, likely due to his political views (surprise!).
Is global warming really that complicated? We pump a gazillion tons of CO into the environment, and bad shit happens.
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
for seeing global warming at a time that most saw us in a global cooling trend.
Yeah, but not so good on them for suppressing the information they did find. Funny though that even in today's political climate, even they support the Paris Climate Agreement. That should tell you a lot.
While this issue goes further than simply coal, I do think the situation with coal is perplexing and elucidates how politicized this has topic has become.
The coal industry is dying, regardless of any attempts by the government to save it. Coal workers are vastly outnumbered by solar workers, and are an incredibly small portion of the workforce. Yet somehow, coal has become a political issue, a drum to beat, with steps being taken to "save coal jobs", despite the fact that: a) they can't be saved long term due to the fact other industries are growing faster and provide more ROI, b) the number of coal workers is not very high, but are simply located in swing states, and c) it's a far inferior form of energy that is accelerating a problem that could lead to the extinction of civilization as we know it.
This next comment isn't directed at DunedIn, but it's very transparent when people try to make this "debate" seem like its anything else than obfuscation of an accepted truth, largely/likely propagated by political tribalism.
This is a settled fact.
Policy surrounding the fact is a debate (though I truly fear that many have misdiagnosed the gravity when positing that economic disruption is the bigger deal).
The fact that there is man made global warming isn't. capone's McClintock post is an example of this. As was whoever posted the meme-level analysis of "tee hee, a bunch of scientists in the Arctic were studying global warming and got stuck in the ice!!!" (which, again, ignores the fact that theres a high probability there shouldn't have even been water in that location they were sailing in in the first place).
It's obviously necessary to have a discussion on what to do about climate change, but the stage of debating whether man made climate change is occurring is over.
Yeah, nah. The joke is on the entire species as shit slowly starts to hit the fan.
Believe it or not, climate change played a substantial part in what's happening in Syria right now.
Believe it or not, climate change has played a role in European politics, considering the influx of migrants and immigrants is intricately tied to climate change.
What's baffling to me is that there is a large overlap between people who deny climate change or feel nothing should be done about it, with those who harbor anti-immigrant/nativist viewpoints. Again, people should come clean and just say "I'm being Machiavellian, climate change won't affect me till longer, so let's wall everyone off and let everyone who isn't here deal with the consequences. We'll deal with ours when it hits us".
Is global warming really that complicated? We pump a gazillion tons of CO into the environment, and bad shit happens.
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
While the key is the specificity in defining "minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically", I think there are a lot of people would buy into that. Of course, as evidenced by recent posts, some are quite insistent on something much more drastic.
Is global warming really that complicated? We pump a gazillion tons of CO into the environment, and bad shit happens.
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
While the key is the specificity in defining "minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically", I think there are a lot of people would buy into that. Of course, as evidenced by recent posts, some are quite insistent on something much more drastic.
I haven't seen many policy proposals put forward here, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Stating the gravity of the problem doesn't automatically mean the changes needed are anything more than things that would have comparatively small economic impacts.
Is global warming really that complicated? We pump a gazillion tons of CO into the environment, and bad shit happens.
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
While the key is the specificity in defining "minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically", I think there are a lot of people would buy into that. Of course, as evidenced by recent posts, some are quite insistent on something much more drastic.
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I am not well off but I will survive. It's a recognition that people who purport to be acting in the public good are proposing changes that will adversely impact the poorest among us, as most economic upheavals do. Cash for Clunkers, for instance, sought to remove some of the biggest polluters among passenger vehicles, and that's fine. But it also removed the cheapest of used cars from the roads, the ones cycled through by people on the margins. Nuclear power is in most instances one of the cleanest sources of power, but it's off limits for a variety of reasons. Viewed with a wide angle lens, it looks to the cynic like a guise through which umpteen pet projects can be enacted (because, science!) despite their otherwise lacking popular support.
I don't think advocating for renewables over other sources would Â
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
That's where the opinion aspect comes in. The extent to which something is (or isn't) done to counter climate change is a political question and worthy of debate.
What isn't worthy of debate is the actual existence of climate change. It exists, and the voting public should be as informed of it as possible.
"Climate change exists but we shouldn't reorder our economy to deal with it" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
RE: Most of those species are not active participants in their own Â
I am not well off but I will survive. It's a recognition that people who purport to be acting in the public good are proposing changes that will adversely impact the poorest among us, as most economic upheavals do. Cash for Clunkers, for instance, sought to remove some of the biggest polluters among passenger vehicles, and that's fine. But it also removed the cheapest of used cars from the roads, the ones cycled through by people on the margins. Nuclear power is in most instances one of the cleanest sources of power, but it's off limits for a variety of reasons. Viewed with a wide angle lens, it looks to the cynic like a guise through which umpteen pet projects can be enacted (because, science!) despite their otherwise lacking popular support.
Transportation efforts that are aimed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (improved transit and pedestrian facilities, higher density land uses, mixed use development, etc.) are enormously beneficial to poorer populations.
And in the macro scale, who is it that is most adversely impacted by climate change? The poor. Superstorm Sandy floods Manhattan and any damage is rectified almost immediately, but who suffered the most during Hurricane Katrina? Are millions of poor in Bangladesh equipped to deal with the encroaching water and all the problems that come with it?
The poor are always the first to suffer when there is need, and there are places around the world (Bangladesh for examples) that are where millions are in the front lines in this issue.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
I'm a bit more cynical about people in the highest places of power. "Because climate change doesn't exist" implies they've actually cared to research the matter, which I'm dubious of. Instead, I think their position is more of a: "We shouldn't reorder our economy, and I'm not motivated whatsoever to consider the existence of a phenomenon that might affect billions of people who aren't me."
RE: RE: Most of those species are not active participants in their own Â
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
That's where the opinion aspect comes in. The extent to which something is (or isn't) done to counter climate change is a political question and worthy of debate.
What isn't worthy of debate is the actual existence of climate change. It exists, and the voting public should be as informed of it as possible.
"Climate change exists but we shouldn't reorder our economy to deal with it" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
very much disagree. I think people are not allowed to be in the first category if you say that, people automatically put you in the second category. It's totally binary to those people. Beli be as I do, or you're totally a denier.
Iow, if you ever vote against a school tax/budget Â
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
That's where the opinion aspect comes in. The extent to which something is (or isn't) done to counter climate change is a political question and worthy of debate.
What isn't worthy of debate is the actual existence of climate change. It exists, and the voting public should be as informed of it as possible.
"Climate change exists but we shouldn't reorder our economy to deal with it" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
very much disagree. I think people are not allowed to be in the first category if you say that, people automatically put you in the second category. It's totally binary to those people. Beli be as I do, or you're totally a denier.
I think the people in the first category should at least be open to a discussion based on the fact that man-made climate change actually does exist. You can't talk about solutions to a problem if you don't admit the problem exists in the first place.
The first category specifically states "I believe it exists, but..." and you went right to "...should be open to the idea that it exists..."
Ah that's my bad, I misread what was written. I still think that a discussion needs to be had on what can be done. You have to at least attempt to find a solution other than dismissing efforts as too detrimental to the economy, especially when you look at the renewables sector and the potential for economic growth there.
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
Who is suggesting we reorder the economy? That sounds like a line from a Cheetoh rally. There are common sense actions we can take over the next 25 years or so that will make an impact. Unfortunately, this administration is going in the opposite direction.
Not directly. But when, in the desire to push renewables, you declare a war on coal and implement other policies that make energy much more expensive, yes it does adversely affect the poorest the most.
And then there is this:
Quote:
The study, by the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, found that the Northeast (New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania) is paying more for natural gas, losing tens of thousands of jobs and emitting more greenhouse gases than necessary thanks to “self-imposed” local “pipeline constraints.”
The projected loss to the region by 2020 adds up to 78,400 jobs and nearly $7.6 billion in economic activity and “the displacement of $4.4 billion in labor income.” New York alone would see $1.6 billion less in state GDP and the loss of 17,400 jobs. Youch.
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
There are real environmental costs to pipelines too Â
the latest lapdog snake oil salesman. Also, like most serious science, where is that paper with the concise theory again that explains it all and peer reviewed by all scientists including the ones that disagree?
to 'fix' global warming. If that's not enough to convince you that a lot of this is hype for people to get their hands on our money, I don't know what is.
And yes, you can rag on the link source, but it was the most concise write up of the very technical report.
FYI According to Gore, NYC should be underwater right now. Link - ( New Window )
the latest lapdog snake oil salesman. Also, like most serious science, where is that paper with the concise theory again that explains it all and peer reviewed by all scientists including the ones that disagree?
You mean the ones that disagree that are paid large sums by the oil lobby?
There are plenty of published studies out there. Many studies discussing various aspects of climate change are free and easily accessible if you are legitimately vested in finding out for yourself. Nobody is stopping you from educating yourself on the topic.
to 'fix' global warming. If that's not enough to convince you that a lot of this is hype for people to get their hands on our money, I don't know what is.
And yes, you can rag on the link source, but it was the most concise write up of the very technical report.
FYI According to Gore, NYC should be underwater right now. Link - ( New Window )
Wait, so you're telling me this entire thing is just an elaborate plot for Al Gore to get $15 trillion? How did I not realize this before?
Forget the actual trillions that energy companies have Â
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
RE: Coal is dying and it ain't coming back. That's something people Â
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures.
As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water.
RE: RE: Coal is dying and it ain't coming back. That's something people Â
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
You talk about killing the coal industry like Al Gore is personally going around to coal mines and filling them in with concrete.
Yes, China does it, so it's ok for us to as well. Sound logic. Â
"My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures."
He who solves that problem rules the world and beyond if we can go warp speed Scotty. That's a given
"As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water."
Well does desalination work if you want to keep a certain salt level in out oceans? Not as simple as you think.
As I said, we agree. I just don't think you understand the downfalls of all the present technology's and if it would be helpful or harmful. Unintended complications.
So do you want to stop air, sea and ground traffic worldwide that is dependent on fossil fuel?
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
linked the op - objectively it's a pretty crappy song and performance. But the overall point about the sexual spectrum is an important one.
Perhaps Bill Nyes Netflix show may not be the best venue for it, but certainly the country is in need of greater exposure and dialogue about the topic of sexuality outside the realms of entertainment and politics.
So do you want to stop air, sea and ground traffic worldwide that is dependent on fossil fuel?
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
Did I say that? I'm not debating the benefits that fossil fuels have allowed us from a technological standpoint, but we have progressed in that regard and should be looking at better ways to do things.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
May be wrong but, rumor has it that China reduced it sale of coal to NK and the US is picking up the slack in deals made. NK keeps on with its BS, China makes out, and Trump makes good with the coal miners. We'll see.
"Did I say that? I'm not debating the benefits that fossil fuels have allowed us from a technological standpoint, but we have progressed in that regard and should be looking at better ways to do things."
And I have been saying nothing else from what you just opined. You are just arguing because you "think" I don't have the same view.
Politics today don't let you agree with me even though we agree.
Doesn't that suck. Now you know why there is such a divide in the country.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
Whether parents in the developed world should be punished for having more children. That in a nutshell is both why Bill Nye is a kook and why people are skeptical about the direction this is taking.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
No David, he read the post correctly. Because he's not a ideologue who wants to attack a poster personally at every chance he gets. I responded to a post saying that 'coal was dead' by saying that we export a lot of coal to China. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.
And the US still uses a heck of a lot of coal. Where do you think a lot of the electricity to power those electric cars comes from?
Whether parents in the developed world should be punished for having more children. That in a nutshell is both why Bill Nye is a kook and why people are skeptical about the direction this is taking.
I don't see anything wrong with asking that question.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Hurt 'millions of people'?
The UK just went coal free - how many people died in that one?
Globally, solar capacity around the earth DOUBLED in 2016. Capacity is already beyond where initial DOE estimates of 10 years ago thought they would be in 15 years. China is leading the way. What are we doing? Proposing more coal burning. The EPA is denying climate change. It's not just wrong, it's embarrassing. The fact that more people supported this bullshit is an indictment of our educational system and nothing more.
You should really stick to giving nutritional advice doled out by physical therapists pretending to be doctors.
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
will show you first hand how population density and coal use are a bad combination. The most amazing thing about China to me is, far and away, how visible air pollution can be. I thought I'd seen air pollution in the US. It was nothing compared to China.
OK, to be fair, how much stuff they can carry on a moped was pretty amazing, too.
RE: RE: The demise of coal has meant the demise... Â
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
I'm not disagreeing with you. If these jobs are being lost because coal is being demonized, with or without cause, that's one conversation. If these jobs are being lost because it's simply not cost-efficient to produce power in this way, that's the neo-Luddite conversation and on that we're largely in agreement. I'm inclined to think a good bit of it is the latter, even if the various sales pitches put on by both parties - pandering to different constituencies - suggest the former.
I don't see how you can demonize something like coal, though Â
That would imply the negative impacts to the environment and public health are being exaggerated. That's not the case.
In addition to the greenhouse gas concerns, there's the public safety factor; coal generates as much nuclear fallout as your standard boiling or pressurized water reactor. If we're going to focus on the human impact, these people need a better choice than dying of cancer from radiation or dying of meth or heroin addiction.
Of all places - China - as fkap mentions above, the home of air pollution - has been trying to decrease their coal footprint for some time (and has been successful, albeit with a long way to go). When you have to ask whether you measure favorably against China on an environmental stance, you know you've gone too far. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ - ( New Window )
Its economics plain and simple. When you add in the adverse non-economic factors, health and work hazards, the decline should have been earlier and faster.
The local politics are full of hypocracy; when those jobs were in abundance, the complaints were about exploitation. They fought for workers rights, pay and safety (regulations, god forbid!) that made their jobs less viable. Now they are complaining that those awful jobs are gone.
Big problem is who would go in there offering new industrial jobs when the work force is relatively poor quality? I can think of million places I would rather invest, no matter how much they are "retrained" Its a tragedy looking for a villian.
Every region in America has gone through massive change in local economies. Change is constant. The real issue is demagogues lying to them by promising to bring back coal.
All due respect, I don't think that's the real issue. It was just another example of exploitation. The lying isn't new, and doesn't change the economics. Please don't cross the line that deletes this otherwise decent thread.
some of these communities have been dead for decades. The jobs aren't coming back. Some may have a glimmer of hope, they may have been "taken in", but when the other party has abandoned the field - declining to campaign meaningfully in coal country in Presidential campaigns since the 90's - and occasionally celebrated the decline of these industries the votes are going to go to the candidate who at least acknowledges their existence.
Investors wouldn't give a shit about demonization if it was profitable Â
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
No disagreement, but the gold rush and the various other rushes lasted for years in many cases. These are towns that go back 100+. It's about as easy to leave a boom town as it was to go there in the first place. You probably didn't have your family with you, certainly not three or four generations. Mobility is probably the best answer, but psychologically and financially it's not necessarily an easy one.
It implies, and its partly contractual, that if you work you will be provided for. It implies, but does not state, that this will occur where you live. No need to move. Its created a psychology that condones dependence. That didn't exist in the 19th century, so people just left, even if they were born and raised there, which many were.
RE: Thats the moral hazard of social security..... Â
It implies, and its partly contractual, that if you work you will be provided for. It implies, but does not state, that this will occur where you live. No need to move. Its created a psychology that condones dependence. That didn't exist in the 19th century, so people just left, even if they were born and raised there, which many were.
And without taking it too far down this road, SSDI has replaced wage income for many in this strata, geographically and socio-economically. So they have enough to live, and they and their progeny engage in a slow-motion multigenerational train wreck with all the attendant social horrors.
This already played out in the inner cities in the 60s, 70s and some of the 80s. Its what prompted welfare reform of the 90s.
History is definitely echoing. Incarceration isn't on the scale of the War on Crack/Cocaine but it's taking a toll too - rightly or wrongly - and overdoses are through the roof, of course not just in coal country either.
It doesn't help anyone to make false claims about manufacturing, coal, etc. and significant damage is done when politicians focus policies on restoring those jobs.
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
"I'm sure there's a lot of spin"
That isn't spin, it's out-and-out misrepresentation (not on your part, but by the dope who first mentioned it).
RE: RE: RE: I'll never fail to understand people Â
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
RE: RE: RE: I'll never fail to understand people Â
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way.
This is why I've always felt that we're ultimately fucked if climate change is indeed a real thing -- there's essentially no way to prove that it's as cataclysmic as feared, short of removing all effort to curb it to see what happens.
As things stand now, people who are already skeptical of its impact or existence see all these measures we've already put into place and consider them wasteful initiatives that address a fictional problem. What if they're actually effective, and we'd be much worse off without them? There's ultimately no way to know.
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
I didn't say we weren't. He asked me what would happen. It doesn't matter if we are accelerating it.
Same results. Climate change is constantly occurring. Whether a point is reached a few 100 years one way or the other, we still have to adapt.
Yes, it does matter that we are accelerating it. Â
You nor I didn't make that decision. We evolved and tapped the resources of the earth for our comfort. What are you willing to give up? electricity? The combustion engine? Air travel?
We have made great strides in reducing emissions in the last 50 years. The first totally solar powered community in the US is being built 10 miles from my house. Who is supplying the power? FP&L. I travel the country and there are wind turbines all over the Midwest. Why hasn't the northeast any on the coast in the Atlantic? Oh, that's right. Nobody want to sit on the beach from Maine to Jersey and look at them god forbid.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, is scrambling to create a new energy source. Guess what, it hasn't been found yet. When it is found, it won't change the world over night. Infrastructure improvements take time.
When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years.
It is not going to turn around tomorrow. You can be assured that people way above our pay grade in knowledge are working on making it happen.
As with anything else, there will be consequences. Foreseen and unforeseen as this process evolves.
I am just not a chicken little guy and never will be.
working to actively suppress anything that will undermine their bottom line, create an environment of disinformation, and pass laws to the benefit of oil companies vs investing in renewable sectors, where economic growth potential is enormous. There is obviously going to be a transitional period, but we can't just sit still because we're afraid of change. Nobody is saying you have to give up anything.
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Problem is storage. While technology is expanding exponentially, it's not a nut we have cracked yet
You don't think that if I could store enough energy to power my place for a week or so on stored solar energy that is scalable and affordable I wouldn't do it?
I would jump on it in a minute.
The animals have to eat and have water.
Right now I have 2 choices. Propane generator that runs my place with a 1000 gallon buried tank or PTO generator that I can run off the back of my tractor.
I have a small hobby farm. Now think of the people who have to feed the nation. Why do you think windmills are used all over the breadbasket for water supply aver thousands of acres?
working to actively suppress anything that will undermine their bottom line, create an environment of disinformation, and pass laws to the benefit of oil companies vs investing in renewable sectors, where economic growth potential is enormous. There is obviously going to be a transitional period, but we can't just sit still because we're afraid of change. Nobody is saying you have to give up anything.
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Like I said, I refuse to be a chicken little. If you don't see the progress we have made over the past 50 or so years, go for it.
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'll never fail to understand people Â
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
.
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
RE: RE: So why stop progressing now all of a sudden? Â
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I'll never fail to understand people Â
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
If the goal is to discuss climate change those proposals are very relevant. If the goal is to turn this into a blatantly political thread and get it deleted then you might be right.
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
I disagree with that. Never mind that there is a green lobby which also makes this political, but if you look at the major proposed treaties you will see that this had very little to do with climate change and much to do with sending US money to other countries, i.e.; a redistribution scheme. As I've said before, i could buy into changes solely due to potential hazards, but anything that is punitive to the US (and that means not applicable to every single other country) or sends US money anywhere would be deal-breakers for me. And, that would lead me to question true motivations.
removing any mention of climate change from their official website is political? You don't think that one side defunding NASA's earth sciences division is political? You don't think that installing am the ex-CEO of the largest oil conglomerate as Sec of State is political? You don't think the governor of Florida barring any state employees from even mentioning climate change is political? You want to talk about the green lobby when all these things are happening and you think it is those that are advocating for solutions to help with climate change rather than the people who are trying to drill in our protected national parks? What side is it again that is looking to open reviews on 200 national parks to drill for oil again?
Are you serious?
Not to mention that we already send billions of dollars annually to other countries for reasons less important and less noble that combatting climate change. Give me a break.
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
I literally have been saying this entire time that you don't have to buy in 100%. 100% does not exist in this world, but stop pretending like the two sides are equally as bad on this topic because that is objectively false.
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
Heh, like half the companies with the largest revenues in the world are oil/energy companies. But yeah, they're balanced out by the failure of Solyndra. The lobbying influence is basically the same for green and fossil fuel sides, obviously.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
"And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is no"
I never, ever implied that the science is invalid.
That's a harsh statement
Unless you have been under a rock. Technology is expanding exponentially. That means better extrapolation of data. Anyone who has a grasp of statistics can make the data conform for any theory you put out there.
And be assured it is just a theory because it hasn't come to fruition yet. That there were and are short term fluctuations is expected. Remember, we are talking eons. Hard to grasp.
Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know that there has been a warming trend for the past 5/6 centuries or so since the mini ice age?
Gore has done more harm talking in absolutes the anyone else. His ridicules claims of everything happening by 2010 was the worst thing you can ever do. Until proven, everything is a theory. If there is a super eruption in the yellowstone basin tomorrow, we won't be talking about global warming for a long while.
The one thing that is certain is that climate change is always occurring and has since the beginning of the planet. There is no denying that. The O2 level has dropped from ~35% to the present 21% over the past 350,000,000 years or so. Way before our involvement. A relatively short period of time also.
Science is always evolving too. Assumptions made on available data ot the time does not make it non valid for that point in time.
I would guess that I look at this in a much bigger picture than most.
science may be more than just climate change, but talking about climate change is a lot about not knowing squat about science but acting all sanctimonious about it. It'll be lost on some, but I truly believe many people are more about claiming others dismiss science than actually think about the science.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
science may be more than just climate change, but talking about climate change is a lot about not knowing squat about science but acting all sanctimonious about it. It'll be lost on some, but I truly believe many people are more about claiming others dismiss science than actually think about the science.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
Why I talk in such broad terms. I'm in two habitat restoration groups, a board member of 1, that has an interest in quail habitat on 68,000 acres as well as an adjacent ~100,000 acre parcel. Nevermind all the other stakeholders for the minute The water flow off the property changed when I75 in Fla came through. Fast forward 30 years later and the population is exploding. As growth expands and we are in a drier dry season, reclaimed water is what is used for lawn irrigation. For some reason people think that if you move to fla your lawn needs to be green 12 months out of the year. Anyway, with the expanding of 75 the opportunity came about to reestablish the original water flow. Now we know the wheels of government turn slowly and this has been over 10 years because we are talking a multi jurisdictional state, counties and cities buy in. The process is speeding up because a city desperately needs that water. Might get done in another 10 years which would be extremely quick.
If I see another burn pattern study to see what is best, I will go crazy.
I have seen more studies by research groups for everything under the sun and seen the money spent for it for decades.
What I have found over the past 1/2 century is that every stakeholder has their scientists that specialize in that area to study their concerns, Whether that is compatible with the other stakeholders studies is a complete different quagmire.
None of the science is "wrong".
Now get all the stakeholders to agree to a plan of action?
I have sat in too many meetings for that.
Good luck.
ctc- I'm generally in agreement with you on most of this, but this Â
Unless you have been under a rock. Technology is expanding exponentially. That means better extrapolation of data. Anyone who has a grasp of statistics can make the data conform for any theory you put out there.
is false.
Statistics can be made to mislead those that don't understand statistics by those that do.
Folks that actually understand statistics know that you cannot make them say whatever you want. You can mislead those that don't understand, but that's pretty much true with anything.
Also to whoever it was that said something about running everything with a steam engine....technically that is where almost all of our electrical energy (outside of some of the newer forms) comes from. Coal, gas, and nuclear are all used to heat water to turn turbines and create electricity. Steam hasn't gone anywhere and isn't anytime soon.
One observation: It's sad that instead of arguing the merits of the data, conclusions, and discussions- that instead everyone is arguing about which side is more "political" or providing "fake news" than the other.
The source of any of the data presented is pretty much irrelevant- either you can defend the data or you can't. Generally attacking the source means you can't.
Statistics don't say anything. It can easily mislead the uniformed (intentionally or not) so one must be careful when drawing conclusions based on any given data set.
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
"Climate change rhetoric?"
At the core, it comes down to this: This is going to be a massive problem that can have massive sociopolitical impacts on an international level, never mind the ecological and environmental disasters.
The people that realize this are trying to get people in power to understand this. One political party has made it a point to call into question the science behind climate change, let alone the impacts, and resists efforts to take step to avoid the fate we are facing.
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
is accept personal responsibility. reduce your own personal carbon footprint.
I'll stack mine up against anyone.
My opinion is that most people would rather bitch about Climate Change than re use a shopping bag.
A variation on that, and it has begun to take hold in the last 15 years, is not to ignore the steps you personally, and corporations and even government are a person with respect to this statement, can take that are profitable. I'll cite 3 examples:
* Westwood, NJ is a typical suburban NYC community with a concentrated business district that has a significant number of restaurants. About 12-13 years ago they began collecting the waste cooking oil, turning it into biodiesel and running a couple of town vehicles with it. No employees added and it was actually PROFITABLE when compared to running on gasoline (not sure that's the case with today's prices). They even had the capacity to convert other towns waste oil, but were limited by some crazy NJ statute. How many towns can replicate this? Yes, it would cover less than 1% of the vehicles on the road. But you convert those vehicles and SAVE MONEY.
* WalMart (Great Satan Inc.), around the same time, began to require the trucks at their distribution centers to turn off their engines while being loaded. Savings were in the millions, either for the drivers under contract or for the company with respect to company vehicles.
A pet peeve of mine relates to the parking authority in the town where my office is located. They just bought a new F-150 to cruise the parking lots and check meters. A hybrid would have been perfect for that.
* Exxon, around 4-5 years ago, retrofitted a landfill near one of their chemical plants in Louisiana to provide methane to power the plant. I'm not sure if there were tax credits involved in the profit-loss calculation but they came out ahead. Now I'm no scientific genius, but it seems to me that converting methane that was headed into the atmosphere regardless into CO2 while powering a plant that would have been powered by fossil fuels is a positive.
For that matter, how about a cost-benefit analysis on retrofitting other older landfills to generate electricity with the methane they produce. Waste Management does that with a lot of their new landfills. Energy prices are currently low enough so it's not a slam dunk at them moment, but it's worth a look.
And then there are the steps that could be taken by individuals, which more squarely hits fkap's point. Timing controls ("Nest") for single family homes could pay for itself quickly. But too many people, on all sides of the issue, simply want to pass the responsibility onto someone or something else.
IMHO, some of the green movement seems to be transfixed by what I call the gospel of wind and solar. Cost benefit be damned, storage be damned, transmission costs be damned. There is certainly a place for both those sources, but the storage issue is not going to be solved for a lot longer than they believe and their fixation could lead to problems in the interim.
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
RE: Someone's identity and the right to be respected and accepted Â
Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
RE: RE: Someone's identity and the right to be respected and accepted Â
Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
Because it's fucking stupid. Words are a tool to convey thought. Tools are designed to be efficient and creating more words for every single persons individual preference goes against the foundation of language.
To give any words meaning beyond their definition and without any context is fucking stupid.
..."When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
I'm talking about the origin of the species. We didn't pop up from nowhere 260 years ago. People were on this earth waaaay before 260 years ago.
BMac
You join some new cult I should be aware of or on the lookout for? :)
Hey, we're always looking for new members! My 260 years refers to the advent and continuation of the Industrial Revolution, which in my opinion, is the source of the extra heat-insulators that upset the normal carbon balance that worked pretty well for most of the time before it.
The magnification of problems and the consequent acceleration of warming has really come into focus now that the oceans, those great moderators of change, have pretty much exhausted their ability to absorb and hold heat. This is now a primary end-stage actor in the unfolding drama. It's also a problem that simply doesn't lend itself to anything other than very long-term amelioration.
In other words, keep trying to reduce the heat load causes, but don't buy any green bananas! ;0
That's interesting. My experience is usually something like this:
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Statistics don't say anything. It can easily mislead the uniformed (intentionally or not) so one must be careful when drawing conclusions based on any given data set.
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Paris accords have the US paying shitloads of money to other countries. Make agreements about climate change, not economic handouts for starters.
Impose standards, make the applicable to everyone Â
That's interesting. My experience is usually something like this:
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Then there's the flip side:
Response: "If we're not 100% wind and solar by 2025 it's "Waterworld" by 2035 and the polar bears already occupy Dry Land. And the evil businessmen, who all smoke cigars to accelerate climate change, have already bought up all the boats so the rest of us are up Shit's Creek. If it takes a second Great Depression in 2020 to avoid a second Great Depression in 2030 then so be it. And don't be fooled by natural gas, it's just methadone to block withdrawal symptoms from the heroin of gasoline.
Beyond that, breech the Hoover Dam and return the Colorado to it's natural state. Supply water to the Southwest by using desalination plants powered by oil and pharmaceutical executives peddling bicycle generators. If that's not enough let the executives die of thirst and let the rest of us rely on rainwater."
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Paris accords have the US paying shitloads of money to other countries. Make agreements about climate change, not economic handouts for starters.
regarding climate change, you show me scientific consensus, I'll show you an agenda. that comment will get me branded a mouth breathing right wing denier of scientific fact, but the reality is that there is no consensus of why change is happening, the cause, the effects, what it would take to reverse it. It's an agenda ploy to allege there is a universal consensus and knock down any one who dares say other wise.
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
regarding climate change, you show me scientific consensus, I'll show you an agenda. that comment will get me branded a mouth breathing right wing denier of scientific fact, but the reality is that there is no consensus of why change is happening, the cause, the effects, what it would take to reverse it. It's an agenda ploy to allege there is a universal consensus and knock down any one who dares say other wise.
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
I cannot possibly disagree with this any more, and as someone who will, god willing/hopefully, be alive decades into the future, it's distressing you are so willing to paint the concerns of climatologists as alarmist and agenda driven.
I don't think theres a million shades to the fact that humans are, at the very least, greatly exacerbating the problem.
I don't think theres a million shades to the environmental ramifications.
Where are you drawing the conclusion that there isn't a widely agreed upon stance regarding climate change amongst scientists?
The more carbon you dump into the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped the warmer things get. The warmer things get, the warmer they can get. Its self fulfilling and exponent than linear.
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
The more carbon you dump into the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped the warmer things get. The warmer things get, the warmer they can get. Its self fulfilling and exponent than linear.
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
Not complicated
Who's against planting trees? I don't buy into all their views, but you can make a tax deductible donation to the Nature Conservancy. That's one of their programs.
please note that I am not against taking rational measures to control our pollution level.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate.
I give you some credit for finding an ingenious way to use bullshit rhetoric stall action. If we can't have consensus about anything so we can't act. Just undermine the idea of consensus completely. Impressive. Especially impressive that you've connected the notion of consensus as an offshoot of an agenda, thus creating the implication that this position is somehow above agenda, giving it a self-congratulatory sheen of ideological purity.
Thumbs up, 10/10 would read this bullshit again.
You can't have an honest discussion with a person who decides to try and drain any meaning and significance from the fact that there is consensus among scientists about the causes and effects of global warming. It's essentially a "rhetorical prevent defense" to undercut any policy recommendations that might be offered to address global warming.
please note that I am not against taking rational measures to control our pollution level.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
You've lost me man. This makes no sense to me. The vast majority of people educated in this area agree on something. To me, that's a consensus. You seem to be arguing about the actual meaning of the word, or saying that because you can assign motivation to people, consensus doesn't exist. I'm really not sure about this.
your entire post demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
most everything changes. You think climate should stay the same ?
???? What does this even mean?
The world is getting warmer which will ruin crops and coastal cities. it will create refugee crises and political unrest, and will impact the entire globe.
If you're making a wordplay on "climate", I'm glad the ramifications are far enough in the future for you to not have to give a shit about it, I guess.
your entire post demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
I think his post was more a knock on your views on the phrase "consensus".
I don't meant to sound contentious, but really, you're kind of shutting down the conversation by calling into question what "consensus" means when it's quite plainly obvious.
It turns the argument into one of semantics about what a consensus is. What's puzzling is you say that "show me a consensus and I'll show you an agenda" - what if the agenda is acting in the interest of the human race?
These links might delve into what people mean by consensus Â
I'm using quotes not to imply anything is fake, just to tie the terminology to how we've been using within this discussion.
1) This one is from a site called "Skeptical Science". This article outlines a number of academic papers that have spoken directly about the consensus regarding global warming.
2) Here's one "fact checking" the 97% claim (though I kind of take issue with published vs non published, as published academic journals does mean more IMO)...the result was that it wasn't a "consensus" (which is over 90%), but 81%. That's still over 4/5 scientists. Keep in mind, the it was written by someone with deep ties to the oil industry.
Code:
Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies. Ritchie retired as Vice President and General Manager of the offshore division of EOG Resources in 2007. Prior to his experience in the oil industry, he served at the US Air Force Special Weapons Center, providing geologic and geophysical support to nuclear research activities.
If you wanna talk about agendas, it's extremely important to keep that fact in the back of your mind; having said that, at this point, even Exxon is talking about global warming, and this individual's conclusions still land at above 80%, so take that into account.
Here's a NASA link outlining various agencies, intergovernmental bodies, science academies, and American scientific societies that have put out statements, with each statement/study linked. My Father is a physician and I've seen some of his GI society publications from the the appropriate group (I forget the formal name, I think its DDW) lying around the house - I don't think it's fair or applicable to treat them as if they are lobbying groups. They are not and they are part of continuing education for highly educated individuals who need to be kept up to speed on the findings in their area of expertise, and are peer reviewed.
The webpage also has this graphic, which is incredibly alarming,a nd can be tied pretty directly to industrial revolution (I do wonder what caused the dip in the 40s-60s, but I haven't looked into it)
5) This is a wikipedia article on the scientific opinion of climate change. People frown on Wikipedia, but this is an article with extensive works cited and links listed at the bottom (most wikipedia articles on technical subjects have these - it's a better source than many give it credit for.
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[14] no scientific body of national or international scientists rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[13][15]
(though there is a linked list of scientists opposing mainstream scientific assessment of global warming on the page.
There's a huge difference. I can't think of anyone in government with authority who advocates for the position you stated. The con man in chief has taken the position I stated almost verbatim and is acting on it. SAD!
There's a huge difference. I can't think of anyone in government with authority who advocates for the position you stated. The con man in chief has taken the position I stated almost verbatim and is acting on it. SAD!
I'm 100% on your side (you should see my Twitter responses to our POTUS*) but you know how this site operates, and this thread is gonna get deleted if you wear it on your sleeve like that.
Maybe these policy/issue convos are proxies for full fledged political debate, but at least they focus on policy and follow the rules.
Plus I'd appreciate it if the thread didn't get deleted right away after I took 15 minutes to put that post together, lol.
I am extremely concerned about climate change and I truly feel that the final F-U from the generations above millennials and Gen-x would be the complete abdication of responsibility regarding climate change. Global warming truly has the potential to fundamentally change human civilization as we know it.
I just wish people would imagine how expensive it would be to stop rising ocean levels from putting lower Manhattan under water (most of which is built on garbage landfills - fun fact, Water St is actually where the water originally went up to, everything south of that is built on landfill) -- and then extrapolate that to the entire world, realize what is going to happen when these areas are under water, and extrapolate the global ramifications of what is going to occur if we don't take action now.
I know I've gone off on a tangent, but a lot of times, when it's someone who statistically may not be alive in 40-50 years passionately argues against the need for action against climate change, I can't help but think they are potentially 1) willfully ignorant of the impact this will have on those younger than them, or 2) cognizant but literally do not give a shit because they realize that they will likely not be here to deal with the ramifications.
I don't meant to blame everything on Boomers as Millenials have a tendency to do (some of it deserved, some of it over the top), but there's a clear generation gap in how Millenials vs Boomers view this issue (this graphic only goes to 65+, so I think some Boomers may be left out (only 65+ in this graphic). Also, keep in mind this is for the simple question of "climate change is occurring" - not about dangers or policy surrounding it. The fluctuations also seem kinda crazy for the short time frame.
Haha I get the sentiment, but the fact is that he is though -- saying that doesn't change the spot we're in.
I heard Bill Maher say it well - no matter what anyone wants, he is POTUS. Saying he isn't "ours" for a portion of the populate is an exercise in futility.
Cause while saying he isn't ours might be a way of showing disapproval or disagreement, at it's heart it's a cop out (not saying YOU'RE copping out, just the statement is) -- this is who is in the highest office of the country we both love, and we gotta own that and try to convince others that certain policies are detrimental to our country instead of pushing it off and saying "he ain't mine, I didn't want him, not my problem" (not saying that's what you're doing, but you get the point).
Having said that, if we were talking in a different forum or context, I'd be less diplomatic about it and probably agree with a lot of what you're thinking in your head right now....
"The world is getting warmer which will ruin crops and coastal cities. it will create refugee crises and political unrest, and will impact the entire globe."
So will stopping the flow of oil for a great portion of the globe.
That is the problem.
We don't lose coastal cities. There will always be costal cities. Just not where they were.
Just how is that Chavez country doing right now?
Now extrapolate that across Africa, the middle east and other areas of the globe. 50% of the world's population starving in the streets is not a good outcome.
There are a lot of stakeholder who don't want to die because you don't want to let the water rise.
That's the real problem with climate change. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I didn't read anything after I signed off last night. Just the last couple of posts.
Your graphs don't prove anything that isn't general knowledge. Which stakeholders are you willing to let perish?
Please let us know. How will your plan make everyone n the planet whole?
So I can't answer in full but I think saying "cities will be there just not where they were" is a gross underestimation of the depth of what is facing my generation.
I mean no Ill will but please take it more seriously and don't say things like that which ignore the realities of even a half a mile being eroded of coastal cities...for the sake of my generation. Please.
What I am trying to say is pretending this osere cost benefit when underestimating the true ramifications will make the world a hell hole when I am your age. I shudder to think what my kids will grow up in.
This is the biggest problem facing the human species.
If "my"graphs didn't show anything, look closer. this is a disaster waiting to happen. Will respond in fill tmrw when sober and not out
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
This is proof the $1 billion​a year spent lobbying, etc Â
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
There's a huge difference. I can't think of anyone in government with authority who advocates for the position you stated. The con man in chief has taken the position I stated almost verbatim and is acting on it. SAD!
Well we did have a CNN anchor ask Bill Nye, of all people, if an asteroid's close pass by earth was due to global warming. BRAINWASHED
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
sorry but this whole comment is a strawman. Unless you can find where anyone said anything about forgoing 50% of a paycheck.
You're more confident bc you won't have to deal with the reprecussions the way I will.
I am laughing at so many comments in this thread.. Â
first of all, Bill Nye is not a scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. He is a self proclaimed scientist who wears a bow tie to help convince you that he is a science nerd. He has absolutely no more credibility than anyone else on BBI to speak about global warming or genetics/whether he is a she.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
RE: I am laughing at so many comments in this thread.. Â
first of all, Bill Nye is not a scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. He is a self proclaimed scientist who wears a bow tie to help convince you that he is a science nerd. He has absolutely no more credibility than anyone else on BBI to speak about global warming or genetics/whether he is a she.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
Mr. Valentine?
With all that said, I'd still trust a mechanical engineer Â
Yes, he is an engineer...and the OP of this thread is the one off the rails, not Bill Nye
Cornell M.E. who also earned a living for a while as a standup comic. But he plays a scientist on TV :)
Ever hear of Google?
Anyway that video was super weird.
Quack how?
One thing's for certain -- if he's "off the rails", theres a substantial amount of people in some very important positions who are far, far, far, far, far more off the rails.
In fact, this is actually pretty much along the same lines of what Bill Nye *has always* done - present things to younger people in an off-the-wall, whacky format. This is why everyone my age (1989) remembers Bill Nye (and learned from him, growing up).
I've never seen this show, but it's clear to me this lacks context. If this was just some goofy number at the end of the show, it's obviously intended to be mostly a joke.
I'm tempted to reverse google search this link and see which blog you picked it up from. Probably would answer a lot of questions (and provide us our own context).
And please, for the love of all of us who will be alive in past the next 25+ years, can you not shove aside climate change and call into credibility people who are educated enough to explain and warn us about the dire, disastrous consequences of climate change?
Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It's a political and anthropological one, and its effects have already caused some of the biggest issues that are being debated by developed nations today.
Anyway that video was super weird.
Bill Nye has not "gone off the rails" for making a goofy/weird video (yes, I agree it was weird) - it's pretty clear, given his recent keynote position in the Science March, as well as activism regarding climate change (which has, unfortunately, become politicized), that this is at the very least a tangentially political thread.
Sure, you wrapped it up with a nice bow of plausible deniability. But people on BBI aren't stupid enough to not understand what's going on here.
(I hope I gave my post enough plausible deniability to not get attacked or banned).
Kim Jung Il worries me a lot more.
Kim Jung Il worries me a lot more.
I mean, the threat of imminent nuclear war should scare anyone. So should rising sea levels, and devastation of ecosystems that have enormous effects on the global economy among other things.
the first episode is about climate change, and "not that bad". I'd say out of the 5-6 eps we've watched, maybe 3 were worth the time
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
I don't think you know what 'quack' means.
I am just against the politicization of science and while it goes both ways I think its hyper political on one spectrum. I am also biased and admit my worldview may be slanted.
Overall, I agree that I wish science wasn't political and was accepted fact - universally. I know there will always be a line in the sand but I can't believe it's as far out as it is.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
You want painful, listen to idiot politicians pretend to understand science, far worse. The shame is that they'll be long dead in the not too distant future when half of Miami is under water.
Coming up next, same politicians will con the American voting public into believing they don't need no stinkin' net neutrality, from the same group of people who once believed that the Internet was a series of tubes.
Science and public policy is now dictated by the swamp in lower Manhattan called Wall Street. Unfortunately, this isn't reality TV and there are consequences.
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Spectacularly awful analogy.
It's amazing how threatened some of you feel by a guy like Nye.
Still don't want him talking about his junk.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
Thank you.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Quote:
In comment 13440751 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
A good scientist shouldn't have any problem with the dynamics of it, and would probably do very well in politics or law. But in the same way that librarians aren't gregarious, a career in science tends to appeal to those with relatively fixed thought processes. And many of them don't tend to do well outside of their comfort zone.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
No Eric. You have to be careful. Those who don't practice the scientific method aren't scientists. They are bullshitters. Just like the kid who told the story about scientists planting trees to compensate for helicopter fuel....
Quote:
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
Because, in practice, they support their claims with evidence thereby negating the need for truth oaths.
Creativity isn't solely expressed by fashion designers and artists.
how is star and creator of my crazy ex girlfriend
which is a fun creative show
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
Quote:
In comment 13440888 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13440751 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
Quote:
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
However, I think that it is absolutely true that scientists can be bound by dogma and that dogma can shape perceptions. And, that can (and has) drive what gets funded and what get published. The danger is that you eventually select for a certain type of thought or belief.
Quote:
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
And, no, it's not every scientist or even every scientist I know. But it sure isn't uncommon or even a minority.
Quote:
In comment 13441023 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Well, of course a scientist can have as shitty an opinion as anyone else. That's clear. And yes, because Krugman is a brilliant economist doesn't mean that he's right about politics. But Politics and science are different subjects. If we're talking about opinions regarding global warming, for example, some are much better than others because they are supported by actual evidence. And they are better in those cases, regardless of the credentials of the person who has the opinion.
Quote:
Listen to the idiots in this administration discount/ignore science.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
"No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society"
That is false and sounds like something that would come from alternative fact, truth challenged pres
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
There's really two issues to the 'global warming' debate:
1) Is global warming occurring?
This is a scientific question and opinions shouldn't enter the equation. The evidence collected and the results of verified models are what matter.
2) What should humans, or more specifically the US, do to try and combat GW?
This is almost entirely a political question and whether you are a PhD in environmental science or a custodian, your thoughts on the matter are your opinions. A carbon tax is likely to help decrease emissions, but it's also (likely) a regressive tax that will disproportionately impact the poor. How you weigh the importance of those (environment vs poor) is your opinion and a scientist giving his opinion doesn't make him/her any more correct.
Note: I'm not advocating either side in this debate.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
Why is it sad?
What's sad is the people making policy who completely ignore data so their friends and donors can make a few bucks
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Quote:
In comment 13441023 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
Regarding the scouting, we agree. That's what I meant about falling into the credentials trap.
But the larger point is the notion of attaching importance based on credentials is not how science works. A scientist has a theory, he designs an experiment, tests it and the outcome is determined. Another scientist reviews that opinion. They seek to improve the experiment and repeat the results. They can either validate or disprove the findings from the earlier experiment. From this, scientific knowledge is obtained. The credentials are more or less a measure of a scientists current grasp of knowledge in a particular field. It doesn't mean that the scientist opinion is right. Evidence does. All a PhD really can tell you is that the person has a track record of being a decent scientist.
Quote:
In comment 13440762 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
There is no argument. Science, data and the truth are the enemies of the current administration.
Quote:
In comment 13440762 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
I'm not talking about a granola-eating soccer mom who believes Jenny McCarthy for some reason.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
My god what a terrible post.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
You would need a scientist to develop the objective measure, but if you can't trust scientists, how can you then trust the measure he develops?
Quote:
In comment 13440762 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
Quote:
My god what a terrible post.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
You would need a scientist to develop the objective measure, but if you can't trust scientists, how can you then trust the measure he develops?
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
Then again, astrology, which likely cuts across all political barriers probably has adherents which dwarf anything else.
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13441173 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
Quote:
In comment 13441123 WideRight said:
Quote:
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
*every* opinion? Ok. I've encountered plenty that were not. At any rate, it seems you concede that some opinions are better than others so there's no reason to belabor the point.
Quote:
In comment 13440895 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 13440888 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13440751 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
You must hang around some select group of extremely boring scientists.
I've spent a lot of my career as an engineer working around scientists and researchers, from theoretical physicists, mathematicians and nuclear chemists down to the current set of data scientists. Flat is the last thing I'd ever describe most of these people. Odd? Unusual? Socially awkward (which applies to about half, fewer than most people would imagine). Yes. Flat? Limited set of interests? Absolutely not.
While I wouldn't have a big group to take to a ball game, they usually have a very diverse set of interests. No TV? Not these guys. Plenty of music, although not usually my cup of tea. All kinds of crazy hobbies. One physicist I worked with was a big origami guy (yes, apparently folding paper is a thing). Another has a wine collection that required him to build a temperature controlled addition to his house to store. My latest group has a scientist that is apparently 11 countries shy of having visited every country on Earth, and he's been to Antarctica. None of these people could ever be considered flat in any way (except athletically, they need a good gym membership in the worst way).
Climate change is happening. It's a fact. The politics is in how we react to that stated fact.
We can choose like we did last fall not to make it a priority. In that sense every opinion did have equal value. Whether enough of those opinions were sufficiently educated in and accepting of science is another matter entirely.
Someone who's intelligent?
Quote:
In comment 13441182 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 13441173 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
I think you framed it well. It's a gov't thing as opposed to a vaccination thing. Personally, I'm as big a vaccination proponent as you can find but I am on the fence about gov't mandated vaccination. I do feel, however, that if you choose not to vaccinate, then you (and your kids) should be separated from contact with other people. I guess that's a de facto mandatory vaccination, but I'm saying that you still have a choice.
the thing about vaccination is herd immunity. Vaccinations aren't nearly as effective if everyone isn't vaccinated. This is one of those rare instances where even small government proponents should understand that the gov't should be allowed to step in and mandate vaccinations.
On a macro level, many libertarians say "do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others". This actually does hurt others.
Quote:
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
Quote:
Do you speak the way you post? Who uses "insipid"??
Someone who's intelligent?
Or magniloquent
Quote:
In comment 13441199 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
but just for yourself, when was the last year you failed to get a flu shot?
I used to love Beakman's world!!
I tripped and skinned my knee the last time I wore a red shirt. No more red shirts for me.
people do have negative reactions to vaccines.
On the other hand, I've read about people swearing they got the flu because of getting a flu shot, and therefore won't get one again.
one is a rational, thinking person. the other thinks they know science.
It might be insidious of me to make any assumptions about any one in particular.
Yes, I do. Do you relate every in-person conversation back to the team you backed in the last election?
Quote:
In comment 13441218 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 13441199 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
We have a spirited discussion every year here...
but just for yourself, when was the last year you failed to get a flu shot?
I come from a family of physicians with my Dad being a GI, my sister literally in med school now, and my Mom being a cell technician before she had me... so I'm probably an outlier case, but I get one every year. I can't really remember not having one.
The flu is somewhat different too in that a. you'll never have herd immunity and b. the vaccine is just an educated guess as to what strands are likely to predominate in a given year.
Quote:
Do you speak the way you post? Who uses "insipid"??
Yes, I do. Do you relate every in-person conversation back to the team you backed in the last election?
Thanks, just busting on you.
Yes, I relate it in a bigly way
“In fact, I attended the president’s address at Yosemite this last year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me, had he given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before he would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice,” he said.
“Doesn’t that predate the invention of the SUV?”
Goldfuss: “What I can speak to is the facts that scientists are pointing to now. So, as has been rightly pointed out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I have been…”
M: “And neither am I, but I do know history, and our pre-history tells us the climate’s always changing. We know that during the Jurassic period 150 million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide were five times higher than they are today and it was the planet’s prolific period for new species.”
“Do you deny this science?”
G: “… 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened since 2000. We have now had 16 months of global averages broken.”
M: “I’m glad you brought that up because we know in recorded history that during the Roman warm period from about 250 to 400 A.D., much of Rome’s grain supply was grown in what are now the deserts of North Africa.”
“We know that during the Medieval warm period from the 10th through the 13th Centuries wine grapes were grown in northern Britain and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving agricultural economy.”
“And we also know that during the Little Ice Age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every winter and advancing ice sheets destroyed many towns in Europe.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/21/gop-lawmaker-totally-trolls-obamas-climate-adviser-with-global-warming-article-from-1922/#ixzz4fHz9ve81
“In fact, I attended the president’s address at Yosemite this last year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me, had he given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before he would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice,” he said.
“Doesn’t that predate the invention of the SUV?”
Goldfuss: “What I can speak to is the facts that scientists are pointing to now. So, as has been rightly pointed out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I have been…”
M: “And neither am I, but I do know history, and our pre-history tells us the climate’s always changing. We know that during the Jurassic period 150 million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide were five times higher than they are today and it was the planet’s prolific period for new species.”
“Do you deny this science?”
G: “… 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened since 2000. We have now had 16 months of global averages broken.”
M: “I’m glad you brought that up because we know in recorded history that during the Roman warm period from about 250 to 400 A.D., much of Rome’s grain supply was grown in what are now the deserts of North Africa.”
“We know that during the Medieval warm period from the 10th through the 13th Centuries wine grapes were grown in northern Britain and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving agricultural economy.”
“And we also know that during the Little Ice Age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every winter and advancing ice sheets destroyed many towns in Europe.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/21/gop-lawmaker-totally-trolls-obamas-climate-adviser-with-global-warming-article-from-1922/#ixzz4fHz9ve81
For the one billionth time, nobody is denying that climate has changed before. What is being debated is the RATE of change. The earth is warming at a RATE that we have not seen before. The GOP loves to take things out of context and present them as valid arguments. It's laughable. Like Jim Imhofe trying to use a snowball on th senate floor, it is completely irrelevant to the topic.
1) Millions (billions?) live in coastal areas that will be flooded/destroyed by raising sea levels.
2) There's at least a chance that humans can do something about it
The earth will be fine. The people in coastal areas and the world's economy may not.
Quote:
Do you speak the way you post? Who uses "insipid"??
Someone who's intelligent?
That bar is laying on the ground.
Quote:
McClintock: “I think we can agree that global warming has been going on for a long time. It’s been going on and off since the last ice age.”
“In fact, I attended the president’s address at Yosemite this last year. I was struck by his noting that the glaciers in Yosemite were disappearing, and it occurred to me, had he given that speech on that very spot 12,000 years before he would have been covered by nearly 3,000 feet of ice,” he said.
“Doesn’t that predate the invention of the SUV?”
Goldfuss: “What I can speak to is the facts that scientists are pointing to now. So, as has been rightly pointed out, I am not a climate scientist, but what I have been…”
M: “And neither am I, but I do know history, and our pre-history tells us the climate’s always changing. We know that during the Jurassic period 150 million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide were five times higher than they are today and it was the planet’s prolific period for new species.”
“Do you deny this science?”
G: “… 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have happened since 2000. We have now had 16 months of global averages broken.”
M: “I’m glad you brought that up because we know in recorded history that during the Roman warm period from about 250 to 400 A.D., much of Rome’s grain supply was grown in what are now the deserts of North Africa.”
“We know that during the Medieval warm period from the 10th through the 13th Centuries wine grapes were grown in northern Britain and Iceland and Greenland supported a thriving agricultural economy.”
“And we also know that during the Little Ice Age that followed, the Thames River froze solid every winter and advancing ice sheets destroyed many towns in Europe.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/21/gop-lawmaker-totally-trolls-obamas-climate-adviser-with-global-warming-article-from-1922/#ixzz4fHz9ve81
For the one billionth time, nobody is denying that climate has changed before. What is being debated is the RATE of change. The earth is warming at a RATE that we have not seen before. The GOP loves to take things out of context and present them as valid arguments. It's laughable. Like Jim Imhofe trying to use a snowball on th senate floor, it is completely irrelevant to the topic.
Actually the rate the temperature is rising has been seen before. Just not since our species has been in existence, and that isn't a given. The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, us, just the wink of an eye. We do know that the pole reverse, what every 250 million years and it's close to doing it again. Right now we are actually in a low carbon based era compared with earth history. Does that make a difference? The earth had an O2 level of 35% ~ billion years ago. Could we have survived as carbon creatures in that with the gas make up? Beyond my pay grade. problem is fanatics on either side stick a flag in the ground saying their prediction for a thousand years in the future is the absolute. Things can and will change both ways in the future because something else will be added to the mix. Either we adapt as a species or we don't. Species go extinct every day and species are created everyday. Everything in context.
over the top, but basically you learn to live with climate change, unless you really think you can avert it. That's where the science community breaks down. the majority knows there's change. are we the cause? can we do anything about it at this point? Should we put our money into weathering the storm?
I don't have a problem with using the situation to pass rational and logical pollution control. Mostly what I see, though, is just using the situation to promote hysteria and political agenda. Sure I'm concerned, but I think Climate Change is mostly about selling a brand of hysteria. I don't think there are many individuals who do shit to alleviate the situation, but it makes them feel good to rail against corporations, government, and their fellow man, all the while telling you a very complex situation is simple and well understood.
McClintock's "point of view" is funded by Occidental Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, and Valero Energy. I guess the fine journalists at Daily Caller accidentally left that out.
over the top, but basically you learn to live with climate change, unless you really think you can avert it. That's where the science community breaks down. the majority knows there's change. are we the cause? can we do anything about it at this point? Should we put our money into weathering the storm?
I don't have a problem with using the situation to pass rational and logical pollution control. Mostly what I see, though, is just using the situation to promote hysteria and political agenda. Sure I'm concerned, but I think Climate Change is mostly about selling a brand of hysteria. I don't think there are many individuals who do shit to alleviate the situation, but it makes them feel good to rail against corporations, government, and their fellow man, all the while telling you a very complex situation is simple and well understood.
Exxon knew in the 1970s, from one of their own reports, that we were a main driver of climate change. Instead of releasing this information to the public, they spent millions of dollars over the next 30 years on a disinformation campaign to misinform the public on the topic. The science shows a direct correlation between our contributions so far as greenhouse gases go, and warming temperatures. Whether you want to believe it is hysteria or not doesn't matter when you observe the facts that are available to us.
This isn't fully directed at you, but people need to come clean and say "I don't care about the future as I'll be dead/prefer short term gains" instead of ignoring the magnitude of this problem.
Also, the truth comes out - capone using the segment to attack climate change and Bill Nye from the back, likely due to his political views (surprise!).
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
Yeah, but not so good on them for suppressing the information they did find. Funny though that even in today's political climate, even they support the Paris Climate Agreement. That should tell you a lot.
The coal industry is dying, regardless of any attempts by the government to save it. Coal workers are vastly outnumbered by solar workers, and are an incredibly small portion of the workforce. Yet somehow, coal has become a political issue, a drum to beat, with steps being taken to "save coal jobs", despite the fact that: a) they can't be saved long term due to the fact other industries are growing faster and provide more ROI, b) the number of coal workers is not very high, but are simply located in swing states, and c) it's a far inferior form of energy that is accelerating a problem that could lead to the extinction of civilization as we know it.
This next comment isn't directed at DunedIn, but it's very transparent when people try to make this "debate" seem like its anything else than obfuscation of an accepted truth, largely/likely propagated by political tribalism.
This is a settled fact.
Policy surrounding the fact is a debate (though I truly fear that many have misdiagnosed the gravity when positing that economic disruption is the bigger deal).
The fact that there is man made global warming isn't. capone's McClintock post is an example of this. As was whoever posted the meme-level analysis of "tee hee, a bunch of scientists in the Arctic were studying global warming and got stuck in the ice!!!" (which, again, ignores the fact that theres a high probability there shouldn't have even been water in that location they were sailing in in the first place).
It's obviously necessary to have a discussion on what to do about climate change, but the stage of debating whether man made climate change is occurring is over.
"Obama's climate change scientist totally trolled!!!!"
Yeah, nah. The joke is on the entire species as shit slowly starts to hit the fan.
Believe it or not, climate change played a substantial part in what's happening in Syria right now.
Believe it or not, climate change has played a role in European politics, considering the influx of migrants and immigrants is intricately tied to climate change.
What's baffling to me is that there is a large overlap between people who deny climate change or feel nothing should be done about it, with those who harbor anti-immigrant/nativist viewpoints. Again, people should come clean and just say "I'm being Machiavellian, climate change won't affect me till longer, so let's wall everyone off and let everyone who isn't here deal with the consequences. We'll deal with ours when it hits us".
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
While the key is the specificity in defining "minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically", I think there are a lot of people would buy into that. Of course, as evidenced by recent posts, some are quite insistent on something much more drastic.
Quote:
Is global warming really that complicated? We pump a gazillion tons of CO into the environment, and bad shit happens.
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
While the key is the specificity in defining "minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically", I think there are a lot of people would buy into that. Of course, as evidenced by recent posts, some are quite insistent on something much more drastic.
Quote:
Is global warming really that complicated? We pump a gazillion tons of CO into the environment, and bad shit happens.
Someone observes the bad shit, and says 'hey, maybe we should kinda knock this off before even more bad shit happens', and all of a sudden we're into debates about whether the same cycles happened thousands of years ago and this isn't just all coincidence, or whether we should even bother since maybe the Earth is just too fucked to go backwards.
All the while, minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically would go a long way towards helping (not solving) the problem.
The same people will always be resistant. Either the problem is overstated or so far gone that we shouldn't even bother. That type of loser mentality needs to go, and as a superpower and leader of the free world we should set the example, not make excuses.
While the key is the specificity in defining "minor changes that won't majorly impact us economically", I think there are a lot of people would buy into that. Of course, as evidenced by recent posts, some are quite insistent on something much more drastic.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
That's where the opinion aspect comes in. The extent to which something is (or isn't) done to counter climate change is a political question and worthy of debate.
What isn't worthy of debate is the actual existence of climate change. It exists, and the voting public should be as informed of it as possible.
"Climate change exists but we shouldn't reorder our economy to deal with it" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
Transportation efforts that are aimed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (improved transit and pedestrian facilities, higher density land uses, mixed use development, etc.) are enormously beneficial to poorer populations.
And in the macro scale, who is it that is most adversely impacted by climate change? The poor. Superstorm Sandy floods Manhattan and any damage is rectified almost immediately, but who suffered the most during Hurricane Katrina? Are millions of poor in Bangladesh equipped to deal with the encroaching water and all the problems that come with it?
The poor are always the first to suffer when there is need, and there are places around the world (Bangladesh for examples) that are where millions are in the front lines in this issue.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
I'm a bit more cynical about people in the highest places of power. "Because climate change doesn't exist" implies they've actually cared to research the matter, which I'm dubious of. Instead, I think their position is more of a: "We shouldn't reorder our economy, and I'm not motivated whatsoever to consider the existence of a phenomenon that might affect billions of people who aren't me."
Quote:
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Quote:
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
That's where the opinion aspect comes in. The extent to which something is (or isn't) done to counter climate change is a political question and worthy of debate.
What isn't worthy of debate is the actual existence of climate change. It exists, and the voting public should be as informed of it as possible.
"Climate change exists but we shouldn't reorder our economy to deal with it" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
Quote:
In comment 13441880 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
because there is "at least a chance" that doing so will slow the pace of warming? I'm all for voluntary conservation, I'm in favor of some forms of mandatory conservation. I'm not, however, in favor of reordering our economy (under the close supervision, of course, of many of those same people arguing for the reordering) in a mandatory fashion, to include fines and/or criminal punishment for people and corporations who don't go along.
That's where the opinion aspect comes in. The extent to which something is (or isn't) done to counter climate change is a political question and worthy of debate.
What isn't worthy of debate is the actual existence of climate change. It exists, and the voting public should be as informed of it as possible.
"Climate change exists but we shouldn't reorder our economy to deal with it" is a perfectly valid opinion.
"We shouldn't reorder our economy, because climate change doesn't exist" is not an opinion. It's incorrect.
To me the problem is there are so many voters (shit, people in the highest places of power) in that second category.
very much disagree. I think people are not allowed to be in the first category if you say that, people automatically put you in the second category. It's totally binary to those people. Beli be as I do, or you're totally a denier.
I think the people in the first category should at least be open to a discussion based on the fact that man-made climate change actually does exist. You can't talk about solutions to a problem if you don't admit the problem exists in the first place.
Ah that's my bad, I misread what was written. I still think that a discussion needs to be had on what can be done. You have to at least attempt to find a solution other than dismissing efforts as too detrimental to the economy, especially when you look at the renewables sector and the potential for economic growth there.
Who is suggesting we reorder the economy? That sounds like a line from a Cheetoh rally. There are common sense actions we can take over the next 25 years or so that will make an impact. Unfortunately, this administration is going in the opposite direction.
Not directly. But when, in the desire to push renewables, you declare a war on coal and implement other policies that make energy much more expensive, yes it does adversely affect the poorest the most.
And then there is this:
The projected loss to the region by 2020 adds up to 78,400 jobs and nearly $7.6 billion in economic activity and “the displacement of $4.4 billion in labor income.” New York alone would see $1.6 billion less in state GDP and the loss of 17,400 jobs. Youch.
Link - ( New Window )
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
And yes, you can rag on the link source, but it was the most concise write up of the very technical report.
FYI According to Gore, NYC should be underwater right now.
Link - ( New Window )
You mean the ones that disagree that are paid large sums by the oil lobby?
There are plenty of published studies out there. Many studies discussing various aspects of climate change are free and easily accessible if you are legitimately vested in finding out for yourself. Nobody is stopping you from educating yourself on the topic.
And yes, you can rag on the link source, but it was the most concise write up of the very technical report.
FYI According to Gore, NYC should be underwater right now. Link - ( New Window )
Wait, so you're telling me this entire thing is just an elaborate plot for Al Gore to get $15 trillion? How did I not realize this before?
Quote:
In comment 13441857 732NYG said:
Quote:
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
it just changes from liquid, to solid, to gas.
It just purifies and recycles itself.
China cancelling coal plants - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13442002 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
In comment 13441857 732NYG said:
Quote:
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures.
As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water.
Quote:
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
You talk about killing the coal industry like Al Gore is personally going around to coal mines and filling them in with concrete.
"My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures."
He who solves that problem rules the world and beyond if we can go warp speed Scotty. That's a given
"As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water."
Well does desalination work if you want to keep a certain salt level in out oceans? Not as simple as you think.
As I said, we agree. I just don't think you understand the downfalls of all the present technology's and if it would be helpful or harmful. Unintended complications.
See Buford's comment
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
Perhaps Bill Nyes Netflix show may not be the best venue for it, but certainly the country is in need of greater exposure and dialogue about the topic of sexuality outside the realms of entertainment and politics.
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
Did I say that? I'm not debating the benefits that fossil fuels have allowed us from a technological standpoint, but we have progressed in that regard and should be looking at better ways to do things.
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
May be wrong but, rumor has it that China reduced it sale of coal to NK and the US is picking up the slack in deals made. NK keeps on with its BS, China makes out, and Trump makes good with the coal miners. We'll see.
And I have been saying nothing else from what you just opined. You are just arguing because you "think" I don't have the same view.
Politics today don't let you agree with me even though we agree.
Doesn't that suck. Now you know why there is such a divide in the country.
Look in the mirror my friend.
Good night.
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
Quote:
In comment 13442107 Bill L said:
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
[quote] You read the Daily Caller for science news/information? [/quote
It's a transcript of testimony - no edits
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Quote:
In comment 13442114 David in LA said:
Quote:
In comment 13442107 Bill L said:
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
No David, he read the post correctly. Because he's not a ideologue who wants to attack a poster personally at every chance he gets. I responded to a post saying that 'coal was dead' by saying that we export a lot of coal to China. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.
And the US still uses a heck of a lot of coal. Where do you think a lot of the electricity to power those electric cars comes from?
I don't see anything wrong with asking that question.
Quote:
In comment 13442107 Bill L said:
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Hurt 'millions of people'?
The UK just went coal free - how many people died in that one?
Globally, solar capacity around the earth DOUBLED in 2016. Capacity is already beyond where initial DOE estimates of 10 years ago thought they would be in 15 years. China is leading the way. What are we doing? Proposing more coal burning. The EPA is denying climate change. It's not just wrong, it's embarrassing. The fact that more people supported this bullshit is an indictment of our educational system and nothing more.
You should really stick to giving nutritional advice doled out by physical therapists pretending to be doctors.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
OK, to be fair, how much stuff they can carry on a moped was pretty amazing, too.
Quote:
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
I'm not disagreeing with you. If these jobs are being lost because coal is being demonized, with or without cause, that's one conversation. If these jobs are being lost because it's simply not cost-efficient to produce power in this way, that's the neo-Luddite conversation and on that we're largely in agreement. I'm inclined to think a good bit of it is the latter, even if the various sales pitches put on by both parties - pandering to different constituencies - suggest the former.
In addition to the greenhouse gas concerns, there's the public safety factor; coal generates as much nuclear fallout as your standard boiling or pressurized water reactor. If we're going to focus on the human impact, these people need a better choice than dying of cancer from radiation or dying of meth or heroin addiction.
Of all places - China - as fkap mentions above, the home of air pollution - has been trying to decrease their coal footprint for some time (and has been successful, albeit with a long way to go). When you have to ask whether you measure favorably against China on an environmental stance, you know you've gone too far.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ - ( New Window )
The local politics are full of hypocracy; when those jobs were in abundance, the complaints were about exploitation. They fought for workers rights, pay and safety (regulations, god forbid!) that made their jobs less viable. Now they are complaining that those awful jobs are gone.
Big problem is who would go in there offering new industrial jobs when the work force is relatively poor quality? I can think of million places I would rather invest, no matter how much they are "retrained" Its a tragedy looking for a villian.
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
No disagreement, but the gold rush and the various other rushes lasted for years in many cases. These are towns that go back 100+. It's about as easy to leave a boom town as it was to go there in the first place. You probably didn't have your family with you, certainly not three or four generations. Mobility is probably the best answer, but psychologically and financially it's not necessarily an easy one.
And without taking it too far down this road, SSDI has replaced wage income for many in this strata, geographically and socio-economically. So they have enough to live, and they and their progeny engage in a slow-motion multigenerational train wreck with all the attendant social horrors.
History is definitely echoing. Incarceration isn't on the scale of the War on Crack/Cocaine but it's taking a toll too - rightly or wrongly - and overdoses are through the roof, of course not just in coal country either.
I try to avoid Russian backed fake news sites
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
Quote:
In comment 13442754 santacruzom said:
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
"I'm sure there's a lot of spin"
Both expenditures aim to accomplish the same goal?
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
I try to avoid Russian backed fake news sites
http://i.imgur.com/dvvuLmc.png
Quote:
In comment 13442823 njm said:
Quote:
In comment 13442754 santacruzom said:
Quote:
Google "Al Gore 15 Trillion" and then snicker at the results?
Didn't read them and I'm sure there's a lot spin, but here's press release from Gore's Energy Transition Commission. And if you add up the additional spending they recommend between now and 2040 15 trillion isn't that far off.
Link - ( New Window )
"Recommend" is quite a bit different from "demand."
"I'm sure there's a lot of spin"
That isn't spin, it's out-and-out misrepresentation (not on your part, but by the dope who first mentioned it).
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way.
This is why I've always felt that we're ultimately fucked if climate change is indeed a real thing -- there's essentially no way to prove that it's as cataclysmic as feared, short of removing all effort to curb it to see what happens.
As things stand now, people who are already skeptical of its impact or existence see all these measures we've already put into place and consider them wasteful initiatives that address a fictional problem. What if they're actually effective, and we'd be much worse off without them? There's ultimately no way to know.
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Quote:
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
Quote:
In comment 13442505 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
What do you think are the ramifications of climate change?
Look throughout history. It's not hard to figure out. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. During the millennium there is a warming trend, waters will rise glaciers will retreat etc. etc.
During cooling periods the exact opposite will happen. Just like it has for eons.
As for ramifications? The species will either adapt or perish. I'll bet we adapt.
When the the sun implodes in a couple more eons we wont be worrying about it.
Yes, but in those instances, humans were not accelerating climate change artificially. Our ability to fix problems using technology is what makes us unique as a species. That's how we will adapt, or we will perish.
I didn't say we weren't. He asked me what would happen. It doesn't matter if we are accelerating it.
Same results. Climate change is constantly occurring. Whether a point is reached a few 100 years one way or the other, we still have to adapt.
You nor I didn't make that decision. We evolved and tapped the resources of the earth for our comfort. What are you willing to give up? electricity? The combustion engine? Air travel?
We have made great strides in reducing emissions in the last 50 years. The first totally solar powered community in the US is being built 10 miles from my house. Who is supplying the power? FP&L. I travel the country and there are wind turbines all over the Midwest. Why hasn't the northeast any on the coast in the Atlantic? Oh, that's right. Nobody want to sit on the beach from Maine to Jersey and look at them god forbid.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, is scrambling to create a new energy source. Guess what, it hasn't been found yet. When it is found, it won't change the world over night. Infrastructure improvements take time.
When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years.
It is not going to turn around tomorrow. You can be assured that people way above our pay grade in knowledge are working on making it happen.
As with anything else, there will be consequences. Foreseen and unforeseen as this process evolves.
I am just not a chicken little guy and never will be.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
I'm talking about the origin of the species. We didn't pop up from nowhere 260 years ago. People were on this earth waaaay before 260 years ago.
BMac
You join some new cult I should be aware of or on the lookout for? :)
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Problem is storage. While technology is expanding exponentially, it's not a nut we have cracked yet
You don't think that if I could store enough energy to power my place for a week or so on stored solar energy that is scalable and affordable I wouldn't do it?
I would jump on it in a minute.
The animals have to eat and have water.
Right now I have 2 choices. Propane generator that runs my place with a 1000 gallon buried tank or PTO generator that I can run off the back of my tractor.
I have a small hobby farm. Now think of the people who have to feed the nation. Why do you think windmills are used all over the breadbasket for water supply aver thousands of acres?
It's just not there yet.
Anyone know what NK's clean air and clean water acts are like?
You're acting like renewables can't power the same things that oil does now. We'd still be using steam engines to power everything if people thought like that.
Like I said, I refuse to be a chicken little. If you don't see the progress we have made over the past 50 or so years, go for it.
And what's your point? People have different opinions?
I think we all know that.
Bulletin, not everyone agrees with you or me. Just the way the world is.
Asshole are like opinions. Everyone has one and they are their own.
So why stop progressing all of the sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Quote:
thats true. And this is my issue with the climate change issue...at this point if you say that there is climate change but the "minor changes..." part without the "much more drastic,," still gets you label d as a climate change skeptic or denier or anti-science, when this aspect has zero, nada, nothing at all to do with science.
Myself, I could actually buy into "drastic changes" if someone proved that there was no other way. But my deal-breakers are that those changes be applied evenly across the plant with no exceptions, and that no US money is redistributed to anyone. That's politics with a facade of climate change and shows no one is serious.
I thought about your reply again in light of the Gore ETC set of recommendations. And I'm sure that by saying that while climate change is happening those proposals are over the top will get me labelled a denier and anti-science.
.
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
Quote:
.
So why stop progressing all of the sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
Those proposals are completely irrelevant. Try looking at actual policies from people who are making the decisions. Cheetoh and his team are disasters and liars. Sad, Bigly
If the goal is to discuss climate change those proposals are very relevant. If the goal is to turn this into a blatantly political thread and get it deleted then you might be right.
Quote:
In comment 13443796 732NYG said:
Quote:
.
So why stop progressing all of the sudden?
The past 60 or so years doesn't click in your brain? Remember that was the big global cooling scare? What it did do is change culture here in the US. Although it was dismissed as faulty data, it started a green movement that has exploded. Then it went to global warming. As temperatures fluctuate it went to climate change. Right as it should be defined.
How are we stopping progressing all of the sudden? We are weaning off of coal use while supplying it to others as they are going to use it anyway while keeping a segment of the population employed. Hell, we bailed out a private auto maker for bad business practices that is still doing more to accelerate climate change than keeping the miners at work.
Now think consequences. Intentional and unintentional.
Pick your poison.
Don't put a political slant to it. They are all on the take.
Sorry, but no. Absolutely no. This has been made political whether your or me like it or not. One side has shown that they are completely anti-science and in the pocket firmly of the energy lobby. The two sides are absolutely not equivalent, and I wish people would stop pretending that they are.
And stop pretending that because of the past mistakes that have been made, that the science is invalidated because it is not. And once again, I never said that we need to cut any source of energy off immediately. Your posts keep implying that that is what I am suggesting, and it is misleading.
Are you serious?
Not to mention that we already send billions of dollars annually to other countries for reasons less important and less noble that combatting climate change. Give me a break.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
I literally have been saying this entire time that you don't have to buy in 100%. 100% does not exist in this world, but stop pretending like the two sides are equally as bad on this topic because that is objectively false.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that there is one hell of a difference between night and day, even though sometimes it isn't sunny during the day.
1. You assume (or espouse, I'm not sure which) that anyone not buying 100% into the green package (Gore et. al.) is anti-science and a denier. To the contrary, I suggest there is a continuum which makes it much harder to pidgeonhole people.
2. I don't think Bill has suggested politics is absent from any of the various parties in this discussion. However, if you think it doesn't exist on the green side of the spectrum I've got one word for you, Solyndra.
Heh, like half the companies with the largest revenues in the world are oil/energy companies. But yeah, they're balanced out by the failure of Solyndra. The lobbying influence is basically the same for green and fossil fuel sides, obviously.
Quote:
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
I never, ever implied that the science is invalid.
That's a harsh statement
Unless you have been under a rock. Technology is expanding exponentially. That means better extrapolation of data. Anyone who has a grasp of statistics can make the data conform for any theory you put out there.
And be assured it is just a theory because it hasn't come to fruition yet. That there were and are short term fluctuations is expected. Remember, we are talking eons. Hard to grasp.
Is there anyone on the planet who doesn't know that there has been a warming trend for the past 5/6 centuries or so since the mini ice age?
Gore has done more harm talking in absolutes the anyone else. His ridicules claims of everything happening by 2010 was the worst thing you can ever do. Until proven, everything is a theory. If there is a super eruption in the yellowstone basin tomorrow, we won't be talking about global warming for a long while.
The one thing that is certain is that climate change is always occurring and has since the beginning of the planet. There is no denying that. The O2 level has dropped from ~35% to the present 21% over the past 350,000,000 years or so. Way before our involvement. A relatively short period of time also.
Science is always evolving too. Assumptions made on available data ot the time does not make it non valid for that point in time.
I would guess that I look at this in a much bigger picture than most.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
that may be just one person who works in science talking to another who works in science.
Why I talk in such broad terms. I'm in two habitat restoration groups, a board member of 1, that has an interest in quail habitat on 68,000 acres as well as an adjacent ~100,000 acre parcel. Nevermind all the other stakeholders for the minute The water flow off the property changed when I75 in Fla came through. Fast forward 30 years later and the population is exploding. As growth expands and we are in a drier dry season, reclaimed water is what is used for lawn irrigation. For some reason people think that if you move to fla your lawn needs to be green 12 months out of the year. Anyway, with the expanding of 75 the opportunity came about to reestablish the original water flow. Now we know the wheels of government turn slowly and this has been over 10 years because we are talking a multi jurisdictional state, counties and cities buy in. The process is speeding up because a city desperately needs that water. Might get done in another 10 years which would be extremely quick.
If I see another burn pattern study to see what is best, I will go crazy.
I have seen more studies by research groups for everything under the sun and seen the money spent for it for decades.
What I have found over the past 1/2 century is that every stakeholder has their scientists that specialize in that area to study their concerns, Whether that is compatible with the other stakeholders studies is a complete different quagmire.
None of the science is "wrong".
Now get all the stakeholders to agree to a plan of action?
I have sat in too many meetings for that.
Good luck.
is false.
Statistics can be made to mislead those that don't understand statistics by those that do.
Folks that actually understand statistics know that you cannot make them say whatever you want. You can mislead those that don't understand, but that's pretty much true with anything.
Also to whoever it was that said something about running everything with a steam engine....technically that is where almost all of our electrical energy (outside of some of the newer forms) comes from. Coal, gas, and nuclear are all used to heat water to turn turbines and create electricity. Steam hasn't gone anywhere and isn't anytime soon.
One observation: It's sad that instead of arguing the merits of the data, conclusions, and discussions- that instead everyone is arguing about which side is more "political" or providing "fake news" than the other.
The source of any of the data presented is pretty much irrelevant- either you can defend the data or you can't. Generally attacking the source means you can't.
Anyone know what NK's clean air and clean water acts are like?
Quote:
In comment 13445101 fkap said:
Quote:
they're all on the take. neither side has any moral high ground to stand on. This country is run by industry, for industry. Once in a while happy circumstance crosses over for the common good, and/or good intentions don't get watered down too much by corporate lobby industry.
False equivalency. Nobody is innocent, but don't pretend like one side isn't actively undermining science at this moment. There wasn't a March for Science in over 600 cities in other times, so why now? Guess all those scientists are just mad they're not getting paid? That's garbage.
Actually, that's one of the tragedies of the March for Science, that it was co-opted by climate change rhetoric. The real reason for the March was much more than climate change, that being a potential dramatic decrease in research funding and perhaps a general attitude of dismissal of science.
Being a true believer, you won't appreciate this, but it's true. Science is much more than climate change..
At the core, it comes down to this: This is going to be a massive problem that can have massive sociopolitical impacts on an international level, never mind the ecological and environmental disasters.
The people that realize this are trying to get people in power to understand this. One political party has made it a point to call into question the science behind climate change, let alone the impacts, and resists efforts to take step to avoid the fate we are facing.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
I'll stack mine up against anyone.
My opinion is that most people would rather bitch about Climate Change than re use a shopping bag.
I'll stack mine up against anyone.
My opinion is that most people would rather bitch about Climate Change than re use a shopping bag.
A variation on that, and it has begun to take hold in the last 15 years, is not to ignore the steps you personally, and corporations and even government are a person with respect to this statement, can take that are profitable. I'll cite 3 examples:
* Westwood, NJ is a typical suburban NYC community with a concentrated business district that has a significant number of restaurants. About 12-13 years ago they began collecting the waste cooking oil, turning it into biodiesel and running a couple of town vehicles with it. No employees added and it was actually PROFITABLE when compared to running on gasoline (not sure that's the case with today's prices). They even had the capacity to convert other towns waste oil, but were limited by some crazy NJ statute. How many towns can replicate this? Yes, it would cover less than 1% of the vehicles on the road. But you convert those vehicles and SAVE MONEY.
* WalMart (Great Satan Inc.), around the same time, began to require the trucks at their distribution centers to turn off their engines while being loaded. Savings were in the millions, either for the drivers under contract or for the company with respect to company vehicles.
A pet peeve of mine relates to the parking authority in the town where my office is located. They just bought a new F-150 to cruise the parking lots and check meters. A hybrid would have been perfect for that.
* Exxon, around 4-5 years ago, retrofitted a landfill near one of their chemical plants in Louisiana to provide methane to power the plant. I'm not sure if there were tax credits involved in the profit-loss calculation but they came out ahead. Now I'm no scientific genius, but it seems to me that converting methane that was headed into the atmosphere regardless into CO2 while powering a plant that would have been powered by fossil fuels is a positive.
For that matter, how about a cost-benefit analysis on retrofitting other older landfills to generate electricity with the methane they produce. Waste Management does that with a lot of their new landfills. Energy prices are currently low enough so it's not a slam dunk at them moment, but it's worth a look.
And then there are the steps that could be taken by individuals, which more squarely hits fkap's point. Timing controls ("Nest") for single family homes could pay for itself quickly. But too many people, on all sides of the issue, simply want to pass the responsibility onto someone or something else.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
Quote:
Is vitally important in life. But sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes at some of this stuff. You're free to say you're trans species and that you identify as a cat, sure. I'm also free to think you're a fruit cake.
Agreed, Rud. I don't care what anyone tells me, I'll never not find it weird when people want to be referred to with pronouns like "ze"
Because it's fucking stupid. Words are a tool to convey thought. Tools are designed to be efficient and creating more words for every single persons individual preference goes against the foundation of language.
To give any words meaning beyond their definition and without any context is fucking stupid.
Quote:
..."When we do find another energy source, that doesn't mean the end of fossil fuels. They are used in thousands of other processes.
It took us a long time to get where we are in this. About ~10,000 years."
Actually, it took about 260 years. But don't let facts get in the way.
I'm talking about the origin of the species. We didn't pop up from nowhere 260 years ago. People were on this earth waaaay before 260 years ago.
BMac
You join some new cult I should be aware of or on the lookout for? :)
Hey, we're always looking for new members! My 260 years refers to the advent and continuation of the Industrial Revolution, which in my opinion, is the source of the extra heat-insulators that upset the normal carbon balance that worked pretty well for most of the time before it.
The magnification of problems and the consequent acceleration of warming has really come into focus now that the oceans, those great moderators of change, have pretty much exhausted their ability to absorb and hold heat. This is now a primary end-stage actor in the unfolding drama. It's also a problem that simply doesn't lend itself to anything other than very long-term amelioration.
In other words, keep trying to reduce the heat load causes, but don't buy any green bananas! ;0
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Right. They lead you to questions.
Quote:
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Average guy; "I am worried about climate change and believe we should do more to address it"
Response; "climate change is a hoax invented by China to dominate us and supported by liberals who want to destroy America. Remember when it snowed during Al Gores
Then there's the flip side:
Response: "If we're not 100% wind and solar by 2025 it's "Waterworld" by 2035 and the polar bears already occupy Dry Land. And the evil businessmen, who all smoke cigars to accelerate climate change, have already bought up all the boats so the rest of us are up Shit's Creek. If it takes a second Great Depression in 2020 to avoid a second Great Depression in 2030 then so be it. And don't be fooled by natural gas, it's just methadone to block withdrawal symptoms from the heroin of gasoline.
Beyond that, breech the Hoover Dam and return the Colorado to it's natural state. Supply water to the Southwest by using desalination plants powered by oil and pharmaceutical executives peddling bicycle generators. If that's not enough let the executives die of thirst and let the rest of us rely on rainwater."
Quote:
In comment 13448589 fkap said:
Quote:
what should be done is rational pollution control. regardless of whether humans are irrevocably harming the planet, we should recognize that we can harm the environment and our ability to live in it.
the rational realization is that it's a fine line where to draw the line. how much dumping raw sewage into the water system is too much? How much is acceptable? In terms of Climate Change, or any sort of pollution, you can find a scientist who can argue a lot of shades. And you can find a lobbyist who will bribe a politician of either side to think a certain way.
where is the 'obvious' line of how much pollution is enough? saying zero pollution is unrealistic. I guarantee that anyone saying there's a definite line is full of shit. Anyone who says Climate change is an open and shut case is full of shit. Doesn't mean Climate Change, or pollution, isn't real. Just that if you think you know, you're probably wrong.
Erring on the side of caution is a wise move, but the reality is that lobbyists will move the line as much as possible in favor of the industry. Lobbyists don't care which side of the aisle the politician sits. all they care about is getting the laws to allow what is most beneficial for industry. Unfortunately, society doesn't have an effective lobby system. We like to think it's democracy, and to a certain extent, the democratic process does protect us. But the business side of the world is more effective at getting politicians to do their bidding. I'm an equal opportunity hater: both sides of the aisle suck donkey balls. both sides want people who are stupid enough to think the other side is worse.
With regards to the specific issue of climate change, I'd say the line is where the scientific community has reached a consensus as a point of no return, which was what the Paris accords was meant to lay out.
Paris accords have the US paying shitloads of money to other countries. Make agreements about climate change, not economic handouts for starters.
This is grossly overstated, IMO
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
CC is a real thing. beyond that, there's a million shades to the spectrum as to cause, effect, and future of the change. 'consensus' is a belief of people who don't know a bit about the science. It's a straw argument designed to shut down anyone who doesn't want to espouse your view (using 'you' in a metaphorical sense). Forget consensus as a term. it's useless.
I don't think theres a million shades to the fact that humans are, at the very least, greatly exacerbating the problem.
I don't think theres a million shades to the environmental ramifications.
Where are you drawing the conclusion that there isn't a widely agreed upon stance regarding climate change amongst scientists?
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
Not complicated
We dump more CO2 now then ever before. However, I would argue we should be planting trees like crazy too
Not complicated
Who's against planting trees? I don't buy into all their views, but you can make a tax deductible donation to the Nature Conservancy. That's one of their programs.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
I give you some credit for finding an ingenious way to use bullshit rhetoric stall action. If we can't have consensus about anything so we can't act. Just undermine the idea of consensus completely. Impressive. Especially impressive that you've connected the notion of consensus as an offshoot of an agenda, thus creating the implication that this position is somehow above agenda, giving it a self-congratulatory sheen of ideological purity.
Thumbs up, 10/10 would read this bullshit again.
You can't have an honest discussion with a person who decides to try and drain any meaning and significance from the fact that there is consensus among scientists about the causes and effects of global warming. It's essentially a "rhetorical prevent defense" to undercut any policy recommendations that might be offered to address global warming.
that said, I take real exception to the notion of 'consensus'. there is no such thing. I know where the term came from, and why it came about, but it doesn't have any real meaning.
for comparison, there's a consensus that fkap is a moron. no argument. but what kind of moron is he? a loveable buffoon? a derelict not to be trusted around children? the kind of moron who is going to lead to global destruction? What made him a moron? Will he continue to be a moron? (ok, that one's a stupid question). the point is that just like there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect of fkap being a moron, there is no consensus as to the reason, the degree, and the future effect or future amount of climate change. Certainly, no one in their right mind is denying me being a moron or climate change happening. beyond either simple comment, though there's a lot of shades.
the idea of consensus is an invention designed to shut down debate. It's a mass generic notion that people want to cling to, but really is devoid of meaning.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
The world is getting warmer which will ruin crops and coastal cities. it will create refugee crises and political unrest, and will impact the entire globe.
If you're making a wordplay on "climate", I'm glad the ramifications are far enough in the future for you to not have to give a shit about it, I guess.
you're taking a position that any disagreement with you is automatic whacko land.
If anyone dares say we don't know all there is to know about CC, we're automatically in denial.
Note that I've never denied that we can do things. I never denied CC is real. I never denied humans may be partially to blame, or even completely to blame (I've never taken a stance on that at all). All I have to do is tell you the science is only partially understood, and I'm put in the kook category. All attempt at dialogue ceases. I'm a buffoon who is on the side of industries that are looking to destroy Earth. That's exactly why I say 'consensus' is simply a tool designed to shut down dialogue. You haven't listened a bit as to what I'm talking about when I talk about consensus. You just heard me say the science isn't finalized and wrote me off as a denier. If you want to believe that everyone is in agreement as to the causes, the effects, and the future of CC, have at it.
I don't meant to sound contentious, but really, you're kind of shutting down the conversation by calling into question what "consensus" means when it's quite plainly obvious.
It turns the argument into one of semantics about what a consensus is. What's puzzling is you say that "show me a consensus and I'll show you an agenda" - what if the agenda is acting in the interest of the human race?
I'm using quotes not to imply anything is fake, just to tie the terminology to how we've been using within this discussion.
1) This one is from a site called "Skeptical Science". This article outlines a number of academic papers that have spoken directly about the consensus regarding global warming.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
2) Here's one "fact checking" the 97% claim (though I kind of take issue with published vs non published, as published academic journals does mean more IMO)...the result was that it wasn't a "consensus" (which is over 90%), but 81%. That's still over 4/5 scientists. Keep in mind, the it was written by someone with deep ties to the oil industry.
If you wanna talk about agendas, it's extremely important to keep that fact in the back of your mind; having said that, at this point, even Exxon is talking about global warming, and this individual's conclusions still land at above 80%, so take that into account.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#2c8523831157
3) Here's a link to the first highly cited 'consensus' academic articles. This article is included in some of the overviews above:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Here's a NASA link outlining various agencies, intergovernmental bodies, science academies, and American scientific societies that have put out statements, with each statement/study linked. My Father is a physician and I've seen some of his GI society publications from the the appropriate group (I forget the formal name, I think its DDW) lying around the house - I don't think it's fair or applicable to treat them as if they are lobbying groups. They are not and they are part of continuing education for highly educated individuals who need to be kept up to speed on the findings in their area of expertise, and are peer reviewed.
4) https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
The webpage also has this graphic, which is incredibly alarming,a nd can be tied pretty directly to industrial revolution (I do wonder what caused the dip in the 40s-60s, but I haven't looked into it)
5) This is a wikipedia article on the scientific opinion of climate change. People frown on Wikipedia, but this is an article with extensive works cited and links listed at the bottom (most wikipedia articles on technical subjects have these - it's a better source than many give it credit for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
It contains this statement:
It also has a couple elucidating graphics
And this one, which I find incredibly alarming.
Maybe these policy/issue convos are proxies for full fledged political debate, but at least they focus on policy and follow the rules.
Plus I'd appreciate it if the thread didn't get deleted right away after I took 15 minutes to put that post together, lol.
I am extremely concerned about climate change and I truly feel that the final F-U from the generations above millennials and Gen-x would be the complete abdication of responsibility regarding climate change. Global warming truly has the potential to fundamentally change human civilization as we know it.
I just wish people would imagine how expensive it would be to stop rising ocean levels from putting lower Manhattan under water (most of which is built on garbage landfills - fun fact, Water St is actually where the water originally went up to, everything south of that is built on landfill) -- and then extrapolate that to the entire world, realize what is going to happen when these areas are under water, and extrapolate the global ramifications of what is going to occur if we don't take action now.
I know I've gone off on a tangent, but a lot of times, when it's someone who statistically may not be alive in 40-50 years passionately argues against the need for action against climate change, I can't help but think they are potentially 1) willfully ignorant of the impact this will have on those younger than them, or 2) cognizant but literally do not give a shit because they realize that they will likely not be here to deal with the ramifications.
I don't meant to blame everything on Boomers as Millenials have a tendency to do (some of it deserved, some of it over the top), but there's a clear generation gap in how Millenials vs Boomers view this issue (this graphic only goes to 65+, so I think some Boomers may be left out (only 65+ in this graphic). Also, keep in mind this is for the simple question of "climate change is occurring" - not about dangers or policy surrounding it. The fluctuations also seem kinda crazy for the short time frame.
https://news.utexas.edu/2016/10/27/millennials-views-on-climate-change-could-impact-election
(lol, "swing election results" my ass)
I heard Bill Maher say it well - no matter what anyone wants, he is POTUS. Saying he isn't "ours" for a portion of the populate is an exercise in futility.
Cause while saying he isn't ours might be a way of showing disapproval or disagreement, at it's heart it's a cop out (not saying YOU'RE copping out, just the statement is) -- this is who is in the highest office of the country we both love, and we gotta own that and try to convince others that certain policies are detrimental to our country instead of pushing it off and saying "he ain't mine, I didn't want him, not my problem" (not saying that's what you're doing, but you get the point).
Having said that, if we were talking in a different forum or context, I'd be less diplomatic about it and probably agree with a lot of what you're thinking in your head right now....
So will stopping the flow of oil for a great portion of the globe.
That is the problem.
We don't lose coastal cities. There will always be costal cities. Just not where they were.
Just how is that Chavez country doing right now?
Now extrapolate that across Africa, the middle east and other areas of the globe. 50% of the world's population starving in the streets is not a good outcome.
There are a lot of stakeholder who don't want to die because you don't want to let the water rise.
That's the real problem with climate change. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I didn't read anything after I signed off last night. Just the last couple of posts.
Your graphs don't prove anything that isn't general knowledge. Which stakeholders are you willing to let perish?
Please let us know. How will your plan make everyone n the planet whole?
I mean no Ill will but please take it more seriously and don't say things like that which ignore the realities of even a half a mile being eroded of coastal cities...for the sake of my generation. Please.
This is the biggest problem facing the human species.
If "my"graphs didn't show anything, look closer. this is a disaster waiting to happen. Will respond in fill tmrw when sober and not out
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
Quote:
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
Well we did have a CNN anchor ask Bill Nye, of all people, if an asteroid's close pass by earth was due to global warming. BRAINWASHED
Quote:
In comment 13450918 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
want to destroy to save your kids generations from now?
There is a whole world of stake holders out there.
Why I said earlier in this thread, we will adapt or perish. It's just that simple.
There will be a scalable energy source invented/discovered. There will be scalable storage capacity increased for when direct energy isn't available so the infrastructure can continue for however necessary.
Who is going to tell sovereign countries that they can't use natural resources anymore to feed their people?
Just my view. A complicated problem with a lot of stakeholders that have different paths that will affect you and them differently but want the same outcome as you do.
You're painting it extremely black and white. First of all, fuck the "stakeholders", this is about responsibility for our planet. And it's not future generations - it's MY generation.
I think that comment puts a lot of insight into the problem here - some people basically say "who cares about future generations, we need to live for now, I won't be here to see the ramifications, so I don't want to do anything to stop it".
This isn't about tree-hugging. This is about a global disaster that will cause famine, war, and potentially the fall of a global, interconnected civilization.
As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at. We have a President who wants to pull out of the Paris Accords, and thinks global warming is a hoax. You're setting the bar all the way on the other side, when I'm talking about obvious, sensible policy.
Cut emissions.
Don't attempt (and inevitably fail) to spur more usage of coal.
Stay a leader in the international community with regards to climate change.
R&D more on renewable and clean energy.
Continue to push car companies to get more MPG, encourage use of hybrid.
Sorry if the "stakeholders" might feel a bite, but this is about the planet and civilization, not their wallets.
You do realize that you are a stakeholder opening your opinion with that statement.
"As for telling sovereign nations who can't feed them - that's not at all what I was getting at"
That is exactly what you are getting at. Look to Chavez grand plan. The Saudis drop the price of oil to stop US production flooding the market by making it too costly for us to pump and there is rioting in the streets as they are running out of other people's "wallets" to feed and provide services to their citizens.
Now you know what the problem is.
How much are you willing to hurt your wallet? 50% of your take home pay?
No more heat or AC in schools? Look how much that is contributing. No more school bus service? No more air travel? No more ups or fedex? No more mail service?
Your kids not going to college?
What is your solution worth to you because you (and the rest of us) are where the wallet is coming from.
How many people are you willing to let starve to death? You don't think Countries around the globe aren't going to be looking out for their citizens best interests? People are not going to die without a fight.
Telling them to go F themselves as you want is not a viable solution. Especially when they are armed with nuclear weapons.
You are a stakeholder talking about everyone else.
You think the middle east/Africa will be happy going back to being nomads and goat herders?
It's been said on here by many way above my paygrade that potable water will be the next great problem.
There is a real big picture out there that encompasses a whole lot of future problems.
What happens when the world population starts growing exponentially.
I'm just a lot more confident that we will adjust and survive than you are.
You're more confident bc you won't have to deal with the reprecussions the way I will.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
I also agree with the notion that people are brainwashed. Not in the sense that the climate is not getting warmer, because it is. BUT.. to think we are doomed and others thinking that there could be a catastrophe in the near future is just laughable.
The earth has endured far worse than what we are dishing out today. We have had much warmer climates and times in earth's history where it heated up faster than what the graphs in this thread show. Of course, we can cherry pick any snapshot in time to prove our theories.
The true root of the increase in temperatures is our population. Every human is not only a furnace that generates carbon, but we also create waste and use water... all of us. Even if you cut fossil fuel use in half, the exponential growth in our population will offset any carbon savings created by the reduction in fossil fuels in less than a generation.
Want to get serious about the problem? Want to also help with famine in the world? Then we need to control the population.
Mr. Valentine?