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 )
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 )