Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 563 of 942 (870187)
01-14-2020 9:51 AM


Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
The Right Side of the News
Message 4250:
marc2000 writes:
... . I have a renewed interest in the climate change debate these days, though it should probably be taken to the official thread (started years ago by you) But unless I'm told to go there, I'm just as satisfied to keep going on that here.
Well I'll be happy to take the Climate Change debate there, but here's a little tid=bit for you from facebook
That's a scientific notice published in a newspaper in 1912.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : changed photo link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:06 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 569 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2020 9:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 564 of 942 (870201)
01-14-2020 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by RAZD
01-14-2020 9:51 AM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
The Right Side of the News
Message 4243:
marc2000 writes:
Which of course is all wrong. Scientists were aware of climate change over 100 years ago,
marc9000 writes:
What was causing that?? Too many model T's?
Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal.
When world population was about 1/7 of what it is today. I wonder why the EPA didn't get busy on this when it was formed in 1970. I guess the reaction would have been the same in 1970 as in 1910, or 1920, or 1980, or 1990. Nothing but laughter, at the thought that putting the government in charge of energy production and use could cool the planet and calm storms. The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing.
BTW - See Message 563 above with newspaper article from 1912.
Your argument from incredulity is a lot of hot air signifying nothing. The reaction in 1970 was not laughter, rather it was mostly self-centered indifference of people who didn't recognize the implications. A rather common trait in humans.
The oil and coal industries spent millions on distracting people -- especially gullible people -- away from the "inconvenient truth"
quote:
An Inconvenient Truth - Wikipedia
Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[15] Later, when Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first congressional hearing on the subject in 1981.[16] Gore's 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, dealing with a number of environmental topics, reached the New York Times bestseller list.[17]
As Vice President during the Clinton Administration, Gore pushed for the implementation of a carbon tax to encourage energy efficiency and diversify the choices of fuel better reflecting the true environmental costs of energy use; it was partially implemented in 1993.[18]
He helped broker the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.[19][20] The treaty was not ratified in the United States after a 95 to 0 vote in the Senate. The primary objections stemmed from the exemptions the treaty gave to China and India, whose industrial base and carbon footprint have grown rapidly, and fears that the exemptions would lead to further trade imbalances and offshoring arrangement with those countries.[21][22]
Gore also supported the funding of the controversial, and much-delayed satellite called Triana, which would have provided an image of the Earth 24 hours a day, over the internet and would have acted as a barometer measuring the process of global warming.[23] During his 2000 presidential campaign, Gore ran, in part, on a pledge to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.[24]
Now I understand that you'll likely laugh at my reference to Al Gore. You've been taught to do that by the oil/coal industry propaganda machine and and fake science hacks they employ, because it endangers their comfy profit program.
... The world of Greta Thunbergs is a brand new thing.
The point is that there were many people before Greta, you just haven't been paying attention, and when you did, you conformed to the propaganda program of big oil/gas corporations and their million $$ campaigns of disinformation and mockery.
When that technology includes using fossil fuels, yes.
Fossil fuels are directly or indirectly behind most ALL technology.
Electricity powers most modern technologies. There are many ways to generate electricity without fossil fuels.
AND it is becoming more and more economical to use wind and solar -- even when they compete against subsidized oil and coal(and nuclear). Look at new electrical generation plants and what is being built.
quote:
The climate crisis explained in 10 charts | Climate crisis | The Guardian
The upside (I) — wind and solar energy is soaring
Huge cost drops have seen renewable energy become the cheapest energy in many places and the rollout is projected to continue. Analysts also expect coal use to fall. But much government action is still required to reach the scale needed, and solve difficult problems such as aviation and farming.
The upside (II) — electric vehicles
The global fleet of electric cars and vans is still small compared with those running on fossil fuels. But sales are growing very fast. Electric cars are cheaper to run, suggesting they will become mainstream.
Other countries can benefit from this without having to go through the messy generation of electricity with fossil fuels.
That's what the data shows, certainly when we look at the rate of change in climate we see nothing in past climate changes of that order of magnitude of changes/year (decade, century).
From my link in Message 4228;
Cherry-picked data does not make a trend. There was also a Year Without a Summer - Wikipedia in 1817.
The issue of Climate Change is that it is a distinct long-term trend.
quote:
Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs — Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with average seasonal cycle removed. The second graph shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.

That goes back 400,000 years and shows regular cycles of high and low CO2 levels, and then recent levels exceeding all the historic highs.
It was called Global Warming initially because that was the first observed effect (again see image above in Message 563), since then we have discovered that increasing global temperatures has significant on the location and pattern of climates world-wide, and the name was modified to Climate Change.
Again it was the trends in climate patterns that became more and more apparent, and we can and have modeled the change in CO2 over the past.
There seems to be a LOT of selective quoting and omissions in the promotion of climate change fear. Just this evening, David Muir of ABC news did a quick mention of how the earths oceans were warmer than they've ever been, but he didn't mention that a significant part of ocean warming comes from the ocean floor, not just the air above it.
Again that doesn't address the change in ocean temps, the trend, just the sources of heat. Are you saying that the earths core is heating up and that is causing an increase in ocean temps? If so then please document this.
When it comes to Darwinism, the scientific community has pretty much always had non-atheists very thoroughly outnumbered. They might not be so lucky when it comes to climatology, and the associated meteorology and astronomy that go along with it. ...
and ... you'll still be wrong. The scientific community is as convince of the validity of climate change as they are of evolution. Because both are fully supported by the preponderance of evidence and the absence, to date, of any contradictory evidence.
... The few links alone that I've already put up in Message 4228 go a long way in covering key omissions by today's climate alarmists.
Curiously I've already addressed your list in Message 4239. Your "key commissions" are fake news, they don't fare well under scientific evaluation and all attempts to replicate the denial papers results failed.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 9:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 566 by JonF, posted 01-14-2020 1:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 565 of 942 (870207)
01-14-2020 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by RAZD
01-14-2020 12:06 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
The Right Side of the News
Message 4244:
marc2000 writes:
Yup, you took the bait! I c/p'd detail of only one of those links, where the guy starts out saying he's not a scientist, and you ran with that, without checking the fact that the last link there described a book by Dr. Tim Ball, a 40 year climatologist.
When will you conspiracy theory people ever learn to check your sources.
quote:
https://www.desmogblog.com/...all-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.
But Ball can’t even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious doctor of science that Ball claims in these articles.
He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.
Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here , you’ll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball’s former industry front group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: [The money’s] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry, says Prof. Cooper. It’s also from foundations and individuals. I can’t tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals.
Here you’ll find a podcast of Dr. Ball talking to the Ottawa Citizen , saying that he goes out of his way to ignore who might be paying his bills, but crediting the energy industry lobby firm, the High Park Group . And here, you’ll find High Park Group veteran Tom Harris, telling the Toronto Star that his new industry front group, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project , was created at the suggestion of High Park Group president Timothy Egan.
Tom Harris, executive director of the NRSP, is credited by New Orleans Lady for passing along this version of the Ball tirade, also printed Monday on the right-wingy website, Canada Free Press. Yet all of these factual inconsistencies have been brought to Harris’s attention on previous occasions.
It is inevitable that this post will be criticized as an ad hominem attack on dear Dr. Ball (and perhaps on Harris, as well). But how can you argue science with someone who doesn’t feel bound by the limits of truth?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just endured an unprecedented process of vetting and peer-review to produce a document, the veracity of which has been double-checked and endorsed by thousands of the best scientists in the world. It must be soul-destroying to see a long-retired geographer who rarely published during his colourless academic career and who never conducted any research in atmospheric science dismiss that effort without a shred of evidence or a hint of good conscience.
Dr. Tim Ball, NOT a 40 year climatologist, who published no peer reviewed articles on the subject and who worked for big oil/coal interests. And he lies. Shocking.
Why do you think Yahoo search is not liberal? Curious.
Just type "climate change hoax" into google, then type it into yahoo. Big difference in what comes up.
Which doesn't mean it is not liberal. All search engines will get different results. Again you should look for science papers/documents for the facts. Anyone can publish garbage on the internet and some gullible idiot will take it as gospel because they don't have the training to spot garbage...
What those 24 papers show however, can offset a LOT of omissions from your 14,000, and most importantly, those and many other writings from non-scientists, (you know, those who can spot fraud a mile away) can address something that most of your 14,000 omit, ...
They didn't. Their pseudoscience failed.
... like what proof do we have that turning all energy production and use over to the U.S. government is going to actually accomplish anything, other than starting a war.
Curiously nobody I know is advocating that. Current electrical energy plants are being built by corporations, and they use renewable sources because it is more economical and return more profit as time passes -- the major cost is startup rather than ongoing like fossil fuel plants. We just had an old electrical plant here that used fossl fuels demolished because it was no longer profitable.
LOLz, thanks again for the chuckle chuckles. Yes, the whole world is in a conspiracy against you, and ordinary citizens can spot fraud a mile away, but they are duped every day by advertising lying claims (why do you think it still exists).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2020 12:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 567 of 942 (870271)
01-15-2020 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by JonF
01-14-2020 1:03 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
Don't see anything here. Neither the link ...
The image is on a facebook page. you may need to be logged in to facebook to see it. Let me know.
... Neither ... or the first part https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg will load for me.
picture loads for me. There is a bit more after the .jpg for the picture (see in peek mode)
https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/...52738969550848_o.jpg
I get an error message when I cut off the stuff after the .jpg and the picture loads fine for me when I double click that link. It comes up with a FB icon in the tab corner, so it would imply a facebook page.
Thanks
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by JonF, posted 01-14-2020 1:03 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by jar, posted 01-15-2020 5:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 571 of 942 (870334)
01-17-2020 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by marc9000
01-15-2020 10:49 PM


another big oil pawn
Note you're not supposed to argue by bare links, and a bare video would qualify imho.
That said, your video is worthless.
Alex Epstein - Wikipedia(American_writer)
quote:
In 2015, The Guardian published an opinion piece by Jason Wilson critical of Epstein and CIP, stating, "Epstein's work has been popular and influential on the right because it is a particularly fluent, elaborate form of climate denialism. The CIP prides itself on being able to train corporate leaders to 'successfully outmessage "environmentalists"'."[5] He also criticizes Epstein for being an "ideologue" funded by petrochemical billionaires, the Koch brothers.[5]
In 2016, Epstein testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at the invitation of the committee's chairman, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called climate change a "hoax." Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans." When questioned by committee member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as to why Epstein, whose academic training is in philosophy, was even there, Epstein responded, "to teach you how to think clearly." Boxer replied "... you are a philosopher, not a scientist, and I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a philosopher about science."[18][19]
Not a scientist just a word pusher working for the oil industry. Inhofe is a moron that thinks winters counter global change, and that bringing a snowball into congress is an argument.
Try again with real science. You're biggest problem seems to be an inability to differentiate between real science and non-science, picking what you want to be true rather than what reality says is true.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2020 10:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2020 5:55 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 572 of 942 (870341)
01-17-2020 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by marc9000
01-15-2020 9:53 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
I'm reminded of a graph from Percy's Message 4164;
That graph covers 10,000 years, and is only a few inches wide, so it's not really possible to accurately pinpoint just what time period those lines on that chart started rocketing up, but it looks to me like early to late 1800's, right on up to today. Just about the time fossil fuels came into being.
Now lets look at which years the world achieved an additional billion in population;
The projection is sometime between 2024 and 2030, 8 billion.
World population milestones - Wikipedia
Is it reasonable to say that there's a correlation between the rise in CO2, and the increase in world population? Undoubtedly closely related to the increase in fossil fuel use as the population increased - I'll give you that.
And also an increase in per capita fossil fuel use. Both factors increase CO2 immensely and we know that the overall increase in CO2 correlates with human fossil fuel use.
When I asked you if too many Model T's were the reason for the increased CO2 a hundred years ago, you said it was because of "Coal burning industries. Steam locomotives and ships burning coal."
Again, that's fine I'll give you that. But what we have to realize is that those coal burning industries weren't luxuries - they became accepted and necessary to provide food and warmth, and primitive lifestyles, by today's standards, to a NEW UPWARD TREND in population growth.
So we have a feed-back system that increases CO2 production exponentially.
So therefore, I only see one way to reduce CO2 back to early 1800's levels, and that would be to eliminate 6 billion people from the earth. Since I don't see anyone from the scientific community or the far political left proposing that, I'd like to know what other SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN alteration to today's societies would satisfy today's climate change alarmists.
Except that we have means to produce electricity without adding CO2 to the atmosphere, which is why the Green New Deal emphasizes alternate/renewable electrical generation.
As we see from the above figures, world population was about half what it is today when the U.S. EPA was formed in 1970. Since they're experts, they should have known what was going on in 1912, and that they had something to do. They didn't do it, did they? They aren't accountable, are they?
As I said before I know someone who was on the National Science Board when Nixon was president, ie when the EPA was formed. The scientists knew what was going on, the politicians balked at doing anything about it. They still do ... because oil/coal industry lobbyists.
My points have never been adamant disagreement with scientific findings, I'm just adamant that there's nothing humans can do about what mere human existence causes. ...
Then get out of the way and let those who think we can do something get to work.
The same way you've been taught to blow through people like Tim Ball, for a similar, but a much more dangerous reason. Free market profit margins aren't nearly as threatening as massive government takeovers of human freedoms, with no accountability.
Not surprisingly I disagree totally: unchecked capitalism is a slide back to the worst kind of feudalism, as capitalism has no moral or ethical checking system. No accountability? How are international corporations held accountable? How is Walmart held accountable for paying starvation wages with workers on public assistance for housing health and food while they rake in billions?
Maybe I missed it, but I think you missed one. Let's look at it, I'll c/p a few paragraphs from it.
The Great Global Warming Hoax | 'Knowledge is Power' – better-management.org reveals invaluable information
quote:
In 2020 the earth will reach the bottom of the eleven year solar cycle numbered 24, and it will start into solar cycle number 25. So the best Christmas present I can offer you is to explain why the solar cycles are so important. NASA, NOAA, the Russians and the Chinese have indicated that solar cycle 25 will be the least active for at least 100 years and many experts claim the unfolding Grand Solar Minimum will be a 200 year event.
1. The successive ice ages on earth during the 2.5 million year Pleistocene era have historically been triggered by what is known as Milankovich cycles (now generally accepted). These consist of three separate cycles referred to as the Tilt variation of earth from the sun, the Obliquity of earth’s motion through space, and Eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun. Of these three cycles the most influential is eccentricity and it takes around 100,000 years to happen. Our civilisation has only begun during the latest 10-12,000 year interglacial period we live in called the Holocene, which has now lasted for at least 11,500 years. A plunge into extreme glaciations is now probably due. It was alluded to by the expert climate scientists during the 1970’s when earths average temperature had cooled by about 0.4 degrees C., from 1945. No-one actually knows when it will happen.
2. Within the Holocene period, The time of maximum warmth due to natural cycles is said to have already passed and it is considered that the Minoan Warm period 3,500 years ago was when that occurred. So there is good evidence available that points to earth’s average temperatures today being some 2-3 degrees C. cooler than the Holocene temperature maximum. There are possibly two certainties that will affect us. The first is that the solar cycles with rising and falling levels of electromagnetic activity will drive the natural climate variations on planet earth as they will the climates of the other planets within our solar system since the beginning of time. The second certainty (well an extremely high probability) is that at some point the Milankovich cycles will usher in the return of a period of extensive glaciation that is similar to previous ice ages.
3. Full ice ages with extensive glaciations must be accepted as near certain extinction-level events. The significance for New Zealand is less onerous than for others, yet that may mean a progressive but effective end to agriculture in the South Island. as and when it occurs.
4. Our recorded history of the impact of varying levels of solar activity really began with the Maunder Minimum (1645AD-1715AD) but these provided a mathematical trace back to earlier Grand Solar Minimums before the birth of Christ. Grand Solar Minimums coincide with the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age (which ran from about 1280AD — 1870AD). They also align well with the record of famines and the fall of dynasties in China. Both the Russian and the Chinese governments take the science behind Grand Solar Minimums very seriously and use the known cycles for their strategic planning. As a result I commend the history of Grand Solar Minimums to the attention of yourselves and your Civil Defence personnel.
5. Space exploration and remote climate monitoring only really began in about 1979. Today the probing of solar influence is a regular event and the effect of the solar cycles on earth’s weather is well-known if suppressed by the mainstream media.
6. So my Christmas present to you is to provide my personal understanding of how Grand Solar Minimums likely affect the earth’s climate
This will be extremely topical because many believe we have entered a cooling cycle that will last until 2055. Some believe it will last much longer. The data supports this conclusion. The data does not support suggestions that humans, CO2 build-up and/or CH4 build-up cause climate change. So I think this topic is well worth spending some time on.
[bolded mine]
Curiously I'm well aware of the Milankovich cycles as they are one of the validations for the ages measured by the ice cores. In Message 564 I posted a graph:
quote:
The issue of Climate Change is that it is a distinct long-term trend.
quote:
Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs — Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, in recent years, with average seasonal cycle removed. The second graph shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.

That goes back 400,000 years and shows regular cycles of high and low CO2 levels, and then recent levels exceeding all the historic highs.
As you can see, the Milankovich cycles indeed show that we should be entering a new ice age, as your link says, but that it is massively overwhelmed by human CO2 production.
... Can you knock this out in a couple of sentences? I'm sure you can go to google and find thousands of frantic scientists who've condensed it very nicely for you.
As you can see I have already dealt with this, as advertised.
I'd also like some references to a scientific paper or two that PROVE that political action will reverse climate change.
ROFLOL. Nice joke.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2020 9:53 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2020 6:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 582 of 942 (870999)
01-27-2020 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 580 by marc9000
01-26-2020 5:55 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
Does it look to you like both of these guys are saying they'll "do anything they want"?
Well I see it mostly as them saying what they want to do. Neither would get far on their own ... in a pre-Trump world, but with the Senate well on their way to giving the President unlimited unchecked powers, that has changed.
That's what the GOP is doing to the constitution.
I don't need to be a scientist to see wildly mixed messages in what I see about solutions to climate change.
So that's one disagreement I have about the video being "worthless".
From what you have (sort of) quoted I don't see anything of value, mostly regurgitated anti-renewable energy talking points paid for by big oil. Look at the oil companies admitting that they knew about their business being detrimental to the climate but continuing anyway, because profits. You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction.
Yes there are many possible ways to reduce CO2 and Methane emissions. Yes transportation requires a way to get to point B without dependence on recharging batteries for long distance travel and trucking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't invest in renewable energy at all, or even as much as possible.
And a lot of people are doing things on their own. I have solar panels, and I have not paid an electrical bill since august 2015. That means they have already paid for themselves.
Here's another; starting at about the 2:35 mark, he starts describing several instances where past scientific predictions have been completely wrong. Was that part incorrect, or was that part just a little less than worthless? Is if fair to dismiss FACTS, just because he's accused of being trained by special interests?
Creationist types love when science is wrong, because they think it makes all science wrong and untrustworthy. However scientists also love when science is wrong, because it is an opportunity to correct their models to make better predictions. The models now accurately model the past data and make stronger predictions about the future as a result of these changes.
So yeah, dwelling on past failures and not looking at current success makes the video worthless. It's typical for cherry-picking information and presenting a misleading or false representation of the current science.
I don't automatically dismiss "facts" by the scientific community concerning some of their terrifying findings, I just dismiss that they or anyone has the ability to do the equivalent of making 6 billion human beings stop eating, breathing, or keeping warm in winter.
And that is politics, not science, isn't it? So we should welcome the people that are making the public more aware of the situation and the danger of doing nothing. Conversely, the danger of making the world a better, cleaner place to live, if say the climate change science happens to be totally wrong (which is highly unlikely), and making industry more accountable and eco-friendly, is what?
The U.S. constitution doesn't give "real science" any more power than anyone else when it comes to making political decisions.
True, it allows absolutely stupid, self centered people an equal vote with informed people. So the issue is to make more people informed.
Curiously, I seem to remember that the founding fathers were big on having an educated public that could make cogent decisions.
BTW
quote:
The World’s Oceans Were The Hottest In Recorded History In 2019
The planet’s oceans were the warmest in recorded history in 2019, according to a new analysis published Monday.
An international team of researchers analysed temperature data from sources around the globe and issued a dramatic warning that climate change is already deeply affecting what’s seen as the storage facility for any excess heat generated by a warming world. Hotter oceans are threatening marine biodiversity and the planet’s fisheries. They’re melting land and sea ice at a breakneck pace and fueling more severe storms and flooding.
It is critical to understand how fast things are changing, John Abraham, a professor at the University of St. Thomas and a co-author of the paper, said in a news release Monday. The key to answering this question is in the oceans that’s where the vast majority of heat ends up. If you want to understand global warming, you have to measure ocean warming.
The study was published in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.
The news follows a string of troubling environmental news: Last week, European researchers said 2019 was the second-hottest year on record, and the 2010s had officially become the hottest decade ever recorded. And in September, the United Nations’ climate change body found that the planet’s oceans and ice sheets were changing in unprecedented and shocking ways that could soon affect hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying or coastal areas.
The latest research relies heavily on a state-of-the-art network of more than 3,800 floats that measure sea temperatures, a project known as Argo. The devices are deployed around the globe.
Note that several of the failed predictions were due to inadequate modeling of the ocean's role.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2020 5:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 8:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 583 of 942 (871057)
01-27-2020 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by marc9000
01-26-2020 6:13 PM


Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
"Per capita", so this use by "individuals" of fossil fuels is getting increasingly unnecessary, and must be regulated?
Increasingly dangerous to life on earth in general and human survival in particular. For that reason it needs to be curtailed.
A feed back system? Cars are more efficient with fuel than ever before, thanks to expensive government mandates, we have more wind turbines than ever before. Are only things like people's hobbies, and overindulgence causing this feed back system?
Not much more efficient. I had a car in the 70’s that got 40 mpg. What we see now are bigger vehicles that use more energy, their efficiency compared to earlier vehicles of same weight doesn’t mean much when every one is buying bigger heavier vehicles.
There are also increased use of energy for more and more appliances etc, and when we consider human population around the world, not just in the US this amounts to higher use of fossil fuels.
And because the politicians know they'd be voted out of office. There's a reason that specific proposals to "do something" about climate change are still a secret.
Which is why democrats are running on climate change action ... as you pointed out. Can’t have it both ways.
"Get out of the way", and let government gobble up freedoms and money to do something that can't be measured? You're funny
Government doing what most of the population wants to do, democratically.
Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.
Except that it has never worked.
Overwhelmed by facts, or scientific community projections?
Both. If you look at the chart the data for 1950 is above the Millankovich cycle level, so it is a fact that it has already been overwhelmed. The future projections don’t get any better.
Yes it is, there's no way to scientifically document how political action will have any effect on climate change.
Wrong. Levels are being measured constantly, and anything with a positive effect will show up.
Btw
quote:
'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming anymore | Grist
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99 percent, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.
It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice, and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.
The Little Ice Age, for example, reached its extreme point in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in Europe, and the 19th century elsewhere, says one of the studies. This localization is markedly different from the trend since the late 20th century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this summer’s European heat wave.
Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions. This has become particularly pronounced since the late 20th century, when temperature rises over two decades or longer have been the most rapid in the past two millennia, notes the third.
The authors say this highlights how unusual warming has become in recent years as a result of industrial emissions.
There is no doubt left as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets, said Stefan Brnnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.
Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the fingerprinting task of proving how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past.
Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2020 6:13 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 586 of 942 (871107)
01-28-2020 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Phat
01-26-2020 11:27 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
OK, I get your point. We all should focus on action and optimism and throw the ancient made up warnings away, right? But what about the modern scientific ones?
Little Greta said it first: Why is nobody doing anything? Seems to me that human nature is self-destructive.
Many people are taking action on their own, as I have with solar panels and reduced car use.
We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030. Could be better but it a start, and it recognizes the seriousness of the situation.
It can only get better as more data rolls in.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Phat, posted 01-26-2020 11:27 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 594 of 942 (871460)
02-03-2020 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by marc9000
02-02-2020 8:58 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
Considering all the obvious increases in only the last three years, of talking points about climate change from big science, big government, big Democrat, big anti-America from all around the world, it's clear that big oil's spending, and whatever it stands to gain, is dwarfed by its opposition.
Would you like to put some numbers next to those assertions? How much money does "Big Science" have? I know several scientists that would like to know ..., "Big Government" is currently in GOP hands, so that's a dead fish ..., "Big Democrat" - the only ones I see talking about CC are using the scientific facts as far as I can see.
And now it's a world wide conspiracy? Or is it a world wide acceptance of the actual reality of climate change? Curious how all our allies (including those Trumpski has yet to insult, and including those he has) are on board for climate change (ie -- Paris Accord)
The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon, it's 24.4 cents on diesel fuel. For all 50 states all across the country - that's millions of dollars per second, every second of every year. Any ideas on how the dream of 100% renewable energy is going to cover this? ...
By providing a fuel that is cheaper than current gas/diesel production costs. Several promising alternatives, including hydrogen as well as better batteries.
Cut the big oil subsidy and switch it to alternate transportation.
... The U.S. government is hemorrhaging enough debt per second as it is, it can't do without these excise taxes.
... money that is supposed to go to transportation road maintenance and upkeep ...
It gives away more in subsidies to big oil and letting the companies get away with no taxes year after year.
You claim there is a lot of money on the renewable energy side, but you're looking in the wrong direction.
quote:
A growing number of companies are leading this charge, using innovative approaches and partnering with nonprofits to help contain climate change with urgency. Companies such as HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs and global cosmetics manufacturer Este Lauder are putting their carbon footprint on a diet by investing in renewables, encouraging transport electrification and implementing other emissions reduction programs.
At the same time, they’re getting a boost from market incentives that make a strong business case to invest in sustainability.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
The more I look in that "wrong direction", the more greed I see. What do you think the main motive for HP, Walmart, Goldman Sachs etc is, climate change, with profits as secondary, or the other way around?
Curiously I see companies making sound economic investments, ones they would not make if they did not think the investment was into bogus companies that won't make a return on the investment. The way things are currently working out, it is cheaper to build new generation stations with renewables than with fossil fuels -- it's a business decision, not a political one. This is also augmented by long term considerations of renewables becoming cheaper over time while fossil fuels are getting more expensive to extract over time. Remember when gas was 25 cents/gallon? I do.
These things can and are happening, without government involvement. You made your choice without government involvement. Solar panels wouldn't work for me, my house is almost completely shaded by large trees. Sometimes they die, and fall down or I have to cut them. Then I use them for firewood.
One alternative is to buy into a local solar farm, and if not available work to set one up.
https://www.wacotrib.com/...07de-5adf-9ff7-246ca3ebcbaf.html
Local solar farms can be more efficient than roof-top solar, and the people should be able to buy panels, the town provide the location and the electricity powers town and panel owners homes/businesses.
The danger is ECONOMIC CRASHES.
More likely to come from Trumpski deregulating the economy again.
It only has one safeguard concerning stupid, self centered people, and it involves presidential elections. It's called the Electoral College.
The general election theoretically takes care of the rest ... in practice not so much, unfortunately.
Is that somewhere in the Constitution? Or just in some of quotes and supporting thoughts of theirs found in places like the Federalist Papers? ...
Thomas Jefferson IIRC
quote:
An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people (Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
Quotation: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Status: This exact quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, although it is a generally accurate paraphrase of Jefferson's views on education.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 8:58 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 595 of 942 (871462)
02-03-2020 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:13 PM


Re: Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
marc9000 writes:
Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.
Except that it has never worked.
It hasn't? The U.S. is a complete, 100% failure? The rest of the world would be better off if the U.S. didn't exist? What other system of government works better? And where is it currently, or in past history, practiced?
The US regulates the companies, so it is not strictly free market. A regulated market is not a "free" market.
Actual free market is where the polluting companies write the pollution standards for what is allowed ... a GOP wet dream. Every time deregulation happens it is followed by disaster.
But we ALSO see Boing doing their federal safety inspections, and causing over 300 deaths because that oversight was inadequate -- put that down to free market failure, in the US.
Looks like the case keeps getting stronger, and you keep getting wronger.
It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it.
It gets politically stronger as public demand increases, through education and through personal experience (floods, fires, droughts) with drastically changed conditions.
It gets politically stronger, when enough cherry picking is done. Each political view can do it.
-- video of Tom Ball --
Again, a flawed source not worth watching (unless you want to pick out what you think are his most salient arguments ... ):
quote:
Climate science deniers’ credibility tested - David Suzuki Foundation
In comments, letters and opinion articles, people spread nonsense from the likes of Ezra Levant, Tim Ball, Tom Harris and Patrick Moore. David Suzuki owns an island with an oil company! they write, among other absurdities usually personal attacks that have nothing to do with the article under discussion. ...
Beyond containing logical fallacies and personal attacks, the arguments aren’t credible. That’s clear from a legal case against Tim Ball, a retired University of Winnipeg geography professor with connections to anti-climate-science organizations like the misnamed, industry-funded Friends of Science and the defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project.
As the judge noted, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views. That says something about those who do place stock in his views, including the Trump administration, which invited Ball to Washington after the 2016 U.S. election for a briefing with the transition team.
Judge Skolrood also wrote, despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth. ...
EG -- not worth listening to.
Enjoy
ps -- a reasonably thoughtful and informed person" would IMHO be those who would check the credentials and credibility of their sources before embarrassing themselves by posting them. Just a thought, it only takes a 5 minute search to check. AND you know I will.
Edited by RAZD, : ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:13 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 599 of 942 (871548)
02-05-2020 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 592 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:49 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
We also take action at the state level, my state will be fossil fuel free by 2030.
Source? Rhode Island's gasoline and diesel excise tax is 35 cents per gallon.
Sources is Gov Raymond’s State of the State speech.
It may not be enough.
quote:
Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why
There are dozens of climate models, and for decades they’ve agreed on what it would take to heat the planet by about 3 Celsius. It’s an outcome that would be disastrousflooded cities, agricultural failures, deadly heatbut there’s been a grim steadiness in the consensus among these complicated climate simulations.
Then last year, unnoticed in plain view, some of the models started running very hot. The scientists who hone these systems used the same assumptions about greenhouse-gas emissions as before and came back with far worse outcomes. Some produced projections in excess of 5C, a nightmare scenario.
This uncertainty over how to read the models highlights one of the central challenges of climate change. On the one hand, policy makers and members of the public are turning to scientists as never before to explain historic wildfires, devastating droughts and spring-like temperatures in mid-winter. And the bedrock of the science has never been more solid. But the questions vexing experts now are probably the most important of all: Just how bad is it going to getand how soon?
Earth-system models are the workhorses of climate research, helping scientists test ideas about the impact of ice-sheet melting, soil moisture and clouds, all without waiting for the actual planet to fall apart. There are more than a hundred models used to forecast the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming, developed by about two dozen independent research groups.
One question modeling can help answer is called climate sensitivity, an estimate of how much warmer the planet will be once it has adjusted to atmospheric CO at double the pre-industrial level. (At current rates, CO could reach a doubling point in the last decades of this century.) This is the old, reliable number that’s come out to 3C for 40 years. It was as close as anything gets to certainty.
The first step is to replicate actual conditions of the 20th century within the model; then you can trust the software to forecast the future.
The model run by NCAR, one of American’s main climate-science institutions, started producing unusual data last year while trying to reproduce the recent past. We got some really strange results, Gettelman said.
The scientists went on to try 300 configurations of rain, pollution, and heat flowssomething they can do as gods of their own digital earthbefore matching the model to history. But by solving that puzzle, Gettelman’s team sent future projections upward at an unheard-of rate. NCAR found that CO doubling would lead to 5.3C world, a 33% jump from the model’s past reading on global warming.
Soon there were multiple teams at other institutions putting out new climate-sensitivity numbers that looked like worst-case scenarios on steroids. The Met Office Hadley Center, the U.K.’s main research group, found a doubling of CO would deliver 5.5C warming. A team at the U.S. Department of Energy ended up with 5.3C, and the Canadian model topped out at 5.6C. France’s National Center for Meteorological Research saw its estimate jump to 4.9C from 3.3C.
Climate models have been doing a fine job projecting warming for a long time. A recent study compared models as old as 1970 with observations made in the decades since. Some models warmed up too much, and some too little, but 14 of 17 past projections turned out to be consistent with the measured path of global average temperatures.
Particularly impressive were models from the 1970s because there wasn’t much observable evidence for warming at that time. Back then, the paper noted, the world was thought to have been cooling for the past few decades.
To a degree, every scientist suspects their model is wrong. There’s even an aphorism about this: All models are wrong, but some are useful. Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers.
Klaus Wyser’s group switched off some of the new cloud and aerosol settings in their model, he said, and that sent climate sensitivity back down to previous levels. A new research paper co-authored by Zelinka from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab likewise pointed to the role of virtual clouds in determining the results.
In the next year, climate-modeling groups will peruse each other’s results to figure out how seemingly good improvements in cloud and aerosol science may have pushed the models into hotter states. These conversations happen in the open, through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and blog posts. The authors of the main UN climate-science reports will follow along and try to stitch together a big picture, for release in 2021.
In the meantime, Gettelman and colleagues around the world will push ahead. It’s like a giant puzzle, he said, where everybody gets a little piece. With Akshat Rathi
All models are wrong, but some are useful.
How useful they are depends on how accurately they model the known past, and how accurately they predict the future.
Currently the 27 models run from a low of 1.83°C to a high of 5.64°C with an average of 3.86 °C. see article for graphics, my iPad can't isolate picture locations (or I don’t know how to do this), and my laptop is in the shop getting a hack & virus scrub.
So are clouds accurately modeled? One of the reasons Venus is so hot is the cloud cover. Should we be worries about other factors that contribute to cloud cover (smoke?)
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 4:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 604 of 942 (871728)
02-10-2020 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by marc9000
02-09-2020 3:11 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
Do you have any numbers to put beside your claims of "big oils" political interests? Unlike the above organizations that are 100% political, big oil actually produces a useful product that is willingly purchased in free markets, so you'd have to differentiate between their political money versus the money that's exchanged in their business activity.
Operating budget ≠ spending on climate change. Your list seems to be embellished by wish.
However Big Oil has the lobbyist and purchasing of (mostly GOP + DINO) politicians, using their expenditures to more effectively push their agendas.
Big Oil gets more in government grants and tax relief than all of those budgets combined
realclearpolitics.com
quote:
The oil industry has prospered over the past decade, thanks to high oil and gasoline prices. The five largest companies -- BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell -- earned more than $1 trillion during this time. In the first nine months of 2013, these five companies realized a combined $71 billion in profits. Certainly, these companies can prosper without $2.4 billion in annual special tax breaks.
Big Oil’s Misbegotten Tax Gusher - Center for American Progress
quote:
At a time when gas prices exceed $4 a gallon, these profits are coming out of ordinary people’s pockets, and not just at the pump. American families are also padding the oil companies’ enormous profits with their tax dollars. In effect, U.S. taxpayers wrote a collective $7 billion bonus check to the oil industry when they filed their taxes last month.
Those are billions, not millions.
And many of them, like Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, are not scientists. They often cherry pick only some scientific data, then take off with all their emotion and political bias in what they say. When I reference others who aren't fully credentialed scientists who do the same thing, you discard them completely because you say they're not scientists.
Agreed but the scientists and the science back their positions.
That's not the answer to the question. If new machinery and methods are developed to replace fossil fuels, how would it be taxed, in a way that would be acceptable to the general public? If the switch is made to all electric cars for example, where would money come from to maintain and build roads for them, money that now is taxed from oil product usage?
That is going to happen anyway. That is for politicians to decide. Those that have set fossil fuel free goals are working on it.
He probably would agree that illegal, uneducated people pouring over our southern border is not a vital requisite for our survival.
And be upset at the numbers of poor uneducated Americans that pretend that immigrants are responsible for their own uneducated status, the failure of states to educate their people.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:11 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2020 7:32 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 605 of 942 (871729)
02-10-2020 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by marc9000
02-09-2020 3:40 PM


Re: Climate Change becomes more evident every year.
Some regulation, that has oversight by the public, can still be considered a free market. The "free market" designation stops when too much socialism, or communism, takes over.
In who's opinion.
A pollution standard, involving a distant by-product of a free market business that satisfies a supply and demand activity, has little effect on how the voluntary activity will take place. Government regulations, and those who are in charge of enforcing them, are sometimes less perfect than those they are attempting to police.
Access to this page has been denied.
And they are FAR less accountable for what they screw up than are private companies.
In one instance compared to hundreds of spills by companies, including but not limited to coal ash discharges from flooding of retention ponds last year. Ponds that would not be necessary if the companies had adequate waste treatment.
Did you do that when you told me that your state was going to be fossil fuel free by 2030, and your source was - a state governor? Are you embarrassed?
Not when it is the governor who makes and sets the policy.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2020 8:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 613 of 942 (871915)
02-16-2020 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 603 by marc9000
02-09-2020 4:13 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
... We're constantly told that 97% of scientists worldwide agree that humans cause climate change, but we never hear how that percentage was tabulated. ...
To me that is irrelevant. Even if only 25% of actual climate scientists said it was due to human activity that would be enough for me to think we should revise our culture to reduce and eventually eliminate it if the temps are rising.
Ask yourself who benefits if we do nothing.
The temps are rising. Especially the sea temps, and this means flooding and fiercer storms.
... here have been several surveys on the subject - below is a video that breaks it all down. I know you won't watch it, so I'll just describe how only one of them went; About 10 years ago, ...
You're right I won't watch it. Taking stuff 10 years old is obviously not current science. Others have taken this point to show current specific data still shows an overwhelming majority of actual climate scientists say it is due to human activity.
The temps are rising. Especially the sea temps, and this means flooding and fiercer storms.
If there is anything we can do to reduce whatever is causing the sea temps to rise we should do it to reduce the effects of coastal flooding, because it will cost billions of $$ if we don't do anything.
If there is anything we can do to reduce whatever is causing the sea temps to rise we should do it to reduce the effects of fiercer storms, because it will cost billions of $$ if we don't do anything.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 4:13 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by jar, posted 02-16-2020 11:08 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 618 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2020 8:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024