Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on August 13, 2019, 02:44:00 pm
-
https://files.springernature.com/getResource/Full%20Text%2041467_2019_9959.pdf?token=IULUvIufpS8AXE43riPpExKrcZMUcwpHIO0w4yhOno61RnG9Vz6%2Fr7GCrI5AcBi92o1n3tikPjKFkiYotkHNpNM75Zwrwg1JnULfD6ql3lbxDcg7HwKui%2FaVf0c006KjuCh%2FZ3DLB4IVSRfpmhKqICjMwRJi78FVezezsmb4UQoz8APBqsKXJKHvKxkyTujh6R1Se4bGQnT7HNP7lnlhp40M0VnqSPp7kwO%2Fuk2bUqy4COccDRtTVCPDgs7U4YSWypRQua9%2FSVF2DhQwoqi9s1MFpmIzT6zluH6nT8%2F3tKZbQ0YkJp70BIAJLjpI6sqe
This article is absolutely essential.
I would appreciate if comments could focus on the role of media on the widespread misconceptions about global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That'll get 'em stirred up, Bernard.
-
Thank you for posting the link, Bernard
It's a good and well researched article, but unfortunately it has been written by scientists for scientists. Now we need someone to condense it for the masses.
-
There is this excellent article published in French in Le Monde.
https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2019/08/13/climato-scepticisme-et-medias-la-duperie/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That'll get 'em stirred up, Bernard.
Well, it should. I would hope that media give a fair share of media surface to all parties, but this is clearly not the case here.
In short, it means that people with little to no scientific abilities defending the view that climat change is not the result of human activity are given huge space in the media to express their views vs skilled scientists recognized by their peers as following a rigorous approach to analyze climat change.
In other words, a lot of what is being shared by various media doesn't represent the views of the scientific community.
If 10 unknown guys are of the opinion that Hitler has never existed vs 100 recognized historians claiming that he is a true historical figure, do you expect media to give 50% air time to both views?
That's pretty much what's happening for climate change...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In short, it means that people with little to no scientific abilities defending the view that climat change is not the result of human activity are given huge space in the media to express their views vs skilled scientists recognized by their peers as following a rigorous approach to analyze climat change.
In other words, a lot of what is being shared by various media doesn't represent the views of the scientific community.
If 10 unknown guys are of the opinion that Hitler has never existed vs 100 recognized historians claiming that he is a true historical figure, do you expect media to give 50% air time to both views?
That's pretty much what's happening for climate change...
Cheers,
Bernard
An excellent warning but overly dense with verbiage that will confound most readers. I am not sure it will be read (much less understood) by the target audience; namely "journalists" who routinely cover this topic.
-
Non-traditional media, much more than traditional, allows people to pick and choose what the want to hear. To a large extent, in fact, the providers help out by algorithmically "learning" what you want to see, in one way or another, and then biasing what you see to align with that.
So, you get echo chambers, amplified by what are almost certainly ridiculously simple algorithms.
Even absent algorithms, though, we can see how communities self-select.
The LuLa Coffee Corner has selected a little cadre of like-minded people who do most of the talking, sharing their links and information with one another. Sure, there are some nay sayers, but the cadre has learned to mostly ignore them. The naysayers have, for the most part, conceded the ground to the cadre because, ultimately, who cares?
Facebook is more nefarious, because everyone lives inside their own little curated cadre on Facebook, by design. It looks like Lula, except that instead of naysayers leaving, they are simply eased off into their own little cadre, and you never see them, and they never see you. This is what the algorithm adds.
Does one blame the non-traditional media and its algorithms, then? Given that this is what people will tend to do themselves anyways? The algorithm merely expedites and amplifies what was already there. Is there some moral obligation on the part of Facebook (or LuLa) to force alternative viewpoints, or viewpoints determined by editorial edict to be Correct, down the throats of the people.
Certainly this is what traditional media did and do. There is very limited feedback, a few letters to the editor from cranks, so in general the editorial oversight was driven internally, not by "what do the people want to see" so they simply did their best and, from time to time, simply told the truth as they saw it (see it) there being no obviously more profitable alternative.
-
Non-traditional media, much more than traditional, allows people to pick and choose what the want to hear. To a large extent, in fact, the providers help out by algorithmically "learning" what you want to see, in one way or another, and then biasing what you see to align with that.
Indeed, but one of the problems pointed out by the article I have linked to is that traditional media also give way too much space to climatoseptics.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, but one of the problems pointed out by the article I have linked to is that traditional media also give way too much space to climatoseptics.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed. They want sensational news, regardless how stupid or improbable they are.
Similar tactics are used also on financial websites and portals. One day they predict future share price of Apple as $300, next day someone else downgrades it $150.
-
Indeed, but one of the problems pointed out by the article I have linked to is that traditional media also give way too much space to climatoseptics.
Cheers,
Bernard
Precisely, Bernard. The findings are summarized on the first page:
These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public
discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate
attention given to contrarians.
The problem is, arguing or discussing science with the CCC crowd is a complete waste of time, as we've seen here and elsewhere.
-
The general press does not remind the public that the earth is round, yet I saw the other day an article that a flat-earther was going to be launched in a steam powered rocket to prove his point.
-
Washington Post published THIS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/) today. Of course it's based on real data so maybe it is classified as Fake News. there is a nice picture of ice fishing at Lake Hoptacong in New Jersey (I think this is close to where Alan Klein lives) during the 1920s. The lake no longer freezes over in the winter and New Jersey has the highest temperature increase of any of the 50 states based on this data set.
-
...New Jersey has the highest temperature increase of any of the 50 states based on this data set.
But think of all the positive benefits Alan enjoys. Besides, he has cheap energy and a powerful air conditioning unit. Here, the heat index was 109F, and I was denied the pleasure of taking my dog for an afternoon walk.
-
. . . people with little to no scientific abilities defending the view that climat change is not the result of human activity are given huge space in the media to express their views vs skilled scientists recognized by their peers as following a rigorous approach to analyze climat change. . . .
If 10 unknown guys are of the opinion that Hitler has never existed vs 100 recognized historians claiming that he is a true historical figure, do you expect media to give 50% air time to both views?
That's pretty much what's happening for climate change...
But not in the "mainstream media"—the traditional news organizations that are curated by professional journalists:
If we condition the article count tallies using select mainstream media sources, i.e., sources that implement quality control through more traditional editorial standards . . . , the media visibility of the two groups is remarkably on par.
It seems to me that there are two interacting pathologies here: (1) the influence of traditional news organizations increasingly is being challenged by online sources dominated by angry people who express their emotions through their political agendas; (2) the angry people with political agendas tend to discount the information provided by experts.
-
But not in the "mainstream media"—the traditional news organizations that are curated by professional journalists:
It seems to me that there are two interacting pathologies here: (1) the influence of traditional news organizations increasingly is being challenged by online sources dominated by angry people who express their emotions through their political agendas; (2) the angry people with political agendas tend to discount the information provided by experts.
Agreed with your views, but regarding the original article, the two groups being on par in mainstream media is in itself a major issue.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
regarding the original article, the two groups being on par in mainstream media is in itself a major issue.
Sorry: I missed that on the first scan of the article. Fair point.
But that's the way the craft works. (I say this from the perspective of someone who once was guilty of committing journalism.) We don't try to choose between conflicting opinions.
If someone mistates a factual claim, it is considered appropriate to point that out. The "mainstream media" have done a competent job of documenting the lies that Trump has told since he entered politics, for example.
But when people with varying opinions express them, we report what they say rather than deciding for our readers/listeners/viewers which opinions they should believe.
The basic idea—at least, in the American practice of the craft—is that a reporter should avoid taking sides among competing opinions, whatever his personal beliefs.
However, I think the traditional news organizations have done a good job of reporting the scientific consensus on climate change, even if they have also given what may seem from some perspectives to be inordinate coverage to non-scientific points-of-view.
-
Sorry: I missed that on the first scan of the article. Fair point.
But that's the way the craft works. (I say this from the perspective who once was guilty of committing journalism.) We don't try to choose between conflicting opinions.
Fair enough and objective reporting is part of the craft in most countries... BUT... objective reporting should come with a clear explanation of the credentials of the holder of the opinion being expressed.
My opinion on climate change has zero value at all, I don't have the competencies required to analyze data, nor have I attempted to analyze data. I would be shocked if the NY Times reported my opinion as being as valuable as that of a team from the MIT and if they gave the same amount of coverage to my opinion as that of the opinion of the said MIT team.
The reality is that not all our voices should have the same weight and media have a responsibility in terms of weighting the importance of the voices their are conveying to the public.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's OK if news organizations publish the results of honest research confirming the negative effects of global warming. However, if they fail to report the results of honest research confirming the positive effects of global warming because of a political agenda on their part, then that's biased news reporting.
PS: I don't buy that the news over represents climate change skepticism. Most news reports, news articles, nature programs, are forever complaining about climate change and how man is destroying the environment. The referenced study compares scientists who have news articles from what I can tell from a brief review of the the study. It doesn't;'t include layman and general articles from non-expert authorities who make up most of what we read and hear and see about these things. So the study is tilted and means little. What's the expression. FIgures lie and liars figure. We can come up with anything we want if we structure the study to meet the results we want. Big deal. How many articles have you read lately that is contrarian to global warming vs. those article that confirm it? That's the real facts that the study should review if they want to do a study about these things..
-
The BBC has been found guilty of breaking accuracy rules by presenting the views of climate change denier and former Tory politician Nigel Lawson as being of similar value to scientists:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/09/bbc-radio-4-broke-impartiality-rules-in-nigel-lawson-climate-change-interview
The Coffee Corner is a perfect example of how the process works - an echo chamber where people work themselves into a frenzy repeating the same slogans over and over regardless of how many times they are refuted.
-
It's OK if news organizations publish the results of honest research confirming the negative effects of global warming. However, if they fail to report the results of honest research confirming the positive effects of global warming because of a political agenda on their part, then that's biased news reporting.
Agreed. But this isn't the point being discussed here.
PS: I don't buy that the news over represents climate change skepticism. Most news reports, news articles, nature programs, are forever complaining about climate change and how man is destroying the environment. The referenced study compares scientists who have news articles from what I can tell from a brief review of the the study. It doesn't;'t include layman and general articles from non-expert authorities who make up most of what we read and hear and see about these things. So the study is tilted and means little. What's the expression. FIgures lie and liars figure. We can come up with anything we want if we structure the study to meet the results we want. Big deal. How many articles have you read lately that is contrarian to global warming vs. those article that confirm it? That's the real facts that the study should review if they want to do a study about these things..
I don't believe that layman and general articles from non experts have a strong impact on the opinion of the public. What has an impact is sources that are represented - often unfairly in this case - as being a legitimate authority.
The issue being described here is that those voices with limited legitimacy gets too much air time and therefore influence public more than they should.
I don't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to dispute the relevance of climate change/global warming and the impact human activity has on it through CO2 emissions simply out of a political agenda, right? I believe that the people who don't believe man originated CO2 emissions have a major negative impact have formed this opinion based on inputs they got from a source they consider legitimate.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lula should focus on photography. Based on the comments, the inmates find that the majority doesn’t have a clue about photography, so that’s easy. We can collectively ignore each other’s work.
More difficult with scientific topics, who knows, maybe we have a Trojan horse among us. A climate activist disguised as ignorant photographer.
::) ??? ::)
-
This article is absolutely essential.
I would appreciate if comments could focus on the role of media on the widespread misconceptions about global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
[/quote]
Depending on the chosen media and the flavour of the day, misconceptions are abundant and go in every direction. There are scientific and reputable works done by both "pros" and "contrarians", and both should be given "airtime". It happens with all sorts of subjects. For example, the current trend in Portugal is to chastise hydrocarbons, to the point that several companies who had won exploration bids have left the country - the very least a country that propelled the age of discoveries 500 years ago should do is to investigate and learn about the existing resources. But the politics choose the easy way out. Hydrocarbons are bad and pollute the environment, but everybody uses them. Go figure...
The other trend in electric cars, and Portugal has a good amount of lithium resources to mine. But no, the "greens" are against it. Mines spoil the environment. However, they do not care if the lithium is mined in West Africa under appalling conditions for child labour. It's the NYMBY tactics.
Anyway, back to the topic - the above just demonstrates that media choose whatever sells the most, regardless of scientific work. As for climate change, it's more of the same - as a geologist, I know that climate has been changing in the last 4.5 billion years, nothing new. I also know that there are reputable scientists that have called the attention to the fact that it is not yet proven that Man has accelerated climate change (before it was called global warming...), so they should be given air time.
-
I also know that there are reputable scientists that have called the attention to the fact that it is not yet proven that Man has accelerated climate change (before it was called global warming...), so they should be given air time.
Yes, they should be given air time... and they are being given air time... way too much it seems.
And for what it's worth, the wording climate change came after global warming, as an attempt to lower its negative perception.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks for the article, Bernard.
I'll begin by quoting the first sentence in this article.
"Since the early 2000s there has been little disagreement among scientific experts over the fundamental evidence supporting the existence, origin, and societal significance of anthropogenic climate change."
Wow! These climate scientists are so peaceful and friendly. They're like Buddhist monks. ;D
If that statement about 'little disagreement' is true, then there's something seriously wrong. Climate is an enormously complex process with elements of chaos. The discipline of 'Climatology' did not even exist in universities until quite recently. The subject still relies upon many other disciplines such as meteorology, oceanography, geography, hydrology, geology, glaciology, plant ecology, vegetation history, physics, chemistry, and so on.
In view of the wide interdisciplinary nature of Climatology, the enormous complexity of the subject, and the impossibility of verifying certain claims through controlled experiments, which is a scientific requirement for any certainty to exist in relation to any claimed theory or hypothesis, it doesn't make sense that there would be little disagreement among the scientific experts, unless of course there is something else influencing these experts.
Skepticism is a fundamental requirement for science to progress. 'Settled' science is 'finished' science, with nothing more to learn.
I think the late Professor Stephen Schneider has explained very well what's going on. I'll repeat his relevant quote for the benefit of those who missed the quote in the 'Extreme Weather' thread.
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
-
Ray,
Yet, the enormous majority of experts working on the topic agree that man has most probably a large influence on global warming through the CO2 emissions it generates.
This is a fact that should not be impacted by your possible disagreement with the dominant view.
As requested initially, I would prefer not to focus this thread on another discussion about the impact of man on global warming, but about the disconnect between the large agreement in the scientific community and the strongly diverging view shared by media who give the impression that this topic is still evenly debated in the scientific community.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It would be much clearer and more beneficial if the term "Climate Change" was replaced by "Raping The Earth" with activities such as air pollution, fracking, spreading plastics and other garbage in the oceans, damming rivers, drying out lakes, mountaintops removal, clearcutting forests, destroying corals, and such. Only an idiot could dispute the negative effects of all these activities on earth and its inhabitants.
-
As requested initially, I would prefer not to focus this thread on another discussion about the impact of man on global warming, but about the disconnect between the large agreement in the scientific community and the strongly diverging view shared by media who give the impression that this topic is still evenly debated in the scientific community.
There's an important journalistic distinction between quoting the opinions of prominent skeptics (e.g., political figures or individuals with legitimate scientific credentials) and giving the impression that the cause of climate change is still evenly debated. The "mainstream media" invariably make it clear that the data show and most experts agree that human activity is a principal cause of global warming, and that most of the skeptics are not experts.
Of course, as the Nature Communications study points out, online sources which do not adhere to the standards of traditional news organizations frequently offer counterarguments which have no factual basis. These, inevitably, are adopted and repeated by individuals with a political or economic agenda, as well as those who resent anything said by people they think of as elitist.
-
This is a challenge for democracy – where everyone has a vote, but most are not qualified to use it. Who here is qualified to make a scientific judgement about climate change? Can the layman be believed when he comments on the basis of simplifications and magazine articles? Democracy has its uses if it saves us from the whims of tyrants – even if it sometimes delivers sub-optimal solutions (Exhibit A – Brexit) – but what if it condemns us to an uninhabitable planet?
-
It could very well be that the period of history that we experienced when media outlets had serious journalists and investigators on staff, funded by other sections of the newspaper/magazine, was kind of a unique thing. A lot of media and social media are now being pressured into producing click bait, since their revenues depend on advertising. The vertical media monopolies don't help this, in the sense that the public interest may not be uppermost in anyone's mind, or anyone who makes media content decisions anyway. I would say that this is an example of a "free market" being distorted by mis-aligned incentives. We want (or should) information from people who actually know stuff, but the online world is full of charlatans.
How people select what to believe or not is itself interesting. There seems to be (we are told) widespread skepticism of "experts" and "elites" but I've never heard anyone suggest that surgeons shouldn't wear latex gloves. It's because of science that we know about bacteria and viruses. Yet vaccines, recommended by those same scientists, are a target. Whatever is going on, it's not always objective or fact-based. The seeming fact that people behave this way is fertile ground for the media slant discussed in the OP's article.
There are still long-form sources of information available, both written and broadcast (especially podcast), but they are not top of mind for most people. If those outlets ever did make much money, the media giants would buy and squash them, of that I am confident. So it's a constant struggle to find the real truth and not "truthy" marketing.
Moreover, a bit off-topic, I am astonished that we (some of us anyway) are still having the "the Environment vs the Economy" debate as if they are orthogonal. The environment is the economy, what could be more obvious.
-
It would be much clearer and more beneficial if the term "Climate Change" was replaced by "Raping The Earth" with activities such as air pollution, fracking, spreading plastics and other garbage in the oceans, damming rivers, drying out lakes, mountaintops removal, clearcutting forests, destroying corals, and such. Only an idiot could dispute the negative effects of all these activities on earth and its inhabitants.
Again, Les, for every negative, there is a positive, maybe many positives. All these activities have advanced man. We no longer live in caves by an open fire to protect us against wild animals that might devour us during the night. At least for most of us. That's because of advances like mining, home construction, dam created electricity, dam created fresh drinking water, etc that does modify nature coincidentally. We are species part of earth and use its materials. I'm not suggesting we be bad stewards of the environment. Only that doing these things have beneficial outcomes for man as a species. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
Ray,
Yet, the enormous majority of experts working on the topic agree that man has most probably a large influence on global warming through the CO2 emissions it generates.
This is a fact that should not be impacted by your possible disagreement with the dominant view.
As requested initially, I would prefer not to focus this thread on another discussion about the impact of man on global warming, but about the disconnect between the large agreement in the scientific community and the strongly diverging view shared by media who give the impression that this topic is still evenly debated in the scientific community.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
I have great respect for the methodology of science. How factual and precise are the terms 'enormous majority' and 'most probably'? What is the scientific methodology that has been applied in order to determine the size of the majority that you claim is in agreement that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main cause of the current warming?
The other issue that needs to be addressed is the evidence that such warming, whatever its causes, will 'most probably' be harmful to the environment and humanity's future.
I take a more holistic approach to this issue. Human civilizations began when the climate began to warm after the last Ice Age. About 12,000 years ago, that huge area of the current Sahara Desert, bigger than the entire continent of Australia, was a rich grassland with lots of wildlife. Now it's a dry and hot desert, and that increasing desertification in the region no doubt contributed to the collapse of the great Egyptian Empire.
A fundamental scientific truth that needs to be emphasized is that climate has always been changing in the past, in different ways, in different regions, causing many civilizations that were not able to adapt to the changing climate, to simply collapse.
An example a recent collapse of a civilization due to a very rapid change in climate, is the Khmer civilization in Cambodia, famous for its ancient temples such as Angkor Wat, which I know you've photographed.
This area around Siem Reap is one of my favourite locations for photography. There are so many temples overgrown by the jungle, with so many beautiful carvings on the walls which are still standing, and on the fallen stones which are lying on the ground.
When I first visited the area many years ago, the historic story was that the civilization collapsed because their traditional enemy, the Thais, had successfully invaded, and the population just left the entire area, which resulted in the cities and temples gradually becoming lost in the Jungle until the French colonialists discovered the ruins in the 19th century.
However, more recent research, examining tree rings and sediments, has revealed that before the Thais attacked, there was a rapid change in climate in the early 14th century, around the same time that the Medieval Warm Period in Europe was changing to the Little Ice Age, which caused the Vikings to leave Greenland.
In other words, before the Thais attacked, the population was already beginning to depart because of periods of long droughts. As the climate cooled, the snows in the Himalayas didn't melt in the summer as much as they used to, the water flowing down the Mekong was reduced, and the rainfall in the Monsoon periods was significantly reduced.
The question we should all be asking is, which is more certain, that the climate has always been changing and will continue to change, or that the current change is unprecedented because of human emissions of CO2?
It's important because every year people are dying and losing their property because of extreme weather events that are usually not nearly unprecedented, according to the existing record. What might be unprecedented is the total value of property destroyed and the number of lives lost. That is due to the increase in population and urbanization, rather than any increase in the severity of the flood, drought or hurricane.
-
The question we should all be asking is, which is more certain, that the climate has always been changing and will continue to change, or that the current change is unprecedented because of human emissions of CO2?
This question has been asked and answered, and repeating the argument here is not appropriate. What is relevant is the observation that such stories continue to be repeated until they gain currency among the population, before the truth can get its boots on.
-
Yes, they should be given air time... and they are being given air time... way too much it seems.
And for what it's worth, the wording climate change came after global warming, as an attempt to lower its negative perception.
Cheers,
Bernard
I know it came afterwards, introduced by those who could not prove that Man was responsible for global warming. Climate change can go in every direction.
Way too much time? Who should be the judge of that?
-
It would be much clearer and more beneficial if the term "Climate Change" was replaced by "Raping The Earth" with activities such as air pollution, fracking, spreading plastics and other garbage in the oceans, damming rivers, drying out lakes, mountaintops removal, clearcutting forests, destroying corals, and such. Only an idiot could dispute the negative effects of all these activities on earth and its inhabitants.
So are you willing to go back to the stone age? Living in caves by the fire? Or without any fire, since it requires burning wood?
-
Ray,
Yet, the enormous majority of experts working on the topic agree that man has most probably a large influence on global warming through the CO2 emissions it generates.
This is a fact that should not be impacted by your possible disagreement with the dominant view.
As requested initially, I would prefer not to focus this thread on another discussion about the impact of man on global warming, but about the disconnect between the large agreement in the scientific community and the strongly diverging view shared by media who give the impression that this topic is still evenly debated in the scientific community.
Cheers,
Bernard
"Majority" - depends on the source.
"Agree" - not really. There is plenty of disagreement.
"Probably" - makes sense.
And then you go from the above to "fact". Your last paragraph makes no sense. You want to focus the discussion on the disconnect you mention, but without discussing the underlying subject. There is no large agreement; and the topic is still debated, as it should be.
-
"Majority" - depends on the source.
"Agree" - not really. There is plenty of disagreement.
"Probably" - makes sense.
And then you go from the above to "fact". Your last paragraph makes no sense. You want to focus the discussion on the disconnect you mention, but without discussing the underlying subject. There is no large agreement; and the topic is still debated, as it should be.
This article - from a not-particularly "green" source - is relevant. It concludes that a large majority (at least 80%) of scientists agree that climate change is human-caused.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1081de311576
-
So are you willing to go back to the stone age? Living in caves by the fire? Or without any fire, since it requires burning wood?
The humanity can prosper also without wasting and abusing resources. As to burning and using wood, that's OK, since it is renewable resource, especially if the forests are properly managed.
-
There are more forests today in Canada than there were a hundred years ago.
So we must be doing something right.
-
Agreed. But this isn't the point being discussed here.
I don't believe that layman and general articles from non experts have a strong impact on the opinion of the public. What has an impact is sources that are represented - often unfairly in this case - as being a legitimate authority.
The issue being described here is that those voices with limited legitimacy gets too much air time and therefore influence public more than they should.
I don't believe that anyone would be stupid enough to dispute the relevance of climate change/global warming and the impact human activity has on it through CO2 emissions simply out of a political agenda, right? I believe that the people who don't believe man originated CO2 emissions have a major negative impact have formed this opinion based on inputs they got from a source they consider legitimate.
Cheers,
Bernard
Let's face it most people don't know who the vice president of the United States is. Most people read headlines and if they're lucky they remember some of the facts about them. So what's in the headlines is what influences people's beliefs, unfortunately.
And those headlines come from editors who want to blame climate change on fossil fuels. That's the party line.
-
Rubbish.
It's Dan Quayle.
-
There are more forests today in Canada than there were a hundred years ago.
So we must be doing something right.
Yes, we are. Unfortunately, the Brazilians and a few other nations don't.
-
The point about climate change isn't that it's all death and destruction. The point is that it's change, substantial change, and that with substantial changes of this character there is a lot of death and destruction. Yes, life will probably find a way in the new Earth, but it's going to be different.
The salient question for *me* if whether it will include homo sapiens and on a more personal note exactly which of them, if it includes any.
There's quite a nice park at Ground Zero in Nagasaki. This doesn't mean that nuclear bombs are all fun and games.
-
The LuLa Coffee Corner has selected a little cadre of like-minded people who do most of the talking, sharing their links and information with one another. Sure, there are some nay sayers, but the cadre has learned to mostly ignore them. The naysayers have, for the most part, conceded the ground to the cadre because, ultimately, who cares?
And, of course, if you give a man enough rope, he will eventually hang himself.
-
The point about climate change isn't that it's all death and destruction. The point is that it's change, substantial change, and that with substantial changes of this character there is a lot of death and destruction. Yes, life will probably find a way in the new Earth, but it's going to be different.
The salient question for *me* if whether it will include homo sapiens and on a more personal note exactly which of them, if it includes any.
There's quite a nice park at Ground Zero in Nagasaki. This doesn't mean that nuclear bombs are all fun and games.
Since the Ice Age, warming has been generally good for civilization and Mankind. Why do you think another couple of degrees is suddenly going to reverse that?
I would think generally it's going to get even better.
-
Since the Ice Age, warming has been generally good for civilization and Mankind. Why do you think another couple of degrees is suddenly going to reverse that?
I would think generally it's going to get even better.
Perhaps you could start another thread on this topic?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Since the Ice Age, warming has been generally good for civilization and Mankind. Why do you think another couple of degrees is suddenly going to reverse that? I would think generally it's going to get even better.
So said the frog in the pot being brought to a boil.
-
"Majority" - depends on the source.
"Agree" - not really. There is plenty of disagreement.
"Probably" - makes sense.
And then you go from the above to "fact". Your last paragraph makes no sense. You want to focus the discussion on the disconnect you mention, but without discussing the underlying subject. There is no large agreement; and the topic is still debated, as it should be.
I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?
Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.
The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.
But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.
I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?
Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.
The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.
But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.
I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, First you complain that opinions about the legitimacy of global warming belongs in one of the other threads, not in this one. Then you go on to give your opinion in this thread why people who still believe global warming is hokum are politically inspired, ethically malignant and intellectually dishonest.You seem to want to have it both ways what this thread is about. It's all very confusing. Make up your mind.
-
Seems pretty clear though.
This thread is about media coverage.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Seems pretty clear though.
This thread is about media coverage.
Cheers,
Bernard
What does your following quote have to do with media coverage? It seems just an offhand insult to people who believe a particular way and nothing to do with media?
"I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids."
-
I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?
Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.
The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.
But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.
I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.
Cheers,
Bernard
Okay, so let's debate the press coverage. My impression is that from the beginning the main stream media, and many environmental groups, have misrepresented the science behind anthropogenic climate change in order to get political action on cleaning up the environment.
I'll repeat the relevant comment from climate activist Prof. Stephen Schneider.
"..as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
This describes the problem far better than the article in your original post, Bernard. That article begins with an unscientific assumption that the vast majority of scientists working in the field of climatology believe that there is sound evidence that human activity is the main cause of the current warming.
To quote further from that article you linked:
"Historians of science have detailed the political origins of the CCC movement, documenting how its strategic efforts succeeded in distorting the science-based narrative on multiple fronts, e.g., by promoting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic, despite the fact that objective research has found little evidence for such a claim. One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature."
So let's examine the objectivity of this research which supports the often-quoted 97% consensus. Papers by John Cook, founder of the Skepticalscience web site, are often referenced at the end of the article. Here's one which describes the methodology used to support the 97% consensus claim.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
From the abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
In other words, only 33.6% of the papers expressed a position on AGW. Of that 33.6% an overwhelming majority endorsed AGW, but definitely not an overwhelming majority of all the peer-reviewed papers that were examined.
The true consensus from this specific study is 32.6%. This is just one example of how the media distort the scientific reality in order to create a false sense of certainty. Is it any wonder there will be a backlash and claims of scientific fraud and conspiracy in other sections of the media?
-
What does your following quote have to do with media coverage? It seems just an offhand insult to people who believe a particular way and nothing to do with media?
If you wish to discuss this aspect further please start another thread.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Okay, so let's debate the press coverage. My impression is that from the beginning the main stream media, and many environmental groups, have misrepresented the science behind anthropogenic climate change in order to get political action on cleaning up the environment.
I'll repeat the relevant comment from climate activist Prof. Stephen Schneider.
"..as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts."
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
This describes the problem far better than the article in your original post, Bernard. That article begins with an unscientific assumption that the vast majority of scientists working in the field of climatology believe that there is sound evidence that human activity is the main cause of the current warming.
To quote further from that article you linked:
"Historians of science have detailed the political origins of the CCC movement, documenting how its strategic efforts succeeded in distorting the science-based narrative on multiple fronts, e.g., by promoting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic, despite the fact that objective research has found little evidence for such a claim. One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature."
So let's examine the objectivity of this research which supports the often-quoted 97% consensus. Papers by John Cook, founder of the Skepticalscience web site, are often referenced at the end of the article. Here's one which describes the methodology used to support the 97% consensus claim.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
From the abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
In other words, only 33.6% of the papers expressed a position on AGW. Of that 33.6% an overwhelming majority endorsed AGW, but definitely not an overwhelming majority of all the peer-reviewed papers that were examined.
The true consensus from this specific study is 32.6%. This is just one example of how the media distort the scientific reality in order to create a false sense of certainty. Is it any wonder there will be a backlash and claims of scientific fraud and conspiracy in other sections of the media?
I already addressed this issue in reply 35
This article - from a not-particularly "green" source - is relevant. It concludes that a large majority (at least 80%) of scientists agree that climate change is human-caused.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1081de311576
-
Again, Les, for every negative, there is a positive, maybe many positives. All these activities have advanced man. We no longer live in caves by an open fire to protect us against wild animals that might devour us during the night. At least for most of us. That's because of advances like mining, home construction, dam created electricity, dam created fresh drinking water, etc that does modify nature coincidentally. We are species part of earth and use its materials. I'm not suggesting we be bad stewards of the environment. Only that doing these things have beneficial outcomes for man as a species. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Indeed, some dams can be quite beneficial. About two hours from my home is a small town called Minden with a lake and Gull river flowing out of it. A small dam with lift gates controls the outflow of the water into a rocky river bed which was further modified with large boulders to create a world-class whitewater course. A few years ago, they held the Pan-Am Games kayak and canoe slalom races there. Great stretch of whitewater. In my younger days, I used to play also in those rapids (see below).
However, in 2013 Minden experienced 100-year flood which damaged not only the dam but also some of the large rocks and cement blocks that were controlling the river flow. The recent repairs and construction of one half of the dam has left this scenic attraction in bad shape and even a paved road was damaged. The strong current moved some of the large rocks from the river right onto the parking lot. The infrastructure installed for the Pan-Am Games was crashed and there is no money to re-construct it.
The river was flooded again in 2017 and 2019. Some say that as a result of the global climate change (which could have been caused by human activities as Jeremy suggests in the post above).
-
From the abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
In other words, only 33.6% of the papers expressed a position on AGW. Of that 33.6% an overwhelming majority endorsed AGW, but definitely not an overwhelming majority of all the peer-reviewed papers that were examined.
The true consensus from this specific study is 32.6%. This is just one example of how the media distort the scientific reality in order to create a false sense of certainty. Is it any wonder there will be a backlash and claims of scientific fraud and conspiracy in other sections of the media?
Ray,
I am sorry, but with all the good will in the world, I fail to see how this disproofs the point that press coverage gives too much air time to sources not aligned with the dominant opinion that global warming is caused by man activity.
All it shows is that among articles devoted to global warming, only 1/3 were focused on the question whether it is man driven or not. You will agree with me that there are many other aspects of interest about global warming also and it is in no way surprising to see that 2/3 of the articles were interested in those.
Among those addressing the question though, close to 97% indeed conclude that it is man driven. That's a number even higher than the one I was expecting to see. 80% would be more than enough to consider this a wide spread agreement.
But again, still not related to the way media covers these 32.6% vs 0.7% right?
One you introductory point, yes, I would agree that some of the scientists alarmed about the impacts of global warming and convinced that human activity is playing an important role, may have taken the drama a little too high. But I do understand their position. Even if Alan is certainly right that there may be some positive sides to it for some people, the overall global impact seems to be pretty negative.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ray,
I am sorry, but with all the good will in the world, I fail to see how this disproofs the point that press coverage gives too much air time to sources not aligned with the dominant opinion that global warming is caused by man activity.
Bernard,
I've never got the impression in Australia that the press gives too much air time to the contrarians. In fact, my experience has been the opposite, which is why initially, about 15 years ago, I used to accept the claims that the current warming was unnatural and caused mainly by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which could have serious consequences for the future.
However, that might have been because I tend to watch or listen to the more serious programs on Australian TV and radio, which included interviews of scientists such as James Lovelock and James Hansen, and documentaries by people like David Attenborough who seems very convinced that the Great Barrier Reef is under threat.
As a result of watching or listening to such interviews and documentaries, I became very interested in the general subject of climate change and ocean acidification, from a scientific and historical perspective rather than just the perspective of the personal opinion of an individual scientist interviewed in the media.
As a consequence I began searching for published scientific papers on Google Scholar, relating to particular climate issues, and began participating in forum discussions where alternative interpretations of the data and evidence were discussed.
As a result of my own investigations and effort, I became aware of many of the "doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts" which were never mentioned in the Media in Australia when climate scientists were interviewed.
I became aware that the alarming claims of ocean acidification were actually represented by a small reduction in the average alkalinity of the ocean surfaces from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 over a 150 year period. (A pH of 7 being neutral, and below 7 being acidic, a fact which I already knew because I've done some gardening.)
I became aware, from reading at least the abstracts of research papers, that the pH of the oceans varies considerably; far more than an average change of 0.1 pH. It changes according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, and the depth of the ocean.
I became aware of the existence of warming and cooling periods in the past, such as the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and that the current warm period is warm in relation to the Little Ice Age which ended about the time the industrial revolution took off.
I discovered that farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses for many decades because it significantly increases the crop growth.
I discovered that the constant claims in the media that extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts, will get worse as a result of CO2 emissions, are not based upon sound evidence. The AR5 IPCC report, published in 2013, stated clearly that there was 'low confidence' (due to lack of evidence) that floods, droughts and hurricanes had been increasing in either severity or frequency since 1950, on a gloabal scale. However, they mentioned that there was 'high confidence' that megadroughts during the previous 500 years had been worse than any recent droughts in the 20th century.
The current IPCC report is still a work in progress, due out maybe in 2021, but there have been recent interim reports which confirm that there is still a lack of evidence to support a claim that floods, droughts and hurricanes have increased since 1950, globally.
I could go on and on but I'll leave it there for the time being. I'll finish with the advice, if you are genuinely interested in the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and want to get to the truth, then you need to read both sides of the arguments and use your nous and rationality to determine what makes the most sense.
A relevant analogy, although limited as most analogies are, might be the choice of a new camera. Do you choose to buy a particular model of camera simply because an expert photographer recommends it, or do you dig into the details, consider alternative opinions, and look at scientific test results on sites such as DXOMARK?
-
I'll finish with the advice, if you are genuinely interested in the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and want to get to the truth, then you need to read both sides of the arguments and use your nous and rationality to determine what makes the most sense.
And how many of us have the necessary scientific background and specialist knowledge required to rationally determine what makes "sense"?
-
I'll finish with the advice, if you are genuinely interested in the issue of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and want to get to the truth, then you need to read both sides of the arguments and use your nous and rationality to determine what makes the most sense.
And how many of us have the necessary scientific background and specialist knowledge required to rationally determine what makes "sense"?
Very few, which is probably why it's best if those who don't, on either side, keep quiet.
Jeremy
-
What do you think that chances of that are, Jeremy? Were I a bookie I'd be taking bets.
-
What do you think that chances of that are, Jeremy?
Evidently zero.
-
... And how many of us have the necessary scientific background and specialist knowledge required to rationally determine what makes "sense"?
We don’t have to. We still have to form an opinion, based on general education and common sense, because we vote. In that sense, Ray’s call for audiatur et altera pars makes perfect sense. Experts, buy the very nature of the concept, tend to have a rather narrow field of expertise, which makes them susceptible to not seeing the forest for the trees.
-
We don’t have to. We still have to form an opinion, based on general education and common sense, because we vote. In that sense, Ray’s call for audiatur et altera pars makes perfect sense. Experts, buy the very nature of the concept, tend to have a rather narrow field of expertise, which makes them susceptible to not seeing the forest for the trees.
You have to vote, but that's not the same as judging the issue independently. The sensible voter should surely choose according to what he is told by the great majority of those equipped to judge, and not on the basis of some bloke on the internet telling him how the Thames once froze over.
-
... The sensible voter should surely choose according to what he is told by the great majority of those equipped to judge..
Nope. Simply nope.
As long as I have my sane mind, I'll vote how I think, not how somebody told me to.
-
Nope. Simply nope.
As long as I have my sane mind, I'll vote how I think, not how somebody told me to.
That's not what I said. Nobody told you how to vote. Somebody explained a phenomenon to you. How you vote having heard that explanation is up to you. My oncologist tells me I can choose chemo or radiation or do nothing. My choice, but I'm not pretending to second guess the diagnosis.
-
That's not what I said. Nobody told you how to vote. Somebody explained a phenomenon to you. How you vote having heard that explanation is up to you. My oncologist tells me I can choose chemo or radiation or do nothing. My choice, but I'm not pretending to second guess the diagnosis.
The problem is there are a lot of layman second guessing the diagnosis, and for some reason a subset of people want to believe them. I am more interested in the psychological makeup of the person who is inclined to believe the climate change deniers in the face of the scientific evidence. What else do they believe? Do they believe in gravity? Do they believe the world is round. Do they believe that the sun is the center of the solar system? Do they believe the moon landing was faked? Do they believe in alien abductions? Do they believe in Big Foot? What are their political beliefs? Do they believe the Newtown shooting was a hoax. Do they believe the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor? Do they believe in QAnon? Do they believe what Donald Trump says? What are their religious beliefs? Do they believe in God? Do they believe in intelligent design? Do they believe in evolution? Do they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible? Do they believe that the earth in 6500 years old? Is there a correspondence among their beliefs? I'd love to see some Venn diagrams. Or is that too scientific?
-
Ray,
I am sorry, but with all the good will in the world, I fail to see how this disproofs the point that press coverage gives too much air time to sources not aligned with the dominant opinion that global warming is caused by man activity.
All it shows is that among articles devoted to global warming, only 1/3 were focused on the question whether it is man driven or not. You will agree with me that there are many other aspects of interest about global warming also and it is in no way surprising to see that 2/3 of the articles were interested in those.
Among those addressing the question though, close to 97% indeed conclude that it is man driven. That's a number even higher than the one I was expecting to see. 80% would be more than enough to consider this a wide spread agreement.
But again, still not related to the way media covers these 32.6% vs 0.7% right?
One you introductory point, yes, I would agree that some of the scientists alarmed about the impacts of global warming and convinced that human activity is playing an important role, may have taken the drama a little too high. But I do understand their position. Even if Alan is certainly right that there may be some positive sides to it for some people, the overall global impact seems to be pretty negative.
Cheers,
Bernard
The article should have been clear that two-thirds of the scientists took no position at all.
The 97% figure deceives the readers and lay public.
-
That's not what I said. Nobody told you how to vote. Somebody explained a phenomenon to you. How you vote having heard that explanation is up to you. My oncologist tells me I can choose chemo or radiation or do nothing. My choice, but I'm not pretending to second guess the diagnosis.
I hope everything works out for you. It seems like you're facing one of life's challenges like I just faced with my heart.
-
... I'm not pretending to second guess the diagnosis.
Really!? Ever heard of the second-opinion concept?
-
The problem is there are a lot of layman second guessing the diagnosis, and for some reason a subset of people want to believe them. I am more interested in the psychological makeup of the person who is inclined to believe the climate deniers in the face of the scientific evidence. What else do they believe? Do they believe in gravity? Do they believe the world is round. Do they believe that the sun is the center of the solar system? Do they believe the moon landing was faked? Do they believe in alien abductions? Do they believe in Big Foot? What are their political beliefs? Do they believe the Newtown shooting was a hoax. Do they believe the Clintons are running a pedophile ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor? Do they believe in QAnon? What are their religious beliefs? Do they believe in God? Do they believe in intelligent design? Do they believe in evolution? Do they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible? Do they believe that the earth in 6500 years old? Is there a correspondence among their beliefs? I'd love to see some Venn diagrams. Or is that too scientific?
Oh, grow up!
-
Really!? Ever heard of the second-opinion concept?
Sure. But I'd rather get that from another doctor, not some random guy on the Internet :-)
-
I hope everything works out for you. It seems like you're facing one of life's challenges like I just faced with my heart.
My apologies Alan. My example was hypothetical. However I appreciate your kind words even if they were not needed (knock on wood) and it underlines that even if there are harsh words, we have more here that connects us than divides us.
-
My apologies Alan. My example was hypothetical. However I appreciate your kind words even if they were not needed (knock on wood) and it underlines that even if there at harsh words, we have more here that connects us than divides us.
Damn! Just as I was deliberating should I preface my sympathy with "In case it was not rhetorical..." Glad it was :)
-
Really!? Ever heard of the second-opinion concept?
The analogy here being that you will absolutely want your second opinion to come from someone recognized as being an expert about cancer.
How is he going to be recognized? By his peers, themselves experts about cancer.
Or you could also follow the advice of a Chinese practitioner specialized in energies who tells you not to undergo surgery but to heal your cancer by drinking carrot juice enhanced with white cabage dips.
How have you heard about him? From reading about his work in the press. Because the press has decided for whatever strange reason that the opinion of chinese carrot juice advisers should get as much air time as recognized Harvard doctors on the ground that all opinions should be given a fair coverage since not everyone agrees that stomach cancer should be healed by surgery.
Fortunately the press doesn’t do that for cancer or heart diseases and we would hate them if they did.
Why do recognized cancer experts think that carrot juice isn’t the best solution btw? Because, although the brother of aunt Jennie did heal from cancer drinking carrot juice, there is plenty of statistical data telling them that this is a coincidence, otherwise called a false positive.
Correlation not meaning causation, only wide spread statistical data analyzed by recognized experts using best in class analysis tools should be used to decide policies. And those reporting about these topics have a clear role to play in curating content being shared to the masses.
But that is not sufficiently the case on the subject of global warming. So the article I am linking to highlights the fact that not only do non recognized experts not shut up, but the press gives to much echo to their ramblings.
Cheers,
Bernard
P.s.: the story is real, but isn’t about me. The person got an early surgery and she is totally fine years later
-
The sensible voter should surely choose according to what he is told by the great majority of those equipped to judge, and not on the basis of some bloke on the internet telling him how the Thames once froze over.
Exactly, Jeremy. That's why we know the earth actually is at the center of the universe and that the sun circles it. After all, Copernicus was the equivalent of a bloke on the internet, and the great majority of those equipped to judge knew he was wrong.
-
The article should have been clear that two-thirds of the scientists took no position at all.
The 97% figure deceives the readers and lay public.
No, the article should have said that 2/3 of the scientists working on global warming are not investigating the influence of man on global warming.
Which says absolutely nothing about them having or not an opinion about the role of man on global warming.
But I have a lot of respect for your intelligence and you know this perfectly well Alan.
Let me ask you a simple question. Why do you feel the need to rely to wicked logic to defend your position if you are right?
Is this about winning an argument or about trying to reach the truth?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Exactly, Jeremy. That's why we know the earth actually is at the center of the universe and that the sun circles it. After all, Copernicus was the equivalent of a bloke on the internet, and the great majority of those equipped to judge knew he was wrong.
Russ,
You are a smart man, why do you decide at this point to use such an obviously irrelevant argument?
If you are right, why not stick to sound logic to try to convince us instead?
To spell things out clearly, here is why the example you are using isn’t logically relevant.
Af the time of Copernicus, the dominent opinion on the mechanics of the world was ruled by a small group of religious people with vested interest in keeping the masses in the dark. They used a myth to do so.
Copernicus, on the other hand, used science to bring to the table a new explanation that still isn’t 100% proven today. The earth may in fact still be at the center of the universe and the sun may be rotating around it. But... Harvard scientists have ample data to proof us that this is most probably not the case.
And the press gives very little coverage to the few religious fanatics still thinking today that the earth is at the center of the universe. But they get some.
Similarly, nobody is saying that the people not agreeing with the dominant scientifical theory about global warming should’t be heard. Only that their voice should be given an amount of airtime proportional to the degree of credibility of their originators as assessed in terms of scientific value. Not to repeat today what happened to Copernicus
Today’s Copernicus is the majority of the scientific community thinking that man is most probably responsible for global warming. Not the opposite.
The essence of your story isn’t that opposite opinions are often right, the essence of your story is that science should prevail over myths.
So, with all due respect, your example was a very poor one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are no (polite) words to describe my disdain for the climate alarmists for their general religious attitude and the utter lack of logic. Must be some sort of intellectual disability?
-
After all, Copernicus was the equivalent of a bloke on the internet, and the great majority of those equipped to judge knew he was wrong.
Copernicus wasn't like a bloke on the internet; he was a scientist. Those that took issue with him were the established religion. And we all know what other fairy tales they were passing off as fact.
-
There are no (polite) words to describe my disdain for the climate alarmists for their general religious attitude and the utter lack of logic. Must be some sort of intellectual disability?
Right... and how exactly is that the case?
Would you mind pointing out what part of our reasoning isn’t logical or is or “religious nature”?
Because so far in this thread it would appear that all the illogical arguments have been put forward by those not believing in the mainstream theory.
What is happening here Slobodan is that you are trying to have this thread closed by resorting to personnel attacks.
If you are right, why do you feel the need to do so?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, with all due respect, your example was a very poor one.
Really? In light of what we know now the whole argument is ridiculous, but the example tells us two things: (1) There's no such thing as a "scientific consensus," and if there is it's probably wrong. (2) The term "expert" often can be defined as "a drip under pressure." When it comes to climate, any guess is as likely to be wrong as to be right because (1) we simply don't have the data we need and (2) even if we had the data we need, we don't know how to process it.
-
Russ,
You are a smart man, why do you decide at this point to use such an obviously irrelevant argument?
If you are right, why not stick to sound logic to try to convince us instead?
To spell things out clearly, here is why the example you are using isn’t logically relevant.
Af the time of Copernicus, the dominent opinion on the mechanics of the world was ruled by a small group of religious people with vested interest in keeping the masses in the dark. They used a myth to do so.
Copernicus, on the other hand, used science to bring to the table a new explanation that still isn’t 100% proven today. The earth may in fact still be at the center of the universe and the sun may be rotating around it. But... Harvard scientists have ample data to proof us that this is most probably not the case.
And the press gives very little coverage to the few religious fanatics still thinking today that the earth is at the center of the universe. But they get some.
Similarly, nobody is saying that the people not agreeing with the dominant scientifical theory about global warming should’t be heard. Only that their voice should be given an amount of airtime proportional to the degree of credibility of their originators as assessed in terms of scientific value. Not to repeat today what happened to Copernicus
Today’s Copernicus is the majority of the scientific community thinking that man is most probably responsible for global warming. Not the opposite.
The essence of your story isn’t that opposite opinions are often right, the essence of your story is that science should prevail over myths.
So, with all due respect, your example was a very poor one.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sounds like current thinking, except instead of religious zealots, we have scientific zealots, captains of industry, and politicians who want to keep the public in the dark.
-
My apologies Alan. My example was hypothetical. However I appreciate your kind words even if they were not needed (knock on wood) and it underlines that even if there are harsh words, we have more here that connects us than divides us.
I'm sure if we all got together personally, and off this damn internet, our conversations would be more civil. We might be actually be sharing a beer or two. :) Glad the disease was just a point you were making.
-
There are no (polite) words to describe my disdain for the climate alarmists for their general religious attitude and the utter lack of logic. Must be some sort of intellectual disability?
All religions, including Scientology and flawed pseudo-science theoreticians inflict a lot of damage.
On the other hand, comprehensive scientific research combined with hard evidence, such as tree rings, ice drill samples, air and soil analysis, measuring thickness of bird egg shells deliver hard facts and beneficial warnings.
-
Even if the temperature is going up, and part or all is caused by man, the positives will outway the negatives. Warm is better.
-
Really? In light of what we know now the whole argument is ridiculous, but the example tells us two things: (1) There's no such thing as a "scientific consensus," and if there is it's probably wrong. (2) The term "expert" often can be defined as "a drip under pressure." When it comes to climate, any guess is as likely to be wrong as to be right because (1) we simply don't have the data we need and (2) even if we had the data we need, we don't know how to process it.
Russ,
Could you please explain how you go from the Copernicus story to your two derived statements?
I apologize but I don’t understand the logical flow here.
They come across as beliefs on your part, as doubts about the relevance of the scientific approach in general and its applicability to global warming. Not to mention that they are not related to the press coverage centric subject of this thread.
The reality being that:
1. Scientific consensus will never reach 100% agreement from all parties. It’s never the case and this is very good news since it prooves the open nature of the system. There are only probabilities to base policies on. And a large majority of recognized experts investigating the topic think that there is a very high probability today that man is responsible for global warming. I agree with you we are not 100% sure. Only 97%.
But I am sure you have taken most of your life decisions with much lower odds of being right.
But look at the opposite theory “man is not responsible for global warming”. How sure are we that that one is true?
2 we have a lot of data. A huge amount of data. But I agree with you we don’t have enough data to be 100% sure. And we will never have it. Does that mean we sit and wait.
As far as I recall you are a war veteran and a pilot. Would you mind explaining to us the degree of statistical certainty you were basing your operational decisions on? When shooting a missile at another plane, were you always 100% sure it was not a friendly fire? Has the identified Friend or Foe system planes are equipped with always been 100% reliable? The answer is no, but you did trust the statistics that it’s mostly right.
Was the intelligence used to identify a target always 100% accurate? The answer is no but you took life or deaths decisions nonetheless based on probabilities.
So why do you think we must we 100% sure about global warming. Why is 97% not good enough in this case?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Even if the temperature is going up, and part or all is caused by man, the positives will outway the negatives. Warm is better.
Warmer is better in the winter but not so hot in the summer.
-
Sounds like current thinking, except instead of religious zealots, we have scientific zealots, captains of industry, and politicians who want to keep the public in the dark.
If anything captains of industry overal have a clear agenda against recognizing the impact of man against global warming.
If you mean by scientific zealots people who insist about following a scientific approach to support decision making, then I am very happy they are around.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Why is 97% not good enough in this case?
Because there is not such thing. It's a myth. Or to be less charitable, a lie. Exactly the type of religious fervor you et al display all the time.
-
So why do you think we must we 100% sure about global warming. Why is 97% not good enough in this case?
Cheers,
Bernard
We never will be, Bernard, though in the sixties my Aunt, who was a geology PhD and head of the geology department at University of Houston, was convinced we were about to experience catastrophic global cooling. I remember sitting in the living room with my aunt and a group of top-flighters from the university and a couple government agencies, all of whom were equally convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. They were as sure as the global warmists now are that we're about to burn up. At this point the whole thing is a laughable political campaign.
-
... What is happening here Slobodan is that you are trying to have this thread closed by resorting to personnel attacks...
There was no personal attack.
-
Because there is not such thing. It's a myth. Or to be less charitable, a lie. Exactly the type of religious fervor you et al display all the time.
Not, it is not a myth.
It is a measure of the current level of agreement in the community of scientific experts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... It is a measure of the current level of agreement in the community of scientific experts.
Already debunked as a political lie. As Ray (and I) in the past demonstrated by citing relevant sources.
-
We never will be, Bernard, though in the sixties my Aunt, who was a geology PhD and head of the geology department at University of Houston, was convinced we were about to experience catastrophic global cooling. I remember sitting in the living room with my aunt and a group of top-flighters from the university and a couple government agencies, all of whom were equally convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age. They were as sure as the global warmists now are that we're about to burn up. At this point the whole thing is a laughable political campaign.
Was there at the time a 97% level of agreement in the global scientific community about a global cooling?
How is the example of your aunt relevant to the current story?
How to you derive from there that the current views of the scientific community is a laughable political campaign?
Why are scientific data seen by you as being political when they don’t support your views? Is the political thing not precisely the cherry picking of a very minor opinion as being the “oppressed truth”?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Already debunked as a political lie. As Ray (and I) in the past demonstrated by citing relevant sources.
No, he has absolutely not demonstrated that.
He has at best cited some sources belonging to the 3% who are not aligned with the mainstream views.
Again, sources that get more air time than they deserve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There was no personal attack.
Fortunately I am not taking offense of “Must be some sort of intellectual disability?”
And I am glad we can continue this conversation, although you are Russ appear to be running short of logical arguments.
Fortunately as a smart and free person you have the opportunity every second to decide to change your mind on this topic.
I am sure you are not likely to be influenced by the pressure of your peers around you. As an immigrant to the US you can certainly bring with you a freedom of opinion.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Fortunately I am not taking offense of “Must be some sort of intellectual disability?”
I was referring to a whole group of climate alarmists. We had this discussion before and I believe the conclusion was (with 97% certainty) that attacking a group can not be considered a personal attack just because someone self-identifies with the group. If you say conservatives are idiots and I identify as a conservative, I do not feel personally offended.
And I am glad we can continue this conversation, although you are Russ appear to be running short of logical arguments.
Sure, but mostly because we are running out of patience. As I said, both Ray and I provided sources debunking the "97% consensus." And no, these were not the 3% sources.
-
You may still want to think about the relevance of characterizing a group of people that way.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Warmer is better in the winter but not so hot in the summer.
Why do we think that 2 degrees hotter is not the norm? Or better? Just because man in his infinitesimally brief existence where there was history and memory might not remember the higher or lower mean temperatures, doesn't mean that the extra degrees were not the norm in earth's history nor were a negative to man and other species' existences. It's just that we're not use to it so we assume what was is better than what is or might be.
Reminds me of old folk who always tell the young folk how much better it was back then. Well, maybe it was. Or wasn't. But if you examine how things have gone since the last Ice Age 12000 years ago, man has done better the warmer it got. So an extra couple of degrees should be better for us based on our history. The discussion seems stuck on whether it's warming and who's responsible. We should be examining the pros and cons of climate change to figure out what if anything we should do when it happens. Even those who agree there's warming are pretty much in agreement that we're not going to stop it. Even if everyone followed Paris Accord, which they aren't, it's not going to make much of a dent in CO2 or warming whatever the cause. So let's honestly examine the pros and cons so we can appropriately allocate funding as required rather than throwing money at it willy nilly with little overall effect. That's just wasting precious financial resources.
-
So let's honestly examine the pros and cons so we can appropriately allocate funding as required rather than throwing money at it willy nilly with little overall effect. That's just wasting precious financial resources.
Are you suggesting that the scientific community has not honestly examined the pros and cons, and are making remedial recommendations willy-nilly?
-
What “remedial recommendations”?
-
Why do we think that 2 degrees hotter is not the norm? Or better? Just because man in his infinitesimally brief existence where there was history and memory might not remember the higher or lower mean temperatures, doesn't mean that the extra degrees were not the norm in earth's history nor were a negative to man and other species' existences. It's just that we're not use to it so we assume what was is better than what is or might be.
2 degrees warmer may be just the difference which kills you.
I remember swimming once at Chena Hot Spring outdoor pool in Alaska, where they keep the water temperature at 106F. That is about the maximum temperature I would get in. On my second day there, their cold water pump malfunctioned and the water temperature got a few degrees higher. I tried to get in, but all my body protested. Actually, I got in just ankle deep and lasted there for a few minutes thinking about all those boiled frogs before I gave up and walked out.
-
Are you suggesting that the scientific community has not honestly examined the pros and cons, and are making remedial recommendations willy-nilly?
Yes. They acknowledge there's no way to make much of a dent in climate change. So why are they then spending huge sums like the have in Germany to no avail other than costing more money for electricity with nothing spent for other things. Also, it's often the green energy companies' political funding and drive that sets the agenda where the money is spent. So it's going down a rathole.
Also, we're not spending enough time and effort examining the pros of warming. It's like the news. Death and destruction sells. No one cares when good things are happening. So the good stuff doesn;t get the play. Who do you think gets the funding? The researcher who wants to study how to stop lung cancer? Or the researcher who wants to study why some people feel better all the time? Who's going to fund the researcher who wants to study the good effects of global warming? They'll throw the guy out of the funding office. So they all want to study and show just how bad it is. Otherwise the researchers can't make a living.
-
2 degrees warmer may be just the difference which kills you.
I remember swimming once at Chena Hot Spring outdoor pool in Alaska, where they keep the water temperature at 106F. That is about the maximum temperature I would get in. On my second day there, their cold water pump malfunctioned and the water temperature got a few degrees higher. I tried to get in, but all my body protested. Actually, I got in just ankle deep and lasted there for a few minutes thinking about all those boiled frogs before I gave up and walked out.
I like frogs at 106F, not my body. :)
-
The Chena hot springs discharge at temperatures around 165 °F (74 °C); however, the source temperature in the ground is around 250 °F (121 °C).
Hopefully, they won't start drilling and fracking in that area, that could unleash a lot of boiling water.
-
The Chena hot springs discharge at temperatures around 165 °F (74 °C); however, the source temperature in the ground is around 250 °F (121 °C).
Hopefully, they won't start drilling and fracking in that area, that could unleash a lot of boiling water.
Do they use it to generate electricity? They should, if not. Also to boil frogs. :)
-
Was there at the time a 97% level of agreement in the global scientific community. . .
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes. Copernicus, the "denier" had at least a 97% level of agreement that he was wrong. Oh, and if you're talking about global cooling, damn right. When I was at University of Michigan there even was a professor who was learning to build an igloo. He was kidding, of course, but the joke fit right in with the "scientific consensus" of the time. Fashions change. Bet you don't even remember flairs.
-
Yes. Copernicus, the "denier" had at least a 97% level of agreement that he was wrong.
Copernicus is lucky they didn't drop him in the Chena Hot Springs.
-
Are you suggesting that the scientific community has not honestly examined the pros and cons, and are making remedial recommendations willy-nilly?
Yes.
If the climate change scientists are all dishonest, who should do the research and recommend solutions?
-
If the climate change scientists are all dishonest, who should do the research and recommend solutions?
If the government is going to spend our tax money on research, they should spend more than they are on the effects of climate change - the good as well as the bad. And then the government should publish these things more widely so the public is more informed about all the facts, not just the cherry picked negatives. Unfortunately, politicians, researchers, green energy companies, the media, nature programs, nature program producers, etc. are not interested in knowing the full truth. It's hard to make money off of good news.
-
Copernicus is lucky they didn't drop him in the Chena Hot Springs.
Who knows what was the hot spring temperature in his time. The danger comes with the sudden temperature rise. The water temperatures can change suddenly and quite substantially.
In some hot springs, the water is heated when surface water seeps into fissures hundreds of feet below, making contact with super-heated magma and then percolating to the surface. Water temperatures drop when mineral deposits underground block ground water from fractures leading to the magma. But when new fractures open or mineral deposits loosen due to seismic activity, water temperatures can shoot up dramatically in seconds.
Such is the case at a popular swimming hole along Hot Creek near Mammoth Mountain, a dormant volcano in the Eastern Sierra, about 310 miles north of Los Angeles. Hot Creek and several hot springs pools near the mountain draw many bathers each year. But federal parks officials have fenced off Hot Creek and banned swimming there because of the risk of extreme temperature changes. More than a dozen people have been killed or scalded in the creek since the 1960s, according to signs posted around the creek.
You wouldn't want to have a fracking company operating nearby.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-dec-29-he-springsside29-story.html
-
Who knows what was the hot spring temperature in his time. The danger comes with the sudden temperature rise. The water temperatures can change suddenly and quite substantially.
...
Copernicus would have been the perfect person to stick in those Hot Springs. We could count on him to give us the truth about what was happening with the temperature. Too bad he isn't alive today to accurately report on Global Warming. :)
By the way, I betcha there aren't any frogs there in the water.
-
Yes. Copernicus, the "denier" had at least a 97% level of agreement that he was wrong. Oh, and if you're talking about global cooling, damn right. When I was at University of Michigan there even was a professor who was learning to build an igloo. He was kidding, of course, but the joke fit right in with the "scientific consensus" of the time. Fashions change. Bet you don't even remember flairs.
Wikipedia disagrees with you... commenting about these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
So we are still without a single actual example of these cases where the scientific community would have been awfully wrong as a whole.
But you know... the point is that if they had been dominantly of the opinion that global cooling was coming, and had been wrong about it, it would still have been the right thing to do at the time to follow their recommendations. Just like you were right to follow the intel that told you to do bomb whatever target. Even if that intel was wrong.
But perhaps is it just my doer way of thinking. I do understand that taking action without absolutely certain data is not easy for everyone.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wikipedia disagrees with you... commenting about these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
Cheers,
Bernard
All your Wikipedia article proves then is that the media and popular culture presented something very different than what "science" was saying back then. So you can;t believe everything you read. That's the point. There's no way for the average layman to cull truth from fantasy. WHy should they believe science? Why should they believe popular culture? How do average people separate the wheat from the chaff? It comes down to people believe what they want to believe. Does Canon make a better camera? Or does Nikon?
As an aside, I lived through that period. I remember everyone talking about another ice age and cooling. No one talked about warming then. So I think the writers of the Wiki article are playing with the truth a little because they're in the camp of global warming.
-
All your Wikipedia article proves then is that the media and popular culture presented something very different than what "science" was saying back then. So you can;t believe everything you read. That's the point. There's no way for the average layman to cull truth from fantasy. WHy should they believe science? Why should they believe popular culture? How do average people separate the wheat from the chaff? It comes down to people believe what they want to believe. Does Canon make a better camera? Or does Nikon?
As an aside, I lived through that period. I remember everyone talking about another ice age and cooling. No one talked about warming then. So I think the writers of the Wiki article are playing with the truth a little because they're in the camp of global warming.
Yes, of course. It's all part of the global conspiracy.
Everything is the same, or not... history may be true or not, the theory of evolution may be true or not... all opinions have the same value... especially if it validates your view on things... ;)
Except that this isn't how the world works. I suggest you spend some time reading work from the great American philosopher Ken Wilber if you haven't done so. He demonstrates pretty convincingly that hierarchy is part of the essential fabric of the world. And that applies to scientific theories built by the leading scientists being better than those proposed by people without references.
You may also be interested in the Ted speech about what should be the criteria for a good theory: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation/transcript?language=en
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time"...
So, the media and politicians were exaggerating and misinterpreting the science then? Sounds familiar, no?
As for evolution... that theory doesn't require us to slaughter 1 billion cows* (hmmm... what would Indians say about that?), stop flying, kill the fossil fuel industry and all its byproducts (besides gasoline), etc.
* Then again, that would be one hell of a barbecue party - 4th of July all year long
-
So, the media and politicians were exaggerating and misinterpreting the science then? Sounds familiar, no?
As for evolution... that theory doesn't require us to slaughter 1 billion cows* (hmmm... what would Indians say about that?), stop flying, kill the fossil fuel industry and all its byproducts (besides gasoline), etc.
* Then again, that would be one hell of a barbecue party - 4th of July all year long
There you go... why not just say "I understand that man is causing global warming, but I don't care. I want to keep driving my SUV, flying my planes and burn fuel".
This would save us all a lot of time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There you go... why not just say "I understand that man is causing global warming, but I don't care. I want to keep driving my SUV, flying my planes and burn fuel".
The latter you got right.
-
In reality, Slobodan doesn't inflict much damage to the Earth when it comes to transportation. He is not a frequent flyer and he drives a comfortable and safe sedan with great mileage.
-
... He is not a frequent flyer...
I wish I am... first class preferably ;)
-
There you go... why not just say "I understand that man is causing global warming, but I don't care. I want to keep driving my SUV, flying my planes and burn fuel".
The latter you got right.
At any price?
And, I'm just wondering, what is it that you do not understand about man causing global warming?
Is it based on media attention, or on scientific literature, or is it a selfish denial because you don't like the conclusions, or...?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just in case some people reading this thread are getting very anxious and worried about climate change, I'll post a photo I took recently in that ancient Khmer civilization in Cambodia which was destroyed by a very rapid change in climate about 800 years ago.
Despite a series of devastating droughts and floods, this beautiful lady is still sleeping peacefully on the forest floor. :D
-
There is sufficient scientific literature clarifying causes of global warming and even ‘if’ it is the case (no global warming of the complete planet but a shift in hotter and colder areas).
I don't think it is a matter of denial but we observe conflicts within the community of ‘scientific literature’. It used to be that if it is scientifically proven than it must be true, not anymore these days. What and whom should we trust? The ones that get most media attention?
Anyways, on a personal note I don’t mind if you’re pro or against, and if you’re in denial or not. But do not convince me with so called ‘scientific literature’ (being an engineer I understand the value of 'real' scientific data) that I should do this and can’t do that anymore and prescribe how I should live. I’m minding my own business and don’t interfere with you and your beliefs. I think the world would be much better off if more of us would act this way.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Just in case some people reading this thread are getting very anxious and worried about climate change, I'll post a photo I took recently in that ancient Khmer civilization in Cambodia which was destroyed by a very rapid change in climate about 800 years ago. Despite a series of devastating droughts and floods, this beautiful lady is still sleeping peacefully on the forest floor. :D
Ray, you got my attention with the beautiful sleeping lady, but I can't see her anywhere and neither the forest floor. You must have been too aggressive with the cropping tool.
-
I don't think it is a matter of denial but we observe conflicts within the community of ‘scientific literature’. It used to be that if it is scientifically proven than it must be true, not anymore these days. What and whom should we trust? The ones that get most media attention?
I don’t think much has changed on the science front. The people to believe remain those that are reviewed by their peers as working the right scientific way.
There is still the same process of natural selection of models to fit an experimental situation. At first various hypothesis are on the table. Then data are collected, hypothesis are tested, some are refuted, some survive.
This never totally back or white.
As far as global warming goes, we are clearly at a stage where the hypothesis “man has major impact on climate change” is accepted by the vast majority of credible scientists.
Per the article I linked to, what differs is the attention given by the media to other hypothesis that are not the preferred one as an output of the scientific process of convergence described above. Some content that is not accepted by the scientific community as being credible is passed down to people by some media without the required editorial comments. This conveys the false impression of a continuing debate.
Why is this the case? My guess is that this is a very touchy topic with broad potential economic impacts that is hitting some very powerful lobbies (the energy/oil one for instance). It is also touching people because some feel their luxury way of life could be under threat. Finally the US under Trump leadership has decided not to respect their engagement in the Paris treaty, which makes it the only large climato sceptic country in world.
So some media outlets are clearly corrupted into conveying messages opposing the scientific consensus to serve the interests of the said lobbies and/or of the Trump administration (Fox news comes to mind). Other are probably just saying what they think their readers want to read.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wikipedia disagrees with you... commenting about these articles about global cooling that "these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time".
Cheers,
Bernard
Wikipedia sometimes is an ass. It can disagree all it wants. This had nothing to do with "articles." These were the scientists writing the "scientific literature of the time."
-
Ray, you got my attention with the beautiful sleeping lady, but I can't see her anywhere and neither the forest floor. You must have been too aggressive with the cropping tool.
Oops! Sleeping by the side of a small stream in the forest. Can you see her now? ;D
-
Yes, now I see her. She looks rather old.
-
This article - from a not-particularly "green" source - is relevant. It concludes that a large majority (at least 80%) of scientists agree that climate change is human-caused.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#1081de311576
Well, not for these folks:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/
Quoting:
"However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .
On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce."
-
The humanity can prosper also without wasting and abusing resources. As to burning and using wood, that's OK, since it is renewable resource, especially if the forests are properly managed.
I am all for not wasting and managing resources, but I am also realistic. As for burning wood or coal, burning natural gas is cleaner for the environment.
-
I understand that you are not interested in debating the press coverage but global warming itself. Why not do so in one of the existing thread on this topic?
Science is very often probabilistic because the world is. Using the lack of a 100% probability to dispute an hypothesis would ground planes and send us back to stone age.
The level of agreement in the scientific community based on the huge amount of best in class science applied to the high attention topic of global warming is as good as it gets and, again, we are as close to a consensus as we’ll ever be.
But your perception that we aren’t probably results from the very biased media coverage the article I am linking to is demonstrating. You have the impression there still a lot of debate precisely because of this.
I am sure you are not one of them, but there are also many people who confuse this problem for a political discussion. According to them it would not be possible to be a Republican and to acknowledge the reality of influence of man on global warming because this would open a hole in what they perceive as a coherent system of values. This become an ethical question for them about what’s more important, truth and intellectual honesty vs sticking to their ground in front of their kids.
Cheers,
Bernard
Please explain to me how can you discuss the press coverage of a certain topic - be it climate change or Cristiano Ronaldo's latest feat - without discussing the topic itself. You say the press coverage is biased in a certain direction, because the press must be corrupted to do so (Fox news etc). I suppose if the press coverage is biased, the topic is still debatable and uncertain?
It you want to stick to the press coverage, then there is really nothing to discuss. I can give another view:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/
-
It you want to stick to the press coverage, then there is really nothing to discuss. I can give another view:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/
From your link:
The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C [two one-hundredths of a degree] per decade..."
Actually, 0.2 degrees is two tenths not two one-hundredths of a degree. If they can't get basic math right, what does that say about the rest of their science? What a bunch of chuckleheads.
-
I wish I am... first class preferably ;)
This is the class you want to fly in:
"Nearly 1,500 private jets to land at climate change-focused Davos summit"
https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/ (https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/)
This is why the average guy thinks it's all a bunch of malarkey and hypocrisy.
-
From your link:
Actually, 0.2 degrees increase spanning two decades is one tenth degree per decade not two one-hundredths. If they can't get basic math right, what does that say about the rest of their science? What a bunch of chuckleheads.
Another reason not to trust the media and chuckleheads. That's the point. I'd rather trust the opinions about cameras and photography that I get from members here than about climate change from the press. Well, sometimes anyway. :)
-
Another reason not to trust the media and chuckleheads. That's the point.
The media and chuckleheads you are choosing not to trust were climate change deniers. Yet their position is the one you are advocating.
-
Yes, now I see her. She looks rather old.
Hmm! I'd say she looks quite young for an 800-year-old. ;)
-
This is the class you want to fly in:
"Nearly 1,500 private jets to land at climate change-focused Davos summit"
https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/ (https://nypost.com/2019/01/23/nearly-1500-private-jets-to-land-at-climate-change-focused-davos-summit/)
This is why the average guy thinks it's all a bunch of malarkey and hypocrisy.
Thank you Alan, here we have another demonstration of misrepresentation through media, which is the topic of this thread.
https://www.weforum.org/focus/davos-2019
We're in a new economic era: Globalization 4.0. This is the theme of Davos 2019, which will bring together leaders from every sector and every part of the world to discuss how to cooperate on the challenges ahead.
The theme of the World Economic Forum 2019 in Davos was not Climate Change, it was Globalisation.
And while unfortunate for the additional emissions it triggered to get all these people in one place at approximately the same time, it did require travel across large distances (although most European participants had to travel shorter distances). But it's still a fraction of what travels through our skies every single day, and much of that for even more frivolous causes than trying to change the world in a better place.
Somehow, you were led to believe, or you were trying to make us believe, that it was just about Climate.
I wonder what media exposure, or scientific report, led you to do that.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The media and chuckleheads you are choosing not to trust were climate change deniers. Yet their position is the one you are advocating.
There are "equal opportunity" chuckleheads on both sides who cherry pick their "evidence" and "facts". Why should "my" side not be deceitful as well? :)
-
Thank you Alan, here we have another demonstration of misrepresentation through media, which is the topic of this thread.
https://www.weforum.org/focus/davos-2019
The theme of the World Economic Forum 2019 in Davos was not Climate Change, it was Globalisation.
And while unfortunate for the additional emissions it triggered to get all these people in one place at approximately the same time, it did require travel across large distances (although most European participants had to travel shorter distances). But it's still a fraction of what travels through our skies every single day, and much of that for even more frivolous causes than trying to change the world in a better place.
Somehow, you were led to believe, or you were trying to make us believe, that it was just about Climate.
I wonder what media exposure, or scientific report, led you to do that.
Cheers,
Bart
If you're right, you confirmed my point again. More fakes news from the press. So how does the average headlines reader make sense of any of this?
-
If you're right, you confirmed my point again. More fakes news from the press. So how does the average headlines reader make sense of any of this?
He doesn't rely on the New York Post, basically a tabloid, from whence the link you posted originates, for his information. You know, discernment of sources.
-
He doesn't rely on the New York Post, basically a tabloid, from whence the link originates, for his information. You know, discernment of sources.
That's basically it, one needs to pick one's sources with a bit of care. It may also require a small investment in (quality) time.
Here's a more balanced news source of what went down:
https://www.reuters.com/davos/
But I'd prefer to not rely on just one source. And even if Reuters is a relatively unbiased source, it's not a peer reviewed scientific publication either...
Cheers,
Bart
-
He doesn't rely on the New York Post, basically a tabloid, from whence the link you posted originates, for his information. You know, discernment of sources.
It doesn't matter if it's a tabloid. Not everyone reads The Times, or the Washington Post, or the NY Times, all of which are biased in their reporting as well. The point is there were many discussions, meetings and speeches on the climate at Davos. Richard Attenborough made a speech on the "End of the Eden". A 16 year old made a speech the "Our House is on Fire". Climate change and environmental challenges remained a hot topic as public figures such as the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres; New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern; and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, spoke of the urgent and vital need to protect the environment and outlined the steps they were taking, or would take, to do this. And the list goes on. Japan’s Prime Minister, and host of the 2019 G20 meeting, Shinzo Abe, said climate action would be a top priority at this year’s G20. He also announced that Japan would use its G20 Presidency to work towards a global commitment to reduce plastic in the oceans. It would have been nice if he said he would fly to Davos next year on a commercial Japan Air Lines. OK. He could sit in first class.
So for the average guy with his wife and three kids, who had to sit next to some fat, smelly person on their last Jet Blue flight to Disney World, reading about rich people complaining about how we pollute the environment while they fly in their own jets burning 2000 gallons per hour, seems rather hypocritical.
-
That's basically it, one needs to pick one's sources with a bit of care. It may also require a small investment in (quality) time.
Here's a more balanced news source of what went down:
https://www.reuters.com/davos/ (https://www.reuters.com/davos/)
But I'd prefer to not rely on just one source. And even if Reuters is a relatively unbiased source, it's not a peer reviewed scientific publication either...
Cheers,
Bart
It's rather insulting and frankly ignorant to assume what you read is "smarter" and more reliable and diverse than what I read. How do you know what I read? Or what I watch? The fact is I read the NY Times, Washington Post, NY Post, and dozens of articles from different sources throughout the world. I even read Reuters. :) I also watch MSNBC, CNN, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC,BBC etc. etc. Curious, when you read an article supporting your already preconceived beliefs, do you read it with a critical eye? Or do you you just take it as gospel?
-
... Anyways, on a personal note I don’t mind if you’re pro or against, and if you’re in denial or not. But do not convince me with so called ‘scientific literature’ (being an engineer I understand the value of 'real' scientific data) that I should do this and can’t do that anymore and prescribe how I should live. I’m minding my own business and don’t interfere with you and your beliefs....
Amen, brother!
-
... And, I'm just wondering, what is it that you do not understand ...
Here we go again... that patronizing, condescending tone. As if you are the holder of truth, speaking to the unwashed masses.
-
It's rather insulting and frankly ignorant to assume what you read is "smarter" and more reliable and diverse than what I read.
Where did I say that?
I made a general reference to the benefits of "picking one's sources with a bit of care". I also mentioned that "It may also require a small investment in (quality) time".
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here we go again... that patronizing, condescending tone. As if you are the holder of truth, speaking to the unwashed masses.
That's your (biased?) interpretation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Other are probably just saying what they think their readers want to read.
And that goes, of course, only for the one side of the debate.
-
This is a "debate?"
-
This is a "debate?"
Hang on Russ, it might become one ...
Edit: Bernard certainly started it with the intention of becoming one.
But it turns out to be difficult to stay on topic.
-
That's basically it, one needs to pick one's sources with a bit of care. It may also require a small investment in (quality) time.
Here's a more balanced news source of what went down:
https://www.reuters.com/davos/
Thanks for the link. Look what I found there:
-
Thanks for the link. Look what I found there:
It's inevitable, Globalisation runs Climate change ..., amongst others (like flying to bring together people from around the globe).
Cheers,
Bart
-
But it turns out to be difficult to stay on topic.
No, Bart. It's IMPOSSIBLE to stay on topic in The Coffee Corner. We all need to stop drinking so much coffee. . . or whatever it is we're drinking.
-
Where did I say that?
I made a general reference to the benefits of "picking one's sources with a bit of care". I also mentioned that "It may also require a small investment in (quality) time".
Cheers,
Bart
Okay I'll pass off the tone as a misunderstanding between languages.
Boy, it's not easy being a deplorable.😏
-
https://files.springernature.com/getResource/Full%20Text%2041467_2019_9959.pdf?token=IULUvIufpS8AXE43riPpExKrcZMUcwpHIO0w4yhOno61RnG9Vz6%2Fr7GCrI5AcBi92o1n3tikPjKFkiYotkHNpNM75Zwrwg1JnULfD6ql3lbxDcg7HwKui%2FaVf0c006KjuCh%2FZ3DLB4IVSRfpmhKqICjMwRJi78FVezezsmb4UQoz8APBqsKXJKHvKxkyTujh6R1Se4bGQnT7HNP7lnlhp40M0VnqSPp7kwO%2Fuk2bUqy4COccDRtTVCPDgs7U4YSWypRQua9%2FSVF2DhQwoqi9s1MFpmIzT6zluH6nT8%2F3tKZbQ0YkJp70BIAJLjpI6sqe
This article is absolutely essential.
I would appreciate if comments could focus on the role of media on the widespread misconceptions about global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
Things may be going off the rails.
-
Amen, brother!
This is far off topic, but is probably the core of the issue.
Do you realize that this attitude is deeply incoherent with your patriotism?
Let me elaborate.
You love your country, the US, and I understand because it’s a great country on many accounts.
Now think about what it means to be a patriot. In essence, it is to love a man made concept (this country) that has no reality besides the set of rules the people living there, mostly total strangers, have agreed to comply to.
So there would be nothing to love at all without the deeply rooted acceptance that you do interfere with the business of millions of strangers and that they do interfere with your business.
And a majority of these rules are extremely constraining to your freedom of running your business. And you love those constraints because they are the essence of this object called The US that you associate yourself so strongly with.
Worst yet, many of these rules have been imposed by international treaties the US has signed because of a sound understanding that the world needs global alignment for the good of its citizens beyond their own little selfish desires.
So “amen brother” is deeply incoherent with your patriotism.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is far off topic, but is probably the core of the issue.
Do you realize that this attitude is deeply incoherent with your patriotism?
Let me elaborate.
You love your country, the US, and I understand because it’s a great country on many accounts.
Now think about what it means to be a patriot. In essence, it is to love a man made concept (this country) that has no reality besides the set of rules the people living there, mostly total strangers, have agreed to comply to.
So there would be nothing to love at all without the deeply rooted acceptance that you do interfere with the business of millions of strangers and that they do interfere with your business.
And a majority of these rules are extremely constraining to your freedom of running your business. And you love those constraints because they are the essence of this object called The US that you associate yourself so strongly with.
Worst yet, many of these rules have been imposed by international treaties the US has signed because of a sound understanding that the world needs global alignment for the good of its citizens beyond their own little selfish desires.
So “amen brother” is deeply incoherent with your patriotism.
Cheers,
Bernard
The road to serfdom.
-
Please explain to me how can you discuss the press coverage of a certain topic - be it climate change or Cristiano Ronaldo's latest feat - without discussing the topic itself. You say the press coverage is biased in a certain direction, because the press must be corrupted to do so (Fox news etc). I suppose if the press coverage is biased, the topic is still debatable and uncertain?
No - the basic scientific situation is clear. There is no value in discussing it here, since neither you nor I have the knowledge or expertise to do so. It is however interesting to discuss what is the reason that deniers are given so much coverage.
-
It doesn't matter if it's a tabloid.
To some, apparently not. One source is as good as another.
-
The road to serfdom.
No, the need to realize that a country and serfdom are the 2 sides of the same coin. You can’t get one without the other.
Now, those realistic about their condition are able to describe it with a word less negatively charged than serfdom, such as citizenship?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... So “amen brother” is deeply incoherent with your patriotism...
You jumping of the deep end aside (a rhetorical joke)...
... when you stop flying, driving gasoline cars, eating meat and using anything derived from fossil fuels (your Nikon has a lot of plastic)... then we can talk.
-
You jumping of the deep end aside (a rhetorical joke)...
... when you stop flying, driving gasoline cars, eating meat and using anything derived from fossil fuels (your Nikon has a lot of plastic)... then we can talk.
I don't think we have to give up all those things entirely. Just try to reduce them, avoid waste and try some alternatives.
-
I don't think we have to give up all those things entirely. Just try to reduce them, avoid waste and try some alternatives.
Yes, but that is not the call we are hearing from the alarmists.
-
You jumping of the deep end aside (a rhetorical joke)...
... when you stop flying, driving gasoline cars, eating meat and using anything derived from fossil fuels (your Nikon has a lot of plastic)... then we can talk.
In fact the only one thing you need to do is to recognize the situation objectively and tell your congressman that the US needs to act on global warming.
I don’t have anything to do on that front, the two countries I relate to are already aggressively acting in the right direction.
Is there a need to change individual habits also? Yes, to some extend. I drive no more than 6,000km a year in a pretty fuel efficient car at an average speed of less than 60 kph and always on highways. Most of my lights at home are efficient leds, the riskier ones on automatic presence detetors, my home is at the most stringent env spec I could afford,... although I have an Asia responsability at work I fly very little and try to manage by skype calls,... but I still eat meat, although not in very large amounts,... but due to health concerns and not environmental ones. I consume more stuff than I should,...
Visit some of the most eco minded countries on earth such as Sweden where I have just spent a week... I don’t have the feeling that those guys live a poor life as a result of their environment awareness!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No - the basic scientific situation is clear. There is no value in discussing it here, since neither you nor I have the knowledge or expertise to do so. It is however interesting to discuss what is the reason that deniers are given so much coverage.
Because they smell a rat.
-
... tell your congressman that the US needs to act on global warming...
Tell him exactly what? Short of lets kill our way of life? What exactly are you suggesting we should do? "Act on global warming" is a totally empty slogan. If I told you I am hungry, and your "remedial solution" is "well, you should eat something" is completely correct, yet utterly useless.
-
Tell him exactly what? Short of lets kill our way of life? What exactly are you suggesting we should do? "Act on global warming" is a totally empty slogan. If I told you I am hungry, and your "remedial solution" is "well, you should eat something" is completely correct, yet utterly useless.
Fair question.
The first answer is to get back in the Paris treaty that encourages countries to take various measures. Most of them address corporate behavior more than individual one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No, the need to realize that a country and serfdom are the 2 sides of the same coin. You can’t get one without the other.
Now, those realistic about their condition are able to describe it with a word less negatively charged than serfdom, such as citizenship?
Cheers,
Bernard
Loss of freedom is not citizenship. It's serfdom. I think you've been in the East too long and have forgotten that.
-
Fair question.
The first answer is to get back in the Paris treaty that contains a large variety of measures. Most of them address corporate behavior more than individual one.
Cheers,
Bernard
Paris does not impose rules on corporations, but rather on countries.
-
Paris does not impose rules on corporations, but rather on countries.
Yes, but counties then typically impose rules on corporations.
Just look at what California does, they are ahead of the curve.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Loss of freedom is not citizenship. It's serfdom. I think you've been in the East too long and have forgotten that.
Any way you look at it, it obviously is. Being a citizen in any country on earth is giving up on most of your freedom for the sake of the good of the community.
And the US is probably one of the counties with the most complex set of rules.
One of the counties also where the highest amount of money is taken away from its citizens to fund weapon purchase in order to ensure the continuation of its very existence. If that is not freedom depriving what is?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Loss of freedom is not citizenship. It's serfdom. I think you've been in the East too long and have forgotten that.
How true. For example, where I live I can't make a bond fire in my backyard and I can't keep any goats. Not even a deer, but that's because of other ministry.
-
Yes, but counties then typically impose rules on corporations.
Just look at what California does, they are ahead of the curve.
Cheers,
Bernard
Rules would be applied to individuals as well. When the government gives a rebate to an individual to install solar, the rest of us taxpayers are individually paying for that rebate. Even corporate rules affect people. If a carbon tax is added to something being built by a corporation, those additional costs are passed on to individual consumers. So everyone is affected.
In any case, Paris treaty was not approved by the US Senate. So it's in invalid treaty as far as America is concerned. The American People never approved it and did not want it.
-
How true. For example, where I live I can't make a bond fire in my backyard and I can't keep any goats. Not even a deer, but that's because of other ministry.
I keep showing the US Constitution to my wife. But she's not buying it. :)
-
Rules would be applied to individuals as well. When the government gives a rebate to an individual to install solar, the rest of us taxpayers are individually paying for that rebate. Even corporate rules affect people. If a carbon tax is added to something being built by a corporation, those additional costs are passed on to individual consumers. So everyone is affected.
You are correct, but I have never claimed that there would be zero impact on individuals.
But these mechanisms you describe don’t have a major impact on the way of life of people, do they?
D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Any way you look at it, it obviously is. Being a citizen in any country on earth is giving up on most of your freedom for the sake of the good of the community.
And the US is probably one of the counties with the most complex set of rules.
One of the counties also where the highest amount of money is taken away from its citizens to fund weapon purchase in order to ensure the continuation of its very existence. If that is not freedom depriving what is?
Cheers,
Bernard
Giving up too much freedom is not beneficial to the community. It just empowers the government and the people who run it to run roughshod over individuals and our freedoms. You really need to get back to The Netherlands. I think you've forgotten your roots.
-
Giving up too much freedom is not beneficial to the community. It just empowers the government and the people who run it to run roughshod over individuals and our freedoms. You really need to get back to The Netherlands. I think you've forgotten your roots.
I am not Dutch.
And you are showing a poor understanding of the way most Europeans perceive the benefits of collective action... and are being a bit naive/dishonest about the actual state of affairs in your own country... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are correct, but I have never claimed that there would be zero impact on individuals.
But these mechanisms you describe don’t have a major impact on the way of life of people, do they?
D
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes they do. Over half my income goes to taxes, Federal, State, Locals, Property taxes, sales taxes, etc. That has a major impact on the way people can live. Both spouses have to work, or need second jobs, etc. So adding carbon taxes for example will make it even harder to live. Look at Germans who pay 2 1/2 times what I pay for electricity because of their renewable legislation.
-
I am not Dutch.
And you are showing a poor understanding of the way most Europeans perceive the benefits of collective action... and are being a bit naive/dishonest about the actual state of affairs in your own country... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Sorry about the mistake regarding your nationality. But Europe has had more of a socialist environment than America, although we're getting there pretty quickly too. America has plenty of collective activity, too much in my opinion. But Americans in general still treasure personal freedoms.
-
Yes they do. Over half my income goes to taxes, Federal, State, Locals, Property taxes, sales taxes, etc. That has a major impact on the way people can live. Both spouses have to work, or need second jobs, etc. So adding carbon taxes for example will make it even harder to live. Look at Germans who pay 2 1/2 times what I pay for electricity because of their renewable legislation.
Ok, at least we now agree about the very high degree of constraint that being a citizen already imposes on you regardless of environmental aspects.
The solution seems easy. Redirect some of that to environmental protection instead of defense spendings?
Even Trump wanted to kill the F35 program... what has happened to that? Or what it just negotiation talk with Locheed Martin? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Over half my income goes to taxes, Federal, State, Locals, Property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
And yet you choose to live in a high tax state like New Jersey.
-
The solution seems easy. Redirect some of that to environmental protection instead of defense spendings?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, you'd better hope that those "defense spendings" continue, and if possible, increase. You're awful close to that nut in NK. I remember what it was like to be close to his grandfather. Not a lot of fun.
-
Ok, at least we now agree about the very high degree of constraint that being a citizen already imposes on you regardless of environmental aspects.
The solution seems easy. Redirect some of that to environmental protection instead of defense spendings?
Cheers,
Bernard
We already spend huge amount for environment regulation. I'd rather they cut taxes and spending for both it and defense and leave more money in my pocket.
-
Bernard, you'd better hope that those "defense spendings" continue, and if possible, increase. You're awful close to that nut in NK. I remember what it was like to be close to his grandfather. Not a lot of fun.
The guy isn’t nut at all.
He has been offering his services to the US faithfully for years to justify the presence of military bases in Japan and Korea.
This is perfect win win deal enabling the US to keep those bases close to China and Russia.
North Korea poses zero threat to the security of Asia Pacific.
It’s a big play.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes they do. Over half my income goes to taxes, Federal, State, Locals, Property taxes, sales taxes, etc. That has a major impact on the way people can live. Both spouses have to work, or need second jobs, etc. So adding carbon taxes for example will make it even harder to live. Look at Germans who pay 2 1/2 times what I pay for electricity because of their renewable legislation.
That's true, and the gasoline prices are also about 2 to 2 1/2 times more expensive than in USA. But their health insurance is much lower and they get their hips and knees replaced for free.
-
We already spend huge amount for environment regulation.
It will only cost more because valuable time is lost if something is not done about it promptly.
But we divert from the subject of the thread...
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's true, and the gasoline prices are also about 2 to 2 1/2 times more expensive than in USA. But their health insurance is much lower and they get their hips and knees replaced for free.
And their media appears to be giving a more balanced amount of air time to climatoseptic theories not backed up by proper science.
Btw, genuine question. How do you interpret the reason for the very different views in Europe vs the US about global warming?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's true, and the gasoline prices are also about 2 to 2 1/2 times more expensive than in USA. But their health insurance is much lower and they get their hips and knees replaced for free.
Nothing's for free. They pay for it with their VAT, fuel, and other taxes which are even higher than the US. :o
-
It will only cost more because valuable time is lost if something is not done about it promptly.
But we divert from the subject of the thread...
Cheers,
Bart
Get the Chinese to join Paris with meaningful obligation to reduce CO2 before 2030 and Trump said he might go back into the Paris agreement. . They're the biggest polluters and CO2 producers in the world.
-
And their media appears to be giving a more balanced amount of air time to climatoseptic theories not backed up by proper science.
Btw, genuine question. How do you interpret the reason for the very different views in Europe vs the US about global warming?
Cheers,
Bernard
They're pussies. They think personal freedoms are something foreign. They're personally afraid to stand up and fight for themselves, so they go along to get along. They want something for nothing.
-
Get the Chinese to join Paris with meaningful obligation to reduce CO2 before 2030 and Trump said he might go back into the Paris agreement. They're the biggest polluters and CO2 producers in the world.
I'm confused. Do you believe reducing carbon emissions will reduce global warming or not?
-
Get the Chinese to join Paris with meaningful obligation to reduce CO2 before 2030 and Trump said he might go back into the Paris agreement. . They're the biggest polluters and CO2 producers in the world.
Last (July 2018 est.) count, 1,384,688,986 people .
Cheers,
Bart
-
Get the Chinese to join Paris with meaningful obligation to reduce CO2 before 2030 and Trump said he might go back into the Paris agreement. . They're the biggest polluters and CO2 producers in the world.
https://m.phys.org/news/2019-08-china-track-carbon-emissions-goals.html
Your orders we shall follow.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...How do you interpret the reason for the very different views in Europe vs the US about global warming?
Easy. Europe mentality is based on serfdom, US on freedoms.
-
And yet you choose to live in a high tax state like New Jersey.
Alan, come to Florida... we'll go shoot together :)
-
They're pussies. They think personal freedoms are something foreign. They're personally afraid to stand up and fight for themselves, so they go along to get along. They want something for nothing.
I cannot start to imagine the degree of depressed cynicism needed to come up with such an explanation.
Go and visit Europe Alan.
Talk to youngsters in their 20s and feel the energy, the hope.
Europe isn’t the old continent, just the opposite really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm confused. Do you believe reducing carbon emissions will reduce global warming or not?
Maybe.
-
The guy isn’t nut at all.
He has been offering his services to the US faithfully for years to justify the presence of military bases in Japan and Korea.
This is perfect win win deal enabling the US to keep those bases close to China and Russia.
North Korea poses zero threat to the security of Asia Pacific.
It’s a big play.
Cheers,
Bernard
As the Duke of Wellington once told a woman: If you believe that, you will believe anything.
-
Alan, come to Florida... we'll go shoot together :)
Actually my wife and I considered it. But she can't really handle the heat. So we moved to NJ where we pay higher state income taxes than we would have had we stayed in NY and of course a lot more if we moved to tax free Florida. Actually, they just built the largest shooting range in the state nearby where I live. When I told my wife I was going to buy a gun, she told me she'd shoot me first. Like I posted earlier, I keep pointing to the 2nd Amendment. But she told me she'd teach me a thing or two about it if I went ahead and bought a gun. Hmmm. I wonder what she meant by that? :)
-
As the Duke of Wellington once told a woman: If you believe that, you will believe anything.
I am just looking at facts, not at what I am being told to think.
A different take on freedom perhaps?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I cannot start to imagine the degree of depressed cynicism needed to come up with such an explanation.
Go and visit Europe Alan.
Talk to youngsters in their 20s and feel the energy, the hope.
Europe isn’t the old continent, just the opposite really.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hope makes for a good breakfast but a lousy dinner.
Youth unemployment rates for Europe.
https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=SLUEM1524ZSEUU&utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=alfred (https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=SLUEM1524ZSEUU&utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=alfred)
-
The guy isn’t nut at all.
He has been offering his services to the US faithfully for years to justify the presence of military bases in Japan and Korea.
This is perfect win win deal enabling the US to keep those bases close to China and Russia.
North Korea poses zero threat to the security of Asia Pacific.
It’s a big play.
Cheers,
Bernard
North Korea ties up American forces that could be better used to keep China directly in check. NK is a point on one of China's spears who would be used to distract America from facing off China such as in the South China Sea islands or when China goes against Taiwan. That puts you and your family in more danger living in Japan. I hope we can work something out with NK. But it's not in China's interest to do so.
-
And their media appears to be giving a more balanced amount of air time to climatoseptic theories not backed up by proper science.
Btw, genuine question. How do you interpret the reason for the very different views in Europe vs the US about global warming?
Cheers,
Bernard
Good question. It seems to me that their desire to protect the nature stems in part from living in greater-density communities. Also the Europeans tend to think more about the long term benefits than for short-term, immediate pleasures.
Once, I had a visitor from Netherlands here in Ontario and I took him one day on a canoe outing not far from Toronto, and he couldn't believe how clear the water was. Actually, after he jumped into the lake, he screamed "I can see my feet". Not something you can experience often in western Europe. As a matter of fact, in early seventies I took a week-long trip in a small sailboat in Friesland in the north part of Netherlands, and we sailed through several lakes and channels with very murky water. I don't think, we swam on that trip.
-
I am just looking at facts, not at what I am being told to think.
A different take on freedom perhaps?
Cheers,
Bernard
You haven't given any "facts." All you've listed is opinions from supposed "experts" and from "research." A "fact" is something you can demonstrate over and over after having set up the conditions under which it occurs. Weather is nothing even remotely like that. Everybody's guessing.
-
Last (July 2018 est.) count, 1,384,688,986 people .
Cheers,
Bart
I know. We've discussed this before. So those 1,384,688,986 people produce 30% of the world's CO2 compared to the 2nd worse offender, America with 14%. Yeah, I know. The Chinese family who makes a dollar a day and can only afford candles, doesn;t produce as much CO2 as an American suburbanite. Well, pretty soon, that family will be middle class and will be burning as much as the 400,000,000 Chinese who have already made middle class. Then China's CO2 percent will be at 50% and we'll be up to our a**es in alligators and it will be too late for them to join Paris to make a difference.
Seriously. Do you think Xi is going to slow, down his economy because Paris thinks it's a good idea?
-
Hope makes for a good breakfast but a lousy dinner...
I’ll have to remember that phrase, very good.
-
Good question. It seems to me that their desire to protect the nature stems in part from living in greater-density communities. Also the Europeans tend to think more about the long term benefits than for short-term, immediate pleasures.
Once, I had a visitor from Netherlands here in Ontario and I took him one day on a canoe outing not far from Toronto, and he couldn't believe how clear the water was. Actually, after he jumped into the lake, he screamed "I can see my feet". Not something you can experience often in western Europe. As a matter of fact, in early seventies I took a week-long trip in a small sailboat in Friesland in the north part of Netherlands, and we sailed through several lakes and channels with very murky water. I don't think, we swam on that trip.
Les, Canada has few people compared to its geographic size. So you're right that Europe is more crowded. But I don't think that America gives short shrift to pollution control and environmental regulations. Yesterday, I had to bring in my car for it's required annual free inspection at the Department of Motor Vehicles here in New Jersey. They checked for proper fuel and pollution control. Meanwhile, in Germany, you have their entire auto industry fraudulently producing diesels sent in German cars around the world that pollute the air 50 times what is allowed. Reminder: It was America that imposed better pollution controls for cars that moved the worldwide industry to better standards. We've also cleaned up our air and water. Tesla is an American company. European companies are only now starting to produce electric cars. Americans breathe and drink water and want clean air and environment too. The issue with Paris is that America was being punished by having to meet standards that others like China and India did not have to meet. America is at the forefront of pollution control. But we're not going to cut our nose off to spite our face. We expect to be treated fairly by China whether its protection of our intellectual property, unfair trade practices, or in equalizing costs for pollution and environmental control.
-
I’ll have to remember that phrase, very good.
Thanks. I stole it from someone else. :)
-
You haven't given any "facts." All you've listed is opinions from supposed "experts" and from "research." A "fact" is something you can demonstrate over and over after having set up the conditions under which it occurs. Weather is nothing even remotely like that. Everybody's guessing.
I was talking about North Korea, but I agree, let's get back to global warming.
The supposed experts are the recognized experts. There are no other experts and no other way to decide who the experts are.
I have already answered the other objections several times in this thread. In short, the world is probabilistic in essence. Nothing is ever certain. But you have high odds and those are what policies need to be based on. You have lived your life that way, so have I. There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Les, Canada has few people compared to its geographic size. So you're right that Europe is more crowded. But I don't think that America gives short shrift to pollution control and environmental regulations. Yesterday, I had to bring in my car for it's required annual free inspection at the Department of Motor Vehicles here in New Jersey. They checked for proper fuel and pollution control. Meanwhile, in Germany, you have their entire auto industry fraudulently producing diesels sent in German cars around the world that pollute the air 50 times what is allowed. Reminder: It was America that imposed better pollution controls for cars that moved the worldwide industry to better standards. We've also cleaned up our air and water. Tesla is an American company. European companies are only now starting to produce electric cars. Americans breathe and drink water and want clean air and environment too. The issue with Paris is that America was being punished by having to meet standards that others like China and India did not have to meet. America is at the forefront of pollution control. But we're not going to cut our nose off to spite our face. We expect to be treated fairly by China whether its protection of our intellectual property, unfair trade practices, or in equalizing costs for pollution and environmental control.
As if there were one America... The America that has achieved most of what you are talking about is pretty much California, Massassuchets, Oregon and Washington states...
I am obviously over simplifying, but had the guys who are unwilling to face the situation about global warming today been in charge, little of that would have happened...
And, once again, China and India have both ratified the Paris agreement. Only the US hasn't and you know as well as I do that a very large part of the population in the US is strongly unhappy about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming...
Oh, but there is: your take is absolutely laughable.
-
Oh, but there is: your take is absolutely laughable.
Then so is 90+% of the civilized world. I have chosen to trust the views of the world's best scientists on this topic. That may be laughable, but the same approach makes me believe in gravity, fluid mechanics, nuclear physics,...
As some point you have to wonder, what are the odds you are right when such a large part of the world thinks differently? And, more importantly, on what information do you base your opinion on?
But I guess that the ability to stick to whatever belief is part of that great freedom you are boasting about?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Then so is 90+% of the civilized world...
Once again, that is a false number. the 97% has been debunked.
But you never answered my question: are you ready to give up everything we derive from fossil fuels? Your Nikon? Your meat? Car? Plane?
OMG! I totally forget the #1 moronic "remedial solution"
- do not have kids!!!
-
Once again, that is a false number. the 97% has been debunked.
No, it hasn't. Read again please. You have apparently not understood the discussion.
Besides, I am not just talking about the scientific community. I am talking about the citizens of the world who, in large majorities, have understood what we are facing.
But you never answered my question: are you ready to give up everything we derive from fossil fuels? Your Nikon? Your meat? Car? Plane?
I have answered as clearly as I could that the belief that admitting the contribution of human kind to global warming is going to result in the need to give on everything you are listing, that belief is a misconception. Its a manipulative exaggeration that is not helping the debate progress. I would definitely not trust the information sources who have led you to believe this is the case.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... that belief is a misconception...
Then what is your "remedial solution"? "Do something"? Like what? You keep avoiding answering my question with sidetracking, but you have not offered a single answer.
-
Then what is your "remedial solution"? "Do something"? Like what? You keep avoiding answering my question with sidetracking, but you have not offered a single answer.
That is no true.
I have answered clearly that the way forward is a combination of reasonable individual effort as well as corporate measures that will result from change in legislation. That has to start from a decision from elected representatives to adopt measures in order to comply to the Paris agreement.
I have provided concrete examples of the measures I have started to take. They are far from perfect but are steps in the right direction. If you are genuinely interested you will easily find a list of concrete things you can start tomorrow without chaninging your life style dramatically. I have mentioned the examples of Sweden, a leader in terms of environmental developments, with one of the highest standards of living and most happy populations on earth.
On the public policy/corporate side I have pointed at what California has been doing in terms of emission control. Tesla, a possible future leader in electric mobility, was born as a result of these policies. Their market cap was once larger than GM. Eco friendly policies do generate business opportunities.
Of course that works better in a free market not hindered by too much tariffs.
But everything has to start from, just like Alan has done, admitting the possibility that man has an impact on global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Then what is your "remedial solution"? "Do something"? Like what?
Reducing Greenhouse gas emissions will help.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Reducing Greenhouse gas emissions will help.
Again... If I told you I am hungry, and your "remedial solution" is "well, you should eat something" is completely correct, yet utterly useless. How do we reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life?
-
How do we reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life?
I would phrase the question differently: How do we not reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life? July 2019 was the hottest July on record, edging out July 2016. Fact courtesy of NOAA (government scientists).
-
... July 2019 was the hottest July on record, edging out July 2016...
How far back the records go? 100 years? 200 years? Versus 5 billion years of the planet's existence? A grain of sand in the ocean of time.
-
I would phrase the question differently...
Rephrase it all you want, but you are just avoiding answering it.
-
I was talking about North Korea, but I agree, let's get back to global warming.
The supposed experts are the recognized experts. There are no other experts and no other way to decide who the experts are.
I have already answered the other objections several times in this thread. In short, the world is probabilistic in essence. Nothing is ever certain. But you have high odds and those are what policies need to be based on. You have lived your life that way, so have I. There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
Three weeks ago I went to Monmouth race track here in New Jersey. I hit a 18 to 1 long shot that paid me back $96 on a $5 bet. All the other betters played the favorites, and lost. I'd bet they were the global warming believers too.
-
Again... If I told you I am hungry, and your "remedial solution" is "well, you should eat something" is completely correct, yet utterly useless. How do we reduce greenhouse gasses without severely affecting our way of life?
Surely, unless the media one reads/views do not cover the subject (to get back on topic), there are many examples of what an individual can do to contribute to a solution.
So instead, I'm curious to ask you (presumably being exposed to different information sources than I have looked up) what you think might contribute to reducing Greenhouse gas emissions.
I've even mentioned, in one of the many thread exchanges, a (good) book reference on the subject:
Drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org/the-book)
Reading a copy from a library, or getting a second-hand copy, both saves you cost and helps preserving natural resources, trees.
In fact, many mundane solutions (not mentioned as such in that book which focuses more on the 100 big-ticket game changers) have to do with making more clever choices when we consume products. Given a choice between suppliers, choosing the 'better performing' one makes a difference (because it will influence the choices that manufacturers make).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I was talking about North Korea, but I agree, let's get back to global warming.
The supposed experts are the recognized experts. There are no other experts and no other way to decide who the experts are.
I have already answered the other objections several times in this thread. In short, the world is probabilistic in essence. Nothing is ever certain. But you have high odds and those are what policies need to be based on. You have lived your life that way, so have I. There is absolutely no reason why you should have a different take on global warming.
Cheers,
Bernard
What you're telling me, Bernard, is that you have faith, and that you're going to press your gospel on others to save them. Blaze away, but don't be surprised when you find unbelievers with a different faith -- snottily called "deniers."
-
What you're telling me, Bernard, is that you have faith, and that you're going to press your gospel on others to save them. Blaze away, but don't be surprised when you find unbelievers with a different faith -- snottily called "deniers."
This isn’t faith or a belief.
It’s an understanding of the statistical nature of the world.
There is no other non statistical world where to escape to.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Three weeks ago I went to Monmouth race track here in New Jersey. I hit a 18 to 1 long shot that paid me back $96 on a $5 bet. All the other betters played the favorites, and lost. I'd bet they were the global warming believers too.
You are way smarter than that Alan.
Really.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This isn’t faith or a belief.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's EXACTLY what it is.
-
You are way smarter than that Alan.
Really.
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you think I lied about winning the 18 to 1 shot? Wanna bet?
-
That's EXACTLY what it is.
I am speechless...
I am sorry Russ, but it’s hard to converse when the most basic things aren’t understood.
I hope this is just a misunderstanding.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This isn’t faith or a belief.
It’s an understanding of the statistical nature of the world.
There is no other non statistical world where to escape to.
Cheers,
Bernard
For a photographer who always see facts and representations about cameras' capabilities, I'm surprised you'd think that everyone has a different take on which is real, or better, or hype, or whatever. If we all thought the same, based on all the statistics given in a race's program prior to the race, that lists every statistic about the horses' and jockeys' performances, what would be the point of betting on a horse race?
Obviously we all think differently and come to differing conclusions about stuff. Do you think only you have some gift from God that is able to conclude what the Truth really is? I guess you have more faith then I do.
-
I am speechless...
I am sorry Russ, but it’s hard to converse when the most basic things aren’t understood.
Cheers,
Bernard
There you go again with your monopoly on the Truth.
-
For a photographer who always see facts and representations about cameras' capabilities, I'm surprised you'd think that everyone has a different take on which is real, or better, or hype, or whatever. If we all thought the same, based on all the statistics given in a race's program prior to the race, that lists every statistic about the horses' and jockeys' performances, what would be the point of betting on a horse race?
Obviously we all think differently and come to differing conclusions about stuff. Do you think only you have some gift from God that is able to conclude what the Truth really is? I guess you have more faith then I do.
Not at all.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There you go again with your monopoly on the Truth.
Not at all.
Every single scientist understands that climat research is based on statistical analysis.
And a large majority of the population also.
If you disagree with this you are simply chosing to position yourself in what is close to a monopoly of denial.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And on (a perhaps lighter note, after all it's coming from last year's) "Comic Con":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjH-V7hawRI
Cheers,
Bart
-
... Every single scientist understands that climat research is based on statistical analysis...
So?
Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that. Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two variables explains everything?
-
So?
Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that. Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two variables explains everything?
Conclusion: Is CO2 (Carbon dioxide) a Greenhouse gas? (spoiler alert, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Not at all.
Every single scientist understands that climat research is based on statistical analysis.
And a large majority of the population also.
If you disagree with this you are simply chosing to position yourself in what is close to a monopoly of denial.
Cheers,
Bernard
Did you ever look at a racing program. Every possible statistic about the horses running are given. How fast they ran, at each furlong, who else they ran against, who the jockey is, his performances, etc etc etc. You'd think it would be a cinch to predict the winner. Yet you can't. Despite all the statistics. There are just unknowns that cause the "wrong" horse to win when it shouldn't. So even with statistical analysis of the climate, there are variables that cannot be predicted.
But all this is beside the point. Even if temperatures are going up, regardless of the reason, deciding what to do about it requires more than statistics. We're not robots. First off, what are the positive as well as the negative effects of warming? Should different countries address them differently depending on effect? Regional within a country? Do you spend money on changing over from fossil fuels? Or do you spend that money on cancer and heart research? If both, to what extent should each be allocated? SHould the money be spent on switchover or rather on fixing damage created by the warming? These are human questions requiring human answers. There's no simple statistical recipe. It requires complete truth about everything, and not cherry picked data. Only then can the public decide how it should handle things. Today, we're getting a very limited expository of what may happen and how we should take care of it.
-
Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that. Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two variables explains everything?
We all agree that climate is an extremely complex system. Most people would also agree that trying to have the smaller footprint on the environment won't hurt it. And there is a good possibility that it could help.
Personally, I identify with Bernard's personal initiatives to conserve energy and reduce pollution, and still have some fun. Every bit helps, and fortunately, there are many other people who think along the same way, so I think we are on the good course.
-
... Personally, I identify with Bernard's personal initiatives to conserve energy and reduce pollution...
Sorry, Les, but who isn’t for conserving energy and reducing pollution!? Except CO2 isn’t pollution. Whatever you guys do has only one purpose: to make you feel good about yourself. I am glad for you. But it does zilch for the environment.
Take recycling, for instance. More and more cities are abandoning it, as it uses more energy than it saves. Back where we started, at the good old landfill. Cities still offer collection of recyclables, because they couldn’t bear to watch do-gooders end up with a broken heart, If they’d find out their hours of carefully separating brown glass from green glass, #4 recyclables from #6 recyclables, brown paper from white paper, etc. end up in a landfill anyway.
But don’t worry, Les, next time we get together for a drink, I’ll warn the server not to bring you a straw ;)
-
But don’t worry, Les, next time we get together for a drink, I’ll warn the server not to bring you a straw ;)
Slobodan, I think, we drank coffee. The plastic straw would melt in the hot coffee. Best, we'll meet right on the Hollywood Beach boardwalk and bring our metal bottles with cold water.
-
So?
Nobody disputes statistical analysis, but conclusions drawn from that. Climate is an extremely complex system and not 2+2=4, and you want us to believe that a single correlation of two variables explains everything?
As usual, Monty Python has it right - "this isn't an argument, this is just contradiction". Saying that you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming because it's complex is intellectually void.
-
Sorry, Les, but who isn’t for conserving energy and reducing pollution!? Except CO2 isn’t pollution. Whatever you guys do has only one purpose: to make you feel good about yourself. I am glad for you. But it does zilch for the environment.
Lovely circular thinking!
The truth is that CO2 is a pollutant as it contributes to the green house effect that is a clear contributor to global warming. There is not even the slightest debate about this. Zero. Nitch. There used to be some debate about the scale of the impact of man generated CO2 vs other natural mechanisms related to CO2 (photosynthesis, absorption by bodies of water,...), but as this thread has clearly demonstrated, there is now widespread consensus among credible scientists that the scale is large.
But if it makes you feel good to think that you cannot do anything about global warming because man don’t contribute to it...
Or is it that you don’t want to listen to the scientific data because if man had an influence about global warming you would feel bad not doing what you could do about it? ;)
It’s reminiscent of the interpretation of protestantism according to which we have been given by god the mission to make fructify that he has given us. A wonderful moral justification for greed. Except that this theory was designed by man for man. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Lovely circular thinking!
The truth is that CO2 is a pollutant as it contributes to the green house effect that is a clear contributor to global warming.
Bernard,
That's an excellent example of the sort of thinking which has caused me to become skeptical about the claimed 'bad effects' of those increases in the tiny percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, from 0.028% to 0.0404% during the past 150 years, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and also skeptical about the rationality and/or honesty of those who are promoting the dangers of rising CO2 levels.
If CO2 is a pollutant then surely water vapour must be an even greater pollutant because water vapour has a far greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
The truth, according to my research, is that CO2, Water Vapour, and greenhouse gases in general, are absolutely essential for our survival.
-
Three weeks ago I went to Monmouth race track here in New Jersey. I hit a 18 to 1 long shot that paid me back $96 on a $5 bet. All the other betters played the favorites, and lost. I'd bet they were the global warming believers too.
Congratulations to your win, Alan! 18 to 1 is a great outcome. That means that if you bet $1000, you would have made almost $18,000.
Long shots on the race track are like to be contrarian in stock market. Most analysts keep recommending what is trending at the moment and most investors follow their advice. Half the time they are wrong. Do you have any such stock investment tips?
-
Bernard,
That's an excellent example of the sort of thinking which has caused me to become skeptical about the claimed 'bad effects' of those increases in the tiny percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, from 0.028% to 0.0404% during the past 150 years, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and also skeptical about the rationality and/or honesty of those who are promoting the dangers of rising CO2 levels.
If CO2 is a pollutant then surely water vapour must be an even greater pollutant because water vapour has a far greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
The truth, according to my research, is that CO2, Water Vapour, and greenhouse gases in general, are absolutely essential for our survival.
It's quite possible that the positive effects of CO2 partially offset its negative effects, and by now it should be feasible to conduct and evaluate some experiments to determine what are the real consequences.
OTOH, pollution of the lakes and oceans by plastics, combined with ever increasing amount of antibiotics, growth hormones and pesticides in the food chain, as well as clear-cutting of rain forests can't be beneficial in any aspect, and are most probably more harmful than CO2.
-
Once again, that is a false number. the 97% has been debunked.
But you never answered my question: are you ready to give up everything we derive from fossil fuels? Your Nikon? Your meat? Car? Plane?
OMG! I totally forget the #1 moronic "remedial solution"
- do not have kids!!!
You frequently make short statements calling ideas laughable or silly. Your insistence that his opinions are only valid unless he stops doing anything that might add to a carbon footprint is silly. It's not a valid debating point, and you know it.
On another subject, there is an interesting Planet Money podcast about the troubles in the recycling industry https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741283641/episode-926-so-should-we-recycle (https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741283641/episode-926-so-should-we-recycle). As with everything else, it doesn't boil down to simply answers. The podcast is only 30 min, and is very instructive.
-
... Saying that you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming because it's complex is intellectually void.
This isn’t what I was saying. Try again.
-
It's quite possible that the positive effects of CO2 partially offset its negative effects, and by now it should be feasible to conduct and evaluate some experiments to determine what are the real consequences.
If we do nothing, and continue as usual without any changes, the positive effects of CO2 increases will definitely, at least partially, offset the negative effects, because we know with certainty that increased levels of CO2 increase world plant growth, including most food crops.
However, I would never recommend we do nothing. My recommendation is that we should fully exploit the benefits of increased CO2 levels and a warming climate. One benefit of a warming climate is increased evaporation which results in increased rainfall.
Increased rainfall, in combination with increased CO2, is tremendously beneficial for plant growth. Even areas that don't receive the increased rainfall, will still benefit, because increased CO2 levels are even more beneficial under water-stressed conditions.
With no shortage of water, a doubling of CO2 levels will increase the growth of most plants (C3 type) by around 35%. Under water-stressed conditions, that increase can be as high as 64%.
Of course, those irrational and emotionally biased 'climate change alarmist' will strive to think up any negative effects of increased plant growth, such as reduced protein, vitamins and minerals in rice which is grown in elevated levels of CO2, thus contradicting their own mantra on climate, that we should not do nothing.
We should not 'do nothing' whatever the problem. We should clearly identify and define the problem and then address it. If it is found that rice grown in current levels of CO2 is less nutritious than rice which was grown 150 years ago, then we should encourage everyone to eat whole-grain brown rice, which is always far more nutritious than white rice, regardless of CO2 levels.
If other crops are found to be lacking certain minerals and nutrients when grown in elevated levels of CO2 which are higher than currents levels, and also when grown in current levels compared to preindustrial levels, then solving the problem by reducing CO2 levels, which will inevitably reduce plant growth, is completely stupid.
If the nutritional content of plants is found to be lacking, after laboratory analysis, then we should address the problem by increasing soil health and fertility, and by adding to the soil whatever minerals are lacking.
OTOH, pollution of the lakes and oceans by plastics, combined with ever increasing amount of antibiotics, growth hormones and pesticides in the food chain, as well as clear-cutting of rain forests can't be beneficial in any aspect, and are most probably more harmful than CO2.
Of course. No disagreement there. All non-organic or non-degradable waste should be either recycled or burned in incinerators with strict controls of harmful emissions, excluding CO2 which is not harmful. The cost of such burning could be at least partially, if not fully offset, if the incinerators were designed to produce electricity.
-
Interesting tidbit in this morning's Wall Street Journal: "...energy-related CO2 emissions declined by 14% in the U.S. from 2005 to 2017 while increasing 21% globally." C'mon you guys over there, get with it. Not that there's any evidence that CO2 levels bear any relation to warming.
-
.. Your insistence that his opinions are only valid unless he stops doing anything that might add to a carbon footprint is silly...
As I said to Jeremy, this is not what I was saying, so try again. Obviously, the validity of one’s opinion on any subject is independent of what one does. Already known as “do as I say, not as I do.” If your doctor smokes, it doesn’t invalidate his opinion that smoking is not good for one’s health. The same concept is behind ad hominem fallacy.
The question about “remedial solutions” I asked is not what Jesus Bernard would do. Or you. Or me. It is about what the alarmists are asking the whole humanity to do: stop immediately, i.e., within 12 years, as per Karla Marx, flying, driving gas cars, eating meat, and switch to solar and wind, slaughter 1 billion cows, and, ultimately, commit a collective suicide by not having children.
Ultimately, the “solution” the alarmists propose is far worse than the problem. The problem, if there is one, is still 100-200 years away. It isn’t already too late, as some prophets of the new church claim (Al Gore). The world is not going to end in 12 years, as Karla Marx believes. Plenty of time to come up with technological and economic solutions without killing our way of life today. And by economic solutions I don’t mean punitive taxation, but basic forces of supply and demand.
-
Interesting tidbit in this morning's Wall Street Journal: "...energy-related CO2 emissions declined by 14% in the U.S. from 2005 to 2017 while increasing 21% globally." C'mon you guys over there, get with it. Not that there's any evidence that CO2 levels bear any relation to warming.
There is plenty of evidence that it does and its great to see that the US is progressing despite the presence of the minority you belong to of people unwilling to face reality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is plenty of evidence that it does and its great to see that the US is progressing despite the presence of the minority you belong to of people unwilling to face reality.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh come on, Bernard. Go ahead. Call me a "denier." I always deny this kind of bullshit, so that appellation isn't unwarranted. You claim to be into science, so surely you've heard that correlation doesn't imply causation. Instead of CO2 emissions I probably could find at least a dozen other things that correlate with global warming.
-
Oh come on, Bernard. Go ahead. Call me a "denier." I always deny this kind of bullshit, so that appellation isn't unwarranted. You claim to be into science, so surely you've heard that correlation doesn't imply causation. Instead of CO2 emissions I probably could find at least a dozen other things that correlate with global warming.
Your post amply demonstrates that you don’t have the remotest clue what you’re talking about. Hint: nobody is saying that the correlation proves the causation. Try doing some actual reading about the issue and then jump back in.
-
... nobody is saying that the correlation proves the causation...
But, but... it is literally your ONLY argument!?
-
But, but... it is literally your ONLY argument!?
Not remotely. Try googling “scientific method” or some such.
-
You claim to be into science, so surely you've heard that correlation doesn't imply causation. Instead of CO2 emissions I probably could find at least a dozen other things that correlate with global warming.
Russ, you are mistaken. The atmospheric warming due to CO2 is not a correlation, it is the result of a physical property of CO2!
Denying that is like denying gravity. You can deny it all you want, it will still happen. It's physics.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... The atmospheric warming due to CO2 is not a correlation, it is the result of a physical property of CO2!
Again, a simpletonistic linking of a single cause and and single effect, denying the extreme complexity of climate change.
-
. . . nobody is saying that the correlation proves the causation.
DUH. That's exactly what global warmers are saying, Jeremy. I think you're the one who needs to do some reading. Try reading back through this thread. Check some of the other threads. Look at Bart's charts. The fact is that there have been some convincing analyses that show there isn't any real correlation between CO2 levels and the temperature of the earth. Bottom line, global warmism is a religious conviction, based on faith. Most religions have the same kind of "data" available to "prove" what the believers want to believe.
-
Not remotely. Try googling “scientific method” or some such.
I fully support science:
-
. . .or some such.
Pretty much sums up your whole approach to this, Jeremy.
-
DUH. That's exactly what global warmers are saying, Jeremy.
No it isn't, and the fact that you make this mistake shows that you don't understand the basics of the argument. Maybe you can find someone patient enough to explain it to you - I certainly can't be bothered.
-
Russ, you are mistaken. The atmospheric warming due to CO2 is not a correlation, it is the result of a physical property of CO2!
Denying that is like denying gravity. You can deny it all you want, it will still happen. It's physics.
Cheers,
Bart
Ah yes. The church of atmospheric warming.
-
Again, a simpletonistic linking of a single cause and and single effect, denying the extreme complexity of climate change.
Climate Change is a complex process, atmospheric warming is a very well understood result of a combination of factors.
The main driver/accelerator of atmospheric warming is CO2 (and Methane is playing a smaller role but it's weight as a contributor is increasing, due to Global warming).
Watervapor is another gas that contributes to a warming atmosphere, but its volume is limited to what the atmosphere can hold before it rains out again. However, since CO2 traps the heat, the atmosphere warms and expands, and the atmosphere can hold more water-vapor before it rains out. So, CO2 also causes additional indirect warming due to allowing more water-vapor to build up.
All this can be found in the scientific literature, and more (like reflectance of sunlight by clouds and snow/ice surfaces, and absorption by ice-free ocean surfaces and landmass).
So we're back to square one, one needs to read information coming from reliable sources (peer-reviewed scientific literature), and not rely on the blogosphere.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here's a magazine article (not a scientific peer-reviewed report) that pretty much explains in simpleton words what science tells us:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
-
Ah yes. The church of atmospheric warming.
No, science!
-
So we're back to square one, one needs to read information coming from reliable sources (peer-reviewed scientific literature), and not rely on the blogosphere.
Cheers,
Bart
This is a fairly accessible beginning:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
-
This is a fairly accessible beginning:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
Yes, it's a fair summary of the situation.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It is about what the alarmists are asking the whole humanity to do: stop immediately, i.e., within 12 years, as per Karla Marx, flying, driving gas cars, eating meat, and switch to solar and wind, slaughter 1 billion cows, and, ultimately, commit a collective suicide by not having children.
This is an unfair and extreme argument. Nobody is suggesting we prohibit air travel, commit suicide as a species, nor slaughter all the cows. The suggestion is that we be aware of the apparent effects of our behaviours on the planet and adjust our behaviours accordingly.
-
Except CO2 isn’t pollution.
One biggest dangers to the survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts was CO2 poisoning. They went to heroic efforts to prevent it.
-
This is an unfair and extreme argument. Nobody is suggesting we prohibit air travel, commit suicide as a species, nor slaughter all the cows. The suggestion is that we be aware of the apparent effects of our behaviours on the planet and adjust our behaviours accordingly.
Maybe you should read AOC's Green New Deal; it's all in there.
-
This is an unfair and extreme argument. Nobody is suggesting we prohibit air travel, commit suicide as a species, nor slaughter all the cows. The suggestion is that we be aware of the apparent effects of our behaviours on the planet and adjust our behaviours accordingly.
Well, there is a Congressional document by Karla Marx that calls for exactly that. Now, the repeated question to you et al is: "what do you mean by "adjust"? I have offered my (and Karla Marx') version of the "adjustment"... what is yours?
-
One biggest dangers to the survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts was CO2 poisoning. They went to heroic efforts to prevent it.
By that logic, humanity would be extinct long time ago.
-
One biggest dangers to the survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts was CO2 poisoning. They went to heroic efforts to prevent it.
By that logic, humanity would be extinct long time ago.
What do those dummies at NASA know? And yet they put a man on the Moon!! Just imagine if they'd had smart guys like Slobo!! They'd have paved Mars by now!!
-
What do those dummies at NASA know? And yet they put a man on the Moon!! Just imagine if they'd had smart guys like Slobo!! They'd have paved Mars by now!!
Strawman again? You'll catch a hay fever, bro! ;)
-
Maybe you should read AOC's Green New Deal; it's all in there.
Where?
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf
-
Where?...
The version on their website, pulled down after being ridiculed (damn interns!).
-
Strawman again? You'll catch a hay fever, bro! ;)
Hay fever doesn't exist. It's a plot by lefties/Communists/environmentalists/Muslims/AOC/persons of colour/women/scientists/etc etc etc(*).
*Delete according to taste.
-
The version on their website, pulled down after being ridiculed (damn interns!).
So when you said "Well, there is a Congressional document by Karla Marx that calls for exactly that." you were actually referring to a completely different document? How confusing!
-
July 2019 was the hottest July on record, edging out July 2016. Fact courtesy of NOAA (government scientists).
How far back the records go? 100 years? 200 years? Versus 5 billion years of the planet's existence? A grain of sand in the ocean of time.
The existence of humans on earth has also just been a grain of sand in the ocean of time.
-
... a completely different document?...
Not that completely different. Slightly redacted, to remove the ROTFL ideas.
-
The existence of humans on earth has also just been a grain of sand in the ocean of time.
Exactly. And the earth froze and melted, cooled and warmed, all without us. Three million years ago, the CO2 content was the same as today, yet ocean levels were 10m higher. Go figure.
-
Not that completely different. Slightly redacted, to remove the ROTFL ideas.
Different enough to render your post entirely inaccurate, apparently. Surprise surprise!
-
Three million years ago, the CO2 content was the same as today, yet ocean levels were 10m higher. Go figure.
What conclusion do you draw from that (supposing it were true, for the sake of discussion)?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/warming-temperatures-could-transform-antarctica-plant-filled-land-green-180971880/
-
Hay fever doesn't exist. It's a plot by lefties/Communists/environmentalists/Muslims/AOC/persons of colour/women/scientists/the government/etc etc etc(*).
*Delete according to taste.
Sorry, I forgot the obvious culprits!
-
Congratulations to your win, Alan! 18 to 1 is a great outcome. That means that if you bet $1000, you would have made almost $18,000.
Long shots on the race track are like to be contrarian in stock market. Most analysts keep recommending what is trending at the moment and most investors follow their advice. Half the time they are wrong. Do you have any such stock investment tips?
Buy low; sell high.
-
Climate Change is a complex process, atmospheric warming is a very well understood result of a combination of factors.
The main driver/accelerator of atmospheric warming is CO2 (and Methane is playing a smaller role but it's weight as a contributor is increasing, due to Global warming).
Watervapor is another gas that contributes to a warming atmosphere, but its volume is limited to what the atmosphere can hold before it rains out again. However, since CO2 traps the heat, the atmosphere warms and expands, and the atmosphere can hold more water-vapor before it rains out. So, CO2 also causes additional indirect warming due to allowing more water-vapor to build up.
All this can be found in the scientific literature, and more (like reflectance of sunlight by clouds and snow/ice surfaces, and absorption by ice-free ocean surfaces and landmass).
So we're back to square one, one needs to read information coming from reliable sources (peer-reviewed scientific literature), and not rely on the blogosphere.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Here's a magazine article (not a scientific peer-reviewed report) that pretty much explains in simpleton words what science tells us:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/
So more raining wets formally dry areas and provides more rain elsewhere for greater food production, more potable water for people and animals, etc. Sure, some of it may cause floods, but more water is better generally than less just as warmer climate has been better for earth's inhabitants than cooler weather.
-
One biggest dangers to the survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts was CO2 poisoning. They went to heroic efforts to prevent it.
One biggest dangers to the survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts was CO2 poisoning. They went to heroic efforts to prevent it.
That's just silly. The astronauts were in an enclosed capsule on their way to the moon where CO2 could go up to poisonous levels. Comparing that to earth and man's survival on it with CO2 percentages we are faced with, just weakens your position.
-
So more raining wets formally dry areas and provides more rain elsewhere for greater food production, more potable water for people and animals, etc. Sure, some of it may cause floods, but more water is better generally than less just as warmer climate has been better for earth's inhabitants than cooler weather.
Keep telling yourself that, Alan, keep whistling.
-
Keep telling yourself that, Alan, keep whistling.
You never refute the points I say or give differing ideas. You just attack me personally. You're a smart guy. Certainly, you can come up with something more than I'm whistling.
-
So more raining wets formally dry areas and provides more rain elsewhere for greater food production, more potable water for people and animals, etc. Sure, some of it may cause floods, but more water is better generally than less just as warmer climate has been better for earth's inhabitants than cooler weather.
Only complex simulations will tell us what areas of the world may benefit from the global warming. Some probably will, but overall the simulations indicate a lot more negative effects.
So in the end it’s probably about the empathy you do or do not have for the millions who will not be able to relocate to Belgium as it becomes a tropical paradise.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Only complex simulations will tell us what areas of the world may benefit from the global warming. Some probably will, but overall the simulations indicate a lot more negative effects.
So in the end it’s probably about the empathy you do or do not have for the millions who will not be able to relocate to Belgium as it becomes a tropical paradise.
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't buy it. The argument (extra) rain won't fall in the right places is just an phony explanation the "experts" want to use to make it seem like it will be bad. As you said, it's too complex to decide exactly what's going to happen in each area of the world. But the truth is there will be more rain and snow stored in mountains for Spring runoffs generally because there will be more evaporation from warmer temperature. More places will stand a better chance to benefit from the extra rain. This is another benefit the global warmists don't want to talk about.
Certainly your Belgium should benefit by a couple of extra degrees in the winter unless you own a ski slope.
-
I don't buy it. The argument (extra) rain won't fall in the right places is just an phony explanation the "experts" want to use to make it seem like it will be bad. As you said, it's too complex to decide exactly what's going to happen in each area of the world. But the truth is there will be more rain and snow stored in mountains for Spring runoffs generally because there will be more evaporation from warmer temperature. More places will stand a better chance to benefit from the extra rain. This is another benefit the global warmists don't want to talk about.
Certainly your Belgium should benefit by a couple of extra degrees in the winter unless you own a ski slope.
It may rain less in some places, more in others that will become unlivable triggering movements of populations unheard of and a huge global instability.
And poor countries will be affected a lot more than rich ones.
As an educated person who just had the luck to be born at the right place and with some means to act I feel that I have to do something.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What about those poor countries and people who count on cheap fossil fuels to warm their humble abodes? Should they give up warmth for their children and themselves during cold winters? SHould they study and read by candlelight? China intends to build 850 coal fired electric producing plants worldwide. Would you ask the Chinese to give up their plans? Would you ask those poor countries to forgo electricity so their people can live modern, more safer lives? Did you contribute a couple of thousand dollars or guilders so a family there could install solar and stay off the grid, any grid?
Would you take scarce government resources that could be used for cancer research and spend them on propping up on stilts homes of the more well to do who live by the shore so they don't get flooded out during the next hurricane?
How many degree have your turned down your heating thermostat in the winter? How many cars have you sold?
Just how would you allocate those resources? Just who would you sacrifice to feel good?
Just how much would you be willing to do?
-
Climate Change is a complex process, atmospheric warming is a very well understood result of a combination of factors.
The main driver/accelerator of atmospheric warming is CO2 (and Methane is playing a smaller role but it's weight as a contributor is increasing, due to Global warming).
Watervapor is another gas that contributes to a warming atmosphere, but its volume is limited to what the atmosphere can hold before it rains out again. However, since CO2 traps the heat, the atmosphere warms and expands, and the atmosphere can hold more water-vapor before it rains out. So, CO2 also causes additional indirect warming due to allowing more water-vapor to build up.
All this can be found in the scientific literature, and more (like reflectance of sunlight by clouds and snow/ice surfaces, and absorption by ice-free ocean surfaces and landmass).
Bart,
You forgot to mention the great uncertainty about the role of increased water vapour and clouds in a changing climate. It's not well understood at all. You're not biased by any chance, are you? ;)
The following organization, which I think you'd agree is fairly reliable, is at least attempting to address this issue, but much uncertainty still remains.
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Here are a few relevant quotes from the linked article:
"If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect, the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback)."
"The ways that clouds respond to changes in the climate are so complex that it is hard to determine their net effect on the energy and water balances and to determine how much climate might change."
"The global climate is such a complex system that no one knows how even a small increase in temperature will alter other aspects of climate or how such alterations will influence the rate of warming. Moreover, changes in any of these climatic features may also affect the distribution and properties of clouds, but the understanding of clouds is so rudimentary that no one knows whether climate feedbacks involving clouds will dampen or amplify a warming trend."
As regards the heat-trapping effect of CO2, one needs to get this into perspective. On average, every group of 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere contains only one molecule of CO2. The analogy of covering oneself with a blanket, which is often used to describe the heat-trapping effect of CO2, represents a huge exaggeration. A more precise analogy would be covering oneself with a very fine netting. If the threads of the netting represented the CO2, they would be so fine you would need a powerful magnifying glass to see them. How warm do you think such a net would keep you? :D
-
By that logic, humanity would be extinct long time ago.
It's not logic. It's fact. Read up on Apollo 13 troubles.
-
Well, there is a Congressional document by Karla Marx that calls for exactly that. Now, the repeated question to you et al is: "what do you mean by "adjust"? I have offered my (and Karla Marx') version of the "adjustment"... what is yours?
Show me a doc that says she wants us to do all those things, please. Especially the "suicide" part.
I've cut WAY down on eating beef, even though I love a good steak.
I seldom fly. I grow more than half of what I eat. I avoid nearly all single-use plastics. I never shoot 10 bit. Eight is enough. :)
-
Show me a doc that says she wants us to do all those things, please. Especially the "suicide" part.
I've cut WAY down on eating beef, even though I love a good steak.
I seldom fly. I grow more than half of what I eat. I avoid nearly all single-use plastics. I never shoot 10 bit. Eight is enough. :)
Oh no. I'll have to give up film. :o
-
What about those poor countries and people who count on cheap fossil fuels to warm their humble abodes? Should they give up warmth for their children and themselves during cold winters? SHould they study and read by candlelight? China intends to build 850 coal fired electric producing plants worldwide. Would you ask the Chinese to give up their plans? Would you ask those poor countries to forgo electricity so their people can live modern, more safer lives? Did you contribute a couple of thousand dollars or guilders so a family there could install solar and stay off the grid, any grid?
Would you take scarce government resources that could be used for cancer research and spend them on propping up on stilts homes of the more well to do who live by the shore so they don't get flooded out during the next hurricane?
How many degree have your turned down your heating thermostat in the winter? How many cars have you sold?
Just how would you allocate those resources? Just who would you sacrifice to feel good?
Just how much would you be willing to do?
Those are good and valid questions and today’s schedule won’t allow me to write a detailed answer, but I don’t think that not striving to reduce CO2 emissions is the best answer we can come up with.
As far as I am concerned, I have never sold a car in my life. At 47 I own my first car, bought second hand, now 6 and pretty much brand new looking. I wash it twice a year and intend to keep it as long as the local regulations enable me to/until the day when electric vehicles become a usable and environmentally sound solution where I reside.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those are good and valid questions and today’s schedule won’t allow me to write a detailed answer, but I don’t think that not striving to reduce CO2 emissions is the best answer we can come up with.
As far as I am concerned, I have never sold a car in my life. At 47 I own my first car, bought second hand, now 6 and pretty much brand new looking. I wash it twice a year and intend to keep it as long as the local regulations enable me to/until the day when electric vehicles become a usable and environmentally sound solution where I reside.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm sure your heart is in the right place. But sometimes, we miss the forest through the trees. Cheap available fossil fuels has made modern safe living for more people in the world than most inventions. Yet, most of the world still struggles with everyday needs we take for granted, just part of everyday life. What those people wouldn't give for regular heat during the winter or a constant source of electricity to operate TV's, radios, power equipment, hospitals, and have lighting to be able to see and do things at night and keep them safer. Should Paris insist that China not build those 850 coal-fueled electricity plants? (Of course the Chinese won't agree). How many people will those plants give electricity to people for the first time? There are still around a billion people who don't have electricity. Chinese are buying 24 million cars, more than any other country. SHould we force them to stop buying? Or should they be allowed to keep at least one for 6 years as you have? PS I just sold a 15 year old car that had 70,000 miles on it and still have a 7 year car with 90,000 miles. Well my wife drives a new 2019, but I'm not going to argue with her. :)
-
By that logic, humanity would be extinct long time ago.
Hardly. I think if you do the research, the last time CO2 levels were at the current concentration, there was no humanity.
-
is just an phony explanation the "experts" want to use to make it seem like it will be bad.
Why are "the experts" doing that? Why do they want it to "be bad"?
As you said, it's too complex to decide exactly what's going to happen in each area of the world. But the truth is there will be more rain and snow stored in mountains for Spring runoffs generally because there will be more evaporation from warmer temperature. More places will stand a better chance to benefit from the extra rain. This is another benefit the global warmists don't want to talk about.
You can't have it both ways, Alan. You can't say that it's too complex to predict, and then do exactly that.
-
Hardly. I think if you do the research, the last time CO2 levels were at the current concentration, there was no humanity.
So the higher levels created man?
-
Hardly. I think if you do the research, the last time CO2 levels were at the current concentration, there was no humanity.
So the higher levels created man?Why are "the experts" doing that? Why do they want it to "be bad"?
You can't have it both ways, Alan. You can't say that it's too complex to predict, and then do exactly that.
They don;t want to be "bad". They just want to be on the climate change train. They go along to get along.
Regarding a conflict, they can't predict which areas of the world will get better and which will be worse. What I'm predicting is that overall as an average, more rain will be better. Will there be spots where it might flood more? Sure. But more water is good for the planet as is more heat. The historical record shows that.
-
They don;t want to be "bad". They just want to be on the climate change train. They go along to get along
And yet, that’s precisely what you said:
”experts" want to use to make it seem like it will be bad.
As for your comment “so the higher levels created man?”
I’ll just shake my head in bemusement.
-
So the higher levels created man?
They don;t want to be "bad". They just want to be on the climate change train. They go along to get along.
Regarding a conflict, they can't predict which areas of the world will get better and which will be worse. What I'm predicting is that overall as an average, more rain will be better. Will there be spots where it might flood more? Sure. But more water is good for the planet as is more heat. The historical record shows that.
What is your view on the pace of the current warming that is described by experts as being tens to hundreds of time faster than past climate variations?
You do not feel that this is going to generate a tremendous amount of stress to various ecosystems with a high predictable impact on biodiversity,...?
As far as I am concerned you guys have convinced me. I should lead a more self centered selfish life, just pretend that the 2% chance left that global warming isn’t man driven mean that it certainly isn’t or that even if it were my neighbors are much worse than me... and that most people will be glad to see their heating bill get cheaper... (I’ll delete “air conditioning bill” from my dictionary in the process to avoid any temptation to consider realistically the most obvious consequences).
Heck... I’ll start by buying this car: https://vmp.ebay.com/ebay/viewAllPhotos.aspx?smid=25284913
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bart,
You forgot to mention the great uncertainty about the role of increased water vapour and clouds in a changing climate. It's not well understood at all. You're not biased by any chance, are you? ;)
The uncertainty is diminishing as the Scientific understanding improves, and things may turn out to be a little worse than previously thought ...
The following organization, which I think you'd agree is fairly reliable, is at least attempting to address this issue, but much uncertainty still remains.
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Here are a few relevant quotes from the linked article:
"If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect, the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback)."
Well, recent research hints at an answer as Science gains a better understanding. It's likely to have a slight negative effect, resulting in less cooling.
Aerosol emissions may not cool the planet as much as we thought
They lead to slightly less watery clouds, which means less cooling than suspected.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/aerosol-emissions-may-not-cool-the-planet-as-much-as-we-thought/
and an article in Nature about that study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02287-z
As regards the heat-trapping effect of CO2, one needs to get this into perspective. On average, every group of 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere contains only one molecule of CO2. The analogy of covering oneself with a blanket, which is often used to describe the heat-trapping effect of CO2, represents a huge exaggeration. A more precise analogy would be covering oneself with a very fine netting. If the threads of the netting represented the CO2, they would be so fine you would need a powerful magnifying glass to see them. How warm do you think such a net would keep you? :D
Your analogy doesn't hold. The trapping of heat that would otherwise have escaped into space, also causes the most abundant gases in the atmosphere to heat up. So it's not a net, but a closed enveloping layer of warmer gas.
In fact, the huge effects that a relatively small amount of CO2 has on the global temperature should cause even more concern. Without the (as stressed by you) small amount of CO2, our earth would not have an average air temperature of about 15 °C but be several degrees colder.
It wouldn't be quite as bad as on our moon (average surface temperature is -36.5 °C, and approx. the same distance from the sun as our earth) which has absolutely no atmosphere to mitigate the amplitudes and distribute the heat over its surface, but that situation does show us the importance of an atmosphere, and why its dangerous to mess it up.
Temperatures on the moon are very hot in the daytime, about 100 degrees C. At night, the lunar surface gets very cold, as cold as minus 173 degrees C. This wide variation is because Earth's moon has no atmosphere to hold in heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day, and the surface is a poor conductor for the distribution of heat.
So again, I suggest to not blindly believe what deniers want you to believe. Instead, follow what respected scientists are saying, and be assured that their understanding of the issues is improving all the time. The biggest variable in models is becoming; What are we going to do about it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So the higher levels created man?
Alan - this is an example of why I don't bother to address your "arguments".
-
Alan - this is an example of why I don't bother to address your "arguments".
It indeed does look like a waste of time. Yet, as an optimist, I remain hopeful that Alan K. can improve his understanding if he exposes himself to better information sources. That could help in reducing the number of stupid remarks.
For Alan:
What Was It Like When The First Humans Arose On Earth?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/15/what-was-it-like-when-the-first-humans-arose-on-earth/
And to address the historic CO2 levels being the same as they are now:
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
Which shows that current CO2 levels are A) Unpresedented in human existence, and B) Accelerating at an unprecedented rate.
This means that the effects may well be more dramatic than humanity as a species can stand (save for a few individuals who live indoors in a controlled climate where they can also grow enough food for themselves).
Cheers,
Bart
-
I don't buy it. The argument (extra) rain won't fall in the right places is just an phony explanation the "experts" want to use to make it seem like it will be bad. As you said, it's too complex to decide exactly what's going to happen in each area of the world. But the truth is there will be more rain and snow stored in mountains for Spring runoffs generally because there will be more evaporation from warmer temperature. More places will stand a better chance to benefit from the extra rain. This is another benefit the global warmists don't want to talk about.
Did you not notice the severe flooding that took place in many agricultural areas this past spring in the US. Some farmers were unable to plant row crops on time. We have had several huge storms within the past two months that dropped 4-6 inches (10-15cm of rain) in one hour's time resulting in severe flooding of some urban areas. This is extra rain that I really don't want to see.
-
As for your comment
Quote
“so the higher levels created man?”
I’ll just shake my head in bemusement.
That was a joke. You guys are too serious. Do I need to put the smiley face on every time I'm winking? ::)
-
Alan - this is an example of why I don't bother to address your "arguments".
Jeremy: That was a joke. ::)
-
It indeed does look like a waste of time. Yet, as an optimist, I remain hopeful that Alan K. can improve his understanding if he exposes himself to better information sources. That could help in reducing the number of stupid remarks.
For Alan:
What Was It Like When The First Humans Arose On Earth?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/15/what-was-it-like-when-the-first-humans-arose-on-earth/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/15/what-was-it-like-when-the-first-humans-arose-on-earth/)
...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart: That was a joke. ::)
-
...
And to address the historic CO2 levels being the same as they are now:
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/ (https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/)
Which shows that current CO2 levels are A) Unpresedented in human existence, and B) Accelerating at an unprecedented rate.
This means that the effects may well be more dramatic than humanity as a species can stand (save for a few individuals who live indoors in a controlled climate where they can also grow enough food for themselves).
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, Thanks for giving us a new chart on the increase of CO2. Your old one was getting pretty boring seeing it all the time. :) (Note the smiley face indicating I was trying to be amusing. )
However, as you said "...may well be..."), that doesn't mean a one for one correlation to the rise in earth's temperature even assuming it continues at the pace you've indicated previously. In any case, without researching all the pros and cons, we should ascertain these before spending all our resources trying to stop climate change. (No smiley face indicating I was not telling a joke.)
-
Apparently, climate change is good for seals and great white sharks. Way more of both. Cape Cod in Massachusetts is practically shark heaven. It's the new normal. I haven't decided if that's a good or bad outcome of global warming, assuming it's caused by global warming.
https://www.wcvb.com/article/popular-cape-cod-beach-in-orleans-closed-after-confirmed-shark-sighting-attack-on-seal/28728207
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cape-cods-new-normal-sharks-are-everywhere-11566034200
-
As if there were one America... The America that has achieved most of what you are talking about is pretty much California, Massassuchets, Oregon and Washington states...
I am obviously over simplifying, but had the guys who are unwilling to face the situation about global warming today been in charge, little of that would have happened...
And, once again, China and India have both ratified the Paris agreement. Only the US hasn't and you know as well as I do that a very large part of the population in the US is strongly unhappy about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, they ratified it. But China and India don;t have to do anything about pollution and CO2 emission until 2030. How can you expect the earth to reduce CO2 emission without CHina who's CO2 production increased from 27% to 30% of the total world's production, and India at 7%? And it's getting worse especially in India and the rest of the third world. Here's an article that shows just how bad China is:
"...The world’s juggernaut, though, is China. The country consumes half the world’s coal. More than [/font][/size]4.3 million Chinese[/font][/size] are employed in the country’s coal mines. China has added 40 percent of the world’s coal capacity [/font][/size]since 2002[/font][/size], a huge increase for just 16 years. [/font][/size]“I had to do the calculation three times,” said Carlos Fernández Alvarez, a senior energy analyst at the International Energy Agency. “I thought it was wrong. It’s crazy.”..."[/font][/size]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html?module=inline (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html?module=inline)
Another article how Australia, India and Bangladesh are going coal bigtime. Where is Paris in all this? How could you let China and India off the hook in Paris? ANd what about Australia? They signed the agreement. Yet, they opened a huge new area for coal mining. What's the point of Paris?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-australia.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/climate/coal-adani-india-australia.html)
-
Bart, Thanks for giving us a new chart on the increase of CO2.
You're welcome. I did it with Russ in mind, as he seems to like the charts and graphs I post to make matters easier to grasp. ;)
Your old one was getting pretty boring seeing it all the time.
How could it? It automatically updates, and thus is always different (and more alarming). 8)
However, as you said "...may well be..."), that doesn't mean a one for one correlation to the rise in earth's temperature even assuming it continues at the pace you've indicated previously.
Correct, it depends on human activity.
In any case, without researching all the pros and cons, we should ascertain these before spending all our resources trying to stop climate change.
It makes no sense to keep one's foot on the gas-pedal when the edge of the cliff is rapidly getting closer. There is no need to come to a full stop either, while there is an option to adjust ones direction.
Cheers,
Bart
-
But China and India don;t have to do anything about pollution and CO2 emission until 2030.
You can repeat it as often as you like, but that remains untrue.
Their emission levels will plateau, BECAUSE they are doing something.
-
Another article how Australia, India and Bangladesh are going coal bigtime. Where is Paris in all this?
Wrong question. It's better to ask; Where is Australia in all this? Their coal exports seem to be their economy's life-line.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus/
In 2017 Australia exported $243B, making it the 20th largest exporter in the world. During the last five years the exports of Australia have decreased at an annualized rate of -0.6%, from $249B in 2012 to $243B in 2017. The most recent exports are led by Iron Ore which represent 19.8% of the total exports of Australia, followed by Coal Briquettes, which account for 19.3%.
That's possibly also an explanation for Ray's exposure to the (local) media.
-
You're welcome. I did it with Russ in mind, as he seems to like the charts and graphs I post to make matters easier to grasp. ;)
How could it? It automatically updates, and thus is always different (and more alarming). 8)
Correct, it depends on human activity.
It makes no sense to keep one's foot on the gas-pedal when the edge of the cliff is rapidly getting closer. There is no need to come to a full stop either, while there is an option to adjust ones direction.
Cheers,
Bart
Glad to see you're getting into the swing of being jovial. Now, doesn't that feel good? :)
-
You can repeat it as often as you like, but that remains untrue.
Their emission levels will plateau, BECAUSE they are doing something.
Heroin addicts plateau as well. Can you imagine another billion middle class Chinese with cars, homes, air conditioning, etc? At that point, changing the climate will be like shoveling s$$t against the tide.
-
Wrong question. It's better to ask; Where is Australia in all this? Their coal exports seem to be their economy's life-line.
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus/
That's possibly also an explanation for Ray's exposure to the (local) media.
Climate control politics is local. Australia is ignoring their Paris promises because there's money to be made in those thar hills, coal hills I mean. America dropped out and Canada has too much oil and is looking the other way. What about liberal Norway? I can't see the Norwegians giving up oil that's making them all rich and paying for "free" health care. That's the problem with Paris. Everyone's got an angle. That's why Trump dropped out. You see America would in it's stupidity follow what it promised while others just ignore their promises or like China and India don't have to do anything anyway.
-
This might not have occurred to you, but the value of the car at the end of the term is factored into the lease rate.
Taken over from the wrong thread.
Anyway, a normal lease ends in three years. when you buy a car, you usually hold it a lot longer. And that's where the real risk is. Just how much will these cars depreciate after 5, 7 or 9 years? Will a gas car depreciate less? There's a lot of risk with electrics because of the unknown. You might be buying an Edsel.
-
Climate control politics is local.
That's only partially the case. Market dynamics, which can be quite global, may be stronger than local politics. Case in point, the USA.
Despite the urge to push/subsidize coal, this happens:
Wind power prices now lower than the cost of natural gas
In the US, it's cheaper to build and operate wind farms than buy fossil fuels.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/
Those cheap Chinese PV panels do come in handy, don't they? Especially after being forced to devaluate the Chinese currency ...
But all that is a bit off topic, since this thread is intended to be about media presence and the opinion bias it causes.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Jeremy: That was a joke. ::)
You should think a little about how and why that "joke" was taken literally by most of us.
-
That's only partially the case. Market dynamics, which can be quite global, may be stronger than local politics. Case in point, the USA.
Despite the urge to push/subsidize coal, this happens:
Wind power prices now lower than the cost of natural gas
In the US, it's cheaper to build and operate wind farms than buy fossil fuels.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/)
Those cheap Chinese PV panels do come in handy, don't they? Especially after being forced to devaluate the Chinese currency ...
But all that is a bit off topic, since this thread is intended to be about media presence and the opinion bias it causes.
Cheers,
Bart
It's not off topic. Media and government bias presents it as cheaper. But they don't include the costs for fossil-fueled backup plants that are still required or government subsidies for solar and wind. Also, "free" wind and solar costs are often added in raised prices for grid customers using fossil fueled plants.
-
You should think a little about how and why that "joke" was taken literally by most of us.
Because you have no sense of humor? :)
-
You should think a little about how and why that "joke" was taken literally by most of us.
Taking things literally and the lack of sense of humor are sure signs of lower IQ.
-
My sense of humour is intact, thank you very much. As is my IQ.
This is exactly the same tactic used repeatedly by Trump. Make a preposterous statement and then have your staff attempt to deflect by walking it back as a "joke".
You guys need to get better writers.
-
The 1977 Time cover you posted is a fake. It's real title is "The Global Warming Survival Guide". I'll assume you were just duped. But this just shows the lengths the climate change deniers will go to advocate their position. It is kind of pathetic to think that this sort of nonsense is all they have left.
-
I suggest that you more thoroughly research your Fake News posts.
https://time.com/4778937/fake-time-cover-ice-age/
Just sayin’ 8)
-
An interesting article about the coming ice age written in Harper's Magazine in 1958 by of all people Betty Friedan about two local scientists, an astrophysicist and geologist-meteorologist.
https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/ (https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/)
Living in Queens on Long Island, I have had the edge of the last Ice Age just about a mile from my home. The are the pond pockets, well, not sure of the exact name. There are also what's called erratics, large rocks moved by the edge of the glacier. Here's one I shot a little further north in think in Westchester County, just north of NYC. To think that this whole area was cover in two mile thick ice all not caused by man is pretty interesting. Who melted it?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6160/6176984254_10d6c6f4bd_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/apQEdw)Autumn Rock (https://flic.kr/p/apQEdw) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
The 1977 Time cover you posted is a fake. It's real title is "The Global Warming Survival Guide". I'll assume you were just duped...
My apologies. Post deleted.
P.S. Thanks to Peter also
-
My apologies. Post deleted.
:)
-
But a decade or so before that the "scientific consensus" agreed that we were on the verge of an ice age. So it's not as fake as Fab makes it sound.
-
But a decade or so before that the "scientific consensus" agreed that we were on the verge of an ice age. So it's not as fake as Fab makes it sound.
The Time cover was a fake.
-
Taking things literally and the lack of sense of humor are sure signs of lower IQ.
I thought we were laughable?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Time cover was a fake.
Yes it was, but the "scientific consensus" wasn't.
-
I thought we were laughable?
You are... as opposed to laugh-able ;)
-
Yes it was, but the "scientific consensus" wasn't.
You've referred to that early work before. Why do you believe that if someone was wrong about something 50 years ago that someone else would be wrong now?
-
... Why do you believe that if someone was wrong about something 50 years ago that someone else would be wrong now?
Errare humanum est.
-
Yes it was, but the "scientific consensus" wasn't.
Your memory is impaired. There was no scientific consensus of a coming ice age in the decade before the 1977 Time magazine cover.
Global Cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
-
You've referred to that early work before. Why do you believe that if someone was wrong about something 50 years ago that someone else would be wrong now?
It's a ridiculous question, Robert, but to answer: it's always wrong. The climate is changing. The climate is always changing. Get over it. Fifty years from now we'll probably be on the verge of a new ice age again.
-
But a decade or so before that the "scientific consensus" agreed that we were on the verge of an ice age. So it's not as fake as Fab makes it sound.
If your aunt was “the scientific community” then yes.
Otherwise it looks like a fake news aimed at discrediting the scientific work on climate.
But, even if that were true, I am sure you must be aware about the progress made by science during the course of the past 50 yeats in terms of:
- chaos theory and non linear systems
- fluid dynamics
- simulation
- computer science progress. The speed of computers have increased a trillion times btw 1956 and 2015 and that power has been democratized tremendously, meaning that tens of thousands of scientists get access to hugely powerful computers
- the speed of information exchanges and its quality has increased exponentially thanks to internet and rich media
Cheers,
Bernard
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Your memory is impaired. There was no scientific consensus of a coming ice age in the decade before the 1977 Time magazine cover.
Global Cooling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
Fab, I was there. I'm pretty sure you weren't since your age is N/A.
-
If your aunt was “the scientific community” then yes.
Cheers,
Bernard
She wasn't "the scientific community," but she was at the heart of it, joined by plenty of others. But at least you were "brave" enough to post your age. At the time I'm talking about, you were what? Two?
-
Fab, I was there. I'm pretty sure you weren't since your age is N/A.
You usual fallback when you have no facts. Conflating age with wisdom.
-
All you have to go on, Fab, is what you read, and you're reading in the wrong places.
-
... the progress made by science during the course of the past 50 years...
Which, of course, make science today infallible.
-
It's a ridiculous question, Robert, but to answer: it's always wrong. The climate is changing. The climate is always changing. Get over it. Fifty years from now we'll probably be on the verge of a new ice age again.
Make that 16000 years from now (if we get a grip on things). And it's not the change, it's the rate of change that's unprecedented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which, of course, make science today infallible.
No, it doesn’t make science infallible.
Nor the dominant science that sees global warming as being man caused, nor the strongly minority science claiming it isn’t.
But the odds are increasing dramatically that they are right thanks to the progress mentioned above.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If your aunt was “the scientific community” then yes.
Otherwise it looks like a fake news aimed at discrediting the scientific work on climate.
But, even if that were true, I am sure you must be aware about the progress made by science during the course of the past 50 yeats in terms of:
- chaos theory and non linear systems
- fluid dynamics
- simulation
- computer science progress. The speed of computers have increased a trillion times btw 1956 and 2015 and that power has been democratized tremendously, meaning that tens of thousands of scientists get access to hugely powerful computers
- the speed of information exchanges and its quality has increased exponentially thanks to internet and rich media
Cheers,
Bernard
Cheers,
Bernard
But human behavior has not changed, nor has the press. Fake news then, fake news now.
-
But human behavior has not changed, nor has the press. Fake news then, fake news now.
Human error has a pretty high probability of happening when one person works on a task, less when two people work on a task,... we are talking here about tens of thousands of highly trained scientists.
Coming from these same top schools thanks to whom we have F22’s, Nuclear weapons, a better understanding of Aids, AI algos that can beat the best chess and Go players in the world, self driving cars,...
As far as the fake news go, we have a lot more now. As this thread proves beautifully.
I would advise Ken Wilber’s “Trump and a post-truth world”.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...Coming from these same top schools thanks to whom we have F22’s, Nuclear weapons, a better understanding of Aids, AI algos that can beat the best chess and Go players in the world, self driving cars,...
Which are all positive sciences. Climate science is a speculative "science" when it embarks on predictions.
-
You usual fallback when you have no facts. Conflating age with wisdom.
Old people have always done exactly that: conflate age with wisdom.
The two don't necessarily occur together, as we can see in various old politicians today.
I was there, too, so my opinion has validity equal to RSL.
-
Which are all positive sciences. Climate science is a speculative "science" when it embarks on predictions.
The scientific method is applied to both exactly the same way.
Besides, if you think that what you call "positive sciences" doesn't include a very strong component of forecast and simulation, you are very very wrong. This my area of speciality, I know what I am talking about.
The technology used to build a chess computer is very very close to that used to chuck the huge amount of past weather data, the highly turbulent and chaotic fluid simulation used to optimize the design of a wing or jet engine, is very very similar to the technology used to predict weather evolution,... they rely on the same maths, physics and simulation tools.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Besides, if you think that what you call "positive sciences" doesn't include a very strong component of forecast and simulation...
Which were all tested before implemented.
-
The scientific method is applied to both exactly the same way.
Besides, if you think that what you call "positive sciences" doesn't include a very strong component of forecast and simulation, you are very very wrong. This my area of speciality, I know what I am talking about.
The technology used to build a chess computer is very very close to that used to chuck the huge amount of past weather data, the highly turbulent and chaotic fluid simulation used to optimize the design of a wing or jet engine, is very very similar to the technology used to predict weather evolution,... they rely on the same maths, physics and simulation tools.
Cheers,
Bernard
Deciding where to spend limited resources, whether on cancer research or climate control and in what proportion, is more a function of the human heart. How come you haven't answer this question that I posed a number of times. You keep trying to prove global warming. OK. Let's say you're right. How about answering my question.
-
Which were all tested before implemented.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
But the point Slobodan is that science works. It has been proven time and again. And it works better and better with less uncertainty even when dealing with complex phenomenon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Deciding where to spend limited resources, whether on cancer research or climate control and in what proportion, is more a function of the human heart. How come you How about answering my question.
Your question is unclear. Feel free to re-state it.
-
Your question is unclear. Feel free to re-state it.
Well, for example, do you spend limited resources trying to help people who are sick today or do you spend those resources trying to ameliorate problems that a future unborn generation may face? If you decide to do both, then what proportion for each? There's no simple formula to determine what's best. These are issues of the conscience and heart. These are issues nobody wants to talk about, it seems, We'd rather just fight about whether global warming is real or not. Of course, that's easier. We aren't faced with the really difficult questions that no algorithm can answer.
-
I'm trying to bump the discussion to a higher level. Scientist don;t address these things because they basically aren't scientific questions. They're human questions.
-
... But the point Slobodan is that science works...
Nobody questions that. But climate science is not really science when it comes to predictions. It relies on models and models are notoriously bad substitute for the real world.
-
Deciding where to spend limited resources, whether on cancer research or climate control and in what proportion, is more a function of the human heart. How come you haven't answer this question that I posed a number of times. You keep trying to prove global warming. OK. Let's say you're right. How about answering my question.
Alan,
We still have 3 guys in this thread who are denying the theory that man is responsible for climate change, they are my top priority. ;) There is a lot of work because they are also denying science and statistics... but we can't give up. ;)
Now, how to allocate resources is a complex topic that involves both public and private sector decisions as you know as well as I do.
There is no simple cursor that would enable citizens to decide to move funds from one area to another.
Beyond that:
1. Public sector: It is influenced by voters... to some extend. The connection between the voters will and the potical decisions of their representatives can be pretty slim though. Let's just look at the very strong opposition of the public in Japan against nuclear and how the Japanese government completely ignored it and went straight to trying to restart nuclear reactors as Fukushima was still smoking.
The biggest spending that is worthless, except for weapon dealers, is defense. This adds very little value to the progress of human kind. A lot less than it used to at least. Defense budgets more or less derive from global instability, so the best way to reduce them is to make the world more stable.
It's interesting to notice that the level of military spending in Russia was divided by 10 from the cold war years to today... while it increased by 25% in the US during the same period... why? https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending
So how much is spent by governments, in particular the US, on cancer research is mostly impacted by how much they are spending on defense. a lot more than what they are spending on the environment. Why not talk to your representatives on this first?
2. Private sector: this is driven by the prospect of financial gains. I believe that cancer and heart diseases being the major killers that they are are already the focus on huge investements from the private sector. Not sure how to increase them further. There is on the other hand great potential to refocus a lot of R&D energy from futile spendings (a new TV every 7-8 years isn't needed at all, 8K isn't needed at all,...) to useful ones that will reduce the environmental footprint of people while generating business opportunities for entrepreneurs. This is happening and is correlated to the perception of citizens about the need to become more eco minded. Works great in many countries and parts of the US.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that's what's called a "false dichotomy". One does not necessarily preclude the other. Just like going to the moon didn't eliminate any chance of fixing, I dunno, let's say "acid rain". Or smog. Or the ozone hole in Antarctica.
Some here offer the opinion: "Why should I care? I'll be dead before the supposed effects take place".
Others think: Oops! We've really made a big mistake here. We should do everything we can to fix it, otherwise, everyone is going to suffer extreme pain in the foreseeable future.
What's the worst that can happen? That we preserved an Earth with clean air, clear water and a relatively known set of climate conditions? All for nothing?
-
Nobody questions that. But climate science is not really science when it comes to predictions. It relies on models and models are notoriously bad substitute for the real world.
No they are not.
They are not perfect substitute for the real world, but they are nowhere need "notoriously bad".
I would be interested in where you got this impression from?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alan,
We still have 3 guys in this thread who are denying the theory that man is responsible for climate change, they are my top priority. ;) There is a lot of work because they are also denying science and statistics... but we can't give up. ;)
Now, how to allocate resources is a complex topic that involves both public and private sector decisions as you know as well as I do.
There is no simple cursor that would enable citizens to decide to move funds from one area to another.
Beyond that:
1. Public sector: It is influenced by voters... to some extend. The connection between the voters will and the potical decisions of their representatives can be pretty slim though. Let's just look at the very strong opposition of the public in Japan against nuclear and how the Japanese government completely ignored it and went straight to trying to restart nuclear reactors as Fukushima was still smoking.
The biggest spending that is worthless, except for weapon dealers, is defense. This adds very little value to the progress of human kind. A lot less than it used to at least. Defense budgets more or less derive from global instability, so the best way to reduce them is to make the world more stable. Removing Trump from office would be a great first step as he is the single largest factor or instability on the planet. Not his administration, himself. The war on terror would not have had to be started had the US not attacked Irak on blatently false information. So being smart geopolitically is another way to reduce defense spendings... of course some conspiracy theorists will say that the war on Irak was designed to generate military spendinds, and I am close to agreement with them. But most citizens in the US don't agree with this, so increasing the democratic control of those in power needs to be done. I am not advocating to remove armies, only to reduce spendings to reasonnable levels.
It's interesting to notice that the level of military spending in Russia was divided by 10 from the cold war years to today... while it increase by 25% in the US during the same period... why? https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending (https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending)
So how much is spent by governments, in particular the US, on cancer research is mostly impacted by how much they are spending on defense. a lot more than what they are spending on the environment. Why not talk to your representatives on this first?
2. Private sector: this is driven by the prospect of financial gains. I believe that cancer and heart diseases being the major killers that they are are already the focus on huge investements from the private sector. Not sure how to increase them further. There is on the other hand great potential to refocus a lot of R&D energy from futile spendings (a new TV every 7-8 years isn't needed at all, 8K isn't needed at all,...) to useful ones that will reduce the environmental footprint of people while generating business opportunities for entrepreneurs. This is happening and is correlated to the perception of citizens about the need to become more eco minded. Works great in many countries and parts of the US.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, This is the second or third thread on this subject and we're up to 18 pages in this thread and you still haven;t convinced those three. Time to give up. Let's move the discussion along. You list some very important considerations as to how to decide to allocate resources. It's pretty complicated. And you didn't actually come up with any conclusions other than, let's take some from here and maybe from there and put it there and maybe over there too. So that's the point. It's complicated. You have to sit down and decide who's going to be short changed? What programs have to take a hit? Those are not only human questions, but economic and political. Someone has to decide which money, how much and where it is to go. How would you decide? How much should go into each program?
-
I believe that's what's called a "false dichotomy". One does not necessarily preclude the other. Just like going to the moon didn't eliminate any chance of fixing, I dunno, let's say "acid rain". Or smog. Or the ozone hole in Antarctica.
Some here offer the opinion: "Why should I care? I'll be dead before the supposed effects take place".
Others think: Oops! We've really made a big mistake here. We should do everything we can to fix it, otherwise, everyone is going to suffer extreme pain in the foreseeable future.
What's the worst that can happen? That we preserved an Earth with clean air, clear water and a relatively known set of climate conditions? All for nothing?
You don't have to do one or the other. I did ask in what proportions should each be done? See my last post for my fuller point.
-
... because they are also denying science and statistics...
That is just not true. Nobody denies science and statistics. We "deny" how it is (mis)used for political gain. Neither "science" nor statistics can be decision makers.
... The biggest spending that is worthless, except for weapon dealers, is defense. This adds very little value to the progress of human kind...
How untrue. Without that, Europe would be Nazi and half of the world communist. Getting rid of both is the progress of the mankind.
... Removing Trump from office would be a great first step as he is the single largest factor or instability on the planet...
That is just not serious, though I believe you seriously believe that.
... Another great example is the war on terror that would not have had to be started had the US not attacked Irak on blatently false information...
Remember that the first attempt at bombing the World Trade Center was in 1993, after the first Iraq war, which certainly wasn't started on false information, but Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Besides, radical Islamism is not coming from Iraq even after the second war.
-
No they are not.
They are not perfect substitute for the real world, but they are nowhere need "notoriously bad".
I would be interested in where you got this impression from?
Cheers,
Bernard
I hate to go back a step, but I just want to mention that hurricane models are based on the "real world" happening right now that you could then apply to what actually happened. Yet, even with years of forecasting real events, the four best models which take hours to run, have accuracies from 40%-60%. And the models each come up with different results, so which is right? Yet, we want to believe that a model or models predicting climate change out to 50-100 years from now are accurate based on one variable - CO2.
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp (https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp)
-
That is just not true. Nobody denies science and statistics. We "deny" how it is (mis)used for political gain. Neither "science" nor statistics can be decision makers.
How untrue. Without that, Europe would be Nazi and half of the world communist. Getting rid of both is the progress of the mankind.
That is just not serious, though I believe you seriously believe that.
Remember that the first attempt at bombing the World Trade Center was in 1993, after the first Iraq war, which certainly wasn't started on false information, but Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Besides, radical Islamism is not coming from Iraq even after the second war.
Slobodan,
I won't go in that direction as it would take the thread too far off track.
The exec summary is simply that reducing defense budget would be a way to invest in environment related topics. You disagree, fine.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I hate to go back a step, but I just want to mention that hurricane models are based on the "real world" happening right now that you could then apply to what actually happened. Yet, even with years of forecasting real events, the four best models which take hours to run, have accuracies from 40%-60%. And the models each come up with different results, so which is right? Yet, we want to believe that a model or models predicting climate change out to 50-100 years from now are accurate based on one variable - CO2.
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp (https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp)
Actually, weather calculations and forecasts are based on the past weather scenarios. In some aspects adjusted with the latest measurements, but the problem is that the old models are different from the latest weather conditions and often fool the forecast calculations.
-
Actually, weather calculations and forecasts are based on the past weather scenarios. In some aspects adjusted with the latest measurements, but the problem is that the old models are different from the latest weather conditions and often fool the forecast calculations.
Exactly my point. Climate change algorithms have no past performance to input into the algorithms. That makes it so much more difficult to get accurate models.
-
Nobody questions that. But climate science is not really science when it comes to predictions. It relies on models and models are notoriously bad substitute for the real world.
Slobo - I'm curious -what do you imagine a "model" to be?
-
No - the basic scientific situation is clear. There is no value in discussing it here, since neither you nor I have the knowledge or expertise to do so. It is however interesting to discuss what is the reason that deniers are given so much coverage.
No it is not. It is far from clear. There are numerous scientific papers that have been published for and against. Weather prediction and long time climate change prediction is highly uncertain. I actually understand a bit about it, because as a geologist I am used to look at climate data from Precambrian to recent times. Thus, if it is still highly uncertain, it needs to be discussed and given coverage to both sides.
-
The uncertainty is diminishing as the Scientific understanding improves, and things may turn out to be a little worse than previously thought ...
Well, recent research hints at an answer as Science gains a better understanding. It's likely to have a slight negative effect, resulting in less cooling.
In complex systems involving significant time scales there are often hints about various causes, and various degrees of 'likelihood', but usually little certainty.
I prefer to base my opinions on sound evidence which can be demonstrated with repeatable experiments, such as the evidence that increased levels of CO2 increase the growth of most plants.
As science progresses and gets a better understanding, what was previously accepted as being true is often found to be false. A couple of recent examples, which involve significant complexity, is the human genome, and the rate of expansion of the universe.
When the human genome was eventually sequenced, only the protein-coding genes, representing 1 to 2 % of the entire genome, were considered to be relevant. The other 98%, or more, was viewed as 'junk DNA', a left-over from our distant evolutionary past which no longer served a purpose.
This view is now considered to be false. Likewise, the expansion of the universe was considered to be slowing down, a view endorsed by the late Stephen Hawking, until more recent observations from the Hubble telescope revealed that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.
It wouldn't surprise me if the claimed main cause of the current warming, anthropogenic emissions of CO2, will eventually be found to be false. I have an open mind, unlike some people who unwittingly accept a fabricated consensus designed to create alarm.
I did some more internet searching for recent studies on this great uncertainty about the effects of water vapour and clouds, and can find no resolution which you suggest is occurring with recent research.
Here are some very recent studies:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41475 (Sancho-Lorenzo et al (2019)
"Clouds affect the global energy balance as they reflect a large fraction of the Sun’s incoming radiation and at the same time absorb and emit longwave radiation. Despite their relevance, large uncertainties remain with respect to the response and feedbacks of the clouds to anthropogenic forcing. Consequently they are considered as one of the main sources of uncertainty for climate sensitivity and future climate scenarios."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD030150 (Hentgen et al (2019)
"Although crucial for the Earth's climate, clouds are poorly represented in current climate models, which operate at too coarse grid resolutions and rely on convection parameterizations."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-019-00126-x (Nuijens and Siebesma (2019)
"Clouds in nature are more complex than the idealized cloud types that have informed our understanding of the cloud feedback. Remaining major uncertainties are the coupling of clouds to large-scale circulations and to the ocean, and mesoscale aggregation of clouds."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0417.1 (Ying and Thompson (2019)
".. there is still considerable uncertainty about the underlying mechanisms, whereby CRE (Cloud Radiative Effects) govern the jet response to climate change."
I think the very vague term, 'climate change denier', needs redefining as follows:
A 'climate change denier' is not one who denies that climate is changing, or one who denies that human activity has at least some effect on climate, but one who denies that there is great uncertainty about the significance of the proposed causes of the current change in climate, which is usually focused on CO2 emissions.
-
It's a bloody shame the oxymoron, "political science" already has been taken. It should be used to describe politicians pretending to be scientists. In other words, "climate scientists."
-
Here's some interesting recent research from the Chinese, on the possibility of future cooling in the near future, which might catch us unprepared. (But don't read it if you are a confirmed 'alarmist' entrenched in your views. You don't want to read alternative views on anything, do you!) ;D
https://principia-scientific.org/chinese-scientists-warn-of-imminent-global-cooling/
"Climate change is real, the climate changes — this fact is never disputed. A new study, led by prominent Chinese scientists, has found that winters in northern China have been warming for the past 6,000 years –unrelated to human activity– but now the prospect of a sudden and severe bout of global cooling is on the horizon and poses a serious danger."
"The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker for thousands of years, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. And that’s another thing AGW alarmists fail to address — increasing temperatures ALWAYS result in increased biodiversity. Life loves warmth, and, furthermore, it loves carbon."
"Wu and her colleagues are worried that, as societies become further indoctrinated by the concept of global warming, people will develop a misplaced confidence in our ability to control the climate — which we cannot. Nature, they warned, will likely trick us and catch us totally unprepared — potentially causing chaos, panic, famine and even wars."
-
Here's some interesting recent research from the Chinese, on the possibility of future cooling in the near future, which might catch us unprepared. (But don't read it if you are a confirmed 'alarmist' entrenched in your views. You don't want to read alternative views on anything, do you!) ;D
https://principia-scientific.org/chinese-scientists-warn-of-imminent-global-cooling/
"Climate change is real, the climate changes — this fact is never disputed. A new study, led by prominent Chinese scientists, has found that winters in northern China have been warming for the past 6,000 years –unrelated to human activity– but now the prospect of a sudden and severe bout of global cooling is on the horizon and poses a serious danger."
"The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker for thousands of years, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. And that’s another thing AGW alarmists fail to address — increasing temperatures ALWAYS result in increased biodiversity. Life loves warmth, and, furthermore, it loves carbon."
"Wu and her colleagues are worried that, as societies become further indoctrinated by the concept of global warming, people will develop a misplaced confidence in our ability to control the climate — which we cannot. Nature, they warned, will likely trick us and catch us totally unprepared — potentially causing chaos, panic, famine and even wars."
That's what I concluded if you read my previous posts. And I'm not even Chinese.
-
It's a bloody shame the oxymoron, "political science" already has been taken. It should be used to describe politicians pretending to be scientists. In other words, "climate scientists."
Can you support this claim by documenting climate scientists without scientific credentials?
Or are you just spouting hot air?
-
Can you support this claim by documenting climate scientists without scientific credentials?
Duh, Jeremy. What makes you think "scientific credentials" have anything to do with it? Most politicians have plenty of credentials. "Climate scientists" are politicians with science credentials.
-
1. Public sector: It is influenced by voters... to some extend. The connection between the voters will and the potical decisions of their representatives can be pretty slim though. Let's just look at the very strong opposition of the public in Japan against nuclear and how the Japanese government completely ignored it and went straight to trying to restart nuclear reactors as Fukushima was still smoking.
The biggest spending that is worthless, except for weapon dealers, is defense. This adds very little value to the progress of human kind. A lot less than it used to at least. Defense budgets more or less derive from global instability, so the best way to reduce them is to make the world more stable.
It's interesting to notice that the level of military spending in Russia was divided by 10 from the cold war years to today... while it increased by 25% in the US during the same period... why? https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending
So how much is spent by governments, in particular the US, on cancer research is mostly impacted by how much they are spending on defense. a lot more than what they are spending on the environment. Why not talk to your representatives on this first?
There is a huge lobby for biomedical research in the US and the funding for the National Institutes of Health always seems to come out OK on a yearly basis. There may be disagreements about how that money is being spent. There was an article in the paper today that research on Sickle Cell Disease which affects 100K African Americans get very little funding relative to other diseases of a similar patient size that mainly affect white Americans (they used Cystic Fibrosis as the example). Cancer research is still the largest funded area.
2. Private sector: this is driven by the prospect of financial gains. I believe that cancer and heart diseases being the major killers that they are are already the focus on huge investements from the private sector. Not sure how to increase them further.
Cheers,
Bernard
Very little private sector money is being spent on heart disease research. We already have good cholesterol and blood pressure medications and anything new will be too incremental. A lot of industry R&D is focused on cancer research.
-
That's what I concluded if you read my previous posts. And I'm not even Chinese.
Yes, I know, Alan. I was merely providing a link to some scientific research which expressed a similar view. The initial claim in the first post of this thread is that any skepticism about CO2-caused climate change, and any skepticism that it will most likely have disastrous consequences, is not scientifically justified because of an overwhelming consensus of certainty on the issue.
-
There is a huge lobby for biomedical research in the US and the funding for the National Institutes of Health always seems to come out OK on a yearly basis. There may be disagreements about how that money is being spent. There was an article in the paper today that research on Sickle Cell Disease which affects 100K African Americans get very little funding relative to other diseases of a similar patient size that mainly affect white Americans (they used Cystic Fibrosis as the example). Cancer research is still the largest funded area.
Very little private sector money is being spent on heart disease research. We already have good cholesterol and blood pressure medications and anything new will be too incremental. A lot of industry R&D is focused on cancer research.
I think we should take all that funding that goes to solar rebates and spend it on Deer Ticks and Lyme disease. Over 300,000 Americans (reported) will get it this year. It's traveling to other parts of the world as well. Leaving aside photographers who like to get out in the woods to shoot nature, like me :) kids and others are picking it up in their back yards and lawns. It's a scourge. And getting a lot worse, maybe even due to climate change. ;) Like the Chinese and me have said, warmer means greater biodiversity. It's good for nature.
-
Yes, I know, Alan. I was merely providing a link to some scientific research which expressed a similar view. The initial claim in the first post of this thread is that any skepticism about CO2-caused climate change, and any skepticism that it will most likely have disastrous consequences, is not scientifically justified because of an overwhelming consensus of certainty on the issue.
The problem is not just CO2 but greenhouse gasses in general. CO2 is looked at first as it can be controlled through various technological approaches. That CO2 is a green house gas is a scientific fact.
-
I think we should take all that funding that goes to solar rebates and spend it on Deer Ticks and Lyme disease. Over 300,000 Americans (reported) will get it this year. It's traveling to other parts of the world as well. Leaving aside photographers who like to get out in the woods to shoot nature, like me :) kids and others are picking it up in their back yards and lawns. It's a scourge. And getting a lot worse, maybe even due to climate change. ;) Like the Chinese and me have said, warmer means greater biodiversity. It's good for nature.
You have to deal with the animal lovers who don't want the culling of deer in the mid-Atlantic region. We have a huge deer problem in our area (one jumped in front of my wife's car two days ago at mid-day). there is a lot of vaccine research going on but no good candidate has emerged.
-
Yes, I know, Alan. I was merely providing a link to some scientific research which expressed a similar view. The initial claim in the first post of this thread is that any skepticism about CO2-caused climate change, and any skepticism that it will most likely have disastrous consequences, is not scientifically justified because of an overwhelming consensus of certainty on the issue.
It doesn;t take science research to understand it, just common sense. The deserts are dry and the polar regions are cold. These two areas have the least biodiversity. On the other hand, the Amazon region, with its constant rain and tropical temperatures, have the most biodiversity. As the earth wams, and arable land and other natural land expands vegetation into the once former colder regions, the browsers will expand their populations to eat that vegetation and the carnivores will expand as well to eat those browsers. Deer Ticks with Lyme will follow, unfortunately. But nature is more successful if we use standard measurements we have always used. Warmth is good. Of course, the warmists will continue to complain about the polar bear which is not reducing its population to any real degree in any case. It will adapt anyway. Meanwhile there's 100 other species that benefit a lot more by warmer climate. Just common sense, something in short supply in much of the scientific community.
-
I think we should take all that funding that goes to solar rebates and spend it on Deer Ticks and Lyme disease.
Writing your Congressman would be a good place to start. And I thought you advocated leaving those things to the market and keeping government out of it.
-
You have to deal with the animal lovers who don't want the culling of deer in the mid-Atlantic region. We have a huge deer problem in our area (one jumped in front of my wife's car two days ago at mid-day). there is a lot of vaccine research going on but no good candidate has emerged.
There are dead deer all along our roads here in New Jersey. YOu can see herds of them as they come out to feed right before sundown. I try to drive with my brights on so I can see the reflection in their eyes before I actually see (or hit) one. Hundreds of people die every year in car collisions with them. And then there's the Lyme disease. Of course, warming trends have supported higher populations of deer and deer ticks. Also, the white footed mouse is a major vector participant in the disease. They too populate more in warmer weather. What usually happens though, is your get one extremely cold winter And there just isn't enough food for all those extra deer. And then the population collapses and 70% die in that one year. Culling these herds through hunting actually save the remainder who could then find enough food to feed themselves.
-
Duh, Jeremy. What makes you think "scientific credentials" have anything to do with it? Most politicians have plenty of credentials. "Climate scientists" are politicians with science credentials.
More spouting, Russ. No evidence, just spouting.
-
More spouting, Russ. No evidence, just spouting.
Perfectly fits this thread, though, doesn't it?
-
Here's some interesting recent research from the Chinese, ...
Please, post a link to the scientific paper, because your source (PSI) is not reliable (see attachment), and I cannot find the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Websites that peddle disinformation make millions of dollars in ads, new study finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/18/tech/advertising-disinformation-money-reliable-sources/index.html
New York (CNN Business) As the United States gears up for another presidential election, aware of the role online disinformation played in 2016, the business of publishing false or extremist content online remains a lucrative one.
At least $235 million in revenue is generated annually from ads running on extremist and disinformation websites, according to a new study from the Global Disinformation Index provided exclusively to CNN ahead of its September release. That means the people behind websites propagating hate or false information don't just have an ideological influence — they can also make big money from advertisers who often are unhappy or unaware that their brand name is being displayed alongside content they do not endorse.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Wow! What a shocking discovery. ;D ;D ;D
-
Websites that peddle disinformation make millions of dollars in ads, new study finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/18/tech/advertising-disinformation-money-reliable-sources/index.html (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/18/tech/advertising-disinformation-money-reliable-sources/index.html)
Cheers,
Bart
You mean like the cable news websites that peddle misinformation as well? CNN, MSNBC, FOX, PBS. What about the old broadcast stations that peddle misinformation too like ABC, NBC and CBS?
-
Please, post a link to the scientific paper, because your source (PSI) is not reliable (see attachment), and I cannot find the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Cheers,
Bart
Good point. I'm at least glad you attempted to find and read the research paper. However, there appears to be a slight (grammatical?) error in the PSI article. The research paper is soon to be published, but it hasn't been published yet. At least it is a very recent study, so it should impress you because you are so convinced that science gets closer to the truth with more research. ;)
From the following site: https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/is-global-cooling-on-the-way
"The South China Post reports that Chinese Academy of Science’s Dr. Wu Jing of the Key Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology and Environment is the lead author on a paper soon to be published by the online Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
According to the Post’s story, the authors studied a part of Northern China for 12 years and concluded that winters in northern China may have been warming since 4,000 BC. Wu is quoted as saying, “Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean. We have detected no evidence of human influence.”
P.S. Having re-read the PSI article, I see they state "The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research...."
I imagine there will be a time lag between acceptance and publication as a few issues are rephrased or re-written, a few mistakes corrected, and a few points clarified.
-
Slobo - I'm curious -what do you imagine a "model" to be?
-
You mean like the cable news websites that peddle misinformation as well? CNN, MSNBC, FOX, PBS. What about the old broadcast stations that peddle misinformation too like ABC, NBC and CBS?
What a bizarre statement.
-
Deflection noted.
-
The problem is not just CO2 but greenhouse gasses in general...
I am all for getting rid of greenhouses. My grandma used to go every morning to a farmers market to buy fresh produce that came from the fields, not greenhouses. So, yeah, down with greenhouses!
-
Writing your Congressman would be a good place to start. And I thought you advocated leaving those things to the market and keeping government out of it.
Maybe because it’s the government, not the market, that started solar rebates in the first place?
-
Websites that peddle disinformation make millions of dollars in ads, new study finds
OMG, and I thought it all is just a Putin conspiracy!
-
Something for the “97% confidence” crowd: 🤣
-
Something for the “97% confidence” crowd: 🤣
You might want to consider where you fall on that curve, relative to say an MIT climate scientist.
-
That is just not true. Nobody denies science and statistics. We "deny" how it is (mis)used for political gain. Neither "science" nor statistics can be decision makers.
What? Nobody denies science or statistics? Isn't that exactly what you guys keep doing? What happened to "Climate change is a hoax!". "The climate is always changing" ?
And, while we're at it, who precisely is using it for "political gain"? And how? What are they gaining? What do they stand to gain?
-
What a bizarre statement.
Why is it bizarre? They're all biased as well. So news is slanted to fit their political viewpoints. Nothing bizarre or new about that.
-
What? Nobody denies science or statistics? Isn't that exactly what you guys keep doing? What happened to "Climate change is a hoax!". "The climate is always changing" ?
And, while we're at it, who precisely is using it for "political gain"? And how? What are they gaining? What do they stand to gain?
For the same reason the left claims racism or sexism when there may not be any there. It's a way of dividing the public to secure votes and power. For industry, those in the renewable portion gain from government spending money on it or mandating new regulations that support it. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent. People are getting filthy rich.
-
For the same reason the left claims racism or sexism when there may not be any there. It's a way of dividing the public to secure votes and power. For industry, those in the renewable portion gain from government spending money on it or mandating new regulations that support it. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent. People are getting filthy rich.
So the climate scientists are conspiring with the renewable energy industry. What exactly do the climate scientists get out of the conspiracy? Which pizza parlor basement is the headquarters for this conspiracy?
-
So the climate scientists are conspiring with the renewable energy industry. What exactly do the climate scientists get out of the conspiracy? Which pizza parlor basement is the headquarters for this conspiracy?
Their jobs.
-
... What exactly do the climate scientists get...
Grants, funds, positions, being published, symposiums, academic advancement.
-
You might want to consider where you fall on that curve...
If you read my posts so far, I said several times this:
-
Why is it bizarre? They're all biased as well. So news is slanted to fit their political viewpoints. Nothing bizarre or new about that.
As are all of your posts. Why should be believe you instead of FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, InfoWars, (the list can go on for a long time). One has to study issues and get a conceptual understanding of the problem (this is why we all went to college, at least in theory). There is a huge literature on climate change and various news sources try to interpret it. Some are more successful than others.
-
...(this is why we all went to college, at least in theory)...
I wouldn't assume everybody went to college. Some of the arguments don't seem to be very nuanced.
-
Grants, funds, positions, being published, symposiums, academic advancement.
So the whole (well, 97%) of the science community have invented climate change in order to advance their careers?
Bit of a reach, I’d say. Nice try, though.
-
People are getting filthy rich.
So it’s better for people to get filthy rich by digging one-time-use stuff out of the ground and burning it to keep the lights on? As opposed to getting filthy rich by figuring out ways to make that same energy from endlessly renewable, natural sources?
-
So the whole (well, 97%) of the science community have invented climate change in order to advance their careers?
Bit of a reach, I’d say. Nice try, though.
You mean you don't believe Exxon?? Shame on you!!
Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths. That's happened, right?
-
So the whole (well, 97%) of the science community have invented climate change in order to advance their careers?
First, there is no 97%, but about a third. Second, it doesn't work in such direct, devious ways you suggest. It is more subtle. Scientists are human, and humans respond to incentives. So, if funds and grants are provided, invitations to symposiums offered, chances of being published and academically and professionally promoted, mostly to those that toe the party line, that is where the scientists would go. Just human.
-
First, there is no 97%, but about a third.
Wrong, as Bernard explained. I'm wondering if you understand what's written and choose to ignore it, or if you just don't understand it?
-
... Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths...
Just as with hurricane path and strength prediction models, no bugs, no fake data, and no bad maths... just bad (inaccurate) results.
-
Just as with hurricane path and strength prediction models, no bugs, no fake data, and no bad maths... just bad (inaccurate) results.
There's probably a Nobel prize waiting for you when you write up your reasoned rebuttal. Not holding my breath.
-
You mean you don't believe Exxon?? Shame on you!!
Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths. That's happened, right?
Well, Royal Dutch Shell made a video documentary in 1991 (I've shared the link before), and it is pretty frank about the impact of fossil-fuel on our climate:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo
Cheers,
Bart
-
Just as with hurricane path and strength prediction models, no bugs, no fake data, and no bad maths... just bad (inaccurate) results.
What do you mean with "inaccurate results"?
-
Wrong, as Bernard explained. I'm wondering if you understand what's written and choose to ignore it, or if you just don't understand it?
Bernard is an ordained priest in the new church, so not to be trusted ;)
I posted earlier (months earlier) in some other climate threads a link to the "97%" debunking article. I can not be bothered to look it up again. Those researchers who did not take a position on the human influence were counted into the 97% as if they supported it. And many other points that debunk the "97%" nonsense. Besides, having an almost 100% consensus on unproven theories is simply antithetical to science. "Trust me, it is more complicated than that," as the chart I posted says.
-
So, if funds and grants are provided, invitations to symposiums offered, chances of being published and academically and professionally promoted, mostly to those that toe the party line, that is where the scientists would go. Just human.
Maybe your kind of human, but not the humans I know.
You've just denigrated all scientists, authors of much of what we now call "progress". You know, smallpox eradication, GPS, the Internet, dune buggies on Mars, IBIS, drive-thru hamburgers... :)
Now, for some scientists working for Big Pharma, sure. We have lots of evidence that those scientists do that as a matter of course. And I'm sure that there are SOME scientists that align their work (and their results) in order to further their careers. But to tar all of scientists with that same brush? Again, bit of a stretch. Pretty cynical, too, if you ask me.
-
... But to tar all of scientists with that same brush? Again, bit of a stretch. Pretty cynical, too, if you ask me.
To tar all of scientists as human? Some stretch, indeed.
-
To tar all of scientists as human? Some stretch, indeed.
Always with the gross rhetorical exaggeration. :(
-
Always with the gross rhetorical exaggeration. :(
As you did with:
... You've just denigrated all scientists...
-
First, there is no 97%, but about a third. Second, it doesn't work in such direct, devious ways you suggest. It is more subtle. Scientists are human, and humans respond to incentives. So, if funds and grants are provided, invitations to symposiums offered, chances of being published and academically and professionally promoted, mostly to those that toe the party line, that is where the scientists would go. Just human.
+1
-
You mean you don't believe Exxon?? Shame on you!!
Too bad those dozy climate folks put all their data, methods and programmes in the public arena so all someone has to do to prove them wrong is find the bugs, the fake data and the bad maths. That's happened, right?
Unlike hurricane and weather predictions and algorithms, there's no way to test climate change that's going to happen 50 years from now. Even with the ability to see real-time data about hurricanes and current weather, those algorithms still aren't totally accurate. In many cases, they're way off. So how can we be so sure of predicting climate decades from now? Anyone who has programed a computer knows there are bugs in the software. It has to run a while to get them out. Well, that's hard to do with climate since we're looking way into the future. Yet, we've got the future all figured out.
I don't think so.
-
As you did with:
... You've just denigrated all scientists...
Fair enough. I'll edit it to say "scientists".
-
Unlike hurricane and weather predictions and algorithms, there's no way to test climate change that's going to happen 50 years from now. Even with the ability to see real-time data about hurricanes and current weather, those algorithms still aren't totally accurate. In many cases, they're way off. So how can we be so sure of predicting climate decades from now? Anyone who has programed a computer knows there are bugs in the software. It has to run a while to get them out. Well, that's hard to do with climate since we're looking way into the future. Yet, we've got the future all figured out. I don't think so.
Just yesterday you were a "maybe" about anthropomorphic climate change. Did you talk yourself out of it last night.
-
Just yesterday you were a "maybe" about anthropomorphic climate change. Did you talk yourself out of it last night.
I have two areas of questions. The first is whether man is changing the climate and if so, by how much? I think that's a possibility but I'm not sure by how much if so. There seems to be a lot of prejudicial bias in the reporting.
The second is, if the climate is changing, what methods and resources should be used, if any, to ameliorate the change or will it actually be better to leave it alone and let it get warmer?
-
I have two areas of questions. The first is whether man is changing the climate and if so, by how much? I think that's a possibility but I'm not sure by how much if so. There seems to be a lot of prejudicial bias in the reporting.
The second is, if the climate is changing, what methods and resources should be used, if any, to ameliorate the change or will it actually be better to leave it alone and let it get warmer?
Reminds me of the paradox of Buridan's ass. At some point you have to make a decision, even if it is to do nothing. Are you waiting on more information? And when it comes, are you going to trust it? You don't seem like the trusting kind, so I can't think more information is going to be a help.
-
. . .what methods and resources should be used, if any, to ameliorate the change or will it actually be better to leave it alone and let it get warmer?
Alan, in spite of the crap that gets put out about it, there are no "methods or resources" that can ameliorate the change, and we're going to leave it alone, because that's all we can do other than running around like a chicken with its head cut off, yelling "the sky is falling." "The sky is falling."
-
Reminds me of the paradox of Buridan's ass. At some point you have to make a decision, even if it is to do nothing. Are you waiting on more information? And when it comes, are you going to trust it? You don't seem like the trusting kind, so I can't think more information is going to be a help.
Russ just summed it up for me. Since there doesn;t seem to be anyway we can change it, there's not much to do. Since I feel that warming overall is better for us, let it get warmer.
-
Even with the ability to see real-time data about hurricanes and current weather, those algorithms still aren't totally accurate.
We could always ignore storm warnings since they are never totally accurate. Of course that is a flippant remark but the key point is that regardless of the margin of error, the ability to predict severe weather is far greater today than it was 20 or more years ago. I remember the horrible 2012 derecho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho) that cause much damage over a very wide swath of land. We had warnings of the potential for huge power outages when the storm was in Ohio and beginning to amplify the power and spread. We were one of the lucky areas where power was lost 'only' for 14 hours. We had neighbors only a 1/4 mile away who were out of power for a week.
Advance notice of hurricanes permit more rational evacuation decisions.
It's also worth pointing out that one of the predictions accompanying global warming was for more frequent violent weather events. That is certainly our experience as we have seen more thunderstorm activity and high wind events.
-
We could always ignore storm warnings since they are never totally accurate. Of course that is a flippant remark but the key point is that regardless of the margin of error, the ability to predict severe weather is far greater today than it was 20 or more years ago. I remember the horrible 2012 derecho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_North_American_derecho) that cause much damage over a very wide swath of land. We had warnings of the potential for huge power outages when the storm was in Ohio and beginning to amplify the power and spread. We were one of the lucky areas where power was lost 'only' for 14 hours. We had neighbors only a 1/4 mile away who were out of power for a week.
Advance notice of hurricanes permit more rational evacuation decisions.
It's also worth pointing out that one of the predictions accompanying global warming was for more frequent violent weather events. That is certainly our experience as we have seen more thunderstorm activity and high wind events.
Again you missed my point totally. It had nothing to do with predicting hurricanes. The point was that climate change prediction can't be even as accurate as hurricane prediction because you'd have to wait 50 to test it.
-
Russ just summed it up for me. Since there doesn;t seem to be anyway we can change it, there's not much to do. Since I feel that warming overall is better for us, let it get warmer.
At least you acknowledge that it is getting warmer. That's at least something.
-
Russ just summed it up for me. Since there doesn;t seem to be anyway we can change it, there's not much to do.
Right. We'll just sit back and watch.
Just like we did with acid rain. And the ozone hole. And Los Angles smog. And London fogs. And Thalidomide. And all the other mistakes we made, and learned from.
We'll just sit back and watch. Even though it's our kids and grand kids who will suffer the most. WTF, we'll be gone.
-
Right. We'll just sit back and watch.
Just like we did with acid rain. And the ozone hole. And Los Angles smog. And London fogs. And Thalidomide. And all the other mistakes we made, and learned from.
We'll just sit back and watch. Even though it's our kids and grand kids who will suffer the most. WTF, we'll be gone.
But I said I think warming will be good for the earth and its inhabitants. So it's you who want to hurt our grandchildren.
-
But I said I think warming will be good for the earth and its inhabitants. So it's you who want to hurt our grandchildren.
Hopefully, that's another one of your jokes.
No smilie, though, so it's just an assumption on my part.
-
Since I feel that warming overall is better for us, let it get warmer.
As stated here a few times before, the warming is also better for mosquitoes, ticks, pine beetles, japanese beetles, wasps, and other not so beneficial insects. And that means that humans will be exposed also to more Deet, pesticides and other similar concoctions.
Arctic mosquito swarms contain hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of insects. That's enough to harass a pregnant caribou until she stops worrying about food. And it's enough to kill caribou calves outright. They inundate entire herds and the caribou's only defense is to flee, leading to decreased eating and further stress on the population.
https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-warming-produces-mosquito-swarms-large-enough-to-kill-baby-cari-1882096019.html
Alarming is also the prolific reproduction of rodents in hot weather. Did you know that mice can become pregnant just 2 days after giving birth and can reproduce up to ten times a year?
With ample shelter and food sources, mice and rodents are allowed to breed and multiply relatively unchecked throughout the summer. They have plenty of space to live outdoors, and with temperatures warm enough rodents feel safe enough to procreate as much as possible. During summer months mice also typically feed off of crops and live in fields. Sometimes, they build shelters underground close to food sources. Mice can reproduce multiple times a year, sometimes as much as 10 times a year. Interestingly, mice can even become pregnant after as little as two days after giving birth. This is why when they are left unchecked during the summer months, they can quickly build up large numbers.
https://www.rovepestcontrol.com/what-do-mice-do-in-the-summer/
-
As stated here a few times before, the warming is also better for mosquitoes, ticks, pine beetles, japanese beetles, wasps, and other not so beneficial insects. And that means that humans will be exposed also to more Deet, pesticides and other similar concoctions.
https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-warming-produces-mosquito-swarms-large-enough-to-kill-baby-cari-1882096019.html
Alarming is also the prolific reproduction of rodents in hot weather. Did you know that mice can become pregnant just 2 days after giving birth and can reproduce up to ten times a year?
https://www.rovepestcontrol.com/what-do-mice-do-in-the-summer/
So mosquitoes will move into areas that are getting warmer where there were no mosquitoes before and where there were no caribou either for them to feed on. All I see is that both species will grow in population and territory, two defining criteria of successful species. Also, human population will expand into those areas as well to be bothered by mosquitoes yet have caribou to live off of. More successful humans. More bears, more trees, more birds, more snakes, more frogs, more fish, more of everything. How's that bad. That's how nature works. All good stuff. Warming is good.
-
60 years ago, science assured us that fluoride in water was safe despite huge public complaints about being forced to drink fluoridated water. Now, it turns out all those crazy, non-scientists were right. IQ's drop in children especially boys, some of whom are probably posting right here now. Hey wait. That's me. :)
"New study raises questions about how fluoride affects children's development"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html)
-
Again you missed my point totally. It had nothing to do with predicting hurricanes. The point was that climate change prediction can't be even as accurate as hurricane prediction because you'd have to wait 50 to test it.
This is a wrong assumption.
Inability to model accurately a micro phenomemon doesn't imply inability to model a large scale one encompassing the micro level one.
We have tons of examples of this.
Just to give you one, until recently it was totally impossible to predict accurately the turbulent flow around some parts of the sail of a sailing boat, yet it was perfectly possible to simulate the macro behavior of the sail.
cheers,
Bernard
-
60 years ago, science assured us that fluoride in water was safe despite huge public complaints about being forced to drink fluoridated water. Now, it turns out all those crazy, non-scientists were right. IQ's drop in children especially boys, some of whom are probably posting right here now. Hey wait. That's me. :)
"New study raises questions about how fluoride affects children's development"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/19/health/fluoride-neurotoxin-canada-study/index.html)
Yes, science has been wrong in the past.
We should completely stop listening to the scientists. We should also expand this approach to all the other categories of people who have been wrong before: the intelligence community, politicians, industrialists,...
Because we have much better options and much more relevant sources of information we can trust... we have internet and in particular the LL forum with Russ, Alan and Slobodan. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is a wrong assumption.
Inability to model accurately a micro phenomemon doesn't imply inability to model a large scale one encompassing the micro level one.
We have tons of examples of this.
Just to give you one, until recently it was totally impossible to predict accurately the turbulent flow around some parts of the sail of a sailing boat, yet it was perfectly possible to simulate the macro behavior of the sail.
cheers,
Bernard
However, until it's tested, you don't know if this is true about Climate Change. For that, you'll have to wait 50 years maybe longer.
-
Yes, science has been wrong in the past.
We should completely stop listening to the scientists. We should also expand this approach to all the other categories of people who have been wrong before: the intelligence community, politicians, industrialists,...
Because we have much better options and much more relevant sources of information we can trust... we have internet and in particular the LL forum with Russ, Alan and Slobodan. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm not anti-science, just realistic. Many scientific studies and subsequent predictions have been wrong. One of my pet peeves is food. Frst, one thing is good for you and another isn't. Then ten years later, science reverses itself. It never ends.
In fact just today, I saw a film at the hospital where I'm going for cardio exercises since my heart surgery. The old theory was, "no pain, no gain" when it came to strength exercises. Now the theory is to stop when you feel pain, you don't want to hurt yourself. There's more of a go slow approach then it use to be. Additionally, my cardiologist is telling me he doesn;t care how much red meat and fat I eat. Just stay away from carbs, he says. Watch how many people will post here that my cardiologist is crazy.
So why should anyone trust anything. You have to take things with a grain of salt, especially on such politically charged issues like global warming and climate change.
-
This new clean energy technology may make solar and wind as well as burning oil and coal obsolete.
"Scientists extract hydrogen gas from oil and bitumen, giving potential pollution-free energy"
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html (https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html)
-
However, until it's tested, you don't know if this is true about Climate Change. For that, you'll have to wait 50 years maybe longer.
By definition you will have to wait 50 years to know with 100% certainty what will happen in 50 years.
But managing uncertainty is what we do. In every single field of human activity.
And we trust best in class science to take decisions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This new clean energy technology may make solar and wind as well as burning oil and coal obsolete.
"Scientists extract hydrogen gas from oil and bitumen, giving potential pollution-free energy"
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html (https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bitumen.html)
Sounds interesting.
You can buy an hydrogen car for 70,000 US$ in Japan. I was sitting in one 24 hours ago.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sounds interesting.
You can but an hydrogen car for 70,000 US$ in Japan. I was sitting in one 24 hours ago.
Cheers,
Bernard
NYC has some hydrogen buses on it's streets. I think they're $2-3 million each. While there's no pollution, I assume they still produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and water vapor. We'll see how real and cost effective it is. Our commitment to wind and solar may have been too premature. On the other hand, warmer is better. I'm really conflicted. :)
-
My cardiologist is telling me he doesn;t care how much red meat and fat I eat. Just stay away from carbs, he says. Watch how many people will post here that my cardiologist is crazy.
Not necessarily crazy, just uninformed and not very competent. But he must have a good business acumen. It's far more profitable to be prescribing cholesterol reducing pills, blood thinners, beta blockers, and mood altering drugs than telling his patients to eat broccoli and black beans with rice. If he really wanted help his patients, he should read first a few books by Dr. Colin Campbell, Caldwell Esselstyn, Joel Fuhrman, John McDougall, Dean Ornish, Neal Barnard, Michael Greger, and others listed below. Even one Alan Goldhamer, DC. They all agree that red meat is worse than carbs.
https://nutriciously.com/vegan-doctors/
OTOH, you can keep eating Dr. Atkins diet, who practiced what he preached, got quite obese and predictably died of a heart attack.
Analysis of more than 2,440 men found that those with a high protein intake faced a 33 per cent increased risk of developing heart failure, where the organ is unable to pump sufficient blood and oxygen around the body.
Those who ate the most protein from animal sources had a 43 per cent higher risk of heart failure compare to those in the study who ate the least.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/05/29/atkins-diet-may-cause-heart-failure-major-new-protein-study/
-
NYC has some hydrogen buses on it's streets. I think they're $2-3 million each. While there's no pollution, I assume they still produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and water vapor. We'll see how real and cost effective it is. Our commitment to wind and solar may have been too premature. On the other hand, warmer is better. I'm really conflicted. :)
They only produce electricity and water. No pollutants, including CO2.
Solar and win would still have important roles to play.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As stated here a few times before, the warming is also better for mosquitoes, ticks, pine beetles, japanese beetles, wasps, and other not so beneficial insects. And that means that humans will be exposed also to more Deet, pesticides and other similar concoctions.
Les,
I think the concept is that life in general tends to thrive in warmer climates. It's not rational to expect that a beneficial change in the climate, such as the current warming, will only have benefits for chosen, specific species, such as mosquitoes and rats, or weeds in the case of increased plant growth.
With increased warmth, increased precipitation, and increased CO2 levels, the whole biosystem thrives, including plants in particular which are the foundation of all animal life, as well as mosquitoes, spiders, snakes, buffaloes, tigers, lions, mice, rats and even humans.
Whilst mosquitoes are particularly annoying because they transfer diseases which happen to be harmful to us, or at least some of us, such as Malaria, they also serve as food for natural predators, such as birds, bats, dragonflies and spiders. Also, the larvae of mosquitoes, which live in water, provide food for fish and other wildlife.
The success of our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, has resulted from our ability to adapt to the environment and take advantage of the opportunities that arise. I don't think anyone would want the climate to return to the last Ice Age when sea levels were 120 metres lower than today, yet those low sea levels were in some respects a boon for our distant ancestors because it allowed them to wander off in search of greener pastures, over land which is now covered in oceans.
The Aboriginals arrived in Australia about 60,000 years ago, yet they did not have boats. They walked into Australia. The early exodus of our distant ancestors from Africa could not have taken place without very low sea levels.
As sea levels gradually rose due to a warming climate, our early, primitive ancestors began to congregate in larger groups, creating the beginning of 'civilization'.
So far, the archaeological evidence suggests that those first signs of an emerging civilization occurred about 11,500 years ago in Turkey, at a site known as Gobekli Tepe. It's a truly amazing discovery.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/gobekli-tepe
https://www.ranker.com/list/facts-about-gobekli-tepe-turkish-archaeological-site/stephanroget
The following article provides a quite detailed overview of the situation, but alarmists beware, this alternative view might cause great stress. ;)
https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
"If mankind had to choose between a warmer or a cooler climate, humans, most other animals and, after adjustment, most plants would be better off with higher temperatures. Not all animals or plants would prosper under these conditions; many are adapted to the current weather and might have difficulty making the transition. Society might wish to help natural systems and various species adapt to warmer temperatures (or cooler, should that occur). Whether the climate will warm is far from certain; that it will change is unquestionable. The weather has changed in the past and will no doubt continue to vary in the future. Human activity is likely to play only a small and uncertain role in climate change. The burning of fossil fuel may generate an enhanced greenhouse effect or the release into the atmosphere of particulates may cause cooling. It may also be simply hubris to believe that Homo Sapiens can affect temperatures, rainfall and winds.
As noted, not all regions or all peoples benefit from a shift to a warmer climate. Some locales may become too dry or too wet; others may become too warm. Certain areas may be subject to high pressure systems which block storms and rains. Other parts may experience the reverse. On the whole, though, mankind should benefit from an upward tick in the thermometer. Warmer weather means longer growing seasons, more rainfall overall, and fewer and less violent storms. The optimal way to deal with potential climate change is not to strive to prevent it, a useless activity in any case, but to promote growth and prosperity so that people will have the resources to deal with any shift."
-
23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.
-
23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.
Oh! Yes! They have offered a solution, Slobodan. Reduce CO2 emissions so we can get back to the wonderful days before the Industrial Revolution when the climate was so benign and everyone was safe from the effects of droughts, floods and hurricanes. ;D
-
... Reduce CO2 emissions...
That’s a “solution” the same way as telling a hungry man he should eat something. The question is how (never mind “why,” for the sake of argument). So far we heard only idiotic solutions form a certified idiot, Karla Marx and her followers: stop cow farting, stop flying, stop having children, bankrupt oil companies, blah, blah, blah.
-
That’s a “solution” the same way as telling a hungry man he should eat something. The question is how (never mind “why,” for the sake of argument). So far we heard only idiotic solutions form a certified idiot, Karla Marx and her followers: stop cow farting, stop flying, stop having children, bankrupt oil companies, blah, blah, blah.
Of course it isn't a solution. :D I was being sarcastic, hoping that the non-inquisitive alarmists might begin to 'really think' about the issue, instead of blindly accepting a fabricated consensus.
-
... It's also worth pointing out that one of the predictions accompanying global warming was for more frequent violent weather events...
Yes, a shocking increase in violent events:
-
I'm not anti-science, just realistic. Many scientific studies and subsequent predictions have been wrong.
So your solution is just to believe what's convenient for you. Makes sense.
-
Yes, a shocking increase in violent events:
Indeed... the reason we hear more about them today is because they affect a lot more people. Like flooding: people build houses below maximum flood levels, and then wonder why their house was dragged by the water. In the island of Madeira 2 or 3 years ago strong rain caused slope mass movements that destroyed houses - houses that should have never been built there in the first place. Like building houses near the sea and then complaining that winter storms are harmful...
-
23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.
It's just arm waiving. I asked about 20 pages ago if we should revert to living in caves. It's like the NYMBY folks that are against hydrocarbon exploitation but show up in fossil fuel cars, go figure... I am all in favour of sustainable development, and making a rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful sources of energy.
-
23 pages and not a single alarmist has been able to answer a simple question: what can we do? Just whining about a “problem” with no solution offered. Well, ok, one solution is indeed offered: stop using plastic straws. Fine by me, I don’t use it anyway.
I have already answered twice.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's just arm waiving. I asked about 20 pages ago if we should revert to living in caves.
Why did you ask that? Did someone suggest that as a solution?
It's like <insert random anecdote here>
-
Les,
I think the concept is that life in general tends to thrive in warmer climates. It's not rational to expect that a beneficial change in the climate, such as the current warming, will only have benefits for chosen, specific species, such as mosquitoes and rats, or weeds in the case of increased plant growth.
Life may thrive but from the historical record, innovation does not.
-
It's just arm waiving. I asked about 20 pages ago if we should revert to living in caves. It's like the NYMBY folks that are against hydrocarbon exploitation but show up in fossil fuel cars, go figure... I am all in favour of sustainable development, and making a rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful sources of energy.
Reverting to living in caves is a ridiculous suggestion, known in the parlance as reductio ad absurdum argument. Since you are in favor of it, how about "making a rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful sources of energy." We can argue about what is rational under the circumstances. Hint: it doesn't involve caves.
-
Reverting to living in caves is a ridiculous suggestion, known in the parlance as reductio ad absurdum. Since you are in favor of it, how about making a rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful sources of energy. We can argue about what is rational under the circumstances.
No sweat, Fab, all you have to do is put up a windmill outside the cave and a few batteries inside the cave. Within the logic of the "climate change" people that would be a "rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful (except for the dead birds) sources of energy," At that point you can pat yourself on the back and make the point that you're no longer harming the universe.
-
In the 10 1/2 years I've been on LuLa I've seen some really silly threads, but this one wins the prize and takes the cake -- by leagues.
-
No sweat, Fab, all you have to do is put up a windmill outside the cave and a few batteries inside the cave. Within the logic of the "climate change" people that would be a "rational transition from fossil fuel to less harmful (except for the dead birds) sources of energy," At that point you can pat yourself on the back and make the point that you're no longer harming the universe.
Can you provide a link to a serious scientific paper that has suggested this? More fluff and nonsense from the Sunshine State.
-
Can you provide a link to a serious scientific paper that has suggested this? More fluff and nonsense from the Sunshine State.
America has had a long history of anti-intellectualism and it's growth began in the early 1800s and continues apace today. Richard Hoffstadter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism_in_American_Life) is the academic who has written well on the topic. More recently, Kurt Andersen's 'Fantasyland, How America went Haywire: A 500 Year History' surveys the territory in a more popular vein. There is always the classic work 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions or the Madness of Crowds' by Charles MacKay which is recognized as one of the best business books ever written (published in 1841 and available for free over at Project Gutenberg!!!). Eric Hoffer's 'The True Believer' is another good classic, explaining why mass movements arise. These all provide good explanations about many posts on this section of LuLa.
-
Reverting to living in caves is a ridiculous suggestion...
The retrograde trip to caves has already started. Minneapolis just banned single-family homes. The war on nuclear family is now official. Let's cram everyone into "komunalka." Soviet Union was right all along.
-
The retrograde trip to caves has already started. Minneapolis just banned single-family homes. The war on nuclear family is now official. Let's cram everyone into "komunalka." Soviet Union was right all along.
Is there something in the water you and RSL are drinking down there in Florida?
-
Is there something in the water you and RSL are drinking down there in Florida?
No, we are just drowning in the nose-deep waters due to the global warming and sea-level rise.
"One U.S. City Takes Aim at the Single-Family Home"
Red lawn signs warned ominously that neighborhoods of single-family homes would get bulldozed to make way for apartment buildings.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-07-31/to-fix-its-housing-crunch-one-u-s-city-takes-aim-at-the-single-family-home
-
"One U.S. City Takes Aim at the Single-Family Home"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-07-31/to-fix-its-housing-crunch-one-u-s-city-takes-aim-at-the-single-family-home
A friend suggested I point out that this is just land deregulation. The government is getting out of the business of decided what kind of housing can be built where. Let the market decide. Seems like the kind of thing you would champion.
-
A friend suggested I point out that this is just land deregulation. The government is getting out of the business of decided what kind of housing can be built where. Let the market decide. Seems like the kind of thing you would champion.
*Exactly* this. For those that didn't read Slobodan's like, the claim in misleading. Well, outright false, actually. Minneapolis didn't ban single family homes. Minneapolis banned single family home zoning, which means that a parcel of land may no longer be restricted to ONLY a single family home. To be fair, there are valid arguments to be made regarding neighborhood integrity, particularly with regard to historic and traffic concerns so it's not as straightforward as it might appear.
-
A friend suggested I point out that this is just land deregulation. The government is getting out of the business of decided what kind of housing can be built where. Let the market decide. Seems like the kind of thing you would champion.
Bwahahaha... The Left is embracing market forces and deregulation!? You can't make up this stuff. But congrats on the spin. Too bad the subtitle debunks the "deregulation" intention:
"Minneapolis’s answer to rising prices is meant to foster density and racial equity."
-
Bwahahaha... The Left is embracing market forces and deregulation!? You can't make up this stuff. But congrats on the spin. Too bad the subtitle debunks the "deregulation" intention:
"Minneapolis’s answer to rising prices is meant to foster density and racial equity."
So do you agree or disagree with deregulation? Or do you think it depends on purpose?
-
A friend suggested I point out that this is just land deregulation. The government is getting out of the business of decided what kind of housing can be built where. Let the market decide. Seems like the kind of thing you would champion.
Certainly people should decide how they should live where they live. If that's what they want, they should have it. It's going to create some interesting opportunities as well as problems. If you own a single family house, and some investor wants to build a high rise apartment building, you could stand to make a lot more by selling it to that investor than to just another single family home buyer.
On the other hand, larger complexes could make an influx of children very costly to educate. We have a problem in New Jersey where I live where it costs $18,000 per kid for public school. My area has loads of farms that are ideal for building home complexes. There are no trees or rocks to deal with and the land is pretty flat, all ideal for construction. So a lot of builders are building single family and condos and our school budget is going out of sight. Farmers who are old love it because they can get a lot of money for their land then if it was left only for farming. 65% of my property taxes are for kids I don;t know. :) In any case, we can't get money from our state government so property taxes keep going up. Not sure if that will be a problem in Minneapolis, but here is a major issue.
-
America has had a long history of anti-intellectualism and it's growth began in the early 1800s and continues apace today.
Exactly, Alan, and this thread illustrates the fact beyond any doubt.
-
In any case, we can't get money from our state government so property taxes keep going up.
If you did get money from state government, then your state income tax would go up. It's got to come from somewhere.
-
America has had a long history of anti-intellectualism ...
Being an intellectual means being able to think independently. So far the alarmists have displayed none of that, but just a herd-like mentality of siding with the "97%" crowd. Hardly qualifies as "intellectual."
-
So far the alarmists have displayed none of that, but just a herd-like mentality of siding with the "97%" crowd. Hardly qualifies as "intellectual."
May you never suffer a 50C day with no AC, nor have to walk through ankle-deep water in downtown Miami.
-
If you did get money from state government, then your state income tax would go up. It's got to come from somewhere.
The problem is some townships get state money and we don;t. So we're paying for those state taxes and not getting any back. Our representatives are morons who can't get their act together and fight for us. Yet, people keep re-electing them. More morons. ::)
-
America has had a long history of anti-intellectualism...
Indeed:
-
The government is getting out of the business of decided what kind of housing can be built where. Let the market decide.
Too bad the subtitle debunks the "deregulation" intention:
"Minneapolis’s answer to rising prices is meant to foster density and racial equity."
Actually, I think both points-of-view have some validity.
All zoning ordinances are a form of central planning.* As long as they remain in place, the governmental entity that enacts them is making authoritative decisions about how the privately-owned land within its boundaries may be used. Making the zoning rules less restrictive in certain areas of a city, as Minneapolis, Minnesota, is doing, increases the influence of market forces in those locations. However, the city's decision was driven by policy considerations: to make housing more affordable for young people and ethnic minorities who were effectively precluded from moving into certain "single-family" residential neighborhoods by the price of land.
Whether the policy will have its intended effect is an open question. Areas currently zoned for single-family homes in Minneapolis are composed of parcels of land that can only accommodate small two- or three-family buildings. This change in the zoning rules may not provide sufficient economic incentive for developers to purchase those parcels and invest in the construction of small multi-family residences.
―――――
*For those unfamiliar with U.S. land use practices, the individual states typically delegate to their governmental subdivisions (counties, cities, towns, etc.) the authority to enact land-use regimes, typically called "zoning ordinances," which regulate the way parcels of land within their boundaries can be used. The categories vary, but may include single-family residences, multi-family residences, high-density residences (i.e., large buildings containing many apartments or flats), office buildings, retail buildings, and various combinations of different categories. These regulations often are designed to preserve the ambience of residential neighborhoods, which arguably is a good thing because it insulates the people who live in those places from what may be unwelcome change, but they also restrict what can be done with a property if its owner decides to sell it, which arguably is a bad thing because it reduces that value of the land and, therefore, the selling price.
-
More morons...
Everyone's a moron except you three, right?
-
Actually, I think both points-of-view have some validity.
All zoning ordinances are a form of central planning.* As long as they remain in place, the governmental entity that enacts them is making authoritative decisions about how the privately-owned land within its boundaries may be used. Making the zoning rules less restrictive in certain areas of a city, as Minneapolis, Minnesota, is doing, increases the influence of market forces in those locations. However, the city's decision was driven by policy considerations: to make housing more affordable for young people and ethnic minorities who were effectively precluded from moving into certain "single-family" residential neighborhoods by the price of land.
Whether the policy will have its intended effect is an open question. Areas currently zoned for single-family homes in Minneapolis are composed of parcels of land that can only accommodate small two- or three-family buildings. This change in the zoning rules may not provide sufficient economic incentive for developers to purchase those parcels and invest in the construction of small multi-family residences.
―――――
*For those unfamiliar with U.S. land use practices, the individual states typically delegate to their governmental subdivisions (counties, cities, towns, etc.) the authority to enact land-use regimes, typically called "zoning ordinances," which regulate the way parcels of land within their boundaries can be used. The categories vary, but may include single-family residences, multi-family residences, high-density residences (i.e., large buildings containing many apartments or flats), office buildings, retail buildings, and various combinations of different categories. These regulations often are designed to preserve the ambience of residential neighborhoods, which arguably is a good thing because it insulates the people who live in those places from what may be unwelcome change, but they also restrict what can be done with a property if its owner decides to sell it, which arguably is a bad thing because it reduces that value of the land and, therefore, the selling price.
Opening up a zone to multi-family housing could raise the value if your home's area is used to build a big building. It could have the opposite effect if low income housing start to go in and reduces the value your property. Frankly, I don;t think builders are going to go the cheap route. They'll build condos which aren't cheap, especially if they're in prime downtown areas. People making minimum wage still won;t be able to afford these homes. I'm sure a lot of the push came from developers who stand to make a lot of money from all this. But it could rejuvenate a lot of downtown areas of many cities that have grown decrepit over the years.
-
Exactly, Alan, and this thread illustrates the fact beyond any doubt.
Interesting. Could you please spell it out Russ? What aspect of this thread do you think illustrates this long history of anti-intellectualism?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting. Could you please spell it out Russ? What aspect of this thread do you think illustrates this long history of anti-intellectualism?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard, to answer your question: This whole thread actually is about politics, as are most threads in The Coffee Corner. The thread pretends to be a discussion about science, but climate “science” is an oxymoron. It’s no more science than “social science,” or “political science.” As I wrote nearly 40 years ago in an essay titled “A Common Cause” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html):
“Meanwhile, seeing the public relations success achieved in fields like physics and chemistry and medicine, some branches of art and philosophy decided to get a piece of the action by proclaiming the application of “scientific method” to their own fields. ‘Disciplines’ such as economics and sociology were born and were christened with the oxymoron: ‘social science.’”
So what we see here is a series of political statements dressed up to appear “scientific.” We even have Bart’s charts and graphs to show the results of processes we actually know almost nothing about. Here’s another extract from that essay:
“The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
“Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.”
This thread is a living illustration of all this.
-
Hi Bernard, to answer your question: This whole thread actually is about politics, as are most threads in The Coffee Corner. The thread pretends to be a discussion about science, but climate “science” is an oxymoron. It’s no more science than “social science,” or “political science.” As I wrote nearly 40 years ago in an essay titled “A Common Cause” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html):
“Meanwhile, seeing the public relations success achieved in fields like physics and chemistry and medicine, some branches of art and philosophy decided to get a piece of the action by proclaiming the application of “scientific method” to their own fields. ‘Disciplines’ such as economics and sociology were born and were christened with the oxymoron: ‘social science.’”
So what we see here is a series of political statements dressed up to appear “scientific.” We even have Bart’s charts and graphs to show the results of processes we actually know almost nothing about. Here’s another extract from that essay:
“The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
“Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.”
This thread is a living illustration of all this.
What a complete load of uninformed rubbish. Firstly, the topic of the thread - as originally outlined by the OP (Bernard) - was to consider the media coverage of climate change, not to rehearse the arguments for and against, which is of no interest to anybody since the conclusions are clear.
Secondly, to claim that "climate science" is an oxymoron is merely to proclaim your utter ignorance of the field. If you have a substantive point to make then you are free to make it via the usual route - write it down and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, rather than rambling away on your personal website. To pretend that the legions of scholars who have been working in this field are dupes, and that you alone have pierced their disguise with your razor sharp intellect, is conceit of the highest order.
-
Hi Bernard, to answer your question: This whole thread actually is about politics, as are most threads in The Coffee Corner. The thread pretends to be a discussion about science, but climate “science” is an oxymoron. It’s no more science than “social science,” or “political science.” As I wrote nearly 40 years ago in an essay titled “A Common Cause” (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html)):
“Meanwhile, seeing the public relations success achieved in fields like physics and chemistry and medicine, some branches of art and philosophy decided to get a piece of the action by proclaiming the application of “scientific method” to their own fields. ‘Disciplines’ such as economics and sociology were born and were christened with the oxymoron: ‘social science.’”
So what we see here is a series of political statements dressed up to appear “scientific.” We even have Bart’s charts and graphs to show the results of processes we actually know almost nothing about. Here’s another extract from that essay:
“The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.
“Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous.”
This thread is a living illustration of all this.
But the premise is simple according to global warmists. Since CO2 is increasing as is the temperature, they leap to the conclusion that the first must be causing the second. The entire science is based on the faith that a single variable changes the climate. Now why can't we have such a singular equation to make money in the market? :)
-
But the premise is simple according to global warmists. Since CO2 is increasing as is the temperature, they leap to the conclusion that the first must be causing the second. The entire science is based on the faith that a single variable changes the climate. Now why can't we have such a singular equation to make money in the market? :)
That is completely and utterly wrong. Maybe Bart or Bernard have the patience to explain to you how science works, but I certainly don't, so I will just suggest that you start reading some of the mass of literature published by such unreliable frauds as NASA.
-
That is completely and utterly wrong. Maybe Bart or Bernard have the patience to explain to you how science works, but I certainly don't, so I will just suggest that you start reading some of the mass of literature published by such unreliable frauds as NASA.
Do I have to look at Bart's CO2 graph again?
-
Do I have to look at Bart's CO2 graph again?
Look at what you want. Here is a simple start from those amateurs at MIT:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610225/what-the-hell-is-a-climate-modeland-why-does-it-matter/
-
The physical property of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas has been known [/font][/size]since 1896[/font][/size] and those measurable properties have not changed.[/font][/size]Historical records (obviously) agree with physics. Most of the modeling required, is focusing on assumptions of how slow Humans will reduce their emissions, or destroy forrests, or change the way they grow enough food to feed the world ...Cheers,Bart
I figured I'd saved Bart the trouble. Here's his chart.
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
-
What a complete load of uninformed rubbish. Firstly, the topic of the thread - as originally outlined by the OP (Bernard) - was to consider the media coverage of climate change, not to rehearse the arguments for and against, which is of no interest to anybody since the conclusions are clear.
Secondly, to claim that "climate science" is an oxymoron is merely to proclaim your utter ignorance of the field. If you have a substantive point to make then you are free to make it via the usual route - write it down and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, rather than rambling away on your personal website. To pretend that the legions of scholars who have been working in this field are dupes, and that you alone have pierced their disguise with your razor sharp intellect, is conceit of the highest order.
As the duke said, Jeremy: "If you believe that, you will believe anything."
-
Look at what you want. Here is a simple start from those amateurs at MIT:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610225/what-the-hell-is-a-climate-modeland-why-does-it-matter/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610225/what-the-hell-is-a-climate-modeland-why-does-it-matter/)
So they confirmed what I said. A single variable, CO2, is responsible for climate change. Nonsense. They should go back to the drawing boards.
-
So they confirmed what I said. A single variable, CO2, is responsible for climate change. Nonsense. They should go back to the drawing boards.
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.
-
Against stupidity the very gods
Themselves contend in vain.
Your personal attacks are going to get the thread closed down. If you disagree with my conclusion, just provide your counter statement and let it go.
-
Your personal attacks are going to get the thread closed down.
Promise?
-
Your personal attacks are going to get the thread closed down. If you disagree with my conclusion, just provide your counter statement and let it go.
Personal attack? Just a quote from Schiller.
As for counter statements, this thread is full of them, which you have completely ignored, just repeating your ignorant mantra.
-
Personal attack? Just a quote from Schiller.
As for counter statements, this thread is full of them, which you have completely ignored, just repeating your ignorant mantra.
You're just a rude person. Have a nice day.
-
You're just a rude person. Have a nice day.
Probably I am, but if someone shows me a reasoned and documented argument(*) I'm honest enough to consider it, even if it's contrary to my initial beliefs. I'll take that over faux civility.
(* case in point - Joe Kitchen's argument for nuclear power)
-
Funny thing about that Bernard's OP article. In the very first few paragraphs, the authors betray the political bias with which the article is written. They use two acronyms: CCS and CCC, Climate Change Scientists and Climate Change Contrarians, suggesting that only the former are scientists and the latter are not, poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)
-
Funny thing about that Bernard's OP article. In the very first few paragraphs, the authors betray the political bias with which the article is written. They use two acronyms: CCS and CCC, Climate Change Scientists and Climate Change Contrarians, suggesting that only the former are scientists and the latter are not, poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)
I'm flattered that you imagine me to be young :-)
-
...poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)
Adopting RSL's conflation of geriatric with reasoned?
-
Funny thing about that Bernard's OP article. In the very first few paragraphs, the authors betray the political bias with which the article is written. They use two acronyms: CCS and CCC, Climate Change Scientists and Climate Change Contrarians, suggesting that only the former are scientists and the latter are not, poisoning young and impressionable minds, like Bernard's and Jeremy's ;)
Yes. They believe that climate change is man driven. Like 97% of the scientific community. Hardly surprising.
Can you point how this bias has influenced the objectivity of their analysis of the media coverage about scientific publications about global warming?
If you can't point out any wrong doing, please explain why I should not read your comment as an ad hominem attack on the people whose view differs from yours?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But the premise is simple according to global warmists. Since CO2 is increasing as is the temperature, they leap to the conclusion that the first must be causing the second. The entire science is based on the faith that a single variable changes the climate. Now why can't we have such a singular equation to make money in the market? :)
The climate models used by the large majority of scientists believing that GW is man driven take into account a complex set of mechanisms. The effect of CO2 is just one of them.
- Some of these mechanisms have a warming effect (such as CO2, water vapor,...) because they prevent heat from escaping earth atmosphere,
- Some have a cooling effect (aerosols - including man made gases and volcano ashes for example) because they reduce the income of heat into the atmosphere (currently decreasing),
- Some may have either warming or cooling effects such as long term periodic ocean’s heat exchanges and the variations of solar activity (currently decreasing).
They map these to the marked measured increase of temperature these past years to tune their models and extrapolate a plausible effect of CO2 on the future increase of earth. These models are able to explain why the sixties showed a mild cooling although CO2 was already increasing and provide a good match to the current situation.
So it’s completely untrue and misleading to state that they only look at CO2.
Do all models agree about the degree of impact of CO2 on the pace of increase of temperature? No, they don’t. Hence the pretty wide range of temperatures increase that would result from a doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere (the so-called sensitivity).
But there are two common points among the work of a large majority of scientists working on analyzing the impact of man activity on global warming:
1. CO2 has a major impact on global warming
2. Man’s emission are a dominant factor
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The climate models used by the large majority of scientists believing that GW is man driven take into account a complex set of mechanisms. The effect of CO2 is just one of them.
- Sone of these mechanisms have a warming effect (such as CO2, water vapor,...) because they prevent heat from escaping earth atmosphere,
- Some have a cooling effect (aerosols - including man made gases and volcano ashes for example)
- Some may have either warming or cooling effects such as long term periodic ocean’s heat exchange or the variations of solar activity.
They map these to the marked measured increase of temperature these past years to tune their models and extrapolate a plausible effect of CO2 on the future increase of earth. These models are able to explain why the sixties showed a mild cooling although CO2 was already increasing and provide a good match to the current situation.
So it’s completely untrue and misleading to state that they only look at CO2.
Do all models agree about the degree of impact of CO2 on the pace of increase of temperature? No, they don’t. Hence the pretty wide range of temperatures increase that would result from a doubling of Co2 in the atmosphere (the so-called sensitivity).
But there are two common points among the work of a large majority of scientists working on analyzing the impact of man activity on global warming:
1. CO2 has a major impact on global warming
2. Man’s emission are a dominant factor
Cheers,
Bernard
So they made a mistake in the 60's because they missed some of the variables in their calculations. What confidence is there that they aren't missing other variables now? Why can;t the scientific community agree on what's a good diet, which foods are good? They have been changing their recommendations every couple of years, despite the huge testing that has gone on with millions of people as subjects. Meanwhile, with climate change, they have to wait 50 years to verify their calculations and algorithms. That doesn't make one feel that confident they're capable of knowing all the variables or exactly what weight to give each one.
Then there's the issue of just how bad warming is. Pointing to a few bad storms means nothing. Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public. Itmight show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.
-
Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public. It might show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.
Do you seriously believe that scientific research against climate change is being hidden from the public? Who is behind this conspiracy?
-
So they made a mistake in the 60's because they missed some of the variables in their calculations. What confidence is there that they aren't missing other variables now? Why can;t the scientific community agree on what's a good diet, which foods are good? They have been changing their recommendations every couple of years, despite the huge testing that has gone on with millions of people as subjects. Meanwhile, with climate change, they have to wait 50 years to verify their calculations and algorithms. That doesn't make one feel that confident they're capable of knowing all the variables or exactly what weight to give each one.
admitted.
The fact that there was a cooling in the 60s says nothing about how scientists analyzed that cooling.
An analysis of the climate littérature in the 60s and 70s shows that even then a large majority of scientists was already predicting a warming.
The fact that some practicisns aren’t sure about the right diet is an unrelated topic as you must know even if I understand that a painful first hand experience apparently has killed any trust you perhaps once had in science. Fortunately you are applying you doubts in equal proportion to the deniers and must understand that the odds they are wrong are even higher, right?
Then there's the issue of just how bad warming is. Pointing to a few bad storms means nothing. Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public. Itmight show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.
People in Nortern Alaska will love it, no doubt.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you seriously believe that scientific research against climate change is being hidden from the public? Who is behind this conspiracy?
The only people hiding climate change warnings from the public are....
wait for it....
The fossil fuel industry! Surprise, surprise. They knew of the dangers way back when. Yet, they chose to hide it. I wonder why?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
Oh, wait. I forgot. "all markets are free" :)
-
Then there's the issue of just how bad warming is. Pointing to a few bad storms means nothing. Fuller research has not been done or more probably has been hidden from the public. It might show warming is a lot better for biodiversity than is being admitted.
Alan, warming is only one part of the climate change. In the past few years, we have experienced also some extremely cold periods, sudden temperature changes and stronger winds.
-
The fossil fuel industry! Surprise, surprise. They knew of the dangers way back when. Yet, they chose to hide it. I wonder why?
Indeed... this hilarious publication of "theirs" is, literally, to die for: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Summary-for-Policymakers-Final.pdf
I don't know why we haven't admitted yet to the godly nature of Exxon Mobile and Co. All the developments of human kind, even clean air, are the result of their positive action! It's all written in the report. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you seriously believe that scientific research against climate change is being hidden from the public? Who is behind this conspiracy?
When was the last time you saw a nature program that told us that warming is helping a species? After all, there's got to be at least one out of the millions around. There's no money in good news. No one cares when a dog bites a man. Now if a man bites a dog, now that's a story! :)
-
The fact that there was a cooling in the 60s says nothing about how scientists analyzed that cooling.
An analysis of the climate littérature in the 60s and 70s shows that even then a large majority of scientists was already predicting a warming.
The fact that some practicisns aren’t sure about the right diet is an unrelated topic as you must know even if I understand that a painful first hand experience apparently has killed any trust you perhaps once had in science. Fortunately you are applying you doubts in equal proportion to the deniers and must understand that the odds they are wrong are even higher, right?
People in Nortern Alaska will love it, no doubt.
Cheers,
Bernard
If there was discussion in the 1960's about it getting warmer, no one was talking about it in the media or public. I know because I lived through it. All you heard was cold cold cold. Just like now, all you hear is warm warm warm. You only get part of the story. Like I said bad news sell. It's in the media's interest to tell disaster stories, just like in the movies we go to see.
Regarding your comment on food and diet, you totally missed my point about it. You ought to re-read it.
-
The fact that some practicisns aren’t sure about the right diet is an unrelated topic as you must know even if I understand that a painful first hand experience apparently has killed any trust you perhaps once had in science. Fortunately you are applying you doubts in equal proportion to the deniers and must understand that the odds they are wrong are even higher, right?
Bernard,
I'm surprised you're having difficulty in understanding the relevance of Alan's analogy of the claimed benefits and/or harmful effects of certain diets.
A huge food industry has been built to provide 'low fat' food products, on the basis of a 'consensus among medical experts' that consumption of saturated fats increases the risk of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, cancer, obesity, and so on.
Following are some quotes from an academic summary of the situation.
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/63/2/139/772615
"Abstract
This article examines how faith in science led physicians and patients to embrace the low-fat diet for heart disease prevention and weight loss.
Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media.
Many Americans subscribed to the ideology of low fat, even though there was no clear evidence that it prevented heart disease or promoted weight loss. Ironically, in the same decades that the low-fat approach assumed ideological status, Americans in the aggregate were getting fatter, leading to what many called an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, the low-fat ideology had such a hold on Americans that skeptics were dismissed. Only recently has evidence of a paradigm shift begun to surface, first with the challenge of the low-carbohydrate diet and then, with a more moderate approach, reflecting recent scientific knowledge about fats."
However, the above article is a bit dated, published in 2008. A more recent view is expressed in the following video, which is very long, consisting of 3 sections. The speaker is a very qualified medical practitioner with post-graduate degrees in Neuroscience and Nutrition.
"Published on Jan 5, 2017
For the last 40-50 years, we have fought against “bad” cholesterol and “evil” fats. Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride explains how useful and healthy cholesterol is for us: it reduces the risk of heart attack, prevents arteriosclerosis and can even increase fertility.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, Cambridge, England at the
21st International "New Scientific Outlook" World Congress 2016,
Ulm, Germany, 04.11.2016."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OQT1SHf9w&feature=youtu.be
In case the relevance of this analogy, comparing the complexity and uncertainty of diet with the complexity and uncertainty of the world's climate system, is still confusing for some of you, I'll try to elucidate.
All the applications and products of scientific research, that impress us and contribute to our prosperity and well-being, are required to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they work. A new drug that is claimed to cure a disease, has to go through a long process of testing procedures, usually beginning with creatures that have a short life-span, such as mice and rats, then sometimes followed by tests on creature more similar to us, such as rabbits, dogs and monkeys, and finally on groups of humans, provided the previous tests showed benefits and no harm.
The results of such tests can be observed in a relatively short time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks to a few months. However, the long term effects of certain drugs taken regularly are not initially known, and only come to light years later. Such drugs are then withdrawn from the market. The experiment is over.
James Lovelock described our planet as a complex, living, self-regulating organism or system. He gave it the name 'Gaia', which is ancient Greek for the goddess Mother Earth, or Mother of all Life.
I think that is an apt analogy also. The human body naturally adjusts to slight changes in diet and environmental circumstances just as our planet does, with no harmful effects.
I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone would believe that a 50% increase, over a 150 year period, in a trace gas which is absolutely essential for all life, and which has been proven to increase plant growth and help green the planet, could be considered a pollutant.
If CO2 were a poisonous chemical like Arsenic, which can be tolerated only in very small quantities, then I could appreciate that raising levels by 50% or more could be dangerous. But obviously CO2 is nothing like Arsenic. It's more like a water-soluble vitamin, such as Vitamin C. There is a recommended minimum dosage required to prevent scurvy and other diseases, just as there's a recommended minimum quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent biodiversity collapse. However, taking more than the recommended minimum dosage is most likely beneficial in general.
I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.
There is a distinction to be made between a 'faith in science', and a 'faith in the methodology of science'. Can you see the distinction, Bernard?
-
I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.
Thanks for the advice - I must have missed that during my lifelong career as a scientist, as, indeed, it appears that the climate science community did. Still, some guy on the internet says it's all fine, so everything's hunky dory.
-
Bernard,
I'm surprised you're having difficulty in understanding the relevance of Alan's analogy of the claimed benefits and/or harmful effects of certain diets.
A huge food industry has been built to provide 'low fat' food products, on the basis of a 'consensus among medical experts' that consumption of saturated fats increases the risk of heart disease, arteriosclerosis, high blood pressure, cancer, obesity, and so on.
Following are some quotes from an academic summary of the situation.
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/63/2/139/772615
"Abstract
This article examines how faith in science led physicians and patients to embrace the low-fat diet for heart disease prevention and weight loss.
Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media.
Many Americans subscribed to the ideology of low fat, even though there was no clear evidence that it prevented heart disease or promoted weight loss. Ironically, in the same decades that the low-fat approach assumed ideological status, Americans in the aggregate were getting fatter, leading to what many called an obesity epidemic. Nevertheless, the low-fat ideology had such a hold on Americans that skeptics were dismissed. Only recently has evidence of a paradigm shift begun to surface, first with the challenge of the low-carbohydrate diet and then, with a more moderate approach, reflecting recent scientific knowledge about fats."
However, the above article is a bit dated, published in 2008. A more recent view is expressed in the following video, which is very long, consisting of 3 sections. The speaker is a very qualified medical practitioner with post-graduate degrees in Neuroscience and Nutrition.
"Published on Jan 5, 2017
For the last 40-50 years, we have fought against “bad” cholesterol and “evil” fats. Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride explains how useful and healthy cholesterol is for us: it reduces the risk of heart attack, prevents arteriosclerosis and can even increase fertility.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, Cambridge, England at the
21st International "New Scientific Outlook" World Congress 2016,
Ulm, Germany, 04.11.2016."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OQT1SHf9w&feature=youtu.be
In case the relevance of this analogy, comparing the complexity and uncertainty of diet with the complexity and uncertainty of the world's climate system, is still confusing for some of you, I'll try to elucidate.
All the applications and products of scientific research, that impress us and contribute to our prosperity and well-being, are required to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they work. A new drug that is claimed to cure a disease, has to go through a long process of testing procedures, usually beginning with creatures that have a short life-span, such as mice and rats, then sometimes followed by tests on creature more similar to us, such as rabbits, dogs and monkeys, and finally on groups of humans, provided the previous tests showed benefits and no harm.
The results of such tests can be observed in a relatively short time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks to a few months. However, the long term effects of certain drugs taken regularly are not initially known, and only come to light years later. Such drugs are then withdrawn from the market. The experiment is over.
James Lovelock described our planet as a complex, living, self-regulating organism or system. He gave it the name 'Gaia', which is ancient Greek for the goddess Mother Earth, or Mother of all Life.
I think that is an apt analogy also. The human body naturally adjusts to slight changes in diet and environmental circumstances just as our planet does, with no harmful effects.
I'm genuinely puzzled why anyone would believe that a 50% increase, over a 150 year period, in a trace gas which is absolutely essential for all life, and which has been proven to increase plant growth and help green the planet, could be considered a pollutant.
If CO2 were a poisonous chemical like Arsenic, which can be tolerated only in very small quantities, then I could appreciate that raising levels by 50% or more could be dangerous. But obviously CO2 is nothing like Arsenic. It's more like a water-soluble vitamin, such as Vitamin C. There is a recommended minimum dosage required to prevent scurvy and other diseases, just as there's a recommended minimum quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent biodiversity collapse. However, taking more than the recommended minimum dosage is most likely beneficial in general.
I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.
There is a distinction to be made between a 'faith in science', and a 'faith in the methodology of science'. Can you see the distinction, Bernard?
Yes.
I do understand the analogy, but my view is that the doctors were perfectly right to recommend low fat food at the time because that's what their best in class data and understanding was telling them to do. It was a perfectly rationale choice.
How many time has science been right in their predictions on millions of topic of interest for our lifes. Are we going to throw away science because scientists are not always right?
The possibility that science may not be right on climate change is real, but it's a probability game. And not taking any action on the ground that we are not 100% sure is IMHO too risky knowing that we think it would be too late to revert back once we are certain.
Now, I would probably think differently if the economy of my country were heavily reliant on coal. Or if I lived in Northern Quebecq. Or if...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes.
I do understand the analogy, but my view is that the doctors were perfectly right to recommend low fat food at the time because that's what their best in class data and understanding was telling them to do. It was a perfectly rationale choice.
How many time has science been right in their predictions on millions of topic of interest for our lifes. Are we going to throw away science because scientists are not always right?
The possibility that science may not be right on climate change is real, but it's a probability game. And not taking any action on the ground that we are not 100% sure is IMHO too risky knowing that we think it would be too late to revert back once we are certain.
Now, I would probably think differently if the economy of my country were heavily reliant on coal. Or if I lived in Northern Quebecq. Or if...
Cheers,
Bernard
The issue is we're spending trillions of dollars on global warming supposedly to help future generations. Meanwhile, a lot of that money could be spent feeding the poor, providing housing for the homeless, researching devastating Lyme disease, cancer research, "free" medical care, rebuilding Puerto Rico's power grid, etc.
Resouces are limited. You want to get public policy as right as possible. Most of the discussions have been about the reality of man-made warming and how dangerous it is. There's been almost no discussion on the benefit of warming. There's been little discussion on the allocation of resources and what we trade away when we spend so much money on warming.
-
The issue is we're spending trillions of dollars on global warming supposedly to help future generations.
Trillions?
-
Personal attack? Just a quote from Schiller.
As for counter statements, this thread is full of them, which you have completely ignored, just repeating your ignorant mantra.
You are the ignorant one. It is highly debatable whether CO2 is the ONLY factor contributing to climate change/warming:
https://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167
The link above shows the CO2 levels in the last 500 million years. In the Permian it used to be much higher...
The link below also discusses temperature in the geologic record:
http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
-
Yes. They believe that climate change is man driven. Like 97% of the scientific community. Hardly surprising.
Can you point how this bias has influenced the objectivity of their analysis of the media coverage about scientific publications about global warming?
If you can't point out any wrong doing, please explain why I should not read your comment as an ad hominem attack on the people whose view differs from yours?
Cheers,
Bernard
How about when Man was not around?
http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
https://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167
-
The only people hiding climate change warnings from the public are....
wait for it....
The fossil fuel industry! Surprise, surprise. They knew of the dangers way back when. Yet, they chose to hide it. I wonder why?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
Oh, wait. I forgot. "all markets are free" :)
You mean the same ones who invest billions in alternative energy sources? And lead the research in those areas?
I suppose you have stopped using fossil fuel - derived products?
-
How about when Man was not around?
I'm guessing that before Man was around, he wasn't responsible for CO2 levels? A stab in the dark, I know....
-
The issue is we're spending trillions of dollars on global warming supposedly to help future generations.
The real issue is that whether or not the bill is trillions, we're handing the bill to future generations.
-
I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.
Thanks for the advice - I must have missed that during my lifelong career as a scientist, as, indeed, it appears that the climate science community did.
I doubt that you missed it. I suspect you are in a state of denial, for various emotional reasons. ;)
Still, some guy on the internet says it's all fine, so everything's hunky dory.
I don't know which guy you are referring to. I've certainly never thought that everything is 'hunky dory'. It has always seemed to me that much of the the world is in a mess due to the irrational and self-serving behaviour of so many people, and the corruption and/or incompetence of so many governments.
In order to solve a problem, it helps to precisely identify the causes. Right at the moment there appears to be unprecedented forest burning in the Amazon. I'm glad this is not attributed to 'anthropogenic global warming'.
According to the National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/wildfires-in-amazon-caused-by-deforestation/
“There’s no question that it’s a consequence of the recent uptick in deforestation.“
"Environmentalists have been raising the alarm about deforestation since the country’s current president Jair Bolsonaro was elected in 2018. A major part of his campaign message called for opening up the Amazon for business, and since he’s been in power, he’s done just that.
Data released by INPE earlier this month indicated that more forest has been cleared in Brazil this summer alone than in the last three years combined."
-
The real issue is that whether or not the bill is trillions, we're handing the bill to future generations.
You're right - we f*** the planet, and hand our kids the bill.
-
Scientific studies dating from the late 1940s showed a correlation between high-fat diets and high-cholesterol levels, suggesting that a low-fat diet might prevent heart disease in high-risk patients. By the 1960s, the low-fat diet began to be touted not just for high-risk heart patients, but as good for the whole nation. After 1980, the low-fat approach became an overarching ideology, promoted by physicians, the federal government, the food industry, and the popular health media.
A more recent view is expressed in the following video, which is very long, consisting of 3 sections. The speaker is a very qualified medical practitioner with post-graduate degrees in Neuroscience and Nutrition.
"Published on Jan 5, 2017
For the last 40-50 years, we have fought against “bad” cholesterol and “evil” fats. Dr Natasha Campbell-McBride explains how useful and healthy cholesterol is for us: it reduces the risk of heart attack, prevents arteriosclerosis and can even increase fertility.
Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, Cambridge, England at the
21st International "New Scientific Outlook" World Congress 2016,
Ulm, Germany, 04.11.2016."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7OQT1SHf9w&feature=youtu.be
In case the relevance of this analogy, comparing the complexity and uncertainty of diet with the complexity and uncertainty of the world's climate system, is still confusing for some of you, I'll try to elucidate.
All the applications and products of scientific research, that impress us and contribute to our prosperity and well-being, are required to be thoroughly tested to ensure that they work. A new drug that is claimed to cure a disease, has to go through a long process of testing procedures, usually beginning with creatures that have a short life-span, such as mice and rats, then sometimes followed by tests on creature more similar to us, such as rabbits, dogs and monkeys, and finally on groups of humans, provided the previous tests showed benefits and no harm.
The results of such tests can be observed in a relatively short time, ranging from a few days to a few weeks to a few months. However, the long term effects of certain drugs taken regularly are not initially known, and only come to light years later. Such drugs are then withdrawn from the market. The experiment is over.
If CO2 were a poisonous chemical like Arsenic, which can be tolerated only in very small quantities, then I could appreciate that raising levels by 50% or more could be dangerous. But obviously CO2 is nothing like Arsenic. It's more like a water-soluble vitamin, such as Vitamin C. There is a recommended minimum dosage required to prevent scurvy and other diseases, just as there's a recommended minimum quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent biodiversity collapse. However, taking more than the recommended minimum dosage is most likely beneficial in general.
I would suggest that you 'climate alarmists' do a bit of reading on the history of science and the 'methodology' of science, which requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to observe its effect.
There is a distinction to be made between a 'faith in science', and a 'faith in the methodology of science'. Can you see the distinction, Bernard?
Ray, your post fails on several levels. The example of high cholesterol and diet came from observational studies began decades ago. It's a classic example of how scientific knowledge is used to improve the recommendations. Initially, it was high blood pressure that was linked to adverse cardiac health events. Blood pressure was simple to measure and getting the statistical correlation was straight forward. Cholesterol levels were next up and once clinical lab tests for blood levels were developed it was something easy to examine. However that did not tell all the story. The ratio of high density and low density lipoproteins that carry cholesterol were the important factor. Any trained biochemist knows the central role of cholesterol biosynthesis and it's importance but to argue that it is all good is false.
Your statement "all the applications of scientific research are tested" is misleading. The level of testing is what matters. I don't know how things are done in your part of the world but in the US, dietary supplements can be marketed with a simple disclaimer that the '...studies have not been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration...' In other words, there is no review at a high level that the claims on the label are true. Pharmaceuticals undergo rigorous testing for both safety and efficacy as you describe and anyone who works in the pharma industry (as I did for most of my career) knows that the full information on a new drug is only known after it has been on the market and ongoing safety and efficacy information continues to be gathered and evaluated. In the US companies are required to file yearly reports on all new information about the drug they market and important safety information has to be sent in to the FDA for evaluation right away.
The statement comparing CO2 to arsenic is wrong. Certainly carbon monoxide, CO, is an apt comparator to arsenic. CO2 cannot be compared to a vitamin based on definitional grounds. Plants have an absolute requirement for 'large' amounts of CO2 so that they may synthesize sugars. Vitamins are only required in very trace amounts and are not assembled into carbohydrates, proteins or lipids.
While reading about the history of science is interesting, it's not a substitute for understanding scientific principles. Way back in 1969 when I was finishing my chemistry degree I took a course in photochemistry that included a large section on atmospheric chemistry. Greenhouse gas phenomena was known at that time but the ultimate magnitude of it's impact was not. things evolved the impact of SST aircraft on the ozone layer was shown, the impact of chloro- fluoro-carbon refridgerants was demonstrated (and now highly regulated) along with a better understanding of other impacts on the atmosphere. Ultimately, regulation becomes a political decision but the the science is there for everyone to see.
-
Right at the moment there appears to be unprecedented forest burning in the Amazon. I'm glad this is not attributed to 'anthropogenic global warming'.
Me too. That would be illogical.
-
Yes.
I do understand the analogy, but my view is that the doctors were perfectly right to recommend low fat food at the time because that's what their best in class data and understanding was telling them to do. It was a perfectly rationale choice.
No. If the 'best in class data' does not meet the rigorous standards of the methodology of science then the recommendation should always come with a 'maybe', or a 'possibly', just as many natural supplements do which are claimed to improve certain aspects of health.
How many time has science been right in their predictions on millions of topic of interest for our lifes. Are we going to throw away science because scientists are not always right?
Absolutely not. You should study how and why they got their predictions wrong and what was lacking in their methodology which led to the incorrect theory or prediction, then, perhaps, you can avoid repeating the mistake with other issues.
The possibility that science may not be right on climate change is real, but it's a probability game. And not taking any action on the ground that we are not 100% sure is IMHO too risky knowing that we think it would be too late to revert back once we are certain.
I don't think anyone is recommending we do nothing. The environment in many places is in quite a mess due to 'real' pollution. Focusing on reducing that marvelous gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life and continues to increases plant growth up to levels of 1200 parts per million and beyond, seems irrational to me when there are so many obvious and serious problems which are not being adequately addressed due to lack of funding and the misconception that reducing CO2 levels will fix the problem.
We should ask ourselves, what is it precisely that we are alarmed about in a warming climate? More frequent heat waves? More frequent downpours of rain? This is what is claimed, with high confidence, to have occurred since 1950, by that great authority on climate, the IPCC.
However, there is 'low confidence', due to lack of evidence, that floods, droughts and storms like hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, have been increasing since the 1950's, globally, yet more people than ever are losing their lives and property, world-wide, due to floods and storms, because governments are not addressing the real issue, which is building more dams, contouring the land to prevent flash flooding, and insisting that all homes in areas subject to hurricanes are built to withstand the hurricane categories that have occurred in the past. In other words, the increased damage and loss of life is due to increased populations and increased urbanization, rather than global warming.
There are other major issues such as smog and 'real' pollution in the cities due to petrol and diesel-driven vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls. However, the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power plants do have adequate emission controls (for the real pollutants), and I'm very much in favour of developing the electric vehicle which will potentially be much more efficient than the petrol vehicle, when the initial price of the vehicle matches the current price of petrol vehicles. At present, I believe the increased initial cost of an electric vehicle is greater than the total savings resulting from the lower running costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.
-
Canada and America cut huge amounts of lumber over hundreds of years. Yet today, I believe the forests are bigger than they were back then. Wouldn;t the Amazon grow back?
-
No. If the 'best in class data' does not meet the rigorous standards of the methodology of science then the recommendation should always come with a 'maybe', or a 'possibly', just as many natural supplements do which are claimed to improve certain aspects of health.
Absolutely not. You should study how and why they got their predictions wrong and what was lacking in their methodology which led to the incorrect theory or prediction, then, perhaps, you can avoid repeating the mistake with other issues.
I don't think anyone is recommending we do nothing. The environment in many places is in quite a mess due to 'real' pollution. Focusing on reducing that marvelous gas, Carbon Dioxide, which is essential for all life and continues to increases plant growth up to levels of 1200 parts per million and beyond, seems irrational to me when there are so many obvious and serious problems which are not being adequately addressed due to lack of funding and the misconception that reducing CO2 levels will fix the problem.
We should ask ourselves, what is it precisely that we are alarmed about in a warming climate? More frequent heat waves? More frequent downpours of rain? This is what is claimed, with high confidence, to have occurred since 1950, by that great authority on climate, the IPCC.
However, there is 'low confidence', due to lack of evidence, that floods, droughts and storms like hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones, have been increasing since the 1950's, globally, yet more people than ever are losing their lives and property, world-wide, due to floods and storms, because governments are not addressing the real issue, which is building more dams, contouring the land to prevent flash flooding, and insisting that all homes in areas subject to hurricanes are built to withstand the hurricane categories that have occurred in the past. In other words, the increased damage and loss of life is due to increased populations and increased urbanization, rather than global warming.
There are other major issues such as smog and 'real' pollution in the cities due to petrol and diesel-driven vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls. However, the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power plants do have adequate emission controls (for the real pollutants), and I'm very much in favour of developing the electric vehicle which will potentially be much more efficient than the petrol vehicle, when the initial price of the vehicle matches the current price of petrol vehicles. At present, I believe the increased initial cost of an electric vehicle is greater than the total savings resulting from the lower running costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.
In 2018 we got more rain in New Jersey since 1895 when statistics were first reported. It's about 40-45% higher than the 30 year normal. We're tracking about the same higher amounts for the first 7 months this year. My shrubs and plants seem to be richer and thicker, but that could be wishful thinking. :) We did discover bagworms eating one of our evergreens. I suppose insects are doing better as well. Everybody seems to be enjoying the extra rainfall and heat. 8)
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/nclimdiv/ (http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/nclimdiv/)
The homes on the New Jersey shore that got wiped out during Hurricane Sandy, have been rebuilt, just on stilts. People never learn. They want to live by the beach and willl risk catastrophes.
-
In 2018 we got more rain in New Jersey since 1895 when statistics were first reported. It's about 40-45% higher than the 30 year normal. We're tracking about the same higher amounts for the first 7 months this year. My shrubs and plants seem to be richer and thicker, but that could be wishful thinking. :) We did discover bagworms eating one of our evergreens. I suppose insects are doing better as well. Everybody seems to be enjoying the extra rainfall and heat. 8)
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/nclimdiv/ (http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/nclimdiv/)
...and CO2.
-
The real issue is that whether or not the bill is trillions, we're handing the bill to future generations.
Here ya go. Now how much will be debt for the future generation who will have to live hand-to-mouth to pay down this debt? How many cancer research studies, housing programs for the homeless, medical care programs for the sick, will have to be cancelled since there won't be any money left after we buy our electric cars and construct our offshore wind generators? Of course no one wants to talk about that. It's all about politics. So we'll sacrifice our future on the altar of climate change so some septuagenarian socialist who won't have to deal with the future can get elected president by promising the world. Humans are such fools.
"Bernie Sanders Unveils $16 Trillion ‘Green New Deal’ Plan"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.html)
-
Canada and America cut huge amounts of lumber over hundreds of years. Yet today, I believe the forests are bigger than they were back then. Wouldn;t the Amazon grow back?
Forest preservation such as setting aside the Adirondack are significant. A lot of the areas in NY state are no longer forested these days. the same can be said about many other states where trees were cleared for farming purposes. Some forest preservation is done by the government and some by commercial timber companies such as Weyerhauser.
-
Ray, your post fails on several levels. The example of high cholesterol and diet came from observational studies began decades ago. It's a classic example of how scientific knowledge is used to improve the recommendations.
Alan,
I'd say it's a classic example of a flawed scientific procedure. Sure there were observations made, and observations of 'correlations' between saturated fat diets and high blood pressure, but correlation is not cause.
Your statement "all the applications of scientific research are tested" is misleading. The level of testing is what matters.
Of course the level of testing is what matters. The level of testing and the degree of observation linking saturated fats to high blood pressure and heart attack risk, was not sufficient to justify the confident statements that were made at the time. That's my point, and it seems to me that a similar situation is occurring with regard to the claimed bad effects of rising CO2 levels.
Demonizing saturated fats is surprisingly analogous to demonizing CO2. In both cases, huge new industries developed as a consequence, which makes it more difficult for the truth to come out.
The statement comparing CO2 to arsenic is wrong.
Of course it's wrong. I got that analogy from Bart, who got it from the Skepticalscience website in response to claims that such small, trace percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere, seem unlikely to have any significant warming effect, or bad effect.
CO2 cannot be compared to a vitamin based on definitional grounds. Plants have an absolute requirement for 'large' amounts of CO2 so that they may synthesize sugars. Vitamins are only required in very trace amounts and are not assembled into carbohydrates, proteins or lipids.
Analogies are always limited. Of course the processes of CO2 in the environment are different from the processes of vitamins in the human body. The analogy relates to the fact that both CO2 and vitamins are trace elements, and both are essential for life. If one considers the Earth as a living organism, then 0.044% CO2 in the atmosphere, which is only a small part by weight of the total Earth's surface or environment, is perhaps even more of a trace element that a vitamin in the human body. Perhaps someone would like to do the maths. ;)
While reading about the history of science is interesting, it's not a substitute for understanding scientific principles.
True. That's why I also recommended reading about the methodology of science, which is a system that requires repeated experimentation under controlled conditions and the opportunity to set up experiments that could falsify a particular theory if in fact the theory is not correct. If this cannot be done in situations like quantifying the effect of CO2 rises on climate, then little certainty can be achieved. That was my point.
-
Forest preservation such as setting aside the Adirondack are significant. A lot of the areas in NY state are no longer forested these days. the same can be said about many other states where trees were cleared for farming purposes. Some forest preservation is done by the government and some by commercial timber companies such as Weyerhauser.
So let me ask my question again. If at some point after reducing vegetation in the Amazon, removal stops, would the Amazon regrow? You seem to indicate that would happen like in NYS when logging was stopped.
-
I'm no expert on the Amazon - but many deciduous tress can take more than a hundred years to mature. I don't think the Amazon rainforest would just regrow anytime soon. Plus the number of species and biodiversity that is being lost to future generations may never be replaced.
Jim
-
I'm no expert on the Amazon - but many deciduous tress can take more than a hundred years to mature. I don't think the Amazon rainforest would just regrow anytime soon. Plus the number of species and biodiversity that is being lost to future generations may never be replaced.
Jim
But one thing is certain. It will regrow more rapidly in elevated levels of CO2. ;)
-
I don't think the Amazon rainforest would just regrow anytime soon. Plus the number of species and biodiversity that is being lost to future generations may never be replaced.
Jim
Precisely. It’s not just the trees. Tropical rainforests apparently represent some of the planet’s most biodiverse regions. Even more diverse than Alan’s yard.
-
So let me ask my question again. If at some point after reducing vegetation in the Amazon, removal stops, would the Amazon regrow? You seem to indicate that would happen like in NYS when logging was stopped.
Not under their current government. They just keep destroying and raping their land.
-
Precisely. It’s not just the trees. Tropical rainforests apparently represent some of the planet’s most biodiverse regions. Even more diverse than Alan’s yard.
I think I take better care of my yard than the Brazilians take care of their Amazon. :)
-
Yet today, I believe the forests are bigger than they were back then.
You "believe" ? What is that? Faith-based forestry?
I suggest you have a look at British Columbia forest cover on Google Earth.
-
Red Herring #1
You mean the same ones who invest billions in alternative energy sources? And lead the research in those areas?
Some do, yes. And so they keep telling us in their advertising. They're not the only ones doing so, however.
Red Herring #2
I suppose you have stopped using fossil fuel - derived products?
Few have stopped entirely. Many are significantly reducing consumption. Me among them.
-
I think I take better care of my yard than the Brazilians take care of their Amazon. :)
You might want to be more circumspect about pointing that particular finger.
-
You "believe" ? What is that? Faith-based forestry?
I suggest you have a look at British Columbia forest cover on Google Earth.
Whatever.
-
You might want to be more circumspect about pointing that particular finger.
Whatever.
-
Whatever.
Use of the answer "whatever" is reserved for those with age < 15 and IQ < 90. And I bet that will be your answer to me (or you will have considered it). How witty.
-
Furthermore, the two whatevers could have been packed into just one post
-
Use of the answer "whatever" is reserved for those with age < 15 and IQ < 90.
Alan was just trying to blend in with the alarmist crowd.
-
Whatever. What a powerful, time saving way to respond to silly or insulting posts and non sequiturs.
-
Whatever. What a powerful, time saving way to respond to silly or insulting posts and non sequiturs.
What was insulting about asking you to view the state of deforestation in BC ?
-
You "believe" ? What is that? Faith-based forestry?
...
Whatever.
Everyone here "believes" what they post. No reason for you to be condescending to my beliefs.
-
Whatever.
Everyone here "believes" what they post. No reason for you to be condescending to my beliefs.
Surely you see the difference here though? You may have an understanding that there is more forest now than there was x years ago - you "believe" that to be true, but that's not really an opinion that's unknowable, and it *could* be incorrect. Simply because you "believe" it makes it neither correct nor valid.
I can "believe" Donald Trump is a racist. "Racist" is an inherently subjective term, and you and I can point to evidence, debate it, and come to perhaps equally valid conclusions.
On the other hand, I can "believe" that Donald Trump is honest, and doesn't lie incessantly, but that's not really a valid belief, because it's factually and consistently demonstrated otherwise. Just because I "believe" it doesn't make it a correct belief or a belief worthy of respect.
Back to the original contention, it's my understanding as well that total forested ground cover is indeed greater than it has been in the industrialized past. What I also understand though, is that old-growth forests have been replaced by plantings that are not as conducive to biodiversity, and so the claim that we have more forests now comes with a huge caveat. That's my *understanding* and it could be wrong; it's not really a "belief" that's valid simply because I really really think it's true.
Dig?
-
Surely you see the difference here though? You may have an understanding that there is more forest now than there was x years ago - you "believe" that to be true, but that's not really an opinion that's unknowable, and it *could* be incorrect. Simply because you "believe" it makes it neither correct nor valid.
I can "believe" Donald Trump is a racist. "Racist" is an inherently subjective term, and you and I can point to evidence, debate it, and come to perhaps equally valid conclusions.
On the other hand, I can "believe" that Donald Trump is honest, and doesn't lie incessantly, but that's not really a valid belief, because it's factually and consistently demonstrated otherwise. Just because I "believe" it doesn't make it a correct belief or a belief worthy of respect.
Back to the original contention, it's my understanding as well that total forested ground cover is indeed greater than it has been in the industrialized past. What I also understand though, is that old-growth forests have been replaced by plantings that are not as conducive to biodiversity, and so the claim that we have more forests now comes with a huge caveat. That's my *understanding* and it could be wrong; it's not really a "belief" that's valid simply because I really really think it's true.
Dig?
His comment was a put-down.
-
His comment was a put-down.
I don't believe it was ;)
-
Sometimes, people can be very mean.
Like when that nasty Danish Prime Minister said that the idea of buying Greenland was absurd. She really hurt Donald's feelings.
-
Sometimes, people can be very mean.
Like when that nasty Danish Prime Minister said that the idea of buying Greenland was absurd. She really hurt Donald's feelings.
Which is really tragic and so unfair, considering how polite and considerate Donald is of everyone else’s feelings. But then again, we and the media are expected to maintain a higher standard than the President of the United States. Which is a perfectly rational belief. ;)
-
If you can't all do better than this last page of pointless bickering, I will close this thread.
Jeremy
-
Red Herring #1
Some do, yes. And so they keep telling us in their advertising. They're not the only ones doing so, however.
Red Herring #2
Few have stopped entirely. Many are significantly reducing consumption. Me among them.
It is more than advertising. You can read their annual reports and check the figures.
#2 is not a red herring - it is putting your actions where your mouth is.
-
I'm guessing that before Man was around, he wasn't responsible for CO2 levels? A stab in the dark, I know....
Right... back then, volcanic eruptions were a big part of it. As they are today.
-
Right... back then, volcanic eruptions were a big part of it. As they are today.
Umm ... you're aware that different sources of CO2 have different isotope signatures I suppose .... ?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011EO240001
-
Umm ... you're aware that different sources of CO2 have different isotope signatures I suppose .... ?
Exactly. the 12-C, 13-C, (and to a lesser extent the lack of 14-C) isotopes provide a fingerprint/signature to from where the Carbon originated. Besides that, there are other sources of information (e.g. Beryllium isotopes, and the total Oxygen levels on average, and bookkeeping of man-made Carbon emissions) that basically all tell the same (consistently complete) story. The search term to use is "Stable Isotope ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_isotope_ratio) Spectrometry". The main ratio's that are important for environmental signatures are 13-C/12-C, 15-N/14-N, or 18-O/16-O .
All was already explained in this video I posted earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s
And here's a downloadable article/paper on the subject of "Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years":
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Causes-of-climate-change-over-the-past-1000-years-Crowley/04fce3a1a82e8c6bd285f2c0b7cc02f7151cbf56
It demonstrates the role of Greenhouse gasses compared to other "forcings", like solar energy fluctuations. When we eliminate the influence of the other potential forcings, a huge increase due to the burning of fossil fuels remains.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011EO240001
That link that you added is a good one to explain how to interpret the isotope ratios.
Cheers,
Bart
-
US forest cover is in this USDA pamphlet (https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf). Page 7 has a graph showing the decrease in forest acreage vs. population growth. It has been somewhat stable since 1910. Estimate forest coverage in 1630 was 46% of the land area; today it is 33% so there has been a decrease.
-
US forest cover is in this USDA pamphlet (https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf). Page 7 has a graph showing the decrease in forest acreage vs. population growth. It has been somewhat stable since 1910. Estimate forest coverage in 1630 was 46% of the land area; today it is 33% so there has been a decrease.
That's not bad considering the amount of population and land clearing that has occurred to feed the population since then. Of Course at the end of the day population isthe cause of all these problems. . In fact they're only going to get worse as so many poor people want to move into middle class and demand modern conveniences.
-
That's not bad considering the amount of population and land clearing that has occurred to feed the population since then. Of Course at the end of the day population isthe cause of all these problems. . In fact they're only going to get worse as so many poor people want to move into middle class and demand modern conveniences.
All the more reason to find less wasteful and more sustainable alternative modes of living.
I just read about a program of urban intensification here in Ottawa. They plan to implement some neighbourhoods where a 15 minute standard must be met. That is, residents should be able to access their usual daily needs, groceries, drug store, etc., within a 15 min walk from home. I, for one, would love to have smaller grocery stores closer to home. And if their apples cost more than the same apples at the big box grocery store at the edge of suburbia, then so be it. You don't save that much money buying those cheaper apples if you have to buy and maintain a second car to get to them. I grew up in a neighbourhood like that in Montreal and it's incredible to me that we gave that up in favour of sitting in cars at red lights for half the day.
-
When Karla Marx’ wet dream comes true:
-
You mean the same ones who invest billions in alternative energy sources? And lead the research in those areas?
(Paul was referring to the fossil fuel industry)
It turns out that the fossil fuel industry has actually conspired to prohibit the development of alternative energy sources. Texaco and Chevron were involved in a "catch and kill" operation against the first generation of NiMH batteries, profiting from their use in cameras, but prohibiting their use in vehicles by refusing to sell large capacity, automotive-scale units. This action delayed the appearance of EVs for nearly two decades and preserved big oil's profits for a similar period.
Surprise, surprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
-
(Paul was referring to the fossil fuel industry)
It turns out that the fossil fuel industry has actually conspired to prohibit the development of alternative energy sources. Texaco and Chevron were involved in a "catch and kill" operation against the first generation of NiMH batteries, profiting from their use in cameras, but prohibiting their use in vehicles by refusing to sell large capacity, automotive-scale units. This action delayed the appearance of EVs for nearly two decades and preserved big oil's profits for a similar period.
Surprise, surprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries)
That's a risky business to do. Look what happened to Kodak who tried to suppress digital photography to protect their film markets?
-
(Paul was referring to the fossil fuel industry)
It turns out that the fossil fuel industry has actually conspired to prohibit the development of alternative energy sources. Texaco and Chevron were involved in a "catch and kill" operation against the first generation of NiMH batteries, profiting from their use in cameras, but prohibiting their use in vehicles by refusing to sell large capacity, automotive-scale units. This action delayed the appearance of EVs for nearly two decades and preserved big oil's profits for a similar period.
Surprise, surprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
I'm sure nobody connected to the Trump administration would do something so underhand. Oh, hang on a mo ...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/24/lawsuit-alleges-exxonmobil-deceived-shareholders-on-climate-change-rules
-
(Paul was referring to the fossil fuel industry)
It turns out that the fossil fuel industry has actually conspired to prohibit the development of alternative energy sources. Texaco and Chevron were involved in a "catch and kill" operation against the first generation of NiMH batteries, profiting from their use in cameras, but prohibiting their use in vehicles by refusing to sell large capacity, automotive-scale units. This action delayed the appearance of EVs for nearly two decades and preserved big oil's profits for a similar period.
Surprise, surprise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Thank goodness for the free market, eh?
-
Thank goodness for the free market, eh?
You could try the unfree market by moving to Venezuela, Robert. Might be worth the move just to experience the greatly improved lifestyle.
-
You could try the unfree market by moving to Venezuela, Robert. Might be worth the move just to experience the greatly improved lifestyle.
You're misinterpreting. I have never expressed a preference for the various forms of planned economies, Venezuela included. I'm just saying that it's a delusion to think that economies dominated by large corporations with more power than most governments give rise to free markets.
-
You're misinterpreting. I have never expressed a preference for the various forms of planned economies, Venezuela included. I'm just saying that it's a delusion to think that economies dominated by large corporations with more power than most governments give rise to free markets.
While there are varying degrees of command control by government 95% of the economies of the West are free markets where people and businesses make individual decisions on what they're going to buy and sell. The government has very little to say about it. If you want them to be freer, eliminate more government regulations. Don't vote for Democrats who want more government control over businesses and the economy.
-
While there are varying degrees of command control by government 95% of the economies of the West are free markets where people and businesses make individual decisions on what they're going to buy and sell. The government has very little to say about it. If you want them to be freer, eliminate more government regulations. Don't vote for Democrats who want more government control over businesses and the economy.
Tell this to the socialist republic of Iowa that is propped up by ethanol subsidy regulations and government payouts to farmers whether they grow or don't grow stuff.
-
While there are varying degrees of command control by government 95% of the economies of the West are free markets where people and businesses make individual decisions on what they're going to buy and sell. The government has very little to say about it. If you want them to be freer, eliminate more government regulations. Don't vote for Democrats who want more government control over businesses and the economy.
Hardly. If you want a free market you need to go to, oh, say, Somalia.
-
Tell this to the socialist republic of Iowa that is propped up by ethanol subsidy regulations and government payouts to farmers whether they grow or don't grow stuff.
That's a 5% that isn't part of a free-market. But they're still the other 95% where government isn't involved.
-
By far, the relative freedom of markets isn't controlled by the government, Alan.
-
By far, the relative freedom of markets isn't controlled by the government, Alan.
So you agree with me? Thanks. Which reminds me of the joke that I think I told in the forum before. But it's apropos to free markets and competition. So I'll tell it again. Just to lighten the conversation. :)
So this old woman goes shopping at the butcher and asks him, "I need a pound of chop meat. How much is it?"
The butcher responds, "It's $4 a pound. But we're totally out of it today."
So the woman leaves and walks down the street to a second butcher.
"I need a pound of chop meat. Do you have any and how much is it?"
"Oh," says the second butcher. "We got loads of it and it's $5 a pound"
"$5 a pound!," complains the old woman. "The other butcher only charges $4 a pound."
"Well," says the second butcher. "When we're out of chop meat, we only charge $3 a pound."
-
Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire? All the "news" makes it look bad. AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see. Well, wind blows smoke and particles over huge areas that are not burning so that proves little. Just how many acres burned or are burning?
"NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in"
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/ (https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/)
-
Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire? All the "news" makes it look bad. AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see. Well, wind blows smoke and particles over huge areas that are not burning so that proves little. Just how many acres burned or are burning?
"NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in"
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/ (https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/)
Lot of damage inflicted to both Amazons, one hurt by Bolsonaro and the other by Trump.
In the ongoing trade war with China, Amazon in particular faces a tough road ahead.
That’s not to say tariffs will single-handedly bring down the ecommerce giant—CEO Jeff Bezos has done a pretty good job diversifying—but the small businesses responsible for 58% of Amazon’s physical gross merchandise sales in 2018 rely heavily on Chinese manufacturing.
Unless Trump backs down, first- and third-party merchants alike will start paying higher prices for the goods they import next month. And the odds are fairly good that the additional cost will be passed on to consumers in some way unless those sellers opt to become less profitable or stop offering tariffed goods altogether.
https://www.adweek.com/digital/heres-how-trumps-tariffs-could-hurt-amazon-more-than-its-peers/
-
Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire? All the "news" makes it look bad. AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see.
So an article that presents a different story than the one Klein wants to read is "fake news"?
-
Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire? All the "news" makes it look bad. AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see. Well, wind blows smoke and particles over huge areas that are not burning so that proves little. Just how many acres burned or are burning?
"NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in"
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/ (https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/)
Alan, the area actually on fire is constantly moving. Once an area is burnt to the ground it stops burning, you get the idea.
Satellite imagery has a rather accurate picture of where the fires are at the moment the satellite passes over that area. The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) offers twice daily an overview of Thermal Anomalies/Fire:
https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/mod14.php
If you spend the time, their tools allow getting to the on-line datasets themselves, and the Amazon can be seen in 1 kilometer resolution to be on fire at many places.
Here are two dataset visualizations of a small area of the Amazon fires;
(https://e4ftl01.cr.usgs.gov//WORKING/BRWS/Browse.001/2019.08.23/BROWSE.MOD14A2.A2019225.h11v09.006.2019234215742.1.jpg) (https://e4ftl01.cr.usgs.gov//WORKING/BRWS/Browse.001/2019.08.23/BROWSE.MOD14A2.A2019225.h12v09.006.2019234215821.1.jpg)
but one would need to spend more time on layering it with the visual imagery of the land surface to view its location and extent.
I'll leave that as homework for you.
But hey, those are just datasets from conspiring scientists, so who's to trust ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Does anyone actually have the statistics on the Amazon fire? All the "news" makes it look bad. AS usual, it's fake news because they're only giving area by how much smoke and carbon monoxide they see. Well, wind blows smoke and particles over huge areas that are not burning so that proves little. Just how many acres burned or are burning?
I guess, as in the climate change discussion, they're failing to look at the benefits.
You have adopted the habit of referring to any information source that gives you news you don't like as "fake news." This is what your President does. You get it, I assume, that it's a well-known propaganda tactic and that everyone sees through it.
-
I guess, as in the climate change discussion, they're failing to look at the benefits.
Well if the place is covered in thick smoke, think of the of reduced level of sun burn! But the communist press never tell us that :-(
-
Alan, the area actually on fire is constantly moving. Once an area is burnt to the ground it stops burning, you get the idea.
Satellite imagery has a rather accurate picture of where the fires are at the moment the satellite passes over that area. The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Radiospectrometer) offers twice daily an overview of Thermal Anomalies/Fire:
https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dataprod/mod14.php
If you spend the time, their tools allow getting to the on-line datasets themselves, and the Amazon can be seen in 1 kilometer resolution to be on fire at many places.
Here are two dataset visualizations of a small area of the Amazon fires;
(https://e4ftl01.cr.usgs.gov//WORKING/BRWS/Browse.001/2019.08.23/BROWSE.MOD14A2.A2019225.h11v09.006.2019234215742.1.jpg) (https://e4ftl01.cr.usgs.gov//WORKING/BRWS/Browse.001/2019.08.23/BROWSE.MOD14A2.A2019225.h12v09.006.2019234215821.1.jpg)
but one would need to spend more time on layering it with the visual imagery of the land surface to view its location and extent.
I'll leave that as homework for you.
But hey, those are just datasets from conspiring scientists, so who's to trust ...
Cheers,
Bart
That's a better more realistic map of where the burning is. The map I looked at, linked again here, shows "fake news" as if the whole Amazon is on fire. It's that kind of thing that this thread is all about. It creates skepticism when phoney news is presented as the whole truth. The whole point is to excite and titillate and sell newspapers rather than provided meaningful and realistic data. It's fake science and more political than newsworthy.
Now I still don't know how big the fires are. Your map is interesting, but I don;t know how to figure out the acres on fires. Since it's only a small portion, and not scaled even at that, there's no way to tell. Even with the zoomed in view, there doesn;t seem like a lot of acres on fire compared to overall. You think with the whole world's press on the case, you could find someone who's got a handle on the actual fire size in acres. Just like global warming, one media just copies what the other media is reporting.
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/
-
That's a better more realistic map of where the burning is. The map I looked at, linked again here, shows "fake news" as if the whole Amazon is on fire.
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/
The map in the article linked didn't claim to show where the burning is, or how many acres had been burned. Nor did it purport to show the price of beef in Idaho. Those would be different articles. Probably you can find them on this Internet thing they have these days.
HTH
-
I guess, as in the climate change discussion, they're failing to look at the benefits.
You have adopted the habit of referring to any information source that gives you news you don't like as "fake news." This is what your President does. You get it, I assume, that it's a well-known propaganda tactic and that everyone sees through it.
When the media report that the whole Amazon is on fire, that is fake news, exactly what this thread's title is all about. All I'm asking for is for some enterprising journalist or scientist to do his work. Maybe a climatologist could take a day off from researching global warming and do this calculation for us. :) How many acres burned out of a total number of acres making up the Amazon? I don't think that's too much to ask. Isn't that better then making the assumed fake claim, "The whole Amazon is burning"?
Here are just two articles making that claim.
The blazes in the Amazon are so big they can be seen from space. One map shows the alarming scale of the fires.
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-fires-satellite-images-map-of-rainforest-blazes-2019-8 (https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-fires-satellite-images-map-of-rainforest-blazes-2019-8)
NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in
https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/ (https://www.slashgear.com/nasas-amazon-forest-fire-map-shows-just-how-much-trouble-were-in-23588502/)
-
The map in the article linked didn't claim to show where the burning is, or how many acres had been burned. Nor did it purport to show the price of beef in Idaho. Those would be different articles. Probably you can find them on this Internet thing they have these days.
HTH
Jeremy, It's title is: "NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in". The map then shows half of South America in red. What is the average reader suppose to think? It's this kind of biased reporting we get on global warming. I guess the fake news media is used to this kind of sloppy reporting.
-
Jeremy, It's title is: "NASA’s Amazon forest fire map shows just how much trouble we’re in". The map then shows half of South America in red. What is the average reader suppose to think? It's this kind of biased reporting we get on global warming. I guess the fake news media is used to this kind of sloppy reporting.
Don't know what to suggest Alan - maybe reading the actual article would have helped you understand the issue more fully?
-
Don't know what to suggest Alan - maybe reading the actual article would have helped you understand the issue more fully?
I know what they were saying. They were hyping the news, making it more dramatic. It was fake news. The average reader is going to take the headlines and the implication that the whole Amazon is on fire. Most people have lives to live. They can't spend all day on this forum analysing their navels. Then they turn on the evening news and see lots of smoke and fires with people telling them the Amazon is on fire and we're destroying the "lungs of the earth". By tomorrow. This is not real journalism. It's yellow journalism. It's sensationalism and crude exaggeration. And politics. Making excuses that people should read everything in the article and weed out the BS is not the answer.
-
I know what they were saying. They were hyping the news, making it more dramatic. It was fake news. The average reader is going to take the headlines and the implication that the whole Amazon is on fire. Most people have lives to live. They can't spend all day on this forum analysing their navels. Then they turn on the evening news and see lots of smoke and fires with people telling them the Amazon is on fire and we're destroying the "lungs of the earth". By tomorrow. This is not real journalism. It's yellow journalism. It's sensationalism and crude exaggeration. And politics. Making excuses that people should read everything in the article and weed out the BS is not the answer.
Got it - so the media are bad because they assume that people will read an article to find out about a subject rather than jump to some totally illogical conclusion from looking at a headline. Yes. Right. Makes perfect sense. No, honestly, crystal clear.
<Backs nervously out of the door >
-
Got it - so the media are bad because they assume that people will read an article to find out about a subject rather than jump to some totally illogical conclusion from looking at a headline. Yes. Right. Makes perfect sense. No, honestly, crystal clear.
<Backs nervously out of the door >
It's not just the headline but the whole article. If the news is overhyped and exaggerated, yes, that's poor journalism. Maybe none at all.
-
It's not just the headline but the whole article. If the news is overhyped and exaggerated, yes, that's poor journalism. Maybe none at all.
Truly absurd. It's an article about carbon monoxide. If you wanted to read an article about needlepoint, you should have picked up Woman's Weekly.
-
Truly absurd. It's an article about carbon monoxide. If you wanted to read an article about needlepoint, you should have picked up Woman's Weekly.
I'll let others decide just what is the implication of the article.
-
I'll let others decide just what is the implication of the article.
That's a good idea.
-
Most people have lives to live. They can't spend all day on this forum analysing their navels.
:) :) :)
-
Not only is the media engaged in fake news about the Amazon fires, now celebs like DiCaprio are joining in with fake fire photos on social media. This is why people just don't trust the "left" and climate change. They talk about Trump lying but meanwhile the left deceives the public with fake photos.
"Celebs keep posting misleading photos about Amazon wildfire to social media"
https://nypost.com/2019/08/23/celebs-keep-posting-misleading-photos-of-amazon-wildfire-to-social-media/ (https://nypost.com/2019/08/23/celebs-keep-posting-misleading-photos-of-amazon-wildfire-to-social-media/)
-
Another phoney statistic. The Amazon does not provide 20% of the world's oxygen as the fake news media has been reporting. We won't be suffocating anytime soon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/23/as-the-amazon-fires-spread-so-did-this-unfounded-statistic/#66d73c0a1ea9
-
I finally found the source of the Amazon fires.
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/80cb1399d54469264f27a2f592acab4f/tumblr_ov2nu1UkSL1w8hozzo1_250.gif)
-
Not only is the media engaged in fake news about the Amazon fires, now celebs like DiCaprio are joining in with fake fire photos on social media. This is why people just don't trust the "left" and climate change.
People don't believe in climate change because movie stars don't know what they are talking about? That seems rational.
-
Scientists are going to show man-made light shows and movies to coral reefs to help them grow during damaging global warming. These PhD's must be running out of research money and need another government grant to feed their families. You can't make this stuff up. :)
https://www.ecowatch.com/florida-aquarium-coral-reefs-2639990687.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/florida-aquarium-coral-reefs-2639990687.html)
-
People don't believe in climate change because movie stars don't know what they are talking about?
DiCaprio has 80 million followers on his social media. These people don't know who the Vice President of the US is. But they know DiCaprio. Trust me. They believe everything he says. So what if his photo of the Amazon burning is from 1989. Dimwits.
-
DiCaprio has 80 million followers on his social media. These people don't know who the Vice President of the US is. But they know DiCaprio. Trust me. They believe everything he says. So what if his photo of the Amazon burning is from 1989. Dimwits.
So therefore you deny climate change? I don't keep up with how many followers DiCaprio has on social media, but I am glad you are on top of it.
-
So therefore you deny climate change? I don't keep up with how many followers DiCaprio has on social media, but I am glad you are on top of it.
I believe everything he says. He's my hero.
-
You can't make this stuff up. :)
The day irony died.
-
DiCaprio has 80 million followers on his social media.These people don't know who the Vice President of the US is. But they know DiCaprio. Trust me. They believe everything he says. So what if his photo of the Amazon burning is from 1989. Dimwits.
And another 80 millions are Trump's followers. Half of them also don't know who the Vice President is.
-
These last exchanges seem to confirm Alan that you agree with the issue initially reported that media needs to provide a coverage that reflects more truthfully the views expressed by the large majority of specialists? In other words that the coverage given to those denying man driven climate change is clearly exaggerated.
This sounds like a wonderful way to close this thread, we finally agree!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
-
And another 80 millions are Trump's followers. Half of them also don't know who the Vice President is.
You're right of course. 160 million people walking around in a daze. :)
-
These last exchanges seem to confirm Alan that you agree with the issue initially reported that media needs to provide a coverage that reflects more truthfully the views expressed by the large majority of specialists? In other words that the coverage given to those denying man driven climate change is clearly exaggerated.
This sounds like a wonderful way to close this thread, we finally agree!
Cheers,
Bernard
Don;t close the thread. We're having too much fun. :)
-
...media needs to provide a coverage that reflects more truthfully the views expressed by the large majority of specialists? In other words that the coverage given to those denying man driven climate change is clearly exaggerated...
What a wonderful Orwellian/Goebelsian approach: create a lie, then force it down everyone’s throat using media. No dissent allowed.
-
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
Because DiCaprio said so. He doesn't want the world to think natural things happen naturally or regular things happen regularly.
-
What a wonderful Orwellian/Goebelsian approach: create a lie, then force it down everyone’s throat using media. No dissent allowed.
Being from East Europe under the Soviets makes you familiar with how that works. Of course, propaganda works all over the world. The problem here is you have media in cahoots with politicians even though there's no force.
-
Democrats running scared over climate change issue. Maybe they're just realizing it's a phony issue.
"Democratic National Committee votes against allowing 2020 candidates to participate in climate change debate"
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/24/politics/democrats-2020-debate-climate-dnc-summer-meeting/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/24/politics/democrats-2020-debate-climate-dnc-summer-meeting/index.html)
-
Being from East Europe under the Soviets...
We (Yugoslavia) were never under Soviets.
P.S. Alan, you are forcing me to join team Jeremy ;D
-
We (Yugoslavia) were never under Soviets.
Sorry about that. On the other hand, you were a lot closer than most people on this thread; next door. So you're more familiar with their propaganda style and procedures.
-
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
It IS a reasonable question. That fact surprised me, too.
-
We (Yugoslavia) were never under Soviets.
Tito was an interesting guy.
-
It IS a reasonable question. That fact surprised me, too.
I wonder why they have put it as a top item on the G7 agenda?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder why they have put it as a top item on the G7 agenda?
Cheers,
Bernard
Politics. They're trying to make their bones to the public as environmentalists. Next thing you'll see is them down in Brazil throwing a bucket of water on the fire.
-
Venezuela, here we come!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanders-climate-plan-federal-takeover-energy
In addition to taking over the nation's energy supply, Sanders' plan claims to end unemployment by creating 20 million jobs, provide "massive investments in research and development" and impose fines and litigation on the fossil fuel industry.
-
Taking over energy is just the beginning of the takeover of the entire economy. That's what socialism is. That's who Sanders is and his Democratic opponents for president are moving in his direction of Government control of industry. When people lose their economic freedom, they lose their personal and political freedoms as well. Object, and you go to jail. Politicians decide how we should live, what medical care we get and when, what fuels we can use and vehicles we can drive, and then we have nothing to say about it. We are serfs of the state.
-
Taking over energy is just the beginning of the takeover of the entire economy. That's what socialism is. That's who Sanders is and his Democratic opponents for president are moving in his direction of Government control of industry. When people lose their economic freedom, they lose their personal and political freedoms as well. Object, and you go to jail. Politicians decide how we should live, what medical care we get and when, what fuels we can use and vehicles we can drive, and then we have nothing to say about it. We are serfs of the state.
Really, if you are interested in democracy, how about starting to act on the situation you are in today instead of fantasying about how worse things could become some day in a totalitarian socialist state? ;)
In short, a country where corruption is legal through the mechanism authorizing lobbies to fund candidates. A unique feature in any democratic country on earth.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
Why a 15 year average? Ah, I see, because that would include some years with excessive burning, and that would make the current crisis look less of an issue in comparison. That is using statistics to downplay a crisis. How transparent, and how befitting of this thread's topic of spreading some more misinformation.
http://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#totals
As the above link shows, in the last 10 years (with the exception of 2010) there has been a decrease in the number of fires and these often started later in the year. The Amazon is becoming increasingly drier (https://phys.org/news/2018-04-scientists-drier-amazon-wetter-indonesia.html), which increases the likelihood of larger areas being affected by each fire. The new government of Bolsonaro has changed the policy of protection of the rainforest into a policy of exploitation of the area for agriculture and animal farming (farmers are an important part of its electorate), and as a result, the number of convictions for illegal burning has decreased significantly this year. Although it was still illegal, the lack of enforcement resulted in a free license being given.
The year has got off to a bad start and the issue needs to be tackled immediately, not after it is too late.
-
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
As usual, the topic is more complex than a Coffee Corner discussion suggests. This is an interesting article:
https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/nasa_say_the_amazon_is_burning_at_below_average_rates_yet_many_news_stories_say_record_rates-240959
-
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
Something doesn't add up. NYT reports:
There are 80 percent more fires this year than there were last summer, according to the Brazilian government. This surge in burning has accompanied a spike in deforestation in general. More than 1,330 square miles of the Amazon rainforest have been lost since January, a 39 percent increase over the same period last year, according to The New York Times.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fires-are-political/596776/
-
Don't Amazon areas lost to fire grow back eventually? Forests burn in the USA too. Part of the natural cycle (I realize that farmers burning land in Brazil is different.) But the land will grow back.
The Amazon is over 2 million square miles. The NY Times article reported in the above post that 1330 square miles were "lost". While that's a 39% increase over last year, it's still only about 65/100ths of one per cent of the total Amazon. (0.065%). In any case, "the whole Amazon" isn't on fire. That's fake news, yellow journalism, exaggeration, and why there are so many sceptics today about what's published in media about this or anything regarding the environment. It's obvious that many people have an agenda and will distort facts to support their agenda.
-
Don't Amazon areas lost to fire grow back eventually? Forests burn in the USA too. Part of the natural cycle (I realize that farmers burning land in Brazil is different.) But the land will grow back.
The Amazon is over 2 million square miles. The NY Times article reported in the above post that 1330 square miles were "lost". While that's a 39% increase over last year, it's still only about 65/100ths of one per cent of the total Amazon. (0.065%). In any case, "the whole Amazon" isn't on fire. That's fake news, yellow journalism, exaggeration, and why there are so many sceptics today about what's published in media about this or anything regarding the environment. It's obvious that many people have an agenda and will distort facts to support their agenda.
And, indeed, something that nobody has said. Careful with matches, Alan - all that dry straw about!!
-
Something doesn't add up. NYT reports:
Indeed, Les, something doesn’t add up. For instance, looking at 15 years of statistics vs. just the last year. Who would have thought these two would be different!? ;)
-
Why a 15 year average? Ah, I see, because that would include some years with excessive burning, and that would make the current crisis look less of an issue in comparison. That is using statistics to downplay a crisis...
... As the above link shows, in the last 10 years (with the exception of 2010) there has been a decrease in the number of fires and these often started later in the year....
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, it was 15 smiles, one for each year of your “logic.” Who would have thought that a longer statistical period would yield more accurate results than shorter, cherry-picked one!? By all means, let’s exclude years with excessive burning so that the current one looks hugely excessive, even if it is only average.
-
And, indeed, something that nobody has said.
Except. Every. Single. News. Headline.
-
Don't Amazon areas lost to fire grow back eventually?
Some of it, not necessarily with the same vegetation, and animal life doesn't grow back. The CO2 that was produced by the burning will stay in the atmosphere for decades and contributes to Global Warming (which contributes to a dryer Amazon, according to climate studies).
-
In short, a country where corruption is legal through the mechanism authorizing lobbies to fund candidates...
Fake news.
-
Some of it, not necessarily with the same vegetation, and animal life doesn't grow back. The CO2 that was produced by the burning will stay in the atmosphere for decades and contributes to Global Warming (which contributes to a dryer Amazon, according to climate studies).
There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?" What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite? Why don't you show us a chart?
-
Except. Every. Single. News. Headline.
Which one of those says "the whole Amazon is on fire" (which was Alan's claim) ??
-
There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?" What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite? Why don't you show us a chart?
Russ - what did your comment add to the discussion?
-
You call head-rattling a "discussion?"
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, it was 15 smiles, one for each year of your “logic.” Who would have thought that a longer statistical period would yield more accurate results than shorter, cherry-picked one!? By all means, let’s exclude years with excessive burning so that the current one looks hugely excessive, even if it is only average.
You 'should have' known that a 15-year unweighted average lags behind recent changes in activities, and is slow to adapt to recent changes in trends. So the record years 2004, 2005, and 2007 still lift the long term average above that of recent years (which are more relevant for a comparison with the current situation). Recent (lack of) activities by the Brasilian government contributed to the recent changes, until international pressure on Bolsonaro started building up.
And the fire season in Bolivia and Brasil is not over yet.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Yes, it was 15 smiles, one for each year of your “logic.” Who would have thought that a longer statistical period would yield more accurate results than shorter, cherry-picked one!? By all means, let’s exclude years with excessive burning so that the current one looks hugely excessive, even if it is only average.
This point has already been addressed in the article I linked to. Here is a link to NASA's own updated report:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145498/uptick-in-amazon-fire-activity-in-2019
With the fire season in the Amazon approaching its midpoint, scientists using NASA satellites to track fire activity have confirmed an increase in the number and intensity of fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010.
Fire activity in the Amazon varies considerably from year-to-year and month-to-month, driven by changes in economic conditions and climate. August 2019 stands out because it has brought a noticeable increase in large, intense, and persistent fires burning along major roads in the central Brazilian Amazon, explained Douglas Morton, chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. While drought has played a large role in exacerbating fires in the past, the timing and location of fire detections early in the 2019 dry season are more consistent with land clearing than with regional drought.
-
Jeremy, typing on IPad, and my finger gets tired from posting too many ROTFL smileys, so consider from now on that your every post gets 15 of them 😉 (ok, found the strength for this single one). The same, of course, applies to Bernard and Bart, so you don’t feel picked on, or, God forbid, discriminated.
-
Which one of those says "the whole Amazon is on fire" (which was Alan's claim) ??
Every headline that says “Amazon Burns,” or “Amazon Fires.” It is a logical interpretation of the word “Amazon.” It wouldn’t get lefties apoplectic if the titles would specify that only a minute fraction of 1% is burning. Although just mentioning 1% generally causes lefties’ heads to explode.
-
Every headline that says “Amazon Burns,” or “Amazon Fires.” It is a logical interpretation of the word “Amazon.” It wouldn’t get lefties apoplectic if the titles would specify that only a minute fraction of 1% is burning. Although just mentioning 1% generally causes lefties’ heads to explode.
Rubbish. You're starting to sound like Klein.
-
There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?"
Try to read and keep up Russ. I have already linked to the mention of such studies in post #623, but I'll repeat it:
(https://phys.org/news/2018-04-scientists-drier-amazon-wetter-indonesia.html).
And that's in line with what the IPCC said in its AR5, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf , in "section 27.2. Major Recent Changes and Projections in the Region"
"... droughts will intensify along the 21st century in some seasons and areas due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration in Amazonia and NEB". And they indicate that it's getting dryer mainly in Southern Amazonia.
What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite?
Which studies that prove the opposite? Can't judge the quality of the studies without being more specific.
Why don't you show us a chart?
Because you don't like charts?
-
Because you don't like charts?
Not true. I love 'em. They're very decorative.
-
Not true. I love 'em. They're very decorative.
As you wish (attached)
-
Very decorative, Bart. I think you ought to hang these on your walls. I love the way the trend swoops up, based on hope.
-
There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?" What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite? Why don't you show us a chart?
That's funny. 🤣
-
Really, if you are interested in democracy, how about starting to act on the situation you are in today instead of fantasying about how worse things could become some day in a totalitarian socialist state? ;)
In short, a country where corruption is legal through the mechanism authorizing lobbies to fund candidates. A unique feature in any democratic country on earth.
Cheers,
Bernard
How do candidates in Europe fund their campaigns? Somebody's giving them money.
-
How do candidates in Europe fund their campaigns? Somebody's giving them money.
Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.
The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.
BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.
-
The political parties get a government subsidy. . .
More accurately known as a taxpayer subsidy.
-
Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.
The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.
BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.
1. How much maximum from each contributor and how much total can they get for a campaign?
2. Can individuals hire what we call "lobbyists" to represent them in petitioning parliamentarians to support certain legislation?
-
Back to OP - at least in some way. Not the latest news item (recorded in 2015 as a 10 minute long TED talk), but still valid and quite illuminating:
In the below eyeopening talk, veteran investigative journalist (and Former CBS NEWS investigative reporter) Sharyl Attkisson shows how “astroturf,” or fake grassroots movements, funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/13/cbs-news-investigative-journalist-explains-how-mainstream-media-brainwashes-the-masses/?fbclid=IwAR3tpg-EMsGPcEbfkukmJJfPy7A03Y-RBocluNGiHAhcRAEI8ANNBrFJdqI
-
"BIARRITZ, France (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump, responding to a question about climate change after skipping a G7 session on the issue, said on Monday that American wealth is based on energy and he will not jeopardize that for dreams and windmills."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-trump-climatechange/trump-on-climate-says-he-wont-jeopardize-u-s-wealth-on-dreams-idUSKCN1VG1RU (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-trump-climatechange/trump-on-climate-says-he-wont-jeopardize-u-s-wealth-on-dreams-idUSKCN1VG1RU)
-
Back to OP - at least in some way. Not the latest news item (recorded in 2015 as a 10 minute long TED talk), but still valid and quite illuminating:
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/08/13/cbs-news-investigative-journalist-explains-how-mainstream-media-brainwashes-the-masses/?fbclid=IwAR3tpg-EMsGPcEbfkukmJJfPy7A03Y-RBocluNGiHAhcRAEI8ANNBrFJdqI
The main problem is that 90% of media is liberal and presents that point of view. We don't get a balanced view regarding the environment, climate change, or most things.
-
As usual, the topic is more complex than a Coffee Corner discussion suggests. This is an interesting article:
https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/nasa_say_the_amazon_is_burning_at_below_average_rates_yet_many_news_stories_say_record_rates-240959
Thanks for the article. It was very informative. You're right it's more complex. Unfortunately, in their usual knee-jerk hyperbole to exaggerate, the press goes for the blood and hyperventilates. The public ignorant of the reality, go with their feelings and we're all off to the races again.
-
Here's a contrarian and more balanced view written by the nature and environmental journalist Michael Shellenberger. He is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over three million times.
"Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The "Lungs Of The World," Is Wrong"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#63f10a1a5bde (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#63f10a1a5bde)
-
Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.
The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.
BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.
As far as I know, this is how it works in every democratic country, except the US.
In all the countries I know of, having private entities fund parties is called corruption and is punished by jail time.
It is the case because it's obvious that politicians who have received money from a private entity will at some point do it favors that may not be aligned with the interest of the population.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as I know, this is how it works in every democratic country, except the US.
In all the countries I know of, having private entities fund parties is called corruption and is punished by jail time.
It is the case because it's obvious that politicians who have received money from a private entity will at some point do it favors that may not be aligned with the interest of the population.
And in addition, our members of parliament are sworn in where they have to publicly swear/declare they will act freely without any obligations to others except allegiance to the King, the Statute, and the Constitution.
The literal (translated as good as possible) text is:
I swear (declare) that, in order to be appointed as a member of the States General, I have not given or promised, directly or indirectly, under any name or pretext whatsoever, any gift or favour. I swear (declare and promise), that in order to do or refrain from doing anything in this office, I have not accepted or will not accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or promise. I swear (promise) allegiance to the King, to the Statute for the Kingdom and to the Constitution. I swear (promise) that I will faithfully perform the duties that my office imposes on me. So truly help me God almighty! (I declare and promise!').
Of course there are no guarantees, that those members will remain uncorrupted, but every individual gift with a market value of € 50 or more needs to be reported.
The issue with the US system is that lots of money governs who is even nominated for an election. Only after that preselection step will the people of the US get a chance to vote (in one way or another, direct or indirect) on nominees who were preselected by a small group of people (in a process that's vulnerable to corruption). Lots of money/services changed hands before the people get a say. With such perverse incentives, the chance of things going wrong is magnified.
-
1. How much maximum from each contributor and how much total can they get for a campaign?
2. Can individuals hire what we call "lobbyists" to represent them in petitioning parliamentarians to support certain legislation?
Bart, you didn't answer my questions.
-
Bart, you didn't answer my questions.
I did, even though it's off-topic for this thread..
Payments/services/gifts to individual members of parliament above a market value of € 50 have to be reported in a register. Their salaries are public information, the Prime Minister (and other Ministers) gets paid € 165.916 annually before taxes (in a progressive scale).
Payments/donations to Political parties above € 4,500 (sumtotal of a year) have to be reported (and name and domicile of the giver are published), this includes payments from members of parliament to their party (some parties get part or all of the income of a member of parliament, and pay back part of that each month). In practice (from public records), it is rare for amounts to exceed € 10,000 - 15,000 for the full year, and even those donations are rare.
All records are public, and parties publish their annual bookkeeping after approval of accountants.
All information is available on line:
https://www.parlement.com/id/vhnnmt7l3ozz/partijfinanciering
-
I did, even though it's off-topic for this thread..
Payments/services/gifts to individual members of parliament above a market value of € 50 have to be reported in a register. Their salaries are public information, the Prime Minister (and other Ministers) gets paid € 165.916 annually before taxes (in a progressive scale).
Payments/donations to Political parties above € 4,500 (sumtotal of a year) have to be reported (and name and domicile of the giver are published), this includes payments from members of parliament to their party (some parties get part or all of the income of a member of parliament, and pay back part of that each month). In practice (from public records), it is rare for amounts to exceed € 10,000 - 15,000 for the full year, and even those donations are rare.
All records are public, and parties publish their annual bookkeeping after approval of accountants.
All information is available on line:
https://www.parlement.com/id/vhnnmt7l3ozz/partijfinanciering
It's not much different in the USA. There are limits to individual donations for candidates individual campaigns. It all has to be reported publicly. Donations cannot be given on a quid pro quo for specific legislation. That favoritism could be considered a bribe.
Can you answer my question #2 which I'll bring back into this thread. "2. Can individuals hire what we call "lobbyists" to represent them in petitioning parliamentarians to support certain legislation?" I'll expand individuals to also groups like The Animal Fund or The Sierra Club or other green organizations. By giving their considerable financial resources to let's say the Democrat party, that money winds up in the campaigns of Democrats to support their campaigns. So politicians support environmental legislation because they get money from green group. Likewise, a group representing the oil industry would do the same, with Republicans who would support fossil fuel legislation. Don;t you have similar things going on in your country and in other parts of Europe. For example, the wind power companies would support Dutch legislation for wind energy. Don;t they contribute to politicians?
-
It's not much different in the USA. There are limits to individual donations for candidates individual campaigns. It all has to be reported publicly. Donations cannot be given on a quid pro quo for specific legislation. That favoritism could be considered a bribe.
Can you answer my question #2 which I'll bring back into this thread. "2. Can individuals hire what we call "lobbyists" to represent them in petitioning parliamentarians to support certain legislation?"
I could answer if I understood the question. If the question is: do parliamentarians get information from "lobbyists", they probably do, as they do from speaking with others, be it social organizations or individuals. They also actively go around the country to collect first-hand information from workers in certain fields, the people on the work floor.
But if the question is: "do they personally benefit from adopting those lobbyist views and not those of others?" the answer is: not financially. It would also not help their political career, because they don't run for candidacy based on a personal campaign that needs to be funded.
Remember, we have a relatively direct method of electing our members of parliament with a simple kind of direct majority vote, and we the people can choose to elect someone on a low position in the rankings (preference of the party), with a preferential vote. If enough people vote for a person, then that person will get a position in parliament, nothing that his/her party can do about that. We also do not have to register as someone going to vote for one party or another, we decide in the voting booth, who and from what party (currently, 14 different parties have a seat in what you could compare with your Congres). Every citizen can vote for anyone on the lists with all candidates.
So, bad or shady performance in public, is likely to cost one his/her place in politics.
I'll expand individuals to also[...]. Don't they contribute to politicians?
Information, probably yes, money would be useless. Anything over € 50 must be reported and could not be used for personal gain.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Here's a 30 min podcast from 2015 on the decreasing costs of solar power from NPR's Planet Money https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/751234092/episode-616-how-solar-got-cheap (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/751234092/episode-616-how-solar-got-cheap).
-
Here's a 30 min podcast from 2015 on the decreasing costs of solar power from NPR's Planet Money https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/751234092/episode-616-how-solar-got-cheap (https://www.npr.org/2019/08/14/751234092/episode-616-how-solar-got-cheap).
30 minutes to deliver something that could be summarized in 0.3 seconds: solar is getting cheaper (ok, maybe the whole second)
-
Remember, we have a relatively direct method of electing our members of parliament with a simple kind of direct majority vote, and we the people can choose to elect someone on a low position in the rankings (preference of the party), with a preferential vote. If enough people vote for a person, then that person will get a position in parliament, nothing that his/her party can do about that. We also do not have to register as someone going to vote for one party or another, we decide in the voting booth, who and from what party (currently, 14 different parties have a seat in what you could compare with your Congres). Every citizen can vote for anyone on the lists with all candidates.
If your intention here is to make a comparison with the way voters in the United States select members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, you appear to be conflating the intra-party primary elections, where voters who have chosen to identify themselves with one party or another select that party's candidate, with general elections, in which voters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, elect the individuals who actually will serve as their representatives in Congress. All states have procedures for voter registration—often associated with the procedures by which they grant drivers' licenses—but there is no requirement in any of them for the voter to identify a party affiliation; the purpose of the registration process is to verify residence and thus eligibility to receive a license or to vote. (In both cases, eligibility is determined by the respective states, not the national government.)
-
If your intention here is to make a comparison with the way voters in the United States select members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, you appear to be conflating the intra-party primary elections, where voters who have chosen to identify themselves with one party or another select that party's candidate, with general elections, in which voters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, elect the individuals who actually will serve as their representatives in Congress. All states have procedures for voter registration—often associated with the procedures by which they grant drivers' licenses—but there is no requirement in any of them for the voter to identify a party affiliation; the purpose of the registration process is to verify residence and thus eligibility to receive a license or to vote. (In both cases, eligibility is determined by the respective states, not the national government.)
Hi Chris,
I was under the impression that for general elections one needed to register as Republican or Democrat (or Independent). Perhaps that only seems that way from the outside, because multiple elections (general and intra-party) are taking place at the same time, which would clear up something incomprehensible. Thanks.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... because multiple elections (general and intra-party) are taking place at the same time...
Last time I voted, it was not so. I assume it has never been. Nor it makes sense.
-
... If enough people vote for a person, then that person will get a position in parliament, nothing that his/her party can do about that....
The same here.
-
Though as we've seen for the past couple years, they try their best (or worst).
-
Hi Chris,
I was under the impression that for general elections one needed to register as Republican or Democrat (or Independent). Perhaps that only seems that way from the outside, because multiple elections (general and intra-party) are taking place at the same time, which would clear up something incomprehensible. Thanks.
Cheers,
Bart
You only need to choose party affiliation to vote in the primary election for that party's candidates. If you register as an independent you can vote in the general election but not the primary elections unless the state has an open primary system such as California where all party candidates run against one another and the two top vote recipients move on to the general election. I believe there are several other states that operate under a similar model. Minor parties that run candidates for President usually have a national convention where they pick the candidate and have meet certain state qualifications to get on the ballot. On occasions the party will not be on the ballot in all 50 states.
-
Perhaps that only seems that way from the outside, because multiple elections (general and intra-party) are taking place at the same time
Actually, they are sequential, not simultaneous. The intra-party primary elections take place months before a national election. The dates of their respective primary elections are set by the states; the date of the national election is set by Congress. Each state is responsible for conducting its own part of the national election, subject to certain federal constitutional and statutory requirements.
To appear on either a primary or general election ballot within a state, a candidate must collect a certain number of signatures on a petition from the residents of that state. There is no requirement that the candidate identify with any party. The number of signatures to qualify to appear on a ballot varies from state to state. One important function of the party organizations in each state is to collect the signatures necessary to put the party's candidate, if it has one—typically an individual selected in a primary election—on the general election ballot.
-
Hi Chris,
I was under the impression that for general elections one needed to register as Republican or Democrat (or Independent). Perhaps that only seems that way from the outside, because multiple elections (general and intra-party) are taking place at the same time, which would clear up something incomprehensible. Thanks.
Cheers,
Bart
In New York and now New Jersey where I currently live, I've never registered with a particular party. Since both states are "closed" primary systems, I cannot vote in primaries for either Democrat or Republican party. I can only vote in the general election. Each state sets its own rules. Here are some of the differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election
-
Can't speak for other countries, but in the Netherland, all parliamentarians get a fixed salary, currently € 120,000 , from the government, the leaders get an additional amount. The political parties get a government subsidy in line with their size in the chambers, and the parties get annual contribution money from their members, and they can get some donations that need to be disclosed by name of the donator if above € 4,500 (that info is published annually). The total amount of donations, and income from giving courses and such is a modest fraction of the total annual party income.
The reason for the government salary payments and subsidies, is to reduce the risk of perverse incentives.
BTW, everything is taxed (e.g. income-tax) so the amounts are gross amounts, not net.
You kept avoiding my questions so you forced me to look it up. The Dutch use professional lobbyists to influence parliament just our lobbyists influence Congress in America. So stop trying to make it seem like we're corrupt here in the USA when you do the same thing. You have a habit of ignoring what your country does while criticising others for doing the same thing your country does. Here's one of their ads.
https://publicmatters.nl/en/dienst/public-affairs-lobby/
In any case, petitioning the government for redress is written into our Constitution. How else would individuals and organizations get the government to represent them and do what they would like.
As an aside, the Dutch spend more money than any other country except Great Britain to lobby IN AMERICA!!!! Yo really need to stop the spin Bart.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2009/08/the_netherlands_is_major_us_lo/
-
^^^ 🤣🤣🤣
-
30 minutes to deliver something that could be summarized in 0.3 seconds: solar is getting cheaper (ok, maybe the whole second)
The actual discussion was about what has changed in the industry to cause this to happen, sort of a case study. It's not an uninteresting story, but if you happen not to be interested in it and don't want to listen, that's perfectly ok. It's not mandatory.
-
As an aside, the Dutch spend more money than any other country except Great Britain to lobby IN AMERICA!!!! ...
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2009/08/the_netherlands_is_major_us_lo/
That is not a correct review. ... read again...
also this is a different kind of lobby... i read we mainly promote our country for attracting tourists...
We do not have a NRA type of lobby that spends millions of € to promote one party or candidate for singing their tune. It is (naturally)not allowed.
-
... We do not have a NRA type of lobby that spends millions of € to promote one party or candidate...
To put things into perspective: NRA spent on average $2-3 millions in the last 20 years on lobbying, about $5 million in the last two years. That pales in comparison to the Top 20 spenders.
credit: Center for Responsive Politics
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2019
-
You kept avoiding my questions so you forced me to look it up. The Dutch use professional lobbyists to influence parliament just our lobbyists influence Congress in America.
Where did I say that there were no lobbyists? All I pointed out is that there are no large sums of money exchanged for favors from members of parliament.
So stop trying to make it seem like we're corrupt here in the USA when you do the same thing.
If you have evidence that people are bribed, please do share.
In any case, petitioning the government for redress is written into our Constitution. How else would individuals and organizations get the government to represent them and do what they would like.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
As an aside, the Dutch spend more money than any other country except Great Britain to lobby IN AMERICA!!!! Yo really need to stop the spin Bart.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2009/08/the_netherlands_is_major_us_lo/
Huh? I've heard that we're the world's 2nd largest exporter of food. Interesting, like promoting vacations, but it has little to do with corrupting politicians for their reelection campaign or to change their position on state affairs.
Cheers,
Bart
-
... I have no idea what that is supposed to mean...
Obviously.
Otherwise you wouldn’t continue to call a legal, constitutional activity “bribing” and “corruption.”
-
The actual discussion was about what has changed in the industry to cause this to happen, sort of a case study. It's not an uninteresting story, but if you happen not to be interested in it and don't want to listen, that's perfectly ok. It's not mandatory.
I didn't have time to listen for 30 minutes. But from what I've learned about solar, the main additional cost they never tell you about is that you need fossil fuel plants to backup the power when the sun doesn;t shine. The fossil fuel cost is not included in the cost to society. They only tell you what the savings is to the individual solar home user. This is the main reason Germans pay 2 1/2 times what American pay per KWH even though 40% of their power is from renewables.
-
That is not a correct review. ... read again...
also this is a different kind of lobby... i read we mainly promote our country for attracting tourists...
We do not have a NRA type of lobby that spends millions of € to promote one party or candidate for singing their tune. It is (naturally)not allowed.
It is the correct view. You have lobbyists that try to influence legislation just like America does. Frankly, I think this is perfectly legal and acceptable. It's constitutionally protected in the USA. How would your legislators or ours know what the people they represent want or what they consider important? After all, representative represent us. Lobbyists take our message to them since we have neither the time or knowledge of how to do this. Whether it's the NRA, Kodak, UNions, The SIerra Club, Tesla, Apple, farmers, women who want an abortion, or just regular folk who have an issue that is or can be effected by government.
From the Dutch ad posted in the link I furnished. Click on the tab called Services. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....
https://publicmatters.nl/en/diensten/ (https://publicmatters.nl/en/diensten/)
"Strategic communications and influencing policy
As a public affairs and lobby agency, we support clients in achieving their ambitions to influence policy and engage in strategic communications. Whether you’re looking to influence new draft legislation in The Hague or Brussels, bring a new product onto the market or get rid of harmful trade restrictions, Public Matters’ consultants will advise you on the right public affairs strategy and the most efficient and effective way to implement it"
-
Otherwise you wouldn’t continue to call a legal, constitutional activity “bribing” and “corruption.”
The issue being raised here is precisely that it is unique for a democratic country to enable private entities to fund elected politicians. Especially knowing that it apparently wasn't the intent of the founders of the US constitutions.
Whether it's corruption is beside the point.
The aspect I would be concerned with as a US citizen, is whether the funding of political parties by private lobbies may have an impact on the decisions taken by those politicians, and the policies they adopt.
Perhaps naively, I define democracy as a system where the political decisions are taken according to the preferences of the voters, be it through a system of representation.
When lobbying - even if it's legal - is embeded in the system the way it is, there is a high risk that the preferences of the voters of overruled by the preferences of the lobbies having funded the politicians.
I see this state of affaires as a very high risk for the truly democratic nature of the country.
You are not concerned by this?
Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig seems to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The issue being raised here is precisely that it is unique for a democratic country to enable private entities to fund elected politicians.
Whether it's corruption is beside the point.
The aspect I would be concerned with as a US citizen, is whether the funding of political parties by private lobbies may have an impact on the decisions taken by those politicians, and the policies they adopt.
Perhaps naively, I define democracy as a system where the political decisions are taken according to the preferences of the voters, be it through a system of representation.
When lobbying - even if it's legal - is embeded in the system the way it is, there is a high risk that the preferences of the voters of overruled by the preferences of the lobbies having funded the politicians.
I see this state of affaires as a very high risk for the truly democratic nature of the country.
You are not concerned by this?
Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig seems to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE)
Cheers,
Bernard
First off, America is one of the oldest Democracies (OK federal republic), much older than the other democracies you refer too. So I wouldn;t put their method as better. After all, we've been showing the world what democracy is all about for over two hundred years. Just look at our southern borders even today how people are flocking to our shores to get some of that democracy. They're not going to your country. :)
While it's somewhat true that contributions can affect decisions by politicians, there's so much money floating around today by all sides, that it pretty much equals out. Also, there are legal limits for private donations that you can;t exceed. I also would separate lobbying and petitioning from donations. Letting your representative know your issue and requesting their help and influencing legislation is the foundation of democracy. If legislators don't listen to you because you can't speak to them, how is that democracy? How would the representative even know you have a problem if you couldn't tell him. Of course, lobbyists are better at getting to see representatives in Congress (or local State and City government as well). As an individual, I wouldn't know where to start, how to get an appointment etc nor do I have the time. Lobbyists work in the capital and know their way around Washington.
Here's a good article on petitioning the government for redress. I've copied a paragraph taken from one of the US Supreme Court's decisions that informs on this issue greatly.
"In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_of_Duryea_v._Guarnieri) (2011),[245] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-Duryea-246) the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause:[/font][/size]It is not necessary to say that the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground .... Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance."[/font]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Petition_and_assembly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Petition_and_assembly)
-
First off, America is one of the oldest Democracies (OK federal republic), much older than the other democracies you refer too. So I wouldn;t put their method as better. After all, we've been showing the world what democracy is all about for over two hundred years.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is.
Just look at our southern borders even today how people are flocking to our shores to get some of that democracy. They're not going to your country. :)
They are coming to the US for economical reasons, Mexico is just as democratic. They are not going to Europe simply because the US is closer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...You are not concerned by this?..l
Not at all.
The system is open and transparent. As per the link I provided, anyone can see who contributed to whom, how much, etc. Much better than if influence is done under the table, as in many other counties.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is...
And you know that how? You are a medium? Spoke to the dead?
-
Not at all.
The system is open and transparent. As per the link I provided, anyone can see who contributed to whom, how much, etc. Much better than if influence is done under the table, as in many other counties.
Great then, everything is perfect in a perfect world. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is.
They are coming to the US for economical reasons, Mexico is just as democratic. They are not going to Europe simply because the US is closer.
Cheers,
Bernard
The founders included in their Constitution Amendment One:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/141/freedom-of-assembly-and-petition (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/141/freedom-of-assembly-and-petition)
The right to petition the government originally the king was well established from Magna Carta days and incorporated in the Colonist's regular activity and law even before the Declaration of Independence. So your argument the founders didn;t consider it is false.
Regarding people flocking to our shores, you certainly can argue that those coming now across our southern border have economics on their mind. However, it is our strong democracy and economic freedom that has made us wealthy and providing economic opportunity so that people want to come here for those very reasons. Additionally, people have come here for a lot longer for political freedom based on our democracy and political freedoms. While Mexicans are close by, we have attracted people from Europe and elsewhere by the millions, including my own forebears who escaped political oppression in Poland and Russia. Our own Slobodan is one of the more recent examples. You'll never convince the world that America has lost its democratic ideals and economic freedoms. Certainly, I'm not afraid of our constitution. Rather I'm more afraid of those who would subvert it.
-
How is the right to petition the government related to the funding of political parties by private entities?
How is economic freedom getting mixed up with democracy? It is perfectly possible to think of a country where people have the right to start companies without having any impact whatsoever on the directions taken by the governement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
..
The system is open and transparent. As per the link I provided, anyone can see who contributed to whom, how much, etc. Much better than if influence is done under the table, as in many other counties.
The link you provide shows that the amount of 3 Billion $ is spend yearly by lobbyists.
Surely they want something in return.
Call that democracy. I call it the law of the capitalist jungle.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/index.php
-
Those interested in climate change issues will no doubt be aware of the very long defamation case against the Canadian climate scientist Tim Ball who accused Michael Mann of engaging in scientific fraud in his notorious Hockey Stick graph, which appeared to obliterate the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, despite the existence of numerous studies which confirmed the existence of those previous periods of warming followed by cooling.
To prove that the defamation was not justified, Michael Mann was required to provide the data and computer modeling he used to produce the graph. He refused to do so. Finally, after 8 or 9 years, the court has dismissed the case and ordered Mann to pay Tim Ball's costs, although it's not clear at this stage exactly what costs are required to be paid.
Here's the story.
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/#comment-25472
-
It is the correct view. You have lobbyists that try to influence legislation just like America does.
But not by financing their reelection campaigns, which creates dependency and clientelism.
Frankly, I think this is perfectly legal and acceptable.
And that's where we disagree.
Bribery
Definition
Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery
"Bribery is a crime".
P.S. https://fortune.com/2018/02/15/nra-contributions-politicians-senators/
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but the thing is precisely that the current situation appears to be a pretty recent deviation. As far as I can tell, the founders, those who wrote the sacro-saint constitution of the US, have never wanted the country to be operated the way it currently is.
Cheers,
Bernard
This is correct and a thorough reading of 'The Federalist Papers' written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay covers this. They did not see the need for political parties and were concerned about the rise of factions. Washington's presidency was the only one where there was not significant opposition. The nascent Republic shortly organized into Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups which led to the first political parties.
-
How is the right to petition the government related to the funding of political parties by private entities?
How is economic freedom getting mixed up with democracy? It is perfectly possible to think of a country where people have the right to start companies without having any impact whatsoever on the directions taken by the governement.
Cheers,
Bernard
A political party is a private entity. The constitution allows them to do whatever they want. For example, if you want to start a new party, let's call it the Whole Earth Party, to make a difference in government regarding environmental issues, and got a bunch of very rich environmentalists to contribute to fund that party, that would be legal constitutionally. While the founders didn't really "want" parties, they very much wanted democracy, the ability of people to regress grievances and petition the government to make changes in law that they were interested in. The right to lobby or join together to petition the government was codified in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, so important was it felt. It requires funding to present your views. NOw here I'm not talking about giving money to a legislator so he'll vote a particular way. That's' a bribe and illegal. But supporting parties, whether the Whole Earth Party or the Democrat PArty or the Republican Party with funding because they support your views is not only legal, but constitutional and desirable.
The true problem is that people on the left aren't really against lobbying as long as the lobbyist represents their issues. So for example, they're all for lobbying for more environmental regulation and would support The Sierra Club's lobbying efforts or support a union's right to lobby to protect union members. But they're opposed to corporations lobbying to protect their workers and stockholders or the NRA "because they're bad". They believe in free speech and lobbying and contributions, but only for points of view they agree with.
Regarding your last point, you can't have democracy without economic freedom. Just look at Cuba and Venezuela and the former Soviet Union. You can;t start a business if the government doesn't let you because they want to control and own those very businesses. Control of the economy means control of the individual and loss of personal and political freedoms. Even when government controls health care part of the economy for example, you lose your ability to buy or not buy on your own and lose the freedom of choice. You've turned it over to the government. They decide what happens to you.
Now you can have some economic freedom without political freedom. China is a case in point with their one party system. For the last thirty years, they have allowed individuals to start businesses, and get rich even though they have no political freedom.
-
.... It requires funding to present your views. Now here I'm not talking about giving money to a legislator so he'll vote a particular way. That's' a bribe and illegal. But supporting parties, whether the Whole Earth Party or the Democrat PArty or the Republican Party with funding because they support your views is not only legal, but constitutional and desirable.
That is why we ( the Netherlands) have state funds for parties to express themselves so there is a fair playground for all parities involved.
advertising- time on TV is also regulated and equally divided between parties.
The true problem is that people on the left aren't really against lobbying as long as the lobbyist represents their issues.
Please stop with putting all bad things to the left ( or right, or whatever) - the world is more complex than that.
Regarding your last point, you can't have democracy without economic freedom. Just look at Cuba and Venezuela and the former Soviet Union...
I rather look at my own country that keeps democracy and economic freedom in some kind of balance.
The problem is that most economic actions are only looking for fast profit and do not take their responsibility when it comes to the side affects they might cause.
You need a government that looks at the benefits to all citizens to regulate their actions.
An example is the use in the past of DDT. The company that made and sold DDT made huge profits but was causing a lot of damage to the environment and peoples health. Possibly much larger than the profits they made allthough not everything can be expressed in $.
An other example is the Ozon layer that was shrinking because of some aggressive gasses that were used in refrigerators.
Thanks to a world wide action the ozon layer has grown again.
-
An interesting article regarding Amazon fires.
The left is apoplectic (God, I love this word) about it, losing it on the streets all over the world. And yet...
"The Amazon Is Not Earth’s Lungs
Humans could burn every living thing on the planet and still not dent its oxygen supply."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/?fbclid=IwAR0bR_JPgxbDZaXdvTXtZUMP7D3ztX3e8F-1Hq_-P6W9l3y7llZ_Xj34w1E
... “What would happen if we combusted every living cell on Earth?” it asked. That is, Peters wanted to know what would happen to the atmosphere if you burned down not just the Amazon, but every forest on Earth, every blade of grass, every moss and lichen-spackled patch of rock, all the flowers and bees, all the orchids and hummingbirds, all the phytoplankton, zooplankton, whales, starfish, bacteria, giraffes, hyraxes, coatimundis, oarfish, albatrosses, mushrooms, placozoans—all of it, besides the humans...
... After this unthinkable planetary immolation, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere dropped from 20.9 percent to 20.4 percent. CO2 rose from 400 parts per million to 900—less, even, than it does in the worst-case scenarios for fossil-fuel emissions by 2100. By burning every living thing on Earth.
“Virtually no change,” he said. “Generations of humans would live out their lives, breathing the air around them, probably struggling to find food, but not worried about their next breath.”
-
That is why we ( the Netherlands) have state funds for parties to express themselves so there is a fair playground for all parities involved.
advertising- time on TV is also regulated and equally divided between parties.
Please stop with putting all bad things to the left ( or right, or whatever) - the world is more complex than that.
I rather look at my own country that keeps democracy and economic freedom in some kind of balance.
The problem is that most economic actions are only looking for fast profit and do not take their responsibility when it comes to the side affects they might cause.
You need a government that looks at the benefits to all citizens to regulate their actions.
An example is the use in the past of DDT. The company that made and sold DDT made huge profits but was causing a lot of damage to the environment and peoples health. Possibly much larger than the profits they made allthough not everything can be expressed in $.
An other example is the Ozon layer that was shrinking because of some aggressive gasses that were used in refrigerators.
Thanks to a world wide action the ozon layer has grown again.
We have (had?) the same thing in America. In fact, Obama, when he was running for President, said he would only use government provided funding to show the world how much he was against private funding. He swore he wouldn't let private funding influence any of his decisions. Well, that lasted about two weeks. Then he changed his mind, told the government, thank you, but they could keep their money, and enlisted the public to fund his campaign.
The main problem we would have over here, is that stopping people from spending their own money to make a political point, would go against the free speech protection they were granted in our constitution. What if The Animal Fund and The Sierra Club, both green organizations, wanted to place ads on TV espousing the importance to save the Earth? Shouldn't they have that ability to make thier points? Would they be prevented from do this in the Netherlands?
-
That is why we ( the Netherlands) have state funds for parties to express themselves so there is a fair playground for all parities involved.
advertising- time on TV is also regulated and equally divided between parties.
Please stop with putting all bad things to the left ( or right, or whatever) - the world is more complex than that.
I rather look at my own country that keeps democracy and economic freedom in some kind of balance.
The problem is that most economic actions are only looking for fast profit and do not take their responsibility when it comes to the side affects they might cause.
You need a government that looks at the benefits to all citizens to regulate their actions.
An example is the use in the past of DDT. The company that made and sold DDT made huge profits but was causing a lot of damage to the environment and peoples health. Possibly much larger than the profits they made allthough not everything can be expressed in $.
An other example is the Ozon layer that was shrinking because of some aggressive gasses that were used in refrigerators.
Thanks to a world wide action the ozon layer has grown again.
In case you hadn't heard, but America leads the world in pollution control. We've banned DDT and eliminated refrigerants that affect the ozone layer. Our regulations regarding car pollution has led the world and forced auto companies around the world to comply with our higher standards. Well, except for your neighbors, German auto manufacturers who use diesel engines. They're still cheating.
-
Ah, the threat of sea-level rising. Horrible!
-
In case you hadn't heard, but America leads the world in pollution control. We've banned DDT and eliminated refrigerants that affect the ozone layer. Our regulations regarding car pollution has led the world and forced auto companies around the world to comply with our higher standards. Well, except for your neighbors, German auto manufacturers who use diesel engines. They're still cheating.
Too bad that Trump doesn't share your enthusiasm ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/08/02/americas-clean-car-loss-may-be-europes-gain/#55dec44c4ff6
-
Ah, the threat of sea-level rising. Horrible!
Tell us more, what's the altitude above sea level?
-
In case you hadn't heard, but America leads the world in pollution control. We've banned DDT and eliminated refrigerants that affect the ozone layer. Our regulations regarding car pollution has led the world and forced auto companies around the world to comply with our higher standards. Well, except for your neighbors, German auto manufacturers who use diesel engines. They're still cheating.
Never mind the diesels. In Europe people don't drive as many SUVs as in America, and hardly any trucks. Diesel powered sedans are not as bad as big SUVs and the macho trucks with the gasoline engines. And half as bad as the cows.
Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane: it is the cow.
A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
-
Never mind the diesels. In Europe people don't drive as many SUVs as in America, and hardly any trucks. Diesel powered sedans are not as bad as big SUVs and the macho trucks with the gasoline engines. And half as bad as the cows.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html)
German automobile diesel engines that were illegally altered were polluting 50 times the legal limit for pollutants. They were doing that for ten years while American cars were polluting less and less. In any case, Europeans don;t need to drive as far or as much as Americans and Canadians. We have big stretches to go in suburbia and especially out west for anyone one has driven through our national parks. A lot of land. I wonder if we're doing better than this guy? :)
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-zebu-cattle-bos-taurus-indicus-pulling-carts-northwest-madagascar-128724543.html (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-zebu-cattle-bos-taurus-indicus-pulling-carts-northwest-madagascar-128724543.html)
-
Tell us more, what's the altitude above sea level?
It doesn't matter because Obama walks on water. Didn't you know? :)
-
It doesn't matter because Obama walks on water. Didn't you know? :)
🤣🤣🤣
-
It doesn't matter because Obama walks on water. Didn't you know? :)
It does matter, because he can still sell his property long before the water level there becomes a problem, assuming it's high enough (hence my question). He will probably not be around when that happens, and maybe the next owner will not be around either. Around that time, it becomes a bad investment, not before.
-
It does matter, because he can still sell his property long before the water level there becomes a problem, assuming it's high enough (hence my question). He will probably not be around when that happens, and maybe the next owner will not be around either. Around that time, it becomes a bad investment, not before.
So you agree with the me that we are talking about 100-200 years from now?
-
So you agree with the me that we are talking about 100-200 years from now?
Could be, depending on the altitude above sea-level now, hence my question ...
-
Could be, depending on the altitude above sea-level now, hence my question ...
I posted a photograph... easy to see.
-
I posted a photograph... easy to see.
Then it would be easy for you to answer your own question. I'm not familiar with the surroundings.
-
The Amazon Fires story was all wrong and media hype by the NY Times and other so-called newspapers of record. Combined with Hollywood types and others pushing the climate change story. It's this kind of yellow journalism that adds to the skepticism of critical thinkers. How does the public separate the political hype from the truth?
"Forget The Amazon Hype, Fires Globally Have Declined 25% Since 2003 Thanks To Economic Growth"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/30/forget-the-hype-forest-fires-have-declined-25-since-2003-thanks-to-economic-growth/#5d42b0d1163d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/30/forget-the-hype-forest-fires-have-declined-25-since-2003-thanks-to-economic-growth/#5d42b0d1163d)
-
The Amazon Fires story was all wrong and media hype by the NY Times and other so-called newspapers of record.
What do you mean "all wrong"? The fires were/are there, and the year is not over yet. So unless called to a halt early, they could break the trend of declining fires. Especially the position of the Brasilian government (enforcing the law that prohibits illegal burning) has changed recently, and that made an escalation more likely.
Another thing, one cannot compare just the number of fires and reach a meaningful conclusion about the damage to ecosystems and the atmosphere. One needs to also take into account what is burning. African savannah wildland and forests are markedly different than Amazonian wet forests, and Siberian Tundras are different from both others mentioned. The loss of animal and human life also differs between places, as does the possibility of recovery.
Cheers,
Bart
-
What do you mean "all wrong"? The fires were/are there, and the year is not over yet. So unless called to a halt early, they could break the trend of declining fires. Especially the position of the Brasilian government (enforcing the law that prohibits illegal burning) has changed recently, and that made an escalation more likely.
Another thing, one cannot compare just the number of fires and reach a meaningful conclusion about the damage to ecosystems and the atmosphere. One needs to also take into account what is burning. African savannah wildland and forests are markedly different than Amazonian wet forests, and Siberian Tundras are different from both others mentioned. The loss of animal and human life also differs between places, as does the possibility of recovery.
Cheers,
Bart
The story was hyped. More fake news.
-
The story was hyped. More fake news.
...says our trusted source
-
The Amazon Fires story was all wrong and media hype by the NY Times and other so-called newspapers of record. Combined with Hollywood types and others pushing the climate change story. It's this kind of yellow journalism that adds to the skepticism of critical thinkers. How does the public separate the political hype from the truth?
"Forget The Amazon Hype, Fires Globally Have Declined 25% Since 2003 Thanks To Economic Growth"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/30/forget-the-hype-forest-fires-have-declined-25-since-2003-thanks-to-economic-growth/#5d42b0d1163d (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/30/forget-the-hype-forest-fires-have-declined-25-since-2003-thanks-to-economic-growth/#5d42b0d1163d)
I guess it's always possible to find some contradicting articles. Recently, I read about some new UFO sightings.
As to the increase/decrease of the Amazon fires, here is an opening statement from Wikipedia:
The 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires season saw an unusual surge in the number of fires occurring in the Amazon rainforest and other parts of the Amazon biome contained within the countries of Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru during the 2019 Amazonian tropical dry season.
The increased rates were first reported by Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, INPE) in June and July 2019 through satellite monitoring systems, but international attention was drawn to the situation by August 2019 when NASA corroborated INPE's findings, and smoke from the fires, visible from satellite imagery, darkened the city of São Paulo despite being thousands of kilometers from the Amazon. As of August 29, 2019, INPE reported more than 80,000 fires across all of Brazil, a 77% year-to-year increase for the same tracking period, with more than 40,000 in the Brazil's Legal Amazon (Amazônia Legal or BLA), which contains 60% of the Amazon. Similar year-to-year increases in fires were subsequently reported in Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru, with 2019 fire counts within each nation of over 19,000, 11,000 and 6,700, respectively, as of August 29, 2019.[3] It is estimated that over 906 thousand hectares (2.24×106 acres; 9,060 km2; 3,500 sq mi) of forest within the Amazon biome has been lost to fires in 2019. In addition to the impact on global climate, the fires created environmental concerns from the excess carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide within the fires' emissions, potential impacts on the biodiversity of the Amazon, and threats to indigenous tribes that live within the forest.
Some fires are unavoidable, but if half of the burned forest was caused by man, that's 450,000 hectares intentional loss of unique and essential environment - just in 2019. Can't be good for the mankind now and for the future generations.
-
I guess it's always possible to find some contradicting articles. Recently, I read about some new UFO sightings.
As to the increase/decrease of the Amazon fires, here is an opening statement from Wikipedia:
Some fires are unavoidable, but if half of the burned forest was caused by man, that's 450,000 hectares intentional loss of unique and essential environment - just in 2019. Can't be good for the mankind now and for the future generations.
Your post quoted that "3,500 sq mi of forest within the Amazon biome has been lost to fires in 2019. " The Amazon has over 2 million square miles so the burning only represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the entire Amazon. The yellow journalism articles made it seems that they whole Amazon was burning down; that the lungs of the Earth were being destroyed. That's hyperbole and yellow journalism. Frankly, it was plain untruthfulness.
Regarding Wikipedia, I also use it often because it gives an air of truthfulness about it. But the fact is there's no peer review. Anyone can update Wiki articles and there is a concerted effort to make sure that whatever goes in there supports climate change. There things are being written by climate change supporters looking to advance public acceptance of it. So we have to read Wiki with a grain of salt. PS: I gave up believing in UFOs when I was a teenager and I haven't been abducted since then. :)
-
Either way, Brazilians started way too many fires.
-
Either way, Brazilians started way too many fires.
Your quote printed here from Wiki didn;t say anything about Brazilians starting fires. Yes, I know there were man started fires. But reading the quote doesn;t explain how much was man made or natural. Did the wiki article give those specifics? Also, post the article's link for reference so we can read the whole thing.
Quote
The 2019 Amazon rainforest wildfires season saw an unusual surge in the number of fires occurring in the Amazon rainforest and other parts of the Amazon biome contained within the countries of Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru during the 2019 Amazonian tropical dry season.
The increased rates were first reported by Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, INPE) in June and July 2019 through satellite monitoring systems, but international attention was drawn to the situation by August 2019 when NASA corroborated INPE's findings, and smoke from the fires, visible from satellite imagery, darkened the city of São Paulo despite being thousands of kilometers from the Amazon. As of August 29, 2019, INPE reported more than 80,000 fires across all of Brazil, a 77% year-to-year increase for the same tracking period, with more than 40,000 in the Brazil's Legal Amazon (Amazônia Legal or BLA), which contains 60% of the Amazon. Similar year-to-year increases in fires were subsequently reported in Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru, with 2019 fire counts within each nation of over 19,000, 11,000 and 6,700, respectively, as of August 29, 2019.[3] It is estimated that over 906 thousand hectares (2.24×106 acres; 9,060 km2; 3,500 sq mi) of forest within the Amazon biome has been lost to fires in 2019. In addition to the impact on global climate, the fires created environmental concerns from the excess carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide within the fires' emissions, potential impacts on the biodiversity of the Amazon, and threats to indigenous tribes that live within the forest.
-
That's it. To save the Amazon and the World, I'm moving into a cave.
"It’s Not Just Fires. Your Phone Is Also Destroying The Amazon."
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/gold-mining-amazon-rainforest (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/gold-mining-amazon-rainforest)
-
Your quote printed here from Wiki didn;t say anything about Brazilians starting fires. Yes, I know there were man started fires. But reading the quote doesn;t explain how much was man made or natural. Did the wiki article give those specifics? Also, post the article's link for reference so we can read the whole thing.
Could be Russians.
-
But reading the quote doesn;t explain how much was man made or natural. Did the wiki article give those specifics? Also, post the article's link for reference so we can read the whole thing.
Alan, the Amazon fire and deforestation would deserve its own thread. However, in order to satisfy your curiosity, I am pleased to oblige. Here are two articles:
(https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/2019-08-21t165535z_1942945837_rc15f10d89c0_rtrmadp_3_brazil-politics-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=1200)
A man works in a burning tract of Amazon jungle as it is being cleared by loggers and farmers in Iranduba, Amazonas state, Brazil August 20, 2019. (REUTERS/Bruno Kelly/File Photo)
Deforestation is considered the major contributing factor behind the alarming numbers. nvironmentalists have also put the blame on President Jair Bolsonaro, saying his policies have only threatened the forest more.
Human activities — farming, mining and drilling — are what scientists say are exacerbating the situation now.
Bolsonaro said that “everything indicates” that NGOs are responsible but had no evidence for his allegations, saying he doesn’t have a “plan” because “that’s not how it’s done.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/5794191/amazon-rainforest-fire-explained/
Record-breaking fires are ripping through the Amazon — an ecosystem on which the whole world depends.
An unprecedented number of fires have raged throughout Brazil in 2019, intensifying in August. There have been more than 80,000 fires so far this year, the most ever recorded by the country’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE). It’s a nearly 80 percent jump compared to the number of fires the country experienced over the same time period in 2018. More than half of those fires are taking place in the Amazon.
Experts say deforestation and a practice called slash-and-burn are to blame for most of the flames. People cut down patches of forest, allow the area to dry out, then set the remains ablaze to make room for agriculture or other development. They might also set fires to replenish the soil and encourage the growth of pastures for cattle.
“These are intentional fires to clear the forest,” Cathelijne Stoof, coordinator of the Fire Center at Wageningen University (WUR) in the Netherlands, tells The Verge. “People want to get rid of the forest to make agricultural land, for people to eat meat.”
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/28/20836891/amazon-fires-brazil-bolsonaro-rainforest-deforestation-analysis-effects
The latest announcement by Bolsonaro stated that he will take $12 million aid from UK, but he will now stop using his French BIC pen. He is, however, still mulling over whether he will accept the $20 million aid package from France.
-
Alan, the Amazon fire and deforestation would deserve its own thread. However, in order to satisfy your curiosity, I am pleased to oblige. Here are two articles:
(https://shawglobalnews.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/2019-08-21t165535z_1942945837_rc15f10d89c0_rtrmadp_3_brazil-politics-1.jpg?quality=70&strip=all&w=1200)
A man works in a burning tract of Amazon jungle as it is being cleared by loggers and farmers in Iranduba, Amazonas state, Brazil August 20, 2019. (REUTERS/Bruno Kelly/File Photo)
https://globalnews.ca/news/5794191/amazon-rainforest-fire-explained/
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/28/20836891/amazon-fires-brazil-bolsonaro-rainforest-deforestation-analysis-effects
The latest announcement by Bolsonaro stated that he will take $12 million aid from UK, but he will now stop using his French BIC pen. He is, however, still mulling over whether he will accept the $20 million aid package from France.
Why is he taking aid from foreigners anyway? Doesn't he have any pride. I would take care of the issue myself with Brazilian money. Then throw away my Bic. :)
-
Germany screwing American drivers and screwing up the climate again. Pays big fine. What's with you Europeans? How can anyone believe that Germany is abiding by the Paris Accords since they cheat all the time? China doesn't even have to cheat since they don;t have to do anything until 2030. And people wonder why Trump pulled out of Paris.
"the EPA also alleges that VW understated the greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 220,000 metric tons."
[size=78%]https://www.thedrive.com/news/29641/volkswagen-agrees-to-repay-owners-after-overstating-fuel-economy-figures-on-98000-vehicles (https://www.thedrive.com/news/29641/volkswagen-agrees-to-repay-owners-after-overstating-fuel-economy-figures-on-98000-vehicles)[/size]
That's a lot of cows.
-
Germany screwing American drivers and screwing up the climate again. Pays big fine. What's with you Europeans? How can anyone believe that Germany is abiding by the Paris Accords since they cheat all the time? China doesn't even have to cheat since they don;t have to do anything until 2030. And people wonder why Trump pulled out of Paris.
"the EPA also alleges that VW understated the greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 220,000 metric tons."
[size=78%]https://www.thedrive.com/news/29641/volkswagen-agrees-to-repay-owners-after-overstating-fuel-economy-figures-on-98000-vehicles (https://www.thedrive.com/news/29641/volkswagen-agrees-to-repay-owners-after-overstating-fuel-economy-figures-on-98000-vehicles)[/size]
The German emission is now old news. What is new is that:
From today, the vegan ” Wonder Burger” will be available from ALDI. Following our report last week that Europe’s largest producer of pork is to cease the slaughter of pigs in its German facility and branch out into plantbased meat, we can now reveal that, as a sign of the times, the producers of the Aldi and Lidl vegan burgers come from Germany’s most intensive area of animal agriculture.
By switching to vegan burgers and reducing the cow herds, they will more than make up for the car exhaust fiasco.
https://vegconomist.com/food-and-beverage/sign-of-the-changing-times-we-reveal-who-produces-the-vegan-burgers-for-lidl-and-aldi/
-
The German emission is now old news.
Indeed. But what's new is (or is it?):
EPA Aims To Roll Back Limits On Methane Emissions From Oil And Gas Industry
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/29/755394353/epa-aims-to-roll-back-limits-on-methane-emissions-from-oil-and-gas-industry
By switching to vegan burgers and reducing the cow herds, they will more than make up for the car exhaust fiasco.
Yes, that can over time make a big difference, and I'm told that the quality of some of these meat replacements is quite good. It's also good news from the perspective of animal welfare. With Lidl and Aldi embracing it, the prices will come down faster due to larger volumes being produced more efficiently.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I can just see the new slogan:
"Eat Vegan burgers. Be healthy and change the weather."
-
I can just see the new slogan:
"Eat Vegan burgers. Be healthy and change the weather."
For most effective way, it's best to eat plant-based food directly and skip the processed variety.
-
I can just see the new slogan:
"Eat Vegan burgers. Be healthy and change the weather."
I found the company that could use my slogan.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html
-
I can just see the new slogan:
"Eat Vegan burgers. Be healthy and change the weather."
Found this somewhere on the Internet:
“One survey found that vegans are viewed more negatively than atheists and immigrants, and are only slightly more tolerated than drug addicts…”
;D
-
Found this somewhere on the Internet:
“One survey found that vegans are viewed more negatively than atheists and immigrants, and are only slightly more tolerated than drug addicts…”
;D
I always thought that the McDonalds patrons were viewed negatively.
Well, based on that survey, the life would be tough to handle for a non-religious, plant-eating immigrant.
-
Interesting article on upping the ante using sunlight for cleaner air. The article also mentions they expect population of the world to go up to 10 billion from 7.5 now with an increase in energy requirements from 17 terrawatts to 30.
"Extracting clean fuel from sunlight"
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-fuel-sunlight.html (https://phys.org/news/2019-09-fuel-sunlight.html)
-
Found this somewhere on the Internet:
“One survey found that vegans are viewed more negatively than atheists and immigrants, and are only slightly more tolerated than drug addicts…”
;D
Today, I found this on Internet:
A revolutionary new documentary about meat, protein, and strength by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a vocal environmental advocate. Schwarzenegger is an executive producer for documentary Game Changers, which chronicles the rise in plant-based diets in the athletic world. In the past, Schwarzenegger has stressed the importance of cutting down on meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Game Changers, set for release in September, will “terminate outdated myths about protein, strength, and performance”
Movie trailer
https://gamechangersmovie.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4dKq2ou25AIVV8DICh3gTA7YEAAYASAAEgJtFPD_BwE
-
While this has to do with Dorian, I wanted to post it here. It shows how photographers and media distort things to satisfy their political agenda. Reminds me of the photo of the polar bear on the ice with the caption how the bear is going to die from starvation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abaco-bahamas-hurricane-dorian/
-
While this has to do with Dorian, I wanted to post it here. It shows how photographers and media distort things to satisfy their political agenda. Reminds me of the photo of the polar bear on the ice with the caption how the bear is going to die from starvation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abaco-bahamas-hurricane-dorian/
You wonder if those posters are really so dumb or just impatient and desperate to get their name on the social media, so they would grab quickly any comparable picture. Unfortunately, there were other similar instances in the past, and no doubt, they will be more in the future.
-
While this has to do with Dorian, I wanted to post it here. It shows how photographers and media distort things to satisfy their political agenda. Reminds me of the photo of the polar bear on the ice with the caption how the bear is going to die from starvation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abaco-bahamas-hurricane-dorian/
Fully on topic. Facebook et al are not a reliable source of information. How hard can it be?
That's why it is important to follow news back to its source, e.g. scientific publications or use trustworthy sources.
-
Fully on topic. Facebook et al are not a reliable source of information. How hard can it be?
That's why it is important to follow news back to its source, e.g. scientific publications or use trustworthy sources.
I think it's too much to expect laymen to read scientific journals to get their news. Most people refer to popular publications which I agree are unfortunately not trustworthy sources . I think they should read our forums for the truth. :)
-
I think it's too much to expect laymen to read scientific journals to get their news. Most people refer to popular publications which I agree are unfortunately not trustworthy sources . I think they should read our forums for the truth. :)
Some of the posts anyway ;)
-
You wonder if those posters are really so dumb or just impatient and desperate to get their name on the social media, so they would grab quickly any comparable picture. Unfortunately, there were other similar instances in the past, and no doubt, they will be more in the future.
We just had the phony pictures of the Amazon burning, many of them either not from the Amazon or taken a decade earlier and posited as current. Add phoney Dorian shots and pretty soon those polar bear shots also are suspect. So people become climate and Amazon fire sceptics. How many people decide not to evacuate before the next storm because in their head they remember that there's was something "phoney" about the reporting, maybe overhyped?
Getting back to photography, I wonder if it's more acceptable to distort news due to Photoshop? It seems so natural to replace elements of the real picture with phoney stuff. More importantly, since everyone doing it, what's the big deal from a moral standpoint if it's done by photojournalists to project a political point they believe in or just for the notoriety?
-
Some of the posts anyway ;)
Ah, that's the rub. Who's posts? What popular publications? Even which scientific journals? How does anyone sort through this stuff? Ever go to a second doctor to get a second opinion? So who's right? Who do you believe?
-
I think it's too much to expect laymen to read scientific journals to get their news. Most people refer to popular publications which I agree are unfortunately not trustworthy sources . I think they should read our forums for the truth. :)
-
I don;t get Facebook. No wonder I'm not with it.
-
While this has to do with Dorian, I wanted to post it here. It shows how photographers and media distort things to satisfy their political agenda. Reminds me of the photo of the polar bear on the ice with the caption how the bear is going to die from starvation.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abaco-bahamas-hurricane-dorian/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abaco-bahamas-hurricane-dorian/)
You knew it had to come. From the NY Times, of course.
"Hurricane Dorian Makes Bahamians the Latest Climate-Crisis Victims"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/hurricane-dorian-bahamas.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/hurricane-dorian-bahamas.html)
-
The walls on that damaged house are rather thin. If most houses there were built that way, that would explain the large number of destroyed homes.
Interestingly, if you look at aerial pictures of the hit areas, you can see some houses, which appear undamaged. Some of them even two stories tall. Of course, the flood engulfed everything.
-
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/the-environmental-fiasco-of-wind-energy.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIASCO OF WIND ENERGY
If a wind farm includes 100 turbines, that means that 500 million pounds of concrete (which off-gases CO2, by the way) have been poured into what previously was likely farm land. When the turbines are defunct after a mere 20 years, what will be done with hundreds of millions of pounds of concrete?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Wu8YpsBY4
This hand penciled black line is a great illustration of how climate scepticism manifests itself.
It is not climate scepticism per se, but illustrate a great example of a desperate attempt to falsify scientific forecast to support one's own political beliefs.
In this case we all understand that this political belief is just Trump unwilling to acknowledge he made a mistake of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/the-environmental-fiasco-of-wind-energy.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIASCO OF WIND ENERGY
If a wind farm includes 100 turbines, that means that 500 million pounds of concrete (which off-gases CO2, by the way) have been poured into what previously was likely farm land. When the turbines are defunct after a mere 20 years, what will be done with hundreds of millions of pounds of concrete?
It's good to know how much material goes into a turbine installation. Hopefully, they can make them last more than 20 years to get more mileage out of them. And after they finished their useful life, maybe a good portion of the concrete base can be reused for the next generation of the turbines.
OTOH, a typical nuclear station is built for a 40 years life-span, although they can last twice as long. A lot of concrete, steel and other materials go also into the nuclear plant structures, not counting all ongoing expenses and maintenance.
-
Massive hydroelectric dams are the future of power in Switzerland. Many huge structures already supply most of the nation's electricity.
Amazing alpine imagery
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2019-swiss-dams/?srnd=markets-vp
-
It's good to know how much material goes into a turbine installation. Hopefully, they can make them last more than 20 years to get more mileage out of them. And after they finished their useful life, maybe a good portion of the concrete base can be reused for the next generation of the turbines.
OTOH, a typical nuclear station is built for a 40 years life-span, although they can last twice as long. A lot of concrete, steel and other materials go also into the nuclear plant structures, not counting all ongoing expenses and maintenance.
Yes, not much new in Slobodan's link to, oh shudder, a blog. It indeed doesn't specify what's needed to build and maintain traditional or alternative power generators.
Also not mentioned is that other types of traditional power generation plants additionally require a constant stream of fuel to keep things running, and they produce unwelcome emissions. The harvesting of fossil fuel also requires an infrastructure that has to be built, and the transport itself causes environmental issues.
-
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/the-environmental-fiasco-of-wind-energy.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIASCO OF WIND ENERGY
This article is really odd.
the closing line:
"Wind energy, like solar energy, is an environmental disaster–just one more reason why it should not be subsidized or mandated by government."
Bang!
conclusion: Let's stop with solar energy and wind energy all together for it is a environmental disaster and needs to be subsidized.
The main envirommental problem in this article is not being able to recycle the blades of the turbines, made of fiberglass...
Because of that they bury them in the soil after use...
This ( solvable) problem is mini-micro-nano-peanuts compared to the environmental damage caused by burning oil and the production facilities it needs.
ask Burtynsky
https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/projects/photographs/oil
-
At the moment the Netherlands builts some large wind turbines fields that require no subsidy.
It will take care of 10 million households.
The Dutch article is about the first transformatoroplatform at sea to distribute the power.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2300330-eerste-stekkerdoos-op-noordzee-klaar-voor-gebruik.html
-
If the USA will stick in the oil-age, it will have a problem caching up with countries already using clean energy on a large scale, like China...
-
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/the-environmental-fiasco-of-wind-energy.php?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=sw&utm_campaign=sw
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIASCO OF WIND ENERGY
In the eighties, I designed specialized software used by maintenance departments of three large nuclear stations in Ontario and thus became aware of the ongoing maintenance costs for NPPs. The capital and labour budget for these departments was relatively high at that time and it could be even higher now.
New power plants use more concrete than the earlier generations. They are built to withstand aircraft crashes, earthquakes, harsh weather, and material fatigue. In addition to the original construction, the continued operation and ageing require frequent and stringent structure monitoring and periodic repairs.
Unlike mechanical components or electrical equipment that can be replaced, the concrete reactor structures cannot be replaced. When eventually decommisioned, not too much of the original construction can be salvaged. That's one reason why we have now so many aging nuclear power plants. Design life of most existing 2nd generation NPPs was typically 30 to 40 years. However, economic benefits for utilities resulting from extending plant service life (with 60 or more years being a quoted target), means that existing concrete structures often will have to meet their functional and performance requirements for a time period significantly greater than considered during their initial design. Although the U.S. limits initial commercial power reactor licenses to a 40-year period, regulations allow these licenses to be renewed for an additional period of 20 years. Presently 437 NPP units are in operation in 37 countries, many of them nearing the end of their life. It will be much harder and more expensive to get rid of those structures than of the wind turbines.
-
You guys are just silly. It is not about how many tons of concrete, steel, and plastics is needed for wind vs. traditional or nuclear, but the ratio of it per unit of electricity delivered.
-
You just don't understand, Slobodan. Windmills and solar panels make them feel good about themselves. That's far more important than efficiency in electrical production.
-
... attempt to falsify scientific forecast...
Why would anyone need to bother!? The “scientific” forecasts falsify themselves.
Just ask South Floridians who are rolling on the (sunny) streets laughing at it. I just spent several days of my life preparing for the “catastrophe,” hours on the phone with airlines, hundreds of dollars, which would have turned into thousands have I not decided to cancel evacuation tickets, only to spend days bored, waiting for Godot.
The “scientific” forecast started with the whole freaking Florida (and more) painted catastrophe red, only to end up not even touching Florida.
-
In the eighties, I designed specialized software used by maintenance departments of three large nuclear stations in Ontario and thus became aware of the ongoing maintenance costs for NPPs. The capital and labour budget for these departments was relatively high at that time and it could be even higher now.
New power plants use more concrete than the earlier generations. They are built to withstand aircraft crashes, earthquakes, harsh weather, and material fatigue. In addition to the original construction, the continued operation and ageing require frequent and stringent structure monitoring and periodic repairs.
Unlike mechanical components or electrical equipment that can be replaced, the concrete reactor structures cannot be replaced. When eventually decommisioned, not too much of the original construction can be salvaged. That's one reason why we have now so many aging nuclear power plants. Design life of most existing 2nd generation NPPs was typically 30 to 40 years. However, economic benefits for utilities resulting from extending plant service life (with 60 or more years being a quoted target), means that existing concrete structures often will have to meet their functional and performance requirements for a time period significantly greater than considered during their initial design. Although the U.S. limits initial commercial power reactor licenses to a 40-year period, regulations allow these licenses to be renewed for an additional period of 20 years. Presently 437 NPP units are in operation in 37 countries, many of them nearing the end of their life. It will be much harder and more expensive to get rid of those structures than of the wind turbines.
OMG, are you telling me things degrade and rot over time, things like concrete and metal? Amazing.
I think you will be very depressed to hear than that wind & solar farms use significantly more concrete and metal just due to how incredibly large they need to be. So it seems like this will be more of a problem with wind & solar then nuclear.
By the way, I don't see how it will be much more difficult to tear down a very contained concrete structure in one location vs removing several 100, or even 1000, concrete foundations built for wind turbines over several 1000s of acres. Once the nuclear material is removed, you can use a controlled detonation to destroy the structure and then remove the rubble fairly easily. Also, damage to the environment by heavy machinery used in the removal will be located to one place that will be relatively near or in a developed area already.
With a wind farm, you need to remove the foundations one at a time, which will take much longer. Damage to the ground and environment from heavy machinery during the removal will be much more wide spread as well. Also, due to the size of these farms, they need to be in rural areas to be economical, which means this damage will be on undeveloped lands.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Wu8YpsBY4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Wu8YpsBY4)
This hand penciled black line is a great illustration of how climate scepticism manifests itself.
It is not climate scepticism per se, but illustrate a great example of a desperate attempt to falsify scientific forecast to support one's own political beliefs.
In this case we all understand that this political belief is just Trump unwilling to acknowledge he made a mistake of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
Trump didn't make a mistake. You've been reading the fake news. He ran and won the presidency on pulling out of Paris and opening up America to more fossil fuel production. The first was pushed because he said that there are no penalties in the Paris Accord. It's all voluntary and most countries cheat. On top of that China doesn;t have to do anything until 2030 putting us at a disadvantage economically (you too.). Also, India doesn;t have to do anything and will triple their CO2 emissions by 2030.
Meanwhile, fracking and other oil and fossil fuel production that was opposed by Obama and pushed by Trump has now made America the largest producer of oil in the world beating out Saudi Arabia.
Trump has said he would consider getting back into Paris if rules especially penalties were tightened up and that all countries especially China and India would have to comply as well.
-
You guys are just silly. It is not about how many tons of concrete, steel, and plastics is needed for wind vs. traditional or nuclear, but the ratio of it per unit of electricity delivered.
Yes, very true. And you use a lot more, by leaps and bounds, concrete, metal and plastic for a wind farm that produces less energy, intermittently and only at best 30% of the time, then for a nuclear plant that can produce power on demand over 80% of the time.
-
Why would anyone need to bother!? The “scientific” forecasts falsify themselves.
Just ask South Floridians who are rolling on the (sunny) streets laughing at it. I just spent several days of my life preparing for the “catastrophe,” hours on the phone with airlines, hundreds of dollars, which would have turned into thousands have I not decided to cancel evacuation tickets, only to spend days bored, waiting for Godot.
The “scientific” forecast started with the whole freaking Florida (and more) painted catastrophe red, only to end up not even touching Florida.
Just think yourself lucky you don't live in Alabama. I mean - from a cyclone perspective.
-
OMG, are you telling me things degrade and rot over time, things like concrete and metal? Amazing.
I think you will be very depressed to hear than that wind & solar farms use significantly more concrete and metal just due to how incredibly large they need to be. So it seems like this will be more of a problem with wind & solar then nuclear.
By the way, I don't see how it will be much more difficult to tear down a very contained concrete structure in one location vs removing several 100, or even 1000, concrete foundations built for wind turbines over several 1000s of acres. Once the nuclear material is removed, you can use a controlled detonation to destroy the structure and then remove the rubble fairly easily. Also, damage to the environment by heavy machinery used in the removal will be located to one place that will be relatively near a developed area already.
With a wind farm, you need to removed the foundations one at a time, which will take much longer. Damage to the ground and environment from heavy machinery during the removal will be much more wide spread as well. Also, due to the size of these farms, they need to be in rural areas to be economical, which means this damage will be on undeveloped lands.
The biggest problem with wind and solar is that you have to back them up with fossil fuel plants when wind and sun aren;t available. So you really don't get rid of the traditional plants regardless. Also, it costs money to have fossil fuel plants as backup. Operating and maintenance personnel, fuel, replacement costs as equipment ages, grid maintenance, etc.
Regarding wind, New York State is going to install many of these in the ocean off Long Island. It works out to $3200 per home to build. (Power for a million homes budget $3.2 billion). Well, that's the estimate. Most government projects always cost a lot more when done. Also, that doesn;t include the cost to build fossil fuel plants that they need to backup them up. Don't know the cost of those. Plus the wind generators will be the the ocean requiring much higher maintenance costs for helicopters, ships to bring service technicians, undersea grid cables, etc. How much is it going to cost when they have to decommission these in the future being 30 miles out to sea? Nothing's cheap.
-
I guess the same future generation who will have to worry about climate change in the future will have to worry about costs to decommission all these wind generator stations. Neither will be our problem. :)
-
You just don't understand, Slobodan. Windmills and solar panels make them feel good about themselves. That's far more important than efficiency in electrical production.
When more and more stories like this start happening, wind and solar will go by the wayside.
The Tale of a Texas Town on 100% Renewable Energy (https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/02/02/the-tale-of-a-texas-town-on-100-renewable-energy/)
Epic fail of renewables causes Texas town to have $1200 per year higher power bills (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/29/epic-fail-of-renewables-causes-texas-town-to-have-1200-per-month-higher-power-bills/)
Chuck DeVore: Texas town's renewable energy experiment failure proves Green New Deal unworkable (https://www.foxnews.com/media/chuck-devore-says-renewable-energy-experiment-failure-in-texas-town-proof-green-new-deal-unworkable)
At the end of the day, people will start to realize France uses nuclear for nearly all of its electrical production and has very low prices, much lower then Germany's woke green revolution electric grid, and people will make the right decision.
I was at the King of Prussia mall this weekend with a bunch of family. My sister-in-law's boyfriend, Matt, is an architect and very environmentally aware, like most architects. The KoP mall has a Tesla dealership in it, which is honestly kind of odd that a car dealership is actually inside a mall in one the stores. (Or maybe it's me; I rarely ever go to a mall.) We took a look at the vehicles and they are nice, but at the end of it, Matt made a interesting statement that kind of struck me. He cant stand Tesla and said that if the government stopped the subsidies, the whole company would collapse overnight.
Now this is something I know to be the case, but hearing it from someone who is center left was striking. Not a good sign for those on the far left who seem to think all this stuff will just be accepted. If it does not work, even most of those on the left wont accept it.
-
When more and more stories like this start happening, wind and solar will go by the wayside.
The Tale of a Texas Town on 100% Renewable Energy (https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/02/02/the-tale-of-a-texas-town-on-100-renewable-energy/)
Epic fail of renewables causes Texas town to have $1200 per year higher power bills (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/29/epic-fail-of-renewables-causes-texas-town-to-have-1200-per-month-higher-power-bills/)
Chuck DeVore: Texas town's renewable energy experiment failure proves Green New Deal unworkable (https://www.foxnews.com/media/chuck-devore-says-renewable-energy-experiment-failure-in-texas-town-proof-green-new-deal-unworkable)
At the end of the day, people will start to realize France uses nuclear for nearly all of its electrical production and has very low prices, much lower then Germany's woke green revolution electric grid, and people will make the right decision.
I was at the King of Prussia mall this weekend with a bunch of family. My sister-in-law's boyfriend, Matt, is an architect and very environmentally aware, like most architects. The KoP mall has a Tesla dealership in it, which is honestly kind of odd that a car dealership is actually inside a mall in one the stores. (Or maybe it's me; I rarely ever go to a mall.) We took a look at the vehicles and they are nice, but at the end of it, Matt made a interesting statement that kind of struck me. He cant stand Tesla and said that if the government stopped the subsidies, the whole company would collapse overnight.
Now this is something I know to be the case, but hearing it from someone who is center left was striking. Not a good sign for those on the far left who seem to think all this stuff will just be accepted. If it does not work, even most of those on the left wont accept it.
Joe, it doesn;t matter. All the Democrats running for office will push green if one wins. If the Dems also take the Senate, we'll have all sorts of green spending, all of it with more printing and inflation lowering our wealth, devaluing the dollar. More unemployment, less business, etc.
-
Why would anyone need to bother!? The “scientific” forecasts falsify themselves.
Just ask South Floridians who are rolling on the (sunny) streets laughing at it. I just spent several days of my life preparing for the “catastrophe,” hours on the phone with airlines, hundreds of dollars, which would have turned into thousands have I not decided to cancel evacuation tickets, only to spend days bored, waiting for Godot.
The “scientific” forecast started with the whole freaking Florida (and more) painted catastrophe red, only to end up not even touching Florida.
There is no "the 'scientific' forecast", there are lots of them.
The one you shouldn't have believed, is Trump's prediction that it would cross Florida to Alabama. It was quite clear from the onset that (depending on how fast the High-pressure system to the North of Dorian would dissolve) Dorian was likely to take a turn North, sooner or later.
However, nobody can guarantee the course of such a chaotic weather system. That's why Scientists speak of probabilities, and there was a slim possibility that it would first make landfall in Florida before turning North. Most models indicated an earlier turn North. Lucky for the Floridians (and unfortunate for those in the Bahamas), Dorian stalled over the Bahamas which bought a bit of time for the high pressure system to weaken and stop blocking Dorian from changing course.
Interestingly, I had looked at the various forecasting models last week, and the early European model already showed Dorian stalling/stopping (as it did) whereas the US models showed only a bit of slowdown and a larger probability of it making landfall in Florida. I wondered which would be closer to the awful reality. Now we Know.
-
There is no "the 'scientific' forecast", there are lots of them...
Of course. Like these ones. One is on Friday, the other is on Tuesday:
-
As of Monday this week, Philly was suppose to get a fair amount of rain today. Instead it is a balmy 76 F. Great weather for a round of golf!
-
There is no "the 'scientific' forecast", there are lots of them....
... Interestingly, I had looked at the various forecasting models last week, and the early European model already showed Dorian stalling/stopping (as it did) whereas the US models showed only a bit of slowdown and a larger probability of it making landfall in Florida. I wondered which would be closer to the awful reality. Now we Know.
Well... when you make "lots of them," one is bound to be closer to reality ;D
-
Of course. Like these ones. One is on Friday, the other is on Tuesday:
That's not so uncommon, the predictions are just that, approximate guesses.
Last year, the Hurricane Florence caused a lot of people on the other side of Florida to evacuate, but fortunately the hurricane weakened and landed further north.
-
There's one earlier prediction that shows it going into Florida then Georgia.(the red dot line). Then disappearing.
(https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/hurricane-dorian-spaghetti-models.jpg?quality=65&strip=all)
-
That's not so uncommon, the predictions are just that, approximate guesses...
Oh, no!? But, but... I thought that is science!? With 97% certainty?
Admittedly, my chances of bumping into a dinosaur during my lunch walk today are only 50/50. Either I will, or I won't.
;)
-
There is no "the 'scientific' forecast", there are lots of them.
The one you shouldn't have believed, is Trump's prediction that it would cross Florida to Alabama. It was quite clear from the onset that (depending on how fast the High-pressure system to the North of Dorian would dissolve) Dorian was likely to take a turn North, sooner or later.
However, nobody can guarantee the course of such a chaotic weather system. That's why Scientists speak of probabilities, and there was a slim possibility that it would first make landfall in Florida before turning North. Most models indicated an earlier turn North. Lucky for the Floridians (and unfortunate for those in the Bahamas), Dorian stalled over the Bahamas which bought a bit of time for the high pressure system to weaken and stop blocking Dorian from changing course.
Interestingly, I had looked at the various forecasting models last week, and the early European model already showed Dorian stalling/stopping (as it did) whereas the US models showed only a bit of slowdown and a larger probability of it making landfall in Florida. I wondered which would be closer to the awful reality. Now we Know.
That isn;t true. I also said that if the storm shoots across Florida, it could continue across the Gulf and hit Texas a lot further even than Alabama. Even this picture held by Trump of the original tracking shows that possibility as the tracking is across FLorida, one of the early predictions. The black magic marker is just an extension of the tracking cone. It makes sense that's where the storm would go if it did in fact go across Florida. It would hit the panhandle of Florida which sits at the bottom of Alabama and then Alabama itself. OF course it's just another chance to knock TRump whatever he says now knowing after the fact exactly its course.
[size=78%]https://www.apnews.com/416144d854fb4302a9f34cccae81b0e0/gallery/a335243c25174893be58547bc33e8812 (https://www.apnews.com/416144d854fb4302a9f34cccae81b0e0/gallery/a335243c25174893be58547bc33e8812)[/size]
-
Oh, no!? But, but... I thought that is science!? With 97% certainty?
Admittedly, my chances of bumping into a dinosaur during my lunch walk today are only 50/50. Either I will, or I won't.
;)
I can predict with 97% accuracy that this was not your last post...
See how perfect science works!
-
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/09/05/the-world-is-investing-less-in-clean-energy?cid1=cust/dailypicks1/n/bl/n/2019095n/owned/n/n/dailypicks1/n/n/NA/304223/n
“China, which once accounted for almost half of all investment in renewables, has seen the biggest drop”
... renewables are still a long way from replacing fossil fuels. That is especially true of coal in Asia. Despite China’s efforts to go green, it remains the world’s biggest consumer and producer of coal, which still accounts for three-fifths of its energy mix. India is building lots of coal-fired power plants; in South-East Asia the share of coal in electricity generation is on the rise. The world’s fuel palette still has too much black and too little green.
-
Trump didn't make a mistake. You've been reading the fake news. He ran and won the presidency on pulling out of Paris and opening up America to more fossil fuel production. The first was pushed because he said that there are no penalties in the Paris Accord. It's all voluntary and most countries cheat. On top of that China doesn;t have to do anything until 2030 putting us at a disadvantage economically (you too.). Also, India doesn;t have to do anything and will triple their CO2 emissions by 2030.
Meanwhile, fracking and other oil and fossil fuel production that was opposed by Obama and pushed by Trump has now made America the largest producer of oil in the world beating out Saudi Arabia.
Trump has said he would consider getting back into Paris if rules especially penalties were tightened up and that all countries especially China and India would have to comply as well.
Alan,
Sometimes I wonder if you are pretending you don't understand or really not understanding.
The mistake of Trump I was referring to was his Tweet that Alabama was going to be hit by the hurricane.
And the hand pencilled line I am refering to is the the tweaking of the weather forecast released by experts to make it look like Trump was not mistaken.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Alan,
Sometimes I wonder if you are pretending you don't understand or really not understanding.
The mistake of Trump I was referring to was his Tweet that Alabama was going to be hit by the hurricane.
And the hand pencilled line I am refering to is the the tweaking of the weather forecast released by experts to make it look like Trump was not mistaken.
Cheers,
Bernard
You expanded the meaning to encompass all of climate skepticism. I responded by addressing that issue which is the main issue regarding Trump. Not a minor fabricated political point created by anti-Trump media over a stupid issue of who drew a magic marker line. If that was the limited point of your post, well then it was very petty. I gave you more credit than that.
Here's your original statement:
Quote
This hand penciled black line is a great illustration of how climate scepticism manifests itself.
It is not climate scepticism per se, but illustrate a great example of a desperate attempt to falsify scientific forecast to support one's own political beliefs.
In this case we all understand that this political belief is just Trump unwilling to acknowledge he made a mistake of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, Alan, you seem to think that nearly all media are anti-Trump. What does that say to you?
-
So, Alan, you seem to think that nearly all media are anti-Trump. What does that say to you?
Surveys have shown that 90% of reporters are Democrats and liberal. It's always been that way for 70 years that I remember. They've always been biased against Republicans and conservative views and have distorted the news. So what you read is just fake news. Trump supporters have always known this. But Trump is the first headliner that has said it pointing his finger at the bias. So we cheer him on. The press has never been balanced in their news reporting.
-
So, either it’s a vast, well-organized conspiracy on the part of the news media (and, apparently, academia) or the 90% are correct and their progressive view is the appropriate way to manage the world’s problems.
Which is it?
-
Surveys have shown that 90% of reporters are Democrats and liberal. It's always been that way for 70 years that I remember. They've always been biased against Republicans and conservative views and have distorted the news. So what you read is just fake news. Trump supporters have always known this. But Trump is the first headliner that has said it pointing his finger at the bias. So we cheer him on. The press has never been balanced in their news reporting.
That's funny cos I remember watching CNN and thinking how conservative-biased it was.
-
From your point of view CNN (the Communist News Network) probably was, Jeremy.
-
So, either it’s a vast, well-organized conspiracy on the part of the news media (and, apparently, academia) or the 90% are correct and their progressive view is the appropriate way to manage the world’s problems.
Which is it?
Fake choice. Liberals are attracted to media. So the "conspiracy", if you will, is that they think alike.
-
Surveys have shown that 90% of reporters are Democrats and liberal.
What surveys and why is it so? If 90% of the freshly minted journalists are indeed lefties, one possible reason could be that 90% of university professors are also allegedly lefties.
-
... one possible reason could be that 90% of university professors are also allegedly lefties.
How else would Karla Marx graduate!?
-
Fake choice. Liberals are attracted to media. So the "conspiracy", if you will, is that they think alike.
I find that explanation rather opaque. It’s certainly terse.
Could you explain a little more?
-
What surveys and why is it so? If 90% of the freshly minted journalists are indeed lefties, one possible reason could be that 90% of university professors are also allegedly lefties.
Only 7% of journalists identify themselves as Republicans. More importantly, media is concentrated in the big liberal markets of NYC and LA and only a few other places that reflect the liberal bias of the places they live in. Add the fact that many of the major media are inherently liberal and hire liberal journalists that reflect their partisanship( ie NY Times, Washington Post, NBC CBS CNN ABC PBS), you get a huge bias in the reporting. It's not a spoken conspiracy but rather one from DNA.
Here's a good article of this situation from a rather liberal organ of news. Politico.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048)
-
I find that explanation rather opaque. It’s certainly terse.
Could you explain a little more?
Groupthink!
-
Another example of groupthink and bias to ignore the reality of things especially by the press who help push it and should know better. Yet we continue to go down a road ignoring the reality of things as they are because of a preconceived belief. Only data that proves the point will be highlighted in the media.
"Colorado Doctor Sounds Alarm on Marijuana Legalization
High hopes dashed"
https://freebeacon.com/issues/colorado-doctor-sounds-alarm-on-marijuana-legalization/ (https://freebeacon.com/issues/colorado-doctor-sounds-alarm-on-marijuana-legalization/)
-
Peter McLennan "I find that explanation rather opaque. It’s certainly terse.
Could you explain a little more?"
Groupthink!
So, even more terse, even more cryptic.
I take it you're refusing to elaborate.
-
So, even more terse, even more cryptic.
I take it you're refusing to elaborate.
Maybe confirmation bias is a better choice. Groupthink is not bad though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-
https://www.facebook.com/448623025347037/posts/1150553481820651?sfns=mo
-
https://www.facebook.com/448623025347037/posts/1150553481820651?sfns=mo
Slobodan, Fake news, again? What was the date of that early CNN forecast chart, just after midnight on Thursday August 29th, right? The next position was plotted for 2 AM. When did Trump make his "sharpie gate " statement about Alabama, on Twitter 7:51 AM - 1 Sep 2019, right?
More than 3 days later, right? You probably know that that's an eternity in hurricane trajectory forecasting, and by then many updates had been issued regarding the most likely course it would follow. In fact, the 'spaghetti chart' that Trump later produced in an attempt to prove that he is not as stupid as he portraited himself to be, showed that the most likely path was already bowing North before the center reached Florida. Which makes him look even worse as commander in chief who stayed home to play golf manage a potential upcoming crisis. He just demonstrated that he is incompetent.
It started with what might have been a small error, but it turned into an obsessive demonstration of his incompetence, and more importantly the danger he poses to others when he is pointed out that he is wrong about something. It then becomes an all-consuming obsession. He is increasingly becoming a danger to himself and the USA, and the rest of the world.
Hurricane Donald —
“Precious hours were wasted”: Trump’s doctored map affected hurricane forecasters
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/precious-hours-were-wasted-trumps-doctored-map-affected-hurricane-forecasters/
On Wednesday, when President Donald Trump was showing off a doctored hurricane forecast in the White House Oval Office, forecasters at the National Hurricane Center were mortified.
It was a critical moment for the federal tropical cyclone experts because Hurricane Dorian had begun to show signs of re-intensifying—it would later become a major hurricane again—and its track appeared increasingly likely to bring the storm's center ashore somewhere in the Carolinas. Two sources in the Miami-based hurricane center told Ars that Trump's "update" on Hurricane Dorian effectively paralyzed operations.
After Trump spoke, the forecasters' cell phones buzzed with incessant distractions. Media briefings were stopped for the afternoon. "Precious hours were wasted," one official at the center told me. "We aren’t going to put out bad forecasts, but we need to keep the eye on the ball here."
‘He’s losing his s—‘: Trump’s advisers are increasingly worried about his mental state following days of erratic behavior
https://www.businessinsider.nl/trump-aides-worried-about-mental-state-alabama-hurricane-dorian-2019-9/
‘He’s losing his s—‘: Trump’s advisers are increasingly worried about his mental state following days of erratic behavior
President Donald Trump’s aides and confidants are concerned about his mental state after days of erratic behavior and wild outbursts.
- “His mood changes from one minute to the next based on some headline or tweet, and the next thing you know his entire schedule gets tossed out the window because he’s losing his s—,” one former White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal conversations about the president, told Insider.
- Trump has spent the past several days fixated on his false claim over the weekend that Hurricane Dorian was going to hit Alabama. He has also lobbed attacks at his perceived enemies, like the actress Debra Messing, former FBI Director James Comey, and the “LameStream media.”
- “He’s deteriorating in plain sight,” one Republican strategist who is in frequent contact with the White House told Insider on Friday.
- But a person who was close to Trump’s legal team during the Russia investigation told Insider his public statements were “nothing compared to what he’s like behind closed doors.”
- “He’s like a bull seeing red,” this person added. “There’s just no getting through to him, and you can kiss your plans for the day goodbye because you’re basically stuck looking after a 4-year-old now.”
This is very troubling, indeed.
-
Slobodan, Fake news, again? What was the date of that early CNN forecast chart, just after midnight on Thursday August 29th, right? The next position was plotted for 2 AM. When did Trump make his "sharpie gate " statement about Alabama, on Twitter 7:51 AM - 1 Sep 2019, right?
More than 3 days later, right? You probably know that that's an eternity in hurricane trajectory forecasting, and by then many updates had been issued regarding the most likely course it would follow. In fact, the 'spaghetti chart' that Trump later produced in an attempt to prove that he is not as stupid as he portraited himself to be, showed that the most likely path was already bowing North before the center reached Florida. Which makes him look even worse as commander in chief who stayed home to play golf manage a potential upcoming crisis. He just demonstrated that he is incompetent.
It started with what might have been a small error, but it turned into an obsessive demonstration of his incompetence, and more importantly the danger he poses to others when he is pointed out that he is wrong about something. It then becomes an all-consuming obsession. He is increasingly becoming a danger to himself and the USA, and the rest of the world.
This is very troubling, indeed.
Indeed, the above Trump's character analysis matches with my personal observations. One day, some people will be blamed because they didn't remove him from the office in time.
-
Indeed, the above Trump's character analysis matches with my personal observations...
You were there!?
-
Slobodan, Fake news, again?...
More than 3 days later, right? ...
No, not fake news. We can argue about the significance of three days, path uncertainty, etc., but fake news it ain't. It is a live tv and they said Alabama and Mississippi, among others. That probably stuck in Trump's memory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/noaa-contradicts-national-weather-service-trump-dorian-alabama.html
-
No, not fake news. We can argue about the significance of three days, path uncertainty, etc., but fake news it ain't. It is a live tv and they said Alabama and Mississippi, among others. That probably stuck in Trump's memory.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/noaa-contradicts-national-weather-service-trump-dorian-alabama.html
Trumps always copies CNN... While he knows only FOX brings the real news!
-
Is it a coincidence that NOAA’s current director of communications previously worked on the Trump campaign?
-
Good for you, Fab. I kept thinking this "discussion" couldn't get any sillier. I was wrong.
-
Good for you, Fab. I kept thinking this "discussion" couldn't get any sillier. I was wrong.
I think the fact that it took Trump and his minions six days to get NOAA to issue this statement says a lot. Six days? Really?
-
There you go again. ;D :D ;D :D
-
There you go again. ;D :D ;D :D
Somebody has to keep the thread alive now that we have apparently solved the climate change issue.
-
Well, at age N/A you probably don't know the history of that phrase.
-
Well, at age N/A you probably don't know the history of that phrase.
The quote is so commonplace there is even a Wikipedia entry for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_you_go_again
-
Sorry, Fab, you lost me with that one. So you looked it up. Yeah, Google tells the whole story. I remember what it was like to be N/A old. It had its compensations, especially in the joints -- both kinds.
-
You were there!?
It's amazing how much you can learn remotely from a video. The last video I watched was about American spin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCjNiimbY-A
just watch the first 15 seconds
-
It's amazing how much you can learn remotely from a video. The last video I watched was about American spin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCjNiimbY-A
just watch the first 15 seconds
She can give me lessons on how to spin. Language barrier is no problem. No, not the announcer. The other one.
-
The Democrats and liberal media have always used making fun of Republican presidents and candidates as a way to bring them down. I remember with Eisenhower, they said he was losing it, incompetent, senile. Meanwhile he ended the Korean war and kept America at peace for 8 years. Ditto with Reagan. He too was called incompetent, senile. Yet he helped destroy the Soviet Union. Presidential Republican Candidate Goldwater was going to start WWIII with nukes so the Democrat claimed. Meanwhile it was his competitor Johnson who as president made up the phoney Tonkin Bay incident that got us into the Vietnam War that killed 58,000 Americans and millions others.
So now they're doing it with Trump. They don;t want to talk about the good economy, his destruction of ISIS territory, his stopping the NK from testing nukes and firing ICMS, for taking on the Chinese and their stealing intellectual property secrets and islands that belong to others. So they concentrate on trying to make fun of him over silly stuff. They want to make it seem like a billionaire father of great effective and bright successful children and who single handedly beat both the Bush and Clinton dynasties and his own party's secret plans to beat him is stupid and incompetent. The public and press should be taking him on with the real issues of the day. Unfortunately, the public rather not because they're silly gossips who fall for the fake news every time.
-
The Democrats and liberal media have always used making fun of Republican presidents and candidates as a way to bring them down. I remember with Eisenhower, they said he was losing it, incompetent, senile. Meanwhile he ended the Korean war and kept America at peace for 8 years. Ditto with Reagan. He too was called incompetent, senile. Yet he helped destroy the Soviet Union. Presidential Republican Candidate Goldwater was going to start WWIII with nukes so the Democrat claimed. Meanwhile it was his competitor Johnson who as president made up the phoney Tonkin Bay incident that got us into the Vietnam War that killed 58,000 Americans and millions others.
So now they're doing it with Trump. They don;t want to talk about the good economy, his destruction of ISIS territory, his stopping the NK from testing nukes and firing ICMS, for taking on the Chinese and their stealing intellectual property secrets and islands that belong to others. So they concentrate on trying to make fun of him over silly stuff. They want to make it seem like a billionaire father of great effective and bright successful children and who single handedly beat both the Bush and Clinton dynasties and his own party's secret plans to beat him is stupid and incompetent. The public and press should be taking him on with the real issues of the day. Unfortunately, the public rather not because they're silly gossips who fall for the fake news every time.
If i read this i think we did do not live in the same world... i recall history totally different than you... even what happened just today... amazing.
-
Ditto with Reagan. He too was called incompetent, senile.
Reagan incompetent? Arguably, but I think that probably depends more on your political perspective rather than any objective evidence—and his occasional temporary lapses of memory and articulation while in office could have been attributable to age. Senile? I don't recall that being reported while he was in office, only afterwards. Of course, in retirement he was indeed diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and that's what he died of. But although one of his children said he saw signs of senility while Reagan was president (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-reagan-signs-fathers-alzheimers-white-house/story?id=12618068), a reliable fact-checking site concluded that Reagan did not exhibit symptoms while he was in office (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-disease/).
Trump certainly seems to have some sort of cognitive oddities—e.g., his tendency to tell transparent lies and his propensity for grandiose statements—but I doubt anyone without medical training and appropriate clinical experience could make more than a guess at figuring out whether these are symptoms of dementia or of some other physiological or psychological debility.
-
If i read this i think we did do not live in the same world... i recall history totally different than you... even what happened just today... amazing.
What do you remember about Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan or Trump that is different? You don't even live here. How old are you anyway? What have you lived through in America? I don't recall much of what happened in the Netherlands. How can you know so much of American political history? How many American newspapers have you read in the last 70 years or watched TV news programs?
-
Reagan incompetent? Arguably, but I think that probably depends more on your political perspective rather than any objective evidence—and his occasional temporary lapses of memory and articulation while in office could have been attributable to age. Senile? I don't recall that being reported while he was in office, only afterwards. Of course, in retirement he was indeed diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and that's what he died of. But although one of his children said he saw signs of senility while Reagan was president (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-reagan-signs-fathers-alzheimers-white-house/story?id=12618068), a reliable fact-checking site concluded that Reagan did not exhibit symptoms while he was in office (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-disease/).
Trump certainly seems to have some sort of cognitive oddities—e.g., his tendency to tell transparent lies and his propensity for grandiose statements—but I doubt anyone without medical training and appropriate clinical experience could make more than a guess at figuring out whether these are symptoms of dementia or of some other physiological or psychological debility.
All politicians lie, spin the truth and prevaricate. To call it some psychological debility is just another attempt by your side to paint Trump as some sort of a defect. I understand the game that;s going on. It's easier and more effective to attack the person than his policies.
Trump just hasn't been at lying, spinning and prevaricating as long as most. He needs more practice. In any case, the press and his opponents look for stuff to spin to make him look bad. He should keep his mouth shut. But he needs to practice in order to get better at it. :)
-
Reagan incompetent? Arguably, but I think that probably depends more on your political perspective rather than any objective evidence—and his occasional temporary lapses of memory and articulation while in office could have been attributable to age. Senile? I don't recall that being reported while he was in office, only afterwards.
Hear, hear. And his staff made sure he didn't stray too far off a sensible track.
And while I generally was not a fan of his political beliefs, I do realize that his administration has facilitated a number of things that I can sympathize with. Seen from outside of American politics, in my country we try not to conflict personal appreciation with the broader general interest (if we can avoid that). We tend to take our (chosen) poison with a certain level of grace.
Of course, in retirement he was indeed diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and that's what he died of. But although one of his children said he saw signs of senility while Reagan was president (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-reagan-signs-fathers-alzheimers-white-house/story?id=12618068), a reliable fact-checking site concluded that Reagan did not exhibit symptoms while he was in office (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-disease/).
History will tell (or does it), how Ivanka will portrait her father after he can no longer benefit or damage her carrier perspectives ...
Trump certainly seems to have some sort of cognitive oddities—e.g., his tendency to tell transparent lies and his propensity for grandiose statements—but I doubt anyone without medical training and appropriate clinical experience could make more than a guess at figuring out whether these are symptoms of dementia or of some other physiological or psychological debility.
Yet, those who knowingly kept om pushing his candidacy, are complicit. Just face it, and it's consequences.
-
All politicians lie, spin the truth and prevaricate. To call it some psychological debility is just another attempt by your side to paint Trump as some sort of a defect. I understand the game that;s going on. It's easier and more effective to attack the person than his policies.
Trump just hasn't been at lying, spinning and prevaricating as long as most. He needs more practice. In any case, the press and his opponents look for stuff to spin to make him look bad. He should keep his mouth shut. But he needs to practice in order to get better at it. :)
Alan, he’s literally made a career of it. Why do you keep defending this jerk? (https://www.google.as/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/01/john-barron-donald-trump-liar/amp/). He’s not a conservative, multiple sources have confirmed that he neither studies nor prepares, and there’s zero indication that there’s any sort of cohesive policy that goes beyond pleasing the knee-jerk emotions of his abase, who apparently value nothing as much as annoying liberals, which is sort of a stupid policy position.
Listen, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. The man could cure cancer and some of us would find a way to belittle him for it. I admit that. But it’s real with his supporters as well. Stop finding any excuse to justify his idiocy and admit that he’s G** D*** incompetent. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and much of it comes from sources that are in no way liberal.
-
... value nothing as much as annoying liberals...
Seems good enough for me.
-
Seems good enough for me.
Lol. It may provide great sport, but I’d prefer someone with a better policy position than “annoy the other side”. YMMV (even though I don’t think it does) but in my opinion that’s a stupid and simple methodology.
-
The Democrats and liberal media have always used making fun of Republican presidents and candidates as a way to bring them down. I remember with Eisenhower, they said he was losing it, incompetent, senile. Meanwhile he ended the Korean war and kept America at peace for 8 years. Ditto with Reagan. He too was called incompetent, senile. Yet he helped destroy the Soviet Union.
Alzheimer's disease tends to develop slowly and gradually worsens over several years. Eventually, Alzheimer's disease affects most areas of your brain, such as memory, thinking, judgment, language, problem-solving, personality and movement. People with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have mild changes in their memory and thinking ability. These changes aren't significant enough to affect work or relationships yet, but people with MCI may have memory lapses when it comes to information that is usually easily remembered, such as conversations, recent events or appointments.
It is very likely, that Reagan's pre-clinical Alzheimer's disease began long before any symptoms became apparent. At that stage even people around him wouldn't have noticed the changes. Alzheimer in early stages it can be identified only in research settings.
-
Lol. It may provide great sport, but I’d prefer someone with a better policy position than “annoy the other side”. YMMV (even though I don’t think it does) but in my opinion that’s a stupid and simple methodology.
What’s not to like? 56% less invaders from shithole countries, for instance:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/mexico-us-border-crossings-down-trump-tariffs
-
What’s not to like? 56% less invaders from shithole countries, for instance:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/06/mexico-us-border-crossings-down-trump-tariffs
Nah. Not triggered. You gotta do better than that.
-
Nah. Not triggered. You gotta do better than that.
In another thread, perhaps. We got sidetracked from climate, again. Back to Alabama :)
-
We're really not sidetrack, skepticism about climate extends over all the areas of what's published as fake news. It creates skepticism about everything we read and hear.
-
Some interesting graphs that might be related to the thread subject or are of general interest:
-
Alan, he’s literally made a career of it. Why do you keep defending this jerk? (https://www.google.as/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/01/john-barron-donald-trump-liar/amp/). He’s not a conservative, multiple sources have confirmed that he neither studies nor prepares, and there’s zero indication that there’s any sort of cohesive policy that goes beyond pleasing the knee-jerk emotions of his abase, who apparently value nothing as much as annoying liberals, which is sort of a stupid policy position.
Listen, Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. The man could cure cancer and some of us would find a way to belittle him for it. I admit that. But it’s real with his supporters as well. Stop finding any excuse to justify his idiocy and admit that he’s G** D*** incompetent. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming, and much of it comes from sources that are in no way liberal.
Trump is incredibly incompetent. Most of us would have been fired tens of times from our far less critical jobs if we displayed 50% of his inabilities.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What do you remember about Eisenhower, Johnson, Reagan or Trump that is different? You don't even live here. How old are you anyway? What have you lived through in America? I don't recall much of what happened in the Netherlands. How can you know so much of American political history? How many American newspapers have you read in the last 70 years or watched TV news programs?
The thought that pops into my mind when I read someone from the Netherlands criticizing America, including our President, is that these are the people that built a third of their country on what God/nature intended to be a seabed. Trump might not have known where the hurricane was headed, but he has built his buildings above sea level.
-
Trump is incredibly incompetent. Most of us would have been fired tens of times from our far less critical jobs if we displayed 50% of his inabilities.
You get what you pay for* 😉
* hint: his presidential salary is ultimately zero
-
You get what you pay for* 😉
* hint: his presidential salary is ultimately zero
As we know does not care about making money ;)
-
As we know does not care about making money ;)
He donates all his presidential salary to US government agencies (e.g., his second-quarter went to the U.S. Surgeon General's office).
-
He donates all his presidential salary to US government agencies (e.g., his second-quarter went to the U.S. Surgeon General's office).
An excellent example of his ongoing and effective strategy to distract from the more odious truth.
-
An excellent example of his ongoing and effective strategy to distract from the more odious truth.
Indeed, and this is but one example:
Swamp Scandal: Trump Sees Huge Gain From Govt Spending At Hotels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USvNPGdo850
Cheers,
Bart
-
The #sharpiegate kerfuffle continues:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/09/09/noaas-chief-scientist-will-investigate-why-agency-backed-trump-over-its-experts-dorian-email-shows/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
-
The #sharpiegate kerfuffle continues:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/09/09/noaas-chief-scientist-will-investigate-why-agency-backed-trump-over-its-experts-dorian-email-shows/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
This entire episode is a mystery to me. Someone drew a line they shouldn't, all he had to do was shut up about it and no one would have noticed or cared much. A couple of tweets and it's forgotten. The man has threatened war on his twitter feed and his words are so without meaning that even the "apoplectic" loonie left doesn't respond to threats of war because no one takes a word he says seriously. So why is he doubling down on this Alabama nonsense? Is it a diversion from something else? Seems pointlessly obsessive.
-
Indeed, and this is but one example:
Swamp Scandal: Trump Sees Huge Gain From Govt Spending At Hotels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USvNPGdo850
Typical leftie one-sided attack. MSNBC, what else would one expect. They are throwing around big numbers (however they arrived to them), like $80 mil revenue. It is revenue, people, not profit. $80 mil do not go into Trump's pockets. At the same time, they claim his properties are not doing well, e.g., that PROFIT in one of his resorts went down 69%. A lot of that has to do with the active boycotting by the left. So, make up your mind, lefties: you can't accuse him of profiting and, at the same time, claim his properties are not doing well.
If I remember correctly, there was a report recently that he and the family are losing a lot of money due to the presidency. Besides, isn't this (attached) the case as well?
-
... Seems pointlessly obsessive.
We agree, for once.
-
Folks, get ready for a communist totalitarian society, courtesy of global warming and Armageddon fear-mongering:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR36IMeR9rO1EdHScUPv9wvo3bHqLAYKnqVApwc2TshN06wCXprhniE_f6s
(Emphasis mine)
The first condition is that every one of the world’s major polluting countries institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its economy...
... Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme measures taken to combat it. They can’t dismiss news they dislike as fake. They have to set aside nationalism and class and racial resentments. They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations and distant future generations. They have to be permanently terrified by hotter summers and more frequent natural disasters, rather than just getting used to them. Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast, they have to think about death....
... any movement toward a more just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combating extreme wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, ridding the country of assault weapons—these are all meaningful climate actions.
Hallelujah!
-
[...] So why is he doubling down on this Alabama nonsense? Is it a diversion from something else? Seems pointlessly obsessive.
It's a demonstration that the man creates his own fictional reality, and doesn't tolerate anybody to question him about it.
It is pointlessly obsessive, and (potentially) dangerous.
-
Nobody's talking about how talks with the Taliban have broken down and we may wind up staying there for another 20 years.
Somebody ought to circle Afghanistan with a magic marker.
-
Nobody's talking about how talks with the Taliban have broken down and we may wind up staying there for another 20 years.
That would be a topic for a new thread. Now that nobody has changed their mind, are we done with climate change?
-
That would be a topic for a new thread. Now that nobody has changed their mind, are we done with climate change?
Let me look out of the window first.
-
Folks, get ready for a communist totalitarian society, courtesy of global warming and Armageddon fear-mongering:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending?fbclid=IwAR36IMeR9rO1EdHScUPv9wvo3bHqLAYKnqVApwc2TshN06wCXprhniE_f6s
(Emphasis mine)
Hallelujah!
"communist totalitarian state'
Is this like an anti-Godwin law thing? ;)
-
Nobody's talking about how talks with the Taliban have broken down and we may wind up staying there for another 20 years.
Somebody ought to circle Afghanistan with a magic marker.
Talks have broken down? What talks?
How many people could find Afghanistan on a map to circle it?
-
"communist totalitarian state'
Is this like an anti-Godwin law thing? ;)
;)
-
Back to the climate discussion:
WASHINGTON — The Secretary of Commerce threatened to fire top employees at NOAA on Friday after the agency’s Birmingham office contradicted President Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama, according to three people familiar with the discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/climate/hurrican-dorian-trump-tweet.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
-
Ok... if those directly involved are crazy, can we at least not proliferate that craziness here? To hell with Alabama! (Sorry, people of Alabama, you are good).
-
Back to the climate discussion:
WASHINGTON — The Secretary of Commerce threatened to fire top employees at NOAA on Friday after the agency’s Birmingham office contradicted President Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama, according to three people familiar with the discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/climate/hurrican-dorian-trump-tweet.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
That's hilarious. It's the kind of thing we used to expect from the Soviet Union or some banana republic. Why are the people at the top, POTUS or Secretary of Commerce or whoever, doubling down on this crap? People earning high salaries in several departments actually spent their time worrying about this. All probably because they're worried that Trump's feelings might be hurt so they try to force through some elementary school level face-saving. He's contradicted all the time, he can take it, he's way over 21, he used to be a CEO, wtf?. Don't any of these people have work to do?
Most advanced and richest nation on earth, 350 million people to choose from, and this crowd of buffoons is the best you can do? Must be depressing as hell.
-
That's hilarious. It's the kind of thing we used to expect from the Soviet Union or some banana republic. Why are the people at the top, POTUS or Secretary of Commerce or whoever, doubling down on this crap? People earning high salaries in several departments actually spent their time worrying about this. All probably because they're worried that Trump's feelings might be hurt so they try to force through some elementary school level face-saving. He's contradicted all the time, he can take it, he's way over 21, he used to be a CEO, wtf?. Don't any of these people have work to do?
Most advanced and richest nation on earth, 350 million people to choose from, and this crowd of buffoons is the best you can do? Must be depressing as hell.
Indeed.
Now back to more important stuff:
-
Ok... if those directly involved are crazy, can we at least not proliferate that craziness here? To hell with Alabama! (Sorry, people of Alabama, you are good).
I happen to live in Alabama. It's funny that most I know here are not as upset by this meteorological mistake as those who were totally unaffected (with an agenda, of course.) Mountain out of a mole hill much? How much do you want to bet that had Obama or a Pres. H. Clinton (thank you, God. See? He/she does exist.) had done this, it would have been spun as an abundance of caution and would have been exalted by the MSM?
It's quite possible that Trump is batshit crazy. But having the Left in charge is a million times worse. In my view, the American Left is the number one enemy to the Constitution and the America I grew up in and love. I don't even think about what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, et al might do any more.
-
That's hilarious. It's the kind of thing we used to expect from the Soviet Union or some banana republic. Why are the people at the top, POTUS or Secretary of Commerce or whoever, doubling down on this crap? People earning high salaries in several departments actually spent their time worrying about this. All probably because they're worried that Trump's feelings might be hurt so they try to force through some elementary school level face-saving. He's contradicted all the time, he can take it, he's way over 21, he used to be a CEO, wtf?. Don't any of these people have work to do?
Most advanced and richest nation on earth, 350 million people to choose from, and this crowd of buffoons is the best you can do? Must be depressing as hell.
I agree. We should be using our government departments to do important things. Like the last administration using the CIA and FBI to go after political opponents. Let's do something really useful with these well-trained people.
-
It's quite possible that Trump is batshit crazy. But having the Left in charge is a million times worse. ...
Maybe Trump is so crazy he is left... and in charge of everything but his mind.
-
I happen to live in Alabama.
But having the Left in charge is a million times worse. In my view, the American Left is the number one enemy to the Constitution and the America I grew up in and love.
Ladies and gentlemen... Alabama. :-[
-
Ladies and gentlemen... Alabama. :-[
Je suis Alabama ;)
-
Je suis Alabama ;)
;D
-
Indeed.
Now back to more important stuff - incompatibility of the temperament:
And he needed 31 years to figure it out? Or did she become incompatible only recently?
-
I happen to live in Alabama. It's funny that most I know here are not as upset by this meteorological mistake as those who were totally unaffected (with an agenda, of course.) Mountain out of a mole hill much? How much do you want to bet that had Obama or a Pres. H. Clinton (thank you, God. See? He/she does exist.) had done this, it would have been spun as an abundance of caution and would have been exalted by the MSM?
It's quite possible that Trump is batshit crazy. But having the Left in charge is a million times worse. In my view, the American Left is the number one enemy to the Constitution and the America I grew up in and love. I don't even think about what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, et al might do any more.
If I may, you are missing the point.
The fact that Trump made a mistake about Alabama isn't a disaster. The real disaster is that he went as far as doctoring official weather forecast a few days later to hide the fact that he had made a mistake.
If having such a president is fine for you, I wonder on what values you are educating your kids. It doesn't sound like Republican values to me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... doctoring official weather forecast...
How so? By adding a sharpie line? Since you brought up our kids, even a kid would see that line was added, not to "doctor" it, but to explain. It was added as an explanation for what he was saying: that if you extrapolate the trend in the direction that the official forecast was showing, it might reach Alabama. Any common sense, reasonable man would understand it that way. Those with TDS, however...
-
How so? By adding a sharpie line? Since you brought up our kids, even a kid would see that line was added, not to "doctor" it, but to explain. It was added as an explanation for what he was saying: that if you extrapolate the trend in the direction that the official forecast was showing, it might reach Alabama. Any common sense, reasonable man would understand it that way. Those with TDS, however...
That's how I understood it. It would have been a marking I would have added. They also criticized him when he said that Obama was tapping his phone but of course the point was the Obama Administration was spying on him. Trump's enemies will twist everything he says into something that he didn't mean. It even seems to happen a lot here too. To me. 😀
-
How so? By adding a sharpie line? Since you brought up our kids, even a kid would see that line was added, not to "doctor" it, but to explain. It was added as an explanation for what he was saying: that if you extrapolate the trend in the direction that the official forecast was showing, it might reach Alabama. Any common sense, reasonable man would understand it that way. Those with TDS, however...
No, it demonstrates something more serious.
1. Trump made a mistake. Presumably.
2. That mistake had distracting consequences, thus requiring correction by the Weather/Hurricane Service officials in charge of communicating the forecasts.
3. Trump doesn't tolerate to be corrected.
4. Trump used a several days old forecast that was not decisive enough to prove him wrong (or right).
5. To doctor the outdated forecast he himself used a sharpie, assuming nobody would notice.
6. When asked about that alteration on the outdated forecast, he denied knowledge of it being doctored.
7. He then later produced a so-called "spaghetti" chart showing the "ensemble forecasts", which showed that most models proved him wrong.
8. He then demonstrated that he didn't know how to interpret such a chart (or he wouldn't have used it, since it proves the opposite of his claim).
9. He then ordered the NOAA officials to declare that he was right, threatening to fire those officials if they didn't.
10. Those officials then published an anonymous reaction, claiming that they had been wrong in correcting the president.
11. ...
Trump then got distracted/obsessed by another issue, the firing of Bolton, or did Bolton resign?
-
No, it demonstrates something more serious.
1. Trump made a mistake. Presumably.
2. That mistake had distracting consequences, thus requiring correction by the Weather/Hurricane Service officials in charge of communicating the forecasts.
3. Trump doesn't tolerate to be corrected.
4. Trump used a several days old forecast that was not decisive enough to prove him wrong (or right).
5. To doctor the outdated forecast he himself used a sharpie, assuming nobody would notice.
6. When asked about that alteration on the outdated forecast, he denied knowledge of it being doctored.
7. He then later produced a so-called "spaghetti" chart showing the "ensemble forecasts", which showed that most models proved him wrong.
8. He then demonstrated that he didn't know how to interpret such a chart (or he wouldn't have used it, since it proves the opposite of his claim).
9. He then ordered the NOAA officials to declare that he was right, threatening to fire those officials if they didn't.
10. Those officials then published an anonymous reaction, claiming that they had been wrong in correcting the president.
11. ...
Trump then got distracted/obsessed by another issue, the firing of Bolton, or did Bolton resign?
+1.
-
How so? By adding a sharpie line? Since you brought up our kids, even a kid would see that line was added, not to "doctor" it, but to explain. It was added as an explanation for what he was saying: that if you extrapolate the trend in the direction that the official forecast was showing, it might reach Alabama. Any common sense, reasonable man would understand it that way. Those with TDS, however...
I don't think that's what happened. As far as I recall, no comment was made about that line in that press meeting.
It was there to justify an earlier comment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It was unexpected (but not abnormal) for Trump to state that wrong forecast in the first place.
It was expected (but not normal) for him to keep tweeting that he was right.
It was not expected (but by now quite normal) that some of his fans try to prove that he was not wrong.
-
It was unexpected (but not abnormal) for Trump to state that wrong forecast in the first place.
It was expected (but not normal) for him to keep tweeting that he was right.
It was not expected (but by now quite normal) that some of his fans try to prove that he was not wrong.
+1
-
Les, there was no “wrong” forecast. There was a forecast, and not by Trump but by the weather service, that in retrospect turned out to be wrong. As I already posted, even CNN was saying at that time that Alabama and Mississippi could be affected. The knee-jerk denial by the weather service was a political stunt, as usual, to score quick points by contradicting the president. There was no need for that. Trump being Trump, fell into that trap and then it snowballed on both sides. Mountain out of a molehill.
-
Les, there was no “wrong” forecast. There was a forecast, and not by Trump but by the weather service, that in retrospect turned out to be wrong.
Wrong. Forecasts are just that, forecasts, but they are based on probabilities.
The probability of Alabama being in the danger-zone was very very unlikely if considered at all. And that was in the very early stages. By the time that Trump made his error, (if even) based on by then very much outdated forecasts, the probability had been reduced even further, to practically being nil.
-
Les, there was no “wrong” forecast. There was a forecast, and not by Trump but by the weather service, that in retrospect turned out to be wrong. As I already posted, even CNN was saying at that time that Alabama and Mississippi could be affected. The knee-jerk denial by the weather service was a political stunt, as usual, to score quick points by contradicting the president. There was no need for that. Trump being Trump, fell into that trap and then it snowballed on both sides. Mountain out of a molehill.
Yes Slobodan, initially (while still far away), the Dorian forecast for southern USA looked very dangerous and the exact landfall couldn't be predicted accurately. Then Dorian changed, the meteorological forecast changed, but for some reason Trump's forecast never changed.
Right now, it looks like the new Humberto storm may impact indeed even Alabama, but hopefully it won't get stronger and destructive in its path.
-
Yes Slobodan, initially (while still far away), the Dorian forecast for southern USA looked very dangerous and the exact landfall couldn't be predicted accurately. Then Dorian changed, the meteorological forecast changed, but for some reason Trump's forecast never changed.
Right now, it looks like the new Humberto storm may impact indeed even Alabama, but hopefully it won't get stronger and destructive in its path.
Maybe Trump was busy with Kim and Xi and other life-and-death security matters and lost track of the forecasts changing. I still forgetfully double expose my RB67 film shots after thirty years of using the camera. If Obama said it, the media would have said just that and supported him. But the media so hate Trump, they use every misspeak as an excuse to bury him. It's been going on for three years. It's very tiring and does a disservice to the public who have other more important issues to learn about and debate.
-
Wait till I go buy tickets ;)
-
Wait till I go buy tickets ;)
Appears(?) to claim?
-
Appears(?) to claim?
That cautious phrasing is just Fox News trying to be “fair & balanced” ;)
Actually, she said:
Ocasio-Cortez was touting her "Green New Deal" program at a NAACP forum Wednesday when she addressed critics who have called her plans "not realistic."
"What is not realistic is not responding to the crisis -- not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis," she said. "Because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years. That's not realistic."
-
AOC is from The Bronx. So am I. I grew up there. Then I moved to Queens. Weiner was my Congressman. I'm now retired in New Jersey.
Never mind. :)
-
The future:
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/failed-climate-change-predictions
"Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions"
The dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters – famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations – if the world failed to act on climate change.
An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.
Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending "cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere." That claim came from an "international team of specialists" cited by The New York Times in 1978.
Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that "another ice age" was imminent. "Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest," the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that "Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast."
In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century." The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist's claim that the world could be "as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."
-
FOX news is for animals ...
-
FOX news is for animals ...
That's a new low. We are still getting used to "deplorables." :(
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/failed-climate-change-predictions
"Doomsdays that didn’t happen: Think tank compiles decades’ worth of dire climate predictions"
Excellent demonstration why we shouldn't rely on newspaper "quotes" alone (including the biased? Thinktank's compiled climate predictions).
Sadly, but not a surprise, there are no links to the scientific reports (if any) on which these soundbites are based. Just a few clippings from articles without researchable source material are shown.
-
Excellent demonstration why we shouldn't rely on newspaper "quotes" alone (including the biased? Thinktank's compiled climate predictions).
Sadly, but not a surprise, there are no links to the scientific reports (if any) on which these soundbites are based. Just a few clippings from articles without researchable source material are shown.
You can find the "scientific" reports yourself, if you really want to.
-
You can find the "scientific" reports yourself, if you really want to.
Not really. For example, the quoted text in that linked article:
An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.
... cannot be found, by Google, so the article that supposedly " detailed a U.N. environmental official warning" cannot be traced. It is unclear what report it refers to, and whether is was an accurate quote or summary, assuming the report even exists.
-
Excellent demonstration why we shouldn't rely on newspaper "quotes" alone (including the biased? Thinktank's compiled climate predictions).
Sadly, but not a surprise, there are no links to the scientific reports (if any) on which these soundbites are based. Just a few clippings from articles without researchable source material are shown.
Why not? You relied on false newspaper articles accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians. :)
-
Not really. For example, the quoted text in that linked article:
... cannot be found, by Google, so the article that supposedly " detailed a U.N. environmental official warning" cannot be traced. It is unclear what report it refers to, and whether is was an accurate quote or summary, assuming the report even exists.
Really Bart? It took me 2 minutes on Google to find it: https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Guess you didn't really want to find it.
-
The only thing the UN is good for is not paying the summons they get for parking illegally in NYC.
-
Speaking of dangerous places to live with seas rising is this place in Alaska. What about tsunamis? Check the first photo. Getting back to photography, this is a great photo essay of the people and community there.
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/09/photos-impacts-climate-change-kivalina-alaska/598282/
-
Another interesting article - on building large energy storage:
Hydrostor, a Canadian startup that’s storing energy by injecting compressed air into deep underground caverns
Founded in 2010, Hydrostor’s core idea isn’t a new one: First, use excess electricity to run compressors and trap the pressurized air in a container. Then, to recover the energy, run the trapped air through a turbine that generates power.
So far, the startup has built one pilot project at 1 MW scale, and has another 2 MW project coming online “within weeks”—both of which are in Ontario, Canada. It has received government funding to build a 5 MW pilot in Australia, which will be completed late in 2020.
https://qz.com/1711536/canadian-startup-hydrostor-is-storing-energy-in-compressed-air/?utm_source=YPL&yptr=yahoo
-
American Jeff Bezos (Billionaire CEO of Amazon) unveils sweeping plan to tackle climate change. Going to buy 100,000 delivery vans from American electric car company Vivian. Will beat Paris accord by ten years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/jeff-bezos-speaks-about-amazon-sustainability-in-washington-dc.html
-
Bird numbers plunge in U.S. and Canada. Most of the losses were not specific to just some species, but across nearly all bird families and all habitats.
From grasslands to seashores to forests and backyards, birds are disappearing at an alarming rate in the United States and Canada, with a 29% population drop since 1970 and a net loss of about 2.9 billion birds, scientists said on Thursday.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-birds/bird-numbers-plunge-in-u-s-and-canada-with-people-to-blame-idUSKBN1W42NA
-
Bird numbers plunge in U.S. and Canada. Most of the losses were not specific to just some species, but across nearly all bird families and all habitats.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-birds/bird-numbers-plunge-in-u-s-and-canada-with-people-to-blame-idUSKBN1W42NA
Did that census ask the citizenship question? Seriously, how the hack do they know the number of birds!?
-
There are many, many volunteer bird counters all over the world. Thousands just in Ontario.
https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/birdwatching/join-great-backyard-bird-count/
Started in 1900, the Christmas Bird Count is North America's longest-running Citizen Science project. Counts happen in over 2000 localities throughout the Western Hemisphere.
The information collected by thousands of volunteer participants forms one of the world's largest sets of wildlife survey data. The results are used daily by conservation biologists and naturalists to assess the population trends and distribution of birds.
Each Christmas Bird Count is conducted on a single day between December 14 and January 5. Counts are carried out within a 24-km diameter circle that stays the same from year to year. They are organized, usually as group efforts, at the local level, often by a birding club or naturalist organization.
http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/news/christmas_bird_count_results_2018.php
-
American Jeff Bezos (Billionaire CEO of Amazon) unveils sweeping plan to tackle climate change. Going to buy 100,000 delivery vans from American electric car company Vivian. Will beat Paris accord by ten years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/jeff-bezos-speaks-about-amazon-sustainability-in-washington-dc.html
As long as the electricity doesn't come from coal-powered utility plants ...
-
Coal produced electricity is down to 30% from 50% in America. Natural gas is up I believe due to fracking. Co2 is down to 14% from 17%. Not bad. Of course that's not so good on a capita basis compared to the Chinese although their CO2 is at 30% of the world's production of CO2. 🤓
-
Here's a article recognizing that changing climate may be past due. But they argue how expanding forests, grasslands, etc could mitigate the problem. That we should spend more on mitigation to help the growing. The problem with the article of course is that they never mention once that increased CO2 is already expanding vegetation by allowing areas once unable to support it to now support it. It's also increasing the amount growing in areas that grew less. There's enough new vegetation in the world to cover the US twice over. Never mentioned in the article. Just another example of a good article gone bad because they do not want to show anything good that is already happening.
https://www.sciencealert.com/there-is-one-safe-geoengineering-option-that-could-help-reduce-the-carbon-in-our-atmosphere
-
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-climate-of-burning-money/news-story/3b1b07a6de6fd03957db72d497b03359?fbclid=IwAR3N5T5-QmiR74L04PHTv3KnT5hBMFRyS00yZIxxTPv0mpuiSxVDqPikxKY
"A climate of burning money"
Who would have thought that there will be, on a rare occasion, a voice of reason in the media!?
The article has so many good points, that it is a shame I can quote only a few (bold mine):
Paris treaty is likely to cost between $US1 trillion and $2 trillion ($1.5 trillion and $2.9 trillion) a year, making it the costliest treaty in history. Not surprisingly, research shows that it will increase poverty. Its effects are not evenly felt; increasing electricity prices hurts the poor the most.
At great cost, the Paris Agreement will reduce emissions by just 1 per cent of what politicians have promised. The UN body organising the Paris Agreement finds that if all its promises were fulfilled (which they are not on track to achieve), it would cut about 60 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents, whereas about 6000 billion tonnes are needed to get to the promised 2C target...
... New Zealand. A government-commissioned report found that aiming for net zero emissions by 2050 would cost more than the entire current annual national budget. There would be “yellow vest” riots worldwide if such policies were genuinely pursued...
...According to the UN climate science panel’s last major report, if we do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, the impact will be the equivalent to a reduction in our incomes of between 0.2 per cent and 2 per cent five decades from now...
... if all 4.5 billion flights this year were stopped from taking off, and the same happened every year until 2100, temperatures would be reduced by only 0.03C, using mainstream climate models — equivalent to delaying climate change by less than one year by 2100...
... And electric cars are not the answer. Globally, there are only five million fully electric cars on the road. Even if this climbs to 130 million in 11 years, the International Energy Agency finds CO2 equivalent emissions would be reduced by a mere 0.4 per cent of global emissions...
-
I'll do my part. I'll stop using my electric toothbrush and go back to the manual version.
-
I'll do my part. I'll stop using my electric toothbrush and go back to the manual version.
If you are getting up early and go late to bed, you can take advantage of the off-peak electricity hours and keep using the small electric appliances. It works also for the wash machine and vacuum cleaner. Sleep during the day, that prepares your body for the times you'll be shooting sunrises and sunsets.
-
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-climate-of-burning-money/news-story/3b1b07a6de6fd03957db72d497b03359?fbclid=IwAR3N5T5-QmiR74L04PHTv3KnT5hBMFRyS00yZIxxTPv0mpuiSxVDqPikxKY
"A climate of burning money"
Who would have thought that there will be, on a rare occasion, a voice of reason in the media!?
The article has so many good points, that it is a shame I can quote only a few (bold mine):
Don't know what the article has to say, I apparently need a subscription for that.
But it seems that the article doesn't tell you that even doing nothing will cost more than taking some steps towards mitigation does.
-
If you are getting up early and go late to bed, you can take advantage of the off-peak electricity hours and keep using the small electric appliances. It works also for the wash machine and vacuum cleaner. Sleep during the day, that prepares your body for the times you'll be shooting sunrises and sunsets.
We don't have off peak so I can brush my teeth during the day.
-
But it seems that the article doesn't tell you that even doing nothing will cost more than taking some steps towards mitigation does.
I, for one, have never recommended doing nothing. The focus should be on reducing harmful emissions which affect people's health, improving the environment by planting trees, tackling the problem of excessive plastic and toxic waste, protecting people's lives and property through better water management and control of floods, creating more inland lakes to take advantage of the increased precipitation due to warming, which will also lower the rate of sea level rise by 'trapping' the water on land; surrounding new coal-fired power plants with real greenhouses to take advantage of the benefits of the CO2 emissions, and so on.
Spending trillions on the transition to renewable energy, which has already had the effect of significantly raising electricity prices in Australia and elsewhere, such as Germany, makes such projects I've listed above less likely.
-
I, for one, have never recommended doing nothing. The focus should be on reducing harmful emissions which affect people's health, improving the environment by planting trees, tackling the problem of excessive plastic and toxic waste, protecting people's lives and property through better water management and control of floods, creating more inland lakes to take advantage of the increased precipitation due to warming, which will also lower the rate of sea level rise by 'trapping' the water on land; surrounding new coal-fired power plants with real greenhouses to take advantage of the benefits of the CO2 emissions, and so on.
Spending trillions on the transition to renewable energy, which has already had the effect of significantly raising electricity prices in Australia and elsewhere, such as Germany, makes such projects I've listed above less likely.
Our Democrat candidates for president running for the 2020 election want America to spend trillions of dollars on "green". Sanders, the most generous, wants to spend $16.3 Trillion dollars. By comparison, that's more than 3/4's of the entire US GDP for a year. That's more than the combined GDP of Germany, Japan, Italy, France and Britain. It's about a dozen times your AUstralia's GDP. The amount boggles the mind and rattles your pocketbook.
Beside all the spending on the programs you mentioned, think of all the money not spent on other things like cancer research, feeding the poor, housing the homeless. creating a national health program for everyone, etc. There's no discussion going on about this. We're going off hell bent on spending money without any thought of allocations. It's about politics.
Meanwhile, the US Federal government's deficit is already $1.07 Trillion dollars just for this year. Our debt is over $22 Trillion. Too bad we can't create electricity like we print money.
-
... even doing nothing will cost more than taking some steps towards mitigation does.
Even that is not correct.
William Nordhaus'...
... model shows that the UN’s target would make humanity poorer than doing nothing at all about climate change.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html?fbclid=IwAR1q3KpizL5VSwGNwiD8S6umZWHZ67JMXzQF3l6vhKks5xnkZZndXdGpGm4
-
Even that is not correct.
William Nordhaus'...
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html?fbclid=IwAR1q3KpizL5VSwGNwiD8S6umZWHZ67JMXzQF3l6vhKks5xnkZZndXdGpGm4
REPLACEMENT POST-DELETED LAST ONE DUE TO ERROR.
One of the arguments for spending on green is all the new jobs that will be created. Another myth. What any honest economist will tell you is that the government does not create jobs. It only shifts them. When the government shifts spending through tax charges or deferments, carbon credits, and incentives, they do push private industry to create more jobs in those areas that now have more money available. But what the dishonest media and dishonest economists who know better don;t tell us is that you lose equivalent numbers of jobs from the areas where the money had been extracted from. Those areas would have had more money for investment for expansion of business and growth of jobs. But because the government took that money away, that money is no longer there as capital for investment. All government does is shift money around. They never create a net increase in jobs.
The other argument that "look how many new jobs we created in let's say solar and wind energy" is a myth in another way. You don't measure how well an economy is doing based on how many people it takes to produce a product. You measure it by productivity. So because it now needs so many more people to install and service solar and wind than it does mature carbon like coal and natural gas, productivity is down and the cost of a KWH of electricity goes up. That's worse. That would be like getting rid of tractors. Where once it took three farmers to handle 100 acres, getting rid of tractors would now require 20 farmers for the same 100 acres raising the prices of food. Productivity went down. Who would argue to get rid of tractors? Well, that's what we do when we suggest all those "great" jobs in solar and wind. You want less people to make a product not more.
-
Even that is not correct.
William Nordhaus'...
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2018/MurphyNordhaus.html?fbclid=IwAR1q3KpizL5VSwGNwiD8S6umZWHZ67JMXzQF3l6vhKks5xnkZZndXdGpGm4
From your linked article:
Both fans and critics of William Nordhaus’s computer model of the global economy and climate acknowledge that it is a crude approach that omits many crucial real-world considerations.
Economic models alone are known to fail miserably in real life. Even Nordhouse had to adjust his model when he updated its parameters:
Over the years, Nordhaus has updated his model, and he now believes, due to developments in the physical sciences, that the potential harms from climate change are worse than he believed back in 2007. In 2009, for example, Nordhaus estimated the social cost of carbon in the year 2025 at $16 per ton of CO2 (measured in 2010 U.S.$). In contrast, according to his 2016 projections, Nordhaus puts the 2025 social cost of carbon at $44 per ton (in 2010 $)—which means the estimate has almost tripled in less than a decade.
Nordhouse now recommends allowing for a higher temperature increase than 1.5 - 2 Celsius, else his model shows that we've wasted time and cost may become prohibitive if we need to correct our emissions in the shorter period of time that's now left.
He is not a physicist, so it's unclear how he economizes starvation from famine and war, and social unrest and lower life-expectancy and more illness which leads to a less productive and happy life. More dead people is probably cheaper ...
The longer we wait with taking action, the higher the cost will be.
-
... Economic models alone are known to fail miserably in real life...
Just like climate models.
-
Just like climate models.
No, just blogs that do not understand the science, or deliberately cherry-pick from it.
-
From your linked article: “Both fans and critics of William Nordhaus’s computer model of the global economy and climate acknowledge that it is a crude approach that omits many crucial real-world considerations.”
In contrast to his critics, he at least won a Nobel Prize for his work.
-
Bart, Germans have taken action. It now costs Germans 2 1/2 times more for electricity than other people. It's CO2 production has only slightly gone down. What a waste of time energy and money.
-
In contrast to his critics, he at least won a Nobel Prize for his work.
So did Barack Obama ...
-
Bart, Germans have taken action. It now costs Germans 2 1/2 times more for electricity than other people. It's CO2 production has only slightly gone down. What a waste of time energy and money.
Apples and Oranges. CO2 is not properly priced (or is even subsidized), so even Nordhouse recommends adding a Carbon Tax.
-
We don't have off peak so I can brush my teeth during the day.
I'm surprised that your electric company doesn't offer off-peak rates. Is it like that just in your area or across the entire USA?
In Ontario, we have 3 time slots how the electricity is charged - Peak (7am-9am and 5pm-7pm), standard - during the day between the peak hours and Off-Peak at night. Weekends are Off-Peak all day. The Off-Peak price is only half of the Peak price. That helps not only to save some money for the homeowners, but also it offloads to some degree the demand during the peak hours.
-
I'm surprised that your electric company doesn't offer off-peak rates. Is it like that just in your area or across the entire USA?
In Ontario, we have 3 time slots how the electricity is charged - Peak (7am-9am and 5pm-7pm), standard - during the day between the peak hours and Off-Peak at night. Weekends are Off-Peak all day. The Off-Peak price is only half of the Peak price. That helps not only to save some money for the homeowners, but also it offloads to some degree the demand during the peak hours.
It's possible there's a difference between summer and winter. But looking at my current bill, it shows only one multiplier. My bill is split between the deliverer who owns the power lines and the supplier who provides the electricity. We have an option and can select the lowest supplier which I do. Our town makes a deal with the supplier for the lowest rate and then passes that rate along to the homeowners to want to use it. If they get a better rate next year from another supplier, we'll switch to them. The deliverer who owns the lines has a base charge. We're stuck with them of course since they own the lines. But together over the last year of using 10,000KWH, I only paid $1133 for electricity or about US$0.115 cents per KWH. That's CAN$1502 or CAN$0.152/KWH. That's the combined rate of the owner and supplier. I suspect the rate from the supplier is a fixed amount because our town negotiated it with the supplier. I believe if I had stayed with the owner of the lines for the supply also, they have summer/winter and possibly day/night rates.
-
Apples and Oranges. CO2 is not properly priced (or is even subsidized), so even Nordhouse recommends adding a Carbon Tax.
Adding a carbon tax is a tax. Taxes reduce the money available for capital investment and raising salaries. So the economy suffers. Additionally, carbon taxes transfer money from one industry to another. That distorts the free market that establishes the best investments that help an economy. The government is favoring one industry over another which misallocates investments putting more money in poor ones rather than better ones.
-
It's possible there's a difference between summer and winter. But looking at my current bill, it shows only one multiplier. My bill is split between the deliverer who owns the power lines and the supplier who provides the electricity. We have an option and can select the lowest supplier which I do. Our town makes a deal with the supplier for the lowest rate and then passes that rate along to the homeowners to want to use it. If they get a better rate next year from another supplier, we'll switch to them. The deliverer who owns the lines has a base charge. We're stuck with them of course since they own the lines. But together over the last year of using 10,000KWH, I only paid $1133 for electricity or about US$0.115 cents per KWH. That's CAN$1502 or CAN$0.152/KWH. That's the combined rate of the owner and supplier. I suspect the rate from the supplier is a fixed amount because our town negotiated it with the supplier. I believe if I had stayed with the owner of the lines for the supply also, they have summer/winter and possibly day/night rates.
Germany pays $0.3022/KWH including all taxes which is 2.6 times my rate. My rate above also includes all taxes. I thought Bart might be interested.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power
-
Germany pays $0.3022/KWH including all taxes which is 2.6 times my rate. My rate above also includes all taxes. I thought Bart might be interested.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power)
Oh. I forgot to mention. Germany produces 40% of their electricity from solar and wind. So much for "free green" electricity.
-
It's possible there's a difference between summer and winter. But looking at my current bill, it shows only one multiplier. My bill is split between the deliverer who owns the power lines and the supplier who provides the electricity. We have an option and can select the lowest supplier which I do. Our town makes a deal with the supplier for the lowest rate and then passes that rate along to the homeowners to want to use it. If they get a better rate next year from another supplier, we'll switch to them. The deliverer who owns the lines has a base charge. We're stuck with them of course since they own the lines. But together over the last year of using 10,000KWH, I only paid $1133 for electricity or about US$0.115 cents per KWH. That's CAN$1502 or CAN$0.152/KWH. That's the combined rate of the owner and supplier. I suspect the rate from the supplier is a fixed amount because our town negotiated it with the supplier. I believe if I had stayed with the owner of the lines for the supply also, they have summer/winter and possibly day/night rates.
I made a mistake when quoting our prices in my previous post.
Below are Ontario official electricity rates for 2019 (in CAD). Peak rates slightly cheaper than yours, off-peak rates only half of those:
DAY OF THE WEEK TIME OF DAY TOU PERIOD TOU PRICE
Weekends & Holidays: All day Off-peak $0.065 per kWh
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Mid-peak $0.094 per kWh
11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On-peak $0.134 per kWh
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mid-peak $0.094 per kWh
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Off-peak $0.065 per kWh
-
I made a mistake when quoting our prices in my previous post.
Below are Ontario official electricity rates for 2019 (in CAD). Peak rates slightly cheaper than yours, off-peak rates only half of those:
DAY OF THE WEEK TIME OF DAY TOU PERIOD TOU PRICE
Weekends & Holidays: All day Off-peak $0.065 per kWh
Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Mid-peak $0.094 per kWh
11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On-peak $0.134 per kWh
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mid-peak $0.094 per kWh
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Off-peak $0.065 per kWh
Those are great rates. Electricity is cheap in Canada. Is that because you have a lot of water and dams?
-
Yes, there is a lot of stationary and flowing water in Ontario. We used to have several coal generating stations, but I believe that they were all phased out. Now we have a wide mix of clean power plants - nuclear, hydro, natural gas, landfill gas, biomass, and wind. Many small hydro stations on smaller rivers in central Ontario. Even a couple of solar stations.
Here is a complete list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_Ontario
-
I think you sell a lot of electricity to NY and other parts of the USA. Maybe even NJ where I live.
-
Not so much Ontario, as Quebec. And most of that electricity comes from Newfoundland Power company.
-
A good collection of articles about the climate change (causes, effects, and evidence) can be found on the NASA climate site:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-061219.jpg)
-
Problem is you have people like Sanders who want to spend fifteen trillion dollars without telling us the negative effects of using all those financial resources on this one project. Where is all the money coming from? What other important programs do you cut? And the US only produces 14% of the earth's CO2. Where does the money come from for the rest of the world? Would you want to be paying for electricity as much as the Germans do? When parents shut air conditioners off to their children's rooms because of ever higher electric prices, the kids will stop marching in the streets over climate change. 😎
-
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government reached an agreement to commit at least 100 billion euros ($110 billion) on climate protection by 2030.
Export powerhouse Germany accounts for around two percent of the worldwide emissions blamed for heating the Earth's atmosphere, melting ice caps, rising sea levels and intensifying violent weather events.
After two blistering summers and a wave of Fridays For Future student strikes and other environmental protests, the Merkel government has faced rising pressure to step up its efforts to protect the climate.
The coalition now looks to commit to spending "in the triple digit billions", or at least 100 billion euros.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-planning-climate-action-worth-over-100-bn-000816077.html
-
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government reached an agreement to commit at least 100 billion euros ($110 billion) on climate protection by 2030.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-planning-climate-action-worth-over-100-bn-000816077.html
From the article:
"The EU's biggest economy is set to miss its climate targets for next year but has committed itself to meeting the 2030 goal of a 55 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels."
So they've already cheated on their promises in Paris. That's why we've pulled out. Because Paris is a joke. Just like Europe's promise of 2% regarding NATO. Germany cheated on that too. Just like Germans cheated on their diesel engines. Why would anyone believe these new promises? PS: they're tiny anyway. Only 10 billion a year.
-
So they've already cheated on their promises in Paris. That's why we've pulled out. Because Paris is a joke. Just like Europe's promise of 2% regarding NATO. Germany cheated on that too. Just like Germans cheated on their diesel engines. Why would anyone believe these new promises? PS: they're tiny anyway. Only 10 billion a year.
Are you saying that Merkel is lying and that she broke an agreement? Trump would never do anything like that.
-
Our Democrat candidates for president running for the 2020 election want America to spend trillions of dollars on "green". Sanders, the most generous, wants to spend $16.3 Trillion dollars. By comparison, that's more than 3/4's of the entire US GDP for a year. That's more than the combined GDP of Germany, Japan, Italy, France and Britain. It's about a dozen times your AUstralia's GDP. The amount boggles the mind and rattles your pocketbook.
Beside all the spending on the programs you mentioned, think of all the money not spent on other things like cancer research, feeding the poor, housing the homeless. creating a national health program for everyone, etc. There's no discussion going on about this. We're going off hell bent on spending money without any thought of allocations. It's about politics.
Meanwhile, the US Federal government's deficit is already $1.07 Trillion dollars just for this year. Our debt is over $22 Trillion. Too bad we can't create electricity like we print money.
Alan,
I've always been amazed at the size of the US government's debt. A debt of 22 trillion represents about $67,000 for every man, woman and child in the USA, and that doesn't include the personal debt of US citizens, in terms of mortgages and credit card debt, and so on, which is currently about 13.3 trillion in total.
I can appreciate that major projects like building the great wall on the Mexican border, or building numerous additional dams to reduce flooding and trap water to reduce sea level rise, would increase that debt significantly, and therefore such projects are not likely to go ahead.
A similar situation, applies to most other countries, especially less developed countries. I guess we'll just have to 'muddle along' as usual. :(
-
That's why we've pulled out.
The United States has not "pulled out" of the Paris agreement. The Trump Administration has announced its intention for the United States to withdraw from the agreement in November, 2020. If Trump loses the presidential election next year, it is likely that the new president will rejoin the agreement. Even if Trump is re-elected, it is far from certain that he will proceed with the withdrawal: he sometimes shifts his positions radically, even diametrically, after talking to a family member or a favorite Fox News cable TV commentator—or for no discernible reason whatsoever.
-
Are you saying that Merkel is lying and that she broke an agreement? Trump would never do anything like that.
You know when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.🤔
-
The United States has not "pulled out" of the Paris agreement. The Trump Administration has announced its intention for the United States to withdraw from the agreement in November, 2020. If Trump loses the presidential election next year, it is likely that the new president will rejoin the agreement. Even if Trump is re-elected, it is far from certain that he will proceed with the withdrawal: he sometimes shifts his positions radically, even diametrically, after talking to a family member or a favorite Fox News cable TV commentator—or for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Thanks for correcting me. I forgot this. It's true Trump said that he thinks we should do something about climate change. But he knows a bad deal when he sees it. And Paris is a bad deal, even if countries like Germany didn't cheat on it. Why? Because China and India are exempt. How can China especially as the number one CO2 polluter be exempt? They're the second largest economy in the world. America and other would be hurt economically by Paris while China does nothing and advances itself economically. WIth their aggressive militaristic outlook, that makes it worse. Trump doesn't like to get screwed. He does the screwing. Paris has put additional economic burdens on other countries and frankly without China, you;ll never reduce CO2.
-
I just found an article that confirms my concerns that there aren't any good analysis and documentation of the amount we spend and for what regarding the climate. There's no way to know how to go forward if we don't even know what we've done. Spend Spend Spend is not a plan. How much? Where it should be allocated? How much should be left for damage remediation, cancer research, and other needs? Right now it's mainly political. That's also why they're such skepticism.
"Congress isn’t getting an accurate accounting of what is being spent. Nor is it getting information about the financial risks of doing nothing. There aren’t even clear goals for what we want to do, so it’s hard to know how to measure success or failure"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-the-government-spending-on-climate-change-we-dont-know-and-neither-do-they/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-the-government-spending-on-climate-change-we-dont-know-and-neither-do-they/)
-
I just found an article that confirms my concerns that there aren't any good analysis and documentation of the amount we spend and for what regarding the climate. There's no way to know how to go forward if we don't even know what we've done. Spend Spend Spend is not a plan. How much? Where it should be allocated? How much should be left for damage remediation, cancer research, and other needs? Right now it's mainly political. That's also why they're such skepticism.
Give it a rest. You keep repeating yourself. By now we all know where you stand on the issue.
-
I just found an article that confirms my concerns that there aren't any good analysis and documentation of the amount we spend and for what regarding the climate.
Try getting reliable information about what the government spends on the military. Huge amounts are budgeted (just in case), nobody knows if the money was actually spent ...
Besides, because the government sucks at bookkeeping, doesn't mean that the problems aren't there, and they are mounting.
-
When you ask taxpayers to spent 15 trillion on something, you have to be a little more specific. WHen you start spending that money, you;d better be very specific. Here's the budget for military spending 2019. The actualk budget request is a lot more specific
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#Budget_request_for_FY2019
Here's the actual government request for 2020 just for purchasing advanced weapon systems. Just check the detail. 99 pages. This is what we should get regarding investments in climate change.
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2020/fy2020_Weapons.pdf
-
Adding a carbon tax is a tax. Taxes reduce the money available for capital investment and raising salaries. So the economy suffers.
Wrong. Adding a tax obliges buyers to pay the correct price for the commodity including externalities, so that they don't load the cost onto other parts of the economy.
-
Wrong. Adding a tax obliges buyers to pay the correct price for the commodity including externalities, so that they don't load the cost onto other parts of the economy.
You're chasing your tail. Of course it's government spending that requires government taxation. How else will government pay for their spending? In any case the taxes take money out of the economy so that there's not as much money available for Capital spending and expanding the economy. Taxes reduce your take home pay. Companies have less money available to raise your salary. So my point is absolutely correct. You're one of the few people I know who want higher taxes. 🙄
-
You're chasing your tail. Of course it's government spending that requires government taxation. How else will government pay for their spending? In any case the taxes take money out of the economy so that there's not as much money available for Capital spending and expanding the economy. Taxes reduce your take home pay. Companies have less money available to raise your salary. So my point is absolutely correct. You're one of the few people I know who want higher taxes. 🙄
Nope - pricing things correctly obliges businesses to make rational decisions, so that the economy does not end up in a sub-optimal state. Non-linear dynamics. Just like climate.
-
Whatever.
-
Nope - pricing things correctly...
Market prices things correctly, not some climato-maniacs.
-
Market prices things correctly, not some climato-maniacs.
Yes, but then it has to include the cost of the pollution the producing party is causing; Otherwise somebody else has to pay for it- that is -if it is a solvable problem.
If not and dangerous, the production should be stopped.
-
...the production should be stopped..l
Be my guest, stop the production of fossil fuels.
-
Be my guest, stop the production of fossil fuels.
Will happen soon, but not in the States...
-
Market prices things correctly, not some climato-maniacs.
Markets are only efficient and price things properly in textbooks.
-
Markets are only efficient and price things properly in textbooks.
The solution, then: central planning.
They know the right, just, and moral price of everything. It starts with setting the price for this, then that, and then ends with price controls for everything. Followed by wage controls. The benefit? No inflation. In the USSR, prices were so stable, they were etched onto the product. True story, bro.
-
The solution, then: central planning.
No, such Black or White alternatives are only for folks without imagination.
Real-life has shades of gray, at least 50 ;)
-
....Real-life has shades of gray, at least 50 ;)
I expect nothing less from you but an S&M real life ;)
-
Red New Deal ;)
-
The solution, then: central planning.
They know the right, just, and moral price of everything. It starts with setting the price for this, then that, and then ends with price controls for everything. Followed by wage controls. The benefit? No inflation. In the USSR, prices were so stable, they were etched onto the product. True story, bro.
+1
We had central planning here in the US where I live in New Jersey regarding electric rates. (Don;t know if this situation exists in other states). The Public Service Commission set rates with some input from the producer. Customers were stuck with the same single producer and had to pay the same high rates. Then government figured out to deregulate electricity. Now I can pick from dozens of suppliers of electricity. Competition has forced the price of electricity down to much lower than it would have been.
Similar things are happening with health care for the elderly. Medicare has one price for everyone; the doctors all get the same amount for specific services. This has limited patients being unable to use the better doctors who have dropped out and raised medical costs overall just like it was with electricity.
Another area is rent control for apartments. It has existed in NYC for decades. People won't move and keep their rental apartments like they own them passing them on to their children. This has limited construction and raised the cost of housing in NYC for everyone. So now California's going to do the same thing although admittedly as of yet not as harsh as NYC. It will get more despotic as time goes on and politicians want more votes. More Central Planning. What stupidity. People never learn.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-renters-relief-legislation-gavin-newsom-rent-cap (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-11/california-renters-relief-legislation-gavin-newsom-rent-cap)
-
Red New Deal ;)
I'll give you my steak when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :)
-
The solution, then: central planning.
They know the right, just, and moral price of everything. It starts with setting the price for this, then that, and then ends with price controls for everything. Followed by wage controls. The benefit? No inflation. In the USSR, prices were so stable, they were etched onto the product. True story, bro.
On a separate note. Central Planning doesn;t cause inflation. Printing money and borrowing does. Printing money creates too much money chasing too few goods. That creates black markets where extra money has to be paid under the table to actually get the product. The product is effectively taken off the shelf. So even if government's Central Planning sets a maximum public price that can be charged, the actual cost is much more. You probably experienced this when you live in Eastern Europe.
If the government enforces the central planning's low price below true market value by arresting black marketeers, then basically the government winds up subsidizing the price. That means higher taxes so the people pay for it anyway. Of course, in America the rich would pick up the tab. So this method redistributes wealth. Unfortunately, the rich give up producing as much because it no longer is worth working so hard. Disrupted markets lower efficiency and production. Then the economy tanks and everyone suffers, stops eating and starves. Like what happened in Venezuela.
-
... It starts with setting the price for this, then that, and then ends with price controls for everything...
No sooner than I said that...
-
The solution, then: central planning.
They know the right, just, and moral price of everything. It starts with setting the price for this, then that, and then ends with price controls for everything. Followed by wage controls. The benefit? No inflation. In the USSR, prices were so stable, they were etched onto the product. True story, bro.
Whenever someone points out some issue with market behaviour, the retort from you (and RSL and Alan) is always some childish variation of raising the spectre of central planning or Stalin. I call it the reverse-Godwin. It's silly. I'd like to say that you should know better but that presumes that people are interested in an exchange of ideas, which I have come to understand is not at all the case.
Everyone knows that communist central planning was a terrible failure. Do you think no else noticed? Do you think you're the only one who understands this? You're stuck in the 1930s.
-
... Everyone knows that communist central planning was a terrible failure. Do you think no else noticed?...
Obviously.
In other words, very, very few noticed. I just posted a glaring example, Crazy Bernie's total rent control.
What you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't start backwards, i.e., from the end (as a terrible failure). It takes a lot of time for people to realize it is a terrible failure. It starts nicely, with all those wonderful promises of a more just world, affordable or free this or that. It took 70 years for USSR to disintegrate (and even that took a lot of outside pressure). It took Venezuela 10 years to become a basket case, after people voted for socialism. The US still has strong checks and balances, so it will take years for the loonie left to dismantle it into a socialist "paradise." But it will happen, eventually, if people do not wake up and notice, as you said, that socialism* is one giant and terrible failure.
* But, of course, in your view, it is a brand new version of socialism, which, this time, is going to finally work
P.S. There is nothing really new in what the "new" "democratic" socialism proposes. All old news. Free health care? Free education? Free housing? Check. Check. And check. All existed in the USSR and other socialist countries.
-
It started with Trump Derangement Syndrome. Kind of getting old. So, there is a new kid in town (literally): a Climate Derangement Syndrome.
-
P.S. There is nothing really new in what the "new" "democratic" socialism proposes. All old news. Free health care? Free education? Free housing? Check. Check. And check. All existed in the USSR and other socialist countries.
Whereas countries with no government or taxes, like Somalia, are working out fine.
-
Whereas countries with no government or taxes...
Where did you hear me advocating no government and no taxes?
-
Whenever someone points out some issue with market behaviour, the retort from you (and RSL and Alan) is always some childish variation of raising the spectre of central planning or Stalin. I call it the reverse-Godwin. It's silly. I'd like to say that you should know better but that presumes that people are interested in an exchange of ideas, which I have come to understand is not at all the case.
Everyone knows that communist central planning was a terrible failure. Do you think no else noticed? Do you think you're the only one who understands this? You're stuck in the 1930s.
Not stuck in 1930s. There are plenty of well meaning theoreticians and power grabbing bullies still propagating virtues of communism and socialism today. Venezuela and Cuba are good examples.
Below is a 3 minute video with Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian philosopher and ex-communist who changed his mind about the communism or socialism with a human face. In this interview he says: Communism was an answer to a series of problems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNRt-8GEi6c
Today, the old problems are gone, and we are faced with new problems. Definitely, not solvable by a new type of communism with a human face.
-
Central planning hurts an economy period. Communist or otherwise. Forget 1930, I gave current illustrations above. It's childish and silly of you to ignore them.
-
Ps I was referring to post 939
-
Whereas countries with no government or taxes, like Somalia, are working out fine.
Government is required but only to create a fair and level playing field. It also should provide a fair and honest legal system where private disputes can be adjudicated. Beyond that they should keep hands off of private Enterprise. Then watch an economy boom and a country and people get rich and experience liberty to the full extent.
-
Government is required but only to create a fair and level playing field. It also should provide a fair and honest legal system where private disputes can be adjudicated. Beyond that they should keep hands off of private Enterprise.
Yes, and they should each build their own infrastructure to transport their products and house their employees ... :o
-
Yes, and they should each build their own infrastructure to transport their products and house their employees ... :o
Government building infrastructure has nothing to do with running individual private enterprises. Infrastructure is not business but part of a fair playing field. Anyone and everyone can use the infrastructure. It got nothing to do with a command or central economy.
-
Yes, and they should each build their own infrastructure to transport their products and house their employees ... :o
and their own schools to educate their own workers, and their own hospitals to keep them healthy, and, and, and ...
As usual the Coffee Corner takes a simple concept like market failure and extrapolates to ridiculous extents.
-
and their own schools to educate their own workers, and their own hospitals to keep them healthy, and, and, and ...
And what?
Schools and hospitals didn’t exist before governments? Railroads and roads neither? Who built the U.K. railroad infrastructure in the mid-19th century?
-
Government is required but only to create a fair and level playing field.
Exactly - so that all companies fairly and equally pay for the environmental damage that they do.
-
And what?
Schools and hospitals didn’t exist before governments?
How did that work out for public health?
-
Exactly - so that all companies fairly and equally pay for the environmental damage that they do.
Companies do not do environmental damage (if any, in terms of CO2). People do. By existing and having needs. Companies (aka people getting together) are there to meet those needs.
-
Exactly - so that all companies fairly and equally pay for the environmental damage that they do.
That has nothing to do with central planning and a command economy? It's a separate issue.
Regarding damage to the environment, how much do you think you owe from driving and heating your house with fossil fuels?
-
How did that work out for public health?
In the US, the best hospitals and universities are private. Always have been. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Massachusetts General Hospitals. Harvard, Yale, Princeton Universities.
-
How did that work out for public health?
How did that work out for British teeth health? ;)
-
That has nothing to do with central planning and a command economy? It's a separate issue.
I wasn't the one that brought up command economies so you'll have to ask Slobo if you want a comment on that.
-
Companies do not do environmental damage (if any, in terms of CO2). People do. By existing and having needs. Companies (aka people getting together) are there to meet those needs.
I think drug dealers make similar claims.
-
In the US, the best hospitals and universities are private. Always have been. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Massachusetts General Hospitals. Harvard, Yale, Princeton Universities.
No doubt, but that wasn't the point in question.
(As an aside, I was told that the best trauma unit in Houston was the public hospital, because they had so much more experience)
-
Exactly - so that all companies fairly and equally pay for the environmental damage that they do.
You didn't answer my question.
Regarding damage to the environment, how much do you think you owe from driving and heating your house with fossil fuels?
-
You didn't answer my question.
Regarding damage to the environment, how much do you think you owe from driving and heating your house with fossil fuels?
I have no idea, Alan.
-
German car corporation officers charged with stock manipulation not pollution. Reminds me of how gangster Al Capone went to jail for not paying his taxes rather than for murder.
"VW executives indicted in Germany in connection with emissions scandal"
https://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/462727-vw-executives-indicted-in-germany-in-connection-with-emissions (https://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/462727-vw-executives-indicted-in-germany-in-connection-with-emissions)
-
Regarding damage to the environment, how much do you think you owe from driving and heating your house with fossil fuels?
The government could figure that out and charge me accordingly. Perhaps through a gasoline tax.
-
The government could figure that out and charge me accordingly. Perhaps through a gasoline tax.
Yes, and it is fairer to those who contribute less to pollution, because with less consumption comes less tax to be paid. It will also encourage switching to cleaner enerysource alternatives. It's a win win.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The government could figure that out and charge me accordingly. Perhaps through a gasoline tax.
Thanks for your honesty that you personally contribute to pollution. Others here feel only corporations are responsible for fossil fuel use.
-
Thanks for your honesty that you personally contribute to pollution. Others here feel only corporations are responsible for fossil fuel use.
Nonsense, nobody says so. It's just that the largest contributors are heavy industry and transportation, so most improvement can be achieved there. Energy production, metal production, agriculture, airtravel, and road-transportation is where the biggest issues are. Much of that is consumer-driven.
-
Nonsense, nobody says so. It's just that the largest contributors are heavy industry and transportation, so most improvement can be achieved there. Energy production, metal production, agriculture, airtravel, and road-transportation is where the biggest issues are. Much of that is consumer-driven.
One poster blamed corporations. When I asked he did not seem to recognize his own contribution to fossil fuel pollution. We use gasoline when we drive. We need fuel to heat our homes and make hor water. We're fly. We use industrial made products. It's important we don't just point fingers at others. Here's breakout by user.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/28/industries-sectors-carbon-emissions
-
... Energy production, metal production, agriculture, airtravel, and road-transportation is where the biggest issues are. Much of that is consumer-driven.
Easily solvable if we would simply cease to consume and exist. Not having children would achieve that in just one generation.
-
Easily solvable if we would simply cease to consume and exist. Not having children would achieve that in just one generation.
Another reasonable response that moves the conversation along and helps everyone's understanding.
Always go to extremes, it helps your case. No seriously, keep doing it. :)
-
Another reasonable response that moves the conversation along and helps everyone's understanding.
Always go to extremes, it helps your case. No seriously, keep doing it. :)
While I agree, ... actually, Slobodan is saying, in a convoluted way, that it is not easily solvable.
But that's nothing new. If it were easy, most of us might have chosen that path already. Although I do not underestimate human stupidity often choosing for the short term benefits (and playing deaf dumb and blind for the longer term, more expensive, and more difficult compromise).
-
While I agree, ... actually, Slobodan is saying, in a convoluted way, that it is not easily solvable.
But that's nothing new. If it were easy, most of us might have chosen that path already. Although I do not underestimate human stupidity often choosing for the short term benefits (and playing deaf dumb and blind for the longer term, more expensive, and more difficult compromise).
15 billion just for America as suggested by one of our democrat candidates fir president is a huge expenditure. It would eat up most other expenditures for other extremely important other things that most ve done to help people today with cancer research, housing for the homeless etc. Calling people stupid who are concerned about these things is inappropriate. Maybe you're being the short sighted person.
-
Sorry 15 trillion not billion.
-
Sorry 15 trillion not billion.
It is stupid to not spend, say for argument's sake, 15 trillion instead of a multiple of that amount. Now it will cost a lot, later it will become unbearable.
And that's just the cost in monetary units, we're not even considering human suffering and loss of health or even life.
-
It is stupid to not spend, say for argument's sake, 15 trillion instead of a multiple of that amount. Now it will cost a lot, later it will become unbearable....
It is extremely stupid to spend one single cent now for something that might or might not happen 100 years from now, just to placate some climato-maniacs’ fantasies. In that time frame, technology and market forces will find a cheaper solution anyway.
-
It is stupid to not spend, say for argument's sake, 15 trillion instead of a multiple of that amount. Now it will cost a lot, later it will become unbearable.
And that's just the cost in monetary units, we're not even considering human suffering and loss of health or even life.
The fact is currently people are dying of cancer, are sleeping in the street, and are suffering in many ways. Today. Bankrupting the country and world today and for the future and denying these people help for some supposed issues in the future is more cruel. Apocalypses have always been predicted, falsely. In any case, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. We have to take care of current problems first. SLobodan is right. Things tend to take care of themselves.
-
It is extremely stupid to spend one single cent now for something that might or might not happen 100 years from now, just to placate some climato-maniacs’ fantasies. In that time frame, technology and market forces will find a cheaper solution anyway.
A 100 years from now??????
It's already happening and it's accelerating and as soon as tipping points are reached, there's no turning back. It is irresponsible and foolish to hope for currently non-existent and unproven technological solutions. It is like playing Russian roulette, as soon as possible stop 'playing' is of existential importance and the only sensible thing to do.
-
I get a big kick out of arguments based on not doing things because of how expensive things are. How expensive is it going to be to not do them? It was expensive building the interstate system system, it was expensive doing aeronautics research, it's expensive doing medical research. Magically, the money always seems to appear. Why is that? What do you think, did we get an adequate ROI on all those things? Don't you like safe airplanes and reliable air traffic control systems? How about pure research into solid state physics that no one understood, was that money well spent?
Since when has the economy been a zero-sum game? Milton Friedman is spinning in his grave listening to this drivel.
It would be interesting to come up with an estimate of how much money could be raised by a small (say 0.1%) tax on all financial market transactions (you could justify it on the basis of getting the money back that was poured into the financial sector after 2008) or on all online gambling transactions. What? Tax gambling? I must be a loonie leftie. You don't want to tax gambling, it might hurt job creation in that industry. Because that's what the world really needs, more gamers and debt collectors, now that's the kind of economic growth you really want. That's really productive and improves people's lives. Some people, anyway.
Remember when automobile pollution controls was going to destroy the automobile industry? Whatever happened to that armageddon, I wonder. Turns out it was the best thing that ever happened to everyone, consumers and manufacturers alike.
I thought entrepreneurs and capitalists were supposed to be forward thinking and creative. Who knows, maybe the real ones are.
-
I get a big kick out of arguments based on not doing things because of how expensive things are. How expensive is it going to be to not do them? It was expensive building the interstate system system, it was expensive doing aeronautics research, it's expensive doing medical research. Magically, the money always seems to appear. Why is that? What do you think, did we get an adequate ROI on all those things? Don't you like safe airplanes and reliable air traffic control systems? How about pure research into solid state physics that no one understood, was that money well spent?
Since when has the economy been a zero-sum game? Milton Friedman is spinning in his grave listening to this drivel.
It would be interesting to come up with an estimate of how much money could be raised by a small (say 0.1%) tax on all financial market transactions (you could justify it on the basis of getting the money back that was poured into the financial sector after 2008) or on all online gambling transactions. What? Tax gambling? I must be a loonie leftie. You don't want to tax gambling, it might hurt job creation in that industry. Because that's what the world really needs, more gamers and debt collectors, now that's the kind of economic growth you really want. That's really productive and improves people's lives. Some people, anyway.
Remember when automobile pollution controls was going to destroy the automobile industry? Whatever happened to that armageddon, I wonder. Turns out it was the best thing that ever happened to everyone, consumers and manufacturers alike.
I thought entrepreneurs and capitalists were supposed to be forward thinking and creative. Who knows, maybe the real ones are.
Robert, Countries and companies are spending money making changes with green energy just like they did with car pollution pushed by the USA. (Well, except the cheating Germans with diesel). I got involved personally in my own business subsequently after the 1973 oil crisis with energy conservation systems. Even then, buyers wanted to see sufficient return on investment before they bought the systems. So energy management has been under way for almost 50 years. And we've been working on auto changes for as long or longer as well. These things cannot be done overnight. But that cost with autos is peanuts compared to what is required to get us off fossil fuels in the short time people like yourself are saying is required. The time isn't there. The money isn't there. The know how isn't there. It would destroy economies, starve people, freeze people, and put better lives for people around the world beyond our ability to meet. We'd go backwards in modernity hurting everything. You're missing how much cheap energy has driven modern successful lives and made living better for everyone. You can;t pull the plug even if we could pay for it which we can;t. It's nice to get everyone excited as we've seen with recent marches. But when the parents of those kids realize how much they will have to pay in taxes and higher living costs for all these things (look at German electric costs), the political forces will shut it down. The kids will be told to go home and study their homework for school so they can get a job when they grow up.
-
Robert, Countries and companies are spending money making changes with green energy just like they did with car pollution pushed by the USA. (Well, except the cheating Germans with diesel). I got involved personally in my own business subsequently after the 1973 oil crisis with energy conservation systems. Even then, buyers wanted to see sufficient return on investment before they bought the systems. So energy management has been under way for almost 50 years. And we've been working on auto changes for as long or longer as well. These things cannot be done overnight. But that cost with autos is peanuts compared to what is required to get us off fossil fuels in the short time people like yourself are saying is required. The time isn't there. The money isn't there. The know how isn't there. It would destroy economies, starve people, freeze people, and put better lives for people around the world beyond our ability to meet. We'd go backwards in modernity hurting everything. You're missing how much cheap energy has driven modern successful lives and made living better for everyone. You can;t pull the plug even if we could pay for it which we can;t. It's nice to get everyone excited as we've seen with recent marches. But when the parents of those kids realize how much they will have to pay in taxes and higher living costs for all these things (look at German electric costs), the political forces will shut it down. The kids will be told to go home and study their homework for school so they can get a job when they grow up.
That's a load of words. I wonder if the climate is listening? I wonder if they changed the laws of physics?
-
That's a load of words. I wonder if the climate is listening? I wonder if they changed the laws of physics?
They haven't changed the law of economics either. The money isn't there.
-
They haven't changed the law of economics either. The money isn't there.
Sure it is. It's just a question of priorities.
-
Sure it is. It's just a question of priorities.
I'm glad you agree with me.
-
I'm glad you agree with me.
;D
-
I'm glad you agree with me.
You do realise that makes no sense, right?
-
You do realise that makes no sense, right?
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Just that his priorities differ from yours, but it is indeed and undeniably "a question of priorities."
-
The money isn't there.
That's quite funny.
-
That's quite funny.
Let me rephrase it: it might be there, but you would have no idea what to do with it. Other than penalize naughty oil companies, consumers, etc. Soon a world government would reinstate the China one-child policy world wide, I presume ;)
-
Let me rephrase it: it might be there, but you would have no idea what to do with it. Other than penalize naughty oil companies, consumers, etc. Soon a world government would reinstate the China one-child policy world wide, I presume ;)
Actually, without seeming mean, that's the only policy that would work. The problem is population not fossil fuels. As long as population continues to grow, we will effect the earth in many ways, many that cannot be overcome.
-
Let me rephrase it: it might be there, but you would have no idea what to do with it. Other than penalize naughty oil companies, consumers, etc. Soon a world government would reinstate the China one-child policy world wide, I presume ;)
Reverse-Godwin again!
Why all this childish extremism? That's not how the actual world works, or how it has ever worked. Why have we invented this phoney online construct of bizarre and outlandish political positions with no relation to our daily reality. There was never a capitalist laissez-faire utopia that was destroyed by 60s rock bands, you know? It only ever existed in first-year economics texts, not in the real world.
Society and culture came first. Commerce is something we invented to govern trade between peoples and it has been a huge success but it has flaws. It doesn't always work well. Trying to fix those flaws is not an invitation for Stalinists to take over. Take a pill. Switch to decaf.
Why are there still calls to roll back automobile emission standards? (i.e., Trump and California) Who would benefit from dirtier air and water? Are companies REALLY hurting because they have environmental laws to govern their behaviour? We're surrounded by outlandishly rich commercial entities and you expect me to swallow the bs that environmental laws have hurt them? Who is hurting exactly? I'm not seeing it. It's not even remotely plausible to suggest such a thing. In fact, it's laughably stupid. Just look around! Is it a badge of modern conservatism to think so? Who imposed that criterium on us? Maybe you should think about that confidence game for a moment. Think for yourself, isn't that what you're always telling everyone.
-
... Why have we invented this phoney online construct of bizarre and outlandish political positions with no relation to our daily reality....
Indeed, why have you? Invented that phony construct of climate scaremongering that has reached maniacal proportions. Driving kids into deranged meltdowns.
As for how the actual world works, it is exactly how it works right now, in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And how it worked until recently in Russia and China. China only recently abolished the one-child policy. With the loonie left calling for no children, to save the planet, how soon before the rest of the loonie left world adopts the same Chinese policy?
By the way, you et al still have not answered my question: what are you going to do with the punitive taxation? Remember the yellow jackets in France? What happened when the climato-maniacs imposed the punitive fuel tax?
-
Reverse-Godwin again!
Why all this childish extremism? That's not how the actual world works, or how it has ever worked. Why have we invented this phoney online construct of bizarre and outlandish political positions with no relation to our daily reality. There was never a capitalist laissez-faire utopia that was destroyed by 60s rock bands, you know? It only ever existed in first-year economics texts, not in the real world.
Society and culture came first. Commerce is something we invented to govern trade between peoples and it has been a huge success but it has flaws. It doesn't always work well. Trying to fix those flaws is not an invitation for Stalinists to take over. Take a pill. Switch to decaf.
Why are there still calls to roll back automobile emission standards? (i.e., Trump and California) Who would benefit from dirtier air and water? Are companies REALLY hurting because they have environmental laws to govern their behaviour? We're surrounded by outlandishly rich commercial entities and you expect me to swallow the bs that environmental laws have hurt them? Who is hurting exactly? I'm not seeing it. It's not even remotely plausible to suggest such a thing. In fact, it's laughably stupid. Just look around! Is it a badge of modern conservatism to think so? Who imposed that criterium on us? Maybe you should think about that confidence game for a moment. Think for yourself, isn't that what you're always telling everyone.
60's rock bands did not want to destroy capitalist laissez-faire economies. They sang to benefit from it and get rich. Some did by the truckload.
Socialism and free market capitalism are not black and white. It's a sliding scale.
They're not rolling back automobile emission standards. What they're doing is making federal regulations followed by the other 49 states the same for California. By California having a different higher standard which especially has become political lately and not scientific, it creates problems for the world's auto industry as to what standards they have to follow. California or the federal standard. California becomes like the tail that wags the dog forcing the rest of the country and world to have standards they don't want. Congress agreed to this cut-out for California in its original regulatory law because that state had smog and pollution problems many years ago when their were little or no standards. The situation has changed. Cars pollute about 100 times less than the use too. Regulations over the years have cleaned up the air there. Now, America would be better off with one standard that applies to the whole country. But standards will continue and are in fact increasing. By the way. Companies don;t hurt. They have no feelings, no nervous system. Employees and stockholders can hurt though. Regular people who can lose jobs with these companies or lose dividends from these companies to help them in retirement to pay the food bills.
-
Coal Stockpiles Grow at Europe’s Ports. First reported six months ago, now the stockpiles are even larger.
“With natural gas prices at current levels, gas generation will take market share from coal generation this summer, which means it will be difficult and take time to draw down stockpiles to normal levels”
No wonder, half of the US mines were closed in the last decade.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/coal-stockpiles-grow-at-europe-s-ports-after-warm-winter-1.1251219
-
The situation has changed. Cars pollute about 100 times less than the use too.
That's what I've been saying, little bit of diesel exhaust won't hurt. OTOH, cows and pigs fart still the same way as 100 years ago. Considering their increased body mass and what they are being fed these days, it could be even worse today than 100 years ago.
-
Coal Stockpiles Grow at Europe’s Ports. First reported six months ago, now the stockpiles are even larger.
No wonder, half of the US mines were closed in the last decade.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/coal-stockpiles-grow-at-europe-s-ports-after-warm-winter-1.1251219 (https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/coal-stockpiles-grow-at-europe-s-ports-after-warm-winter-1.1251219)
Competition has changed the market for decades. When I was a kid in the 1950's, the apartment building I lived in converted from coal to oil. That was 70 years ago. Twenty years ago, I helped project manage the conversion of the last of NYC public schools (160 out of 1200 buildings) still running on coal to oil and natural gas. Where I live, you can't burn wood in a fireplace. It has to be natural gas. Of course the range and hot water heater run on gas too. Coal in America is down from 50% to 30% for electric production. Of course, China is building 850 coal fire plants around the world. We really should take China behind the barn and give them a talking too.
-
That's what I've been saying, little bit of diesel exhaust won't hurt. OTOH, cows and pigs fart still the same way as 100 years ago. Considering their increased body mass and what they are being fed these days, it could be even worse today than 100 years ago.
Now you're making me feel bad. I had a steak today in a restaurant. Well, it was a little steak anyway, maybe 6 ounces. I'm trying to eat better. :)
-
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Just that his priorities differ from yours, but it is indeed and undeniably "a question of priorities."
Alan: The money isn't there
Me: Sure it is
Alan: Glad you agree with me
As I said - no sense. Still, that's the game now - here and in wider politics.
-
Now you're making me feel bad. I had a steak today in a restaurant. Well, it was a little steak anyway, maybe 6 ounces. I'm trying to eat better. :)
Little steak is OK occasionally, maybe it came from a little cow. I presume, you walked to the restaurant.
-
Alan: The money isn't there
Me: Sure it is
Alan: Glad you agree with me
Either you read by carelessly skipping posts or lines, or you are engaged in blatant falsification. Go back and read the exchange again. Hint: it isn’t about availability of money, but about priorities (the part you either deliberately or carelessly missed above).
-
Either you read by carelessly skipping posts or lines, or you are engaged in blatant falsification. Go back and read the exchange again. Hint: it isn’t about availability of money, but about priorities (the part you either deliberately or carelessly missed above).
I left it out because it's self evident that not everyone has the same priorities. Is that what we're talking about?
-
They're not rolling back automobile emission standards. What they're doing is making federal regulations followed by the other 49 states the same for California. By California having a different higher standard which especially has become political lately and not scientific, it creates problems for the world's auto industry as to what standards they have to follow. California or the federal standard. California becomes like the tail that wags the dog forcing the rest of the country and world to have standards they don't want. Congress agreed to this cut-out for California in its original regulatory law because that state had smog and pollution problems many years ago when their were little or no standards. The situation has changed. Cars pollute about 100 times less than the use too. Regulations over the years have cleaned up the air there. Now, America would be better off with one standard that applies to the whole country. But standards will continue and are in fact increasing. By the way. Companies don;t hurt. They have no feelings, no nervous system. Employees and stockholders can hurt though. Regular people who can lose jobs with these companies or lose dividends from these companies to help them in retirement to pay the food bills.
Given your past sympathy for state rights, I am surprised to read that you approve of the feds trying to force California back into line. But your argument that the California regs are a drag on everyone doesn't ring true. They've had different regs in place for decades now and it hasn't hurt either California or the automobile industry. I think you're just reading from a hymn book instead of looking at the real world.
-
Given your past sympathy for state rights, I am surprised to read that you approve of the feds trying to force California back into line. But your argument that the California regs are a drag on everyone doesn't ring true. They've had different regs in place for decades now and it hasn't hurt either California or the automobile industry. I think you're just reading from a hymn book instead of looking at the real world.
As a state's right kind of guy, I happen to agree somewhat with California doing what it wants. On the other hand, regulation of interstate commerce is a national prerogative constitutionally given to the federal government. Trump was elected and campaigned promising he would cut regulations and help industry. That's what he's doing. Elections have consequences. If the next president and congress want to change the rules, they can.
Every added safety and pollution control standard added to an automobile raises its cost. Higher costs have to be passed on to the customers with higher prices. That reduces sales and affects the industry not only in America, but around the world. Americans didn't agree to let California, one of fifty states, have this power.
-
Instead of forcing California to align with the other 49, it might more sense for the other 49 to follow California's lead.
-
As a state's right kind of guy, I happen to agree somewhat with California doing what it wants. On the other hand, regulation of interstate commerce is a national prerogative constitutionally given to the federal government. Trump was elected and campaigned promising he would cut regulations and help industry. That's what he's doing. Elections have consequences. If the next president and congress want to change the rules, they can.
Every added safety and pollution control standard added to an automobile raises its cost. Higher costs have to be passed on to the customers with higher prices. That reduces sales and affects the industry not only in America, but around the world. Americans didn't agree to let California, one of fifty states, have this power.
Higher prices are not a bad thing. It depends what you get for the money. It might be a good thing to get people out of 3-ton pickups that are used to buy groceries and drive the kids to soccer and don't fit in mall parking slots. I, for one, am getting sick and damn tired of having car fenders dinged at truck bumper height in parking lots. It might be a good thing to have cleaner air.
Isn't that the entire point of pricing goods and services? That's how a market reaches equilibrium, that's how we know what's important, that's how we align incentives with the outcomes we want. They could have used them on Easter Island.
-
Higher prices are not a bad thing. It depends what you get for the money. It might be a good thing to get people out of 3-ton pickups that are used to buy groceries and drive the kids to soccer and don't fit in mall parking slots. I, for one, am getting sick and damn tired of having car fenders dinged at truck bumper height in parking lots. It might be a good thing to have cleaner air.
Isn't that the entire point of pricing goods and services? That's how a market reaches equilibrium, that's how we know what's important, that's how we align incentives with the outcomes we want. They could have used them on Easter Island.
We're not going to have dirty air. Increasing clean air and car pollution standards will continue. It just that it isn't very democratic to have one state out of a country of 50 states define what those standards should be.
Regarding dings from SUV's you get on your smaller car, maybe you should give up driving and use a bicycle. That would also reduce CO2. You see, you might not like that if government imposes a standard to give up your car. The problem is once you give government all that power, you start to lose your personal freedoms. So regulations have to be balanced against keeping liberties. When you start taking liberties away from one group, then your next on the list. Pretty soon no one is free and you have nothing to drive like in Venezuela.
I don;t understand you repeating the "equilibrium" point. Government doesn;t decide the price of things. At least they shouldn't. A willing buyer and a willing seller decide on price. Do you want to go to a central planning system like they had in the Soviet Union. Government decided on how many of everything was made and what the prices were. That worked out well, didn;t it? The citizens suffered from constant shortages, loss of liberties, and in the end the country went belly-up.
-
Speaking about priorities...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X19301299?fbclid=IwAR33YwWDtjq-OaR8Vf-m1JrR2EmgTgZbQ7bYBEX3kRptS-vMSYI_HmAkolM
(Bold mine)
"Our study finds that a full implementation of the emission reduction contributions, stated in the NDCs, is projected to slow down the effort to reduce poverty by 2030 (+4.2% of the population below the poverty line compared to the baseline scenario) ..."
-
Speaking about priorities...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X19301299?fbclid=IwAR33YwWDtjq-OaR8Vf-m1JrR2EmgTgZbQ7bYBEX3kRptS-vMSYI_HmAkolM
(Bold mine)
Of course. Electricity and industry production is cheaper with fossil fuels. Removing the use of fossil fuels raises prices of electricity, heating, hot water, construction, transportation, and goods making people even poorer. It makes whole countries poorer to help their own people. So the poverty rate goes up with green energy. Imagine if poor countries had to pay for electricity what Germans pay for theirs?
-
Of course. Electricity and industry production is cheaper with fossil fuels. Removing the use of fossil fuels raises prices of electricity, heating, hot water, construction, transportation, and goods making people even poorer. It makes whole countries poorer to help their own people. So the poverty rate goes up with green energy. Imagine if poor countries had to pay for electricity what Germans pay for theirs?
Climate change also makes a country poorer when increasing temperature reduces arable land, taking it out of production for necessary food.
-
Climate change also makes a country poorer when increasing temperature reduces arable land, taking it out of production for necessary food.
But eliminating fossil fuels will create more poor. Unless you don;t believe the aforementioned scientific report that Slobodan posted.
-
But eliminating fossil fuels will create more poor. Unless you don;t believe the aforementioned scientific report that Slobodan posted.
Try reading the report, before accepting a selective quote as representative of what's written in that report.
But I have to give it to you, it's a fine demonstration of misrepresentation, which is the topic of the thread.
The report also says;
Among the most prominent studies, Hussein et al (2013) estimate that a carbon tax on fossil fuels in Annex I countries leads to poverty reduction in most of the non-Annex I countries. However, when a forest carbon sequestration incentive (paid by Annex I parties) is added in the developing regions, the effect is reversed, with most low-income countries showing an increase in returns to the land, leading to reduced agricultural output and increased food prices.
So, a Carbon tax has a positive effect. Maybe one should increase the carbon tax to offset the negative effect of a forest carbon sequestration incentive ...
-
The Russian media has stopped now over-representing climate skeptics.
the warming that is opening up the Arctic seas may be starting to have a less beneficial effect on the frozen landmass of northern Russia, the heartland of the country’s oil and gas development and production.
“Permafrost is undergoing rapid change,” says the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate report adopted by the IPCC last week. The changes threaten the “structural stability and functional capacities” of oil industry infrastructure.
The warming that is opening up the Arctic seas may be starting to have a less beneficial effect on the frozen landmass of northern Russia, the heartland of the country’s oil and gas development and production. “Permafrost is undergoing rapid change.” The changes threaten the “structural stability and functional capacities” of oil industry infrastructure.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-suddenly-believes-060006117.html
-
Regarding dings from SUV's you get on your smaller car, maybe you should give up driving and use a bicycle. That would also reduce CO2. You see, you might not like that if government imposes a standard to give up your car. The problem is once you give government all that power, you start to lose your personal freedoms. So regulations have to be balanced against keeping liberties. When you start taking liberties away from one group, then your next on the list. Pretty soon no one is free and you have nothing to drive like in Venezuela.
None of this made any sense to me. Are you saying it's my fault that people with large vehicles cannot park them properly because I don't ride a bicycle?
But a more serious question is this. What is it that is actually happening in the real world that is leading to these wild-eyed warnings about how we might become Venezuela soon. I mean, what the hell are you talking about?
-
None of this made any sense to me. Are you saying it's my fault that people with large vehicles cannot park them properly because I don't ride a bicycle?
But a more serious question is this. What is it that is actually happening in the real world that is leading to these wild-eyed warnings about how we might become Venezuela soon. I mean, what the hell are you talking about?
Socialism leads to left-wing Fascism. That's what Venezuela has become. Stronger central government power leads to loss of liberty. Ask Slobodan if you still don;t understand. He's lived through it.
-
The Russian media has stopped now over-representing climate skeptics.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-suddenly-believes-060006117.html (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-suddenly-believes-060006117.html)
Putin is signing the Paris agreement because he feels that being in the group he can better protect Russia's oil and gas industry by limiting Paris edicts that would negatively affect their operation. Russia's good at this. They used their position for decades as a permanent member on the UN Security Council to veto any edict the counsel might issue that they didn't agree with. A similar position in Paris would castrate their power. It's the same things the CHinese are doing. They're on the Paris board even though they have not agree to meet any reductions in CO2 until at least 2030. By the way, that was one of the arguments why the US should be on the Paris board so we can protect our interests as well. There's something to be said about that except Obama had agreed to spend American money that Trump doesn;t want too unless China does as well. .
-
Socialism leads to left-wing Fascism.
Must be why they speak Spanish in Sweden.
-
Must be why they speak Spanish in Sweden.
Sweden isn't socialist the way you think. Its economy is rated 15th freest in the world. America is 18th.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767
-
Sweden isn't socialist the way you think. Its economy is rated 15th freest in the world. America is 18th.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767
Having lived in Sweden, I'm pretty familiar with how "socialist" it is, thanks.
-
Having lived in Sweden, I'm pretty familiar with how "socialist" it is, thanks.
At least you used quotation marks correctly 😉
-
Having lived in Sweden, I'm pretty familiar with how "socialist" it is, thanks.
When did you live there? Apparently, there was a point when they were very Socialist. But the economy began to fail and they had to reverse it. So they implemented free market policies.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767
-
When did you live there? Apparently, there was a point when they were very Socialist. But the economy began to fail and they had to reverse it. So they implemented free market policies.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767
Those things are relative. By your standards Sweden is still a communist dictatorship.
-
... But a more serious question is this. What is it that is actually happening in the real world that is leading to these wild-eyed warnings about how we might become Venezuela soon. I mean, what the hell are you talking about?
This is what we are talking about, Robert, in your neck of the woods even: brave anti-fascists fighting dangerous nazis, street by street, corner by corner:
"AntiFa in Canada shouting down an elderly lady calling her a Nazi as she tries to cross the street"
Video here: https://www.facebook.com/LEXITMovement/videos/389882785267010/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODEwMDMwMzc5MjIyMw/
-
Those things are relative. By your standards Sweden is still a communist dictatorship.
Who cares. Their women are hot. :)
-
This is what we are talking about, Robert, in your neck of the woods even: brave anti-fascists fighting dangerous nazis, street by street, corner by corner:
"AntiFa in Canada shouting down an elderly lady calling her a Nazi as she tries to cross the street"
Video here: https://www.facebook.com/LEXITMovement/videos/389882785267010/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODEwMDMwMzc5MjIyMw/
You're right, the end is nigh.
-
Bwahahahaha... so much for science:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2217915-avoiding-red-or-processed-meat-doesnt-seem-to-give-health-benefits/
-
go ahead.
Make my day.
;)
-
Bwahahahaha... so much for science:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2217915-avoiding-red-or-processed-meat-doesnt-seem-to-give-health-benefits/
My cardiologist doesn;t care how much red meat I eat. Just don;t eat carbs he says. On the other hand I had triple bypass and have diabetes 2. The whole things is mixed up. Who knows what to believe any more.
-
My cardiologist doesn;t care how much red meat I eat. Just don;t eat carbs he says. On the other hand I had triple bypass and have diabetes 2. The whole things is mixed up. Who knows what to believe any more.
Unfortunately, most cardiologists are hopelessly incompetent. I've seen some.
The surgeons are usually top class, but majority of cardiologists are clueless about the nutritional aspects and exercise benefits. They just keep prescribing the same betablockers, statins, and baby aspirins.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013
Below is a short list of world famous cardiologists who started as conventional doctors but seeing the results of conventional treatments (promoted by old school and drug making companies) they switched to the preventive heart treatments with great results and many saved patient lives. Google any of them, they have videos, articles, books, talk shows, and they don't sell any supplements or magic pills, they just prescribe healthy food and exercise.
Caldwell Esselstyn, Colin Campbell, John McDougal, Dean Ornish, Barnard, Neil Barnard, Joel Fuhrman, Kim Williams. These were the pioneers recommending plant-based food, now there are many others following in their footsteps.
Definitely, listen to this: (24 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNW_5EqqWoo (53% increased mortality by going on ketogenic diet)
If you have 2 hours, here is an interesting and insightful discussion with cardiologist Joel Kahn on Diet Wars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrCaG2gT2Vg
As to the diabetes, the latest research indicates that it is not caused so much by sugar, as by the excess calories. Mentioned also in the video above, 44:30'
-
Les, we've talked about this before. It's hard to know what to believe. Every day there's another article about eating healthy that contradicts the last article. The subject of this thread. You become skeptical of everything. Who's telling the truth.
Yes, my cardiologist prescribes atorvastatin, baby aspirin and a beta blocker Metoprolol as you suggested. It's his standard kit. He's got my wife on it now as she's having a skipped beat or something, still trying to figure it out. The carbs are a killer though for me because I have diabetes II, an apparent American disease lately from all the sugar, sweets, soda, French fries and other high card crap we eat. I see how sugar levels drop when I exercise. If I could lay off the carbs and moderate meat and everything else, and exercise, I'd probably be OK.
-
Alan, yes, we talked about it many times, but you still don't listen. And you can always find some dummy or a worse a con man, sponsored by red-meat or diary industry who will let you eat or even encourage to consume poisons which you like.
Listen to the video in my previous post. It's really enlightening and to the point.
-
... And you can always find some dummy or a worse a con man, sponsored by red-meat or diary industry who will let you eat or even encourage to consume poisons which you like...
My doctor friend says that Cochrane are respected research analysts in medical community.
-
Alan, yes, we talked about it many times, but you still don't listen. And you can always find some dummy or a worse a con man, sponsored by red-meat or diary industry who will let you eat or even encourage to consume poisons which you like.
Listen to the video in my previous post. It's really enlightening and to the point.
Listen to whom? It's hard to go against your cardiologist who treated you for three years, discovered clogged arteries I didn't know were seriously clogged and got me one of the best heart surgeons in the best heart hospital in NYC to do a triple bypass successfully (at least so far.) What do I tell him? "Say, Doc. I was talking to this Canadian on a photo forum site. He says you're full of sh!t that the problem is carbs and not steak."
Do you see my predicament?
-
More skepticism listening to the media.
Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study.
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html
-
Listen to whom? It's hard to go against your cardiologist who treated you for three years, discovered clogged arteries I didn't know were seriously clogged and got me one of the best heart surgeons in the best heart hospital in NYC to do a triple bypass successfully (at least so far.) What do I tell him? "Say, Doc. I was talking to this Canadian on a photo forum site. He says you're full of sh!t that the problem is carbs and not steak."
Do you see my predicament?
I don't see any predicament. He is obviously better at finding a good hospital than preventing a heart problem in the first place. You can tell him, that somebody on an-online forum said that a cardiologist who doesn't first try to improve your health by inquiring what you eat and give you a proven and scientific advice about benefits of proper nutrition and exercise, should go back to school and stop harming his patients. I don't tell that to my cardiologist, we worked out a good relationship over the years. We exchange few pleasantries, he mentions some medications, I politely decline them, then I ask for some tests and he always writes a lab requisition to get them done. Once when his test machine indicated a possible irregularity or a missing heart beat, he wanted me to take an appropriate medication. I was skeptical, so I asked for a Holter heart monitor, and after 2 days of constant on-body monitoring (you can't shower nor bath), the monitor didn't show any problems. If I had blindly accepted the prescribed medication, I would have been poisoning myself with those pills for the rest of my life (which would be invariably shorter with that medication than without it).
Once while sitting in the waiting room, I met a trim 40-something fireman, who suffered a heart attack while running a marathon, so I asked him how he liked the doctor. He said he liked him a lot, because he prescribed for him 6 different medications. A perfect and very grateful patient.
Nowadays, most middle-aged people on Western diet have clogged arteries - it depends only to what degree. Unfortunately, it's not only old people, even people in their teens and twenties are experiencing plaque in their arteries. If you suspect any problems, the cardiologist can order angiogram or nuclear heart scan and find out exactly how bad it is.
The researchers had information on 3,832 service members who'd been killed at an average age of 26. Close to 9 percent had any buildup in their coronary arteries, according to the autopsies. And about a quarter of the soldiers with buildup in their arteries had severe blockage.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-military-heart/one-in-12-in-military-has-clogged-heart-arteries-idUSBRE8BO07G20121225
Most people don’t experience the life-threatening complications of having atherosclerosis — hardening of the arteries — until they reach middle age. However, the beginning stages can actually start during childhood. The disease tends to be progressive and gets worse with time. Over time, plaque, which is made of fatty cells (cholesterol), calcium, and other waste products, builds up in a major artery. The artery becomes more and more narrow, which means blood is unable to get to areas it needs to reach.
https://www.healthline.com/health/heart-disease/atherosclerosis-when-it-starts
While we are talking about firemen, I should mention Rip Esselstyn, son of Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn. An ex-fireman, accomplished triathlete, strong and healthy guy, advocating plant-based diet, he convinced his entire fire-station team to switch to plant-based food.
Rip Esselstyn (born 1963), a former firefighter and triathlete, is an American health activist and food writer. He is the author of The Engine 2 Diet (2009), "Plant-Strong" (2016) previously published as My Beef With Meat (2013), and "The Engine 2 Seven-Day Rescue Diet" (2017). Esselstyn is known as an advocate of a whole food, plant-based diet, one that omits meat, fish, eggs, dairy and processed foods. He calls it a "plant strong" diet, a term he has trademarked. He appeared in the 2011 documentary about plant-based nutrition, Forks Over Knives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Esselstyn
-
https://www.facebook.com/thehodgetwins/videos/2104503403189410/
-
More skepticism listening to the media.
Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study.
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html
Why skepticism ?
Isn't this a fine example of peer review, which aims at correcting errors that may have been made, and prevent future work to be built on those errors?
-
... Isn't this a fine example of peer review...
Isn't peer review supposed to happen before the publishing and before the poor St. Greta had a meltdown?
-
Isn't peer review supposed to happen before the publishing and before the poor St. Greta had a meltdown?
Nature isn't a peer reviewed journal. It is a monthly magazine.
-
Nature isn't a peer reviewed journal. It is a monthly magazine.
Nobody seemed to care about that distinction while shrieking "OMG the oceans are warming!"
-
Isn't peer review supposed to happen before the publishing and before the poor St. Greta had a meltdown?
No. The Journal "Nature" publishes original papers.
The journal's editorial staff may decide to have some of the papers peer reviewed.
Editorial criteria and processes
https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/editorial-criteria-and-processes
After submission
What happens to a submitted Article?
The first stage for a newly submitted Article is that the editorial staff consider whether to send it for peer-review. On submission, the manuscript is assigned to an editor covering the subject area, who seeks informal advice from scientific advisors and editorial colleagues, and who makes this initial decision. The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implications. The initial judgement is not a reflection on the technical validity of the work described, or on its importance to people in the same field.
-
Luckily, not all Dutch are climato-crazies:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/angry-dutch-farmers-clog-up-700-miles-of-highway-during-protest-over-emission-rules
Slow-moving convoys of tractors clogged up nearly 700 miles of major highways in the Netherlands on Tuesday, as farmers inched toward The Hague to protest what they claim is an attempt to blame them over nitrogen pollution.
About 10,000 farmers planned the protest to argue they are unfairly being blamed after a court ruling found that the Netherlands is violating European emission rules.
-
Luckily, not all Dutch are climato-crazies:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/angry-dutch-farmers-clog-up-700-miles-of-highway-during-protest-over-emission-rules
Here we are trying to bring down pollution of nitrogen and the farmers are one of the main polluters.
We have a kind of intense animal farming called BioIndustry- the word explains it more or less- it has little to do with the nostalgic idea of farming.
For instance in our small country we have much more pigs than humans, allthough you will never see a pig in the open as they never see daylight.
We only see little pieces of the pig in supermarkets.
To feed all these animals we need to import vegetable food that has grown on areas many times our country.
However the shit the animals produce end up here, It is the base of the pollution.
Also more and more people think animals deserve a better live.
To change this way of farming the momentum seems to be now.
The farmers protest is a beautiful one. It started out with a cry of one farmer and others followed.
They have been forced into that system through time and deserve to have time and government assistance to change their way of farming.
But the need for a change is obvious.
-
https://www.facebook.com/thehodgetwins/videos/2104503403189410/
That's funny.
-
...The criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (illuminating, unexpected or surprising), and that the work described has both immediate and far-reaching implications. The initial judgement is not a reflection on the technical validity of the work described, or on its importance to people in the same field.
...
So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before. This is an example of preaching to the choir. Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming. Opposing views don;t get published so easily. So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.
-
Nobody seemed to care about that distinction while shrieking "OMG the oceans are warming!"
The oceans are warming but they may not be to the exaggerated extent in that one particular article in which some errors seem to have been detected.
You're making one hell of a pointless mountain over a meaningless molehill.
-
So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before. This is an example of preaching to the choir. Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming. Opposing views don;t get published so easily. So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.
This is an utterly silly and nonsensical comment. There are primary source publications and there are publications which print summaries in review form or sometimes reprint articles. They each have a niche.
-
The oceans are warming but they may not be to the exaggerated extent in that one particular article in which some errors seem to have been detected.
You're making one hell of a pointless mountain over a meaningless molehill.
I'm sure the media that repeated the original story won;t retract their editions of the story like Nature did.
-
I'm sure the media that repeated the original story won;t retract their editions of the story like Nature did.
Another silly and nonsensical statement. When scientific journals receive notice of errors in an article, they publish corrections (less often retractions, depends on the nature of the error) in the next available issue. And the online versions of those articles are flagged with links to the errors and the corrections. This is standard practice in the field.
-
Another silly and nonsensical statement. When scientific journals receive notice of errors in an article, they publish corrections (less often retractions, depends on the nature of the error) in the next available issue. And the online versions of those articles are flagged with links to the errors and the corrections. This is standard practice in the field.
I don't think it's "silly and nonsensical" to expect publications to correct errors they made in reporting news, science, global warming, or anything else for that matter. That seems to me to be responsible reporting.
-
The problem, as we all should know by now, is the tendency of the various competing media to grab the public's attention by exaggerating the significance and the importance of every news event.
I recently came across a very old article in the Brisbane Courier newspaper in Australia, dated January 10, 1871. Refer attached photo.
In case some of you have trouble reading the script, I've copied it, word for word, as follows.
"Three consecutive years of drought, while they have stimulated the inventive resources of practical agriculturists, have had the natural effect of calling forth a plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets, and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities.
We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be "extraordinary", almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known.
Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it."
-
The problem, as we all should know by now, is the tendency of the various competing media to grab the public's attention by exaggerating the significance and the importance of every news event.
I recently came across a very old article in the Brisbane Courier newspaper in Australia, dated January 10, 1871. Refer attached photo.
In case some of you have trouble reading the script, I've copied it, word for word, as follows.
"Three consecutive years of drought, while they have stimulated the inventive resources of practical agriculturists, have had the natural effect of calling forth a plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets, and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities.
We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be "extraordinary", almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known.
Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it."
Ray, that's the most amazing thing you've post to date.
-
So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before. This is an example of preaching to the choir. Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming. Opposing views don;t get published so easily. So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.
Where the hell did you get that from?
-
Ray, that's the most amazing thing you've post to date.
It is written in a period of time when IQ was correlated with rainfall, temperature, and race.
-
( However today at religious based universities students still learn that the earth is not more than 10.000 years old)
-
The problem, as we all should know by now, is the tendency of the various competing media to grab the public's attention by exaggerating the significance and the importance of every news event.
Correct. That's why one should always refer to the original study/paper that the article is talking about. Popular media tend to draw the wrong conclusions, or leave out the important nuances and disclaimers. Blog posts are notorious for (sometimes deliberately) getting things wrong.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So Nature will publish without peer review if it's just stuff that's been published before. This is an example of preaching to the choir. Why each news outlet just repeats the party line about global warming. Opposing views don;t get published so easily. So you get "climatosceptic" fake science, as the title of this thread reminds us all.
Did you read the article linked to in the OP, or even the thread title?
-
Correct. That's why one should always refer to the original study/paper that the article is talking about. Popular media tend to draw the wrong conclusions, or leave out the important nuances and disclaimers. Blog posts are notorious for (sometimes deliberately) getting things wrong.
Cheers,
Bart
The average person doesn;t have time to research original scientific papers. They depend on popular media. Even if they did, most papers are so obtuse, they're difficult to understand.
-
Did you read the article linked to in the OP, or even the thread title?
The article is wrong or their methodology is wrong. The fact is from what I see with my own eyes and ears, is that the regular media hypes climate change and global warming. Every nature program you watch makes it seem that man is evil when it comes to nature, that we're destroying animal and plant alike. People watch this stuff and get hysterical like that poor 16 year old girl Greta Thunberg. Her parents should be drawn and quartered for what they did to her.
-
the effects are real enough and present. The degree of guilt is the only question.
-
the effects are real enough and present. The degree of guilt is the only question.
Guilt? Increasing population causes all the problems. What penalty should we apply? Allow woman to only have one child like the Chinese tried?
-
The article is wrong or their methodology is wrong. The fact is from what I see with my own eyes and ears, is that the regular media hypes climate change and global warming. Every nature program you watch makes it seem that man is evil when it comes to nature, that we're destroying animal and plant alike. People watch this stuff and get hysterical like that poor 16 year old girl Greta Thunberg. Her parents should be drawn and quartered for what they did to her.
That is not a fact at all.
-
The average person doesn;t have time to research original scientific papers. They depend on popular media. Even if they did, most papers are so obtuse, they're difficult to understand.
Yet the average person forms an opinion based on that overrepresented fake science in most blogs. That explains.
-
That is not a fact at all.
Sure it is. It's a fact just like someone who witnesses a crime, testifies at trial, and sends the guy to jail. Regardless, anyone can create results they want by cherry picking the statistics or methodology.
-
Yet the average person forms an opinion based on that overrepresented fake science in most blogs. That explains.
People are fooled all the time by propaganda, bias news reporting, and outright lies. Political, product advertising or whatever. Nothing new about that. Even on photo forums. :)
-
People are fooled all the time by propaganda, bias news reporting, and outright lies.
Gullible people are easily fooled.
-
Guilt? Increasing population causes all the problems. What penalty should we apply? Allow woman to only have one child like the Chinese tried?
The guilt of human action, not sex.
-
It was 99 here yesterday. That breaks the record for October 1st. It also breaks the record for the number of consecutive days it has been over 90 degrees at 97. Add to that, we got virtually no rain in September. All the grass is dead and the ground is littered with dead dry leaves. Hot, hot, hot.
-
It was 99 here yesterday. That breaks the record for October 1st. It also breaks the record for the number of consecutive days it has been over 90 degrees at 97. Add to that, we got virtually no rain in September. All the grass is dead and the ground is littered with dead dry leaves. Hot, hot, hot.
That's funny, in New Jersey where I live, we had the rainiest year in history last year. And a lot this year. Doesn't stop. A lot in the month of September. Maybe we can ship you water? Isn't global warming strange? Seems like it has little to do with local weather patterns. Yes? No?
2018: The Rainiest Year in NJ History. 2019: Still Raining
https://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/2018-rainiest-year-nj-history-2019-still-raining#targetText=The%2030%20year%20normal%20amount,the%20prior%20year%20in%20March. (https://patch.com/new-jersey/parsippany/2018-rainiest-year-nj-history-2019-still-raining#targetText=The%2030%20year%20normal%20amount,the%20prior%20year%20in%20March.)
-
Rome metro offers free transportation tickets for passengers who bring in used plastic bottles.
Not have enough cash for a metro ticket in Rome? No worries, just collect a few plastic bottles and you'll be able to ride for free. Italy's capital is offering travellers a way to exchange their waste plastic bottles for tickets on its public transport system.
In San Giovanni metro station, commuters were queuing holding bags full of empty bottles to experience the program "+Ricicli +Viaggi" (the more you recycle, the more you travel) that allows passengers to return plastic bottles in exchange for a 5-cent credit that could be accrued and spent to purchase digital tickets. Through the MyCicero app, users can scan their personal barcode on a special recycling machine, insert empty plastic bottles inside a compactor and digitally buy rides.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/03/rome-metro-offers-trash-for-tickets-to-tackle-plastic-pollution
-
Rome metro offers free transportation tickets for passengers who bring in used plastic bottles.
https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/03/rome-metro-offers-trash-for-tickets-to-tackle-plastic-pollution (https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/03/rome-metro-offers-trash-for-tickets-to-tackle-plastic-pollution)
Many States like NYS where I lived before have bottle laws where you pay an extra few cents for each bottle you buy. Then the stores return the money when you return the bottle to them when you go shopping again. Other states like New Jersey where I now live have recycling programs. I have to separate my garbage between home trash and recyclables into two garbage cans that get picked up by different garbagemen and garbage trucks.
In NYC and elsewhere, a cottage industry has grown where homeless people pickup up bottles they find on the street for the value of the deposit. Here's a shot of them I took up in the Bronx where automatic machines crush the cans and give the deposit value back in change.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3833/12198402876_c28eaeed2f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/jzW1bY)Bronx bottle rebate (https://flic.kr/p/jzW1bY) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
-
Good shot, Alan