Remind me again, who has had a “political lock” on those cities for the last 50+ years??? You telling me “Republicans Did That”????
The Ultimate 2020 Election / Politics / General News Thread
- Thread starter vector2
- Start date
- Status
Remind me again, who has had a “political lock” on those cities for the last 50+ years??? You telling me “Republicans Did That”????
I will say that I've known more than 1 non-white person who came here with plans to stay and got out of here with a quickness after they had a "reality" of America. In a similar vein I lived over seasons in a non-white country where I essentially didn't have to think about being a Black person (or mass shootings, that was another bonus) like I do here. Yet I still came back to America. All that to say that moving, immigrating, etc is often a complex decision. Therefore, the fact that we have a lot of immigrants here doesn't mean that the foundation of racism that this country was built upon has suddenly disappeared.
To be fair in regards to "political lock", in general states in the South have poorer education outcomes, health outcomes and more violent crime.
So if you'd like to play the blame game.
But yep, all political parties from the beginning of the founding of this country have contributed to worsening the gap between the haves and the have nots. There's plenty of blame to go around!
Why The South Is More Violent Than The Rest Of America
www.businessinsider.com
Last edited:
Which one of trump's friends do we think will be arrested next?
I think my bingo card is full.
I would love if racist Stephen Miller could go down.
Even if he wins in Nov he's not going to be president forever, so is the gop going to continue to support him as being a stand up guy after 2024?
There's no way his presidency can be made in to a 2 hour movie, it's going to have to be a week-long miniseries.
I think my bingo card is full.
I would love if racist Stephen Miller could go down.
Even if he wins in Nov he's not going to be president forever, so is the gop going to continue to support him as being a stand up guy after 2024?
There's no way his presidency can be made in to a 2 hour movie, it's going to have to be a week-long miniseries.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 5,460
Oh, I agree with you - it doesn’t matter.
and despite me agreeing with the general policies of:
1. we need tighter borders, discouragement of (illegal) immigration
2. We need UN countries to pay more for their own defense
3. We need China not to cheat on trade and a lot of other things
4. We need less regulation and red tape
unfortunately, Trump went about pursuing these policies in an asinine way. He is not a coalition builder and only knows how to bully/threaten, and therefore anything he gets done is at the expense of burning bridges left and right.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 5,460
Oh — definitely life/opportunities arent completely fair in 2020, I agree. It sucks to be poor.
It’s fine for the government to have some policies to support the poor of all races, all over; it becomes problematic to say there are no opportunities because people are a certain skin tone though.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
I’m highly highly dubious that NASA would just adjust data to fit a theory. Do you have an apolitical link for that?
Also, I did some reading on heartland.org who you linked. They backed RJR tobacco, didn’t believe in second-hand smoke, and backed the tea party. I don’t think I’d base my beliefs on the environment from an organization so obviously political.
I’m quite busy today and you are more than welcome to dig a bit yourself, so feel free to look into nasa climate data adjustments if your interested. There’s plenty of sources that talk about the data used to make the models that are used to make the catastrophic climate change predictions. There’s also plenty of discussions on the quality of positive predictability ability of said models.
And as far as heartland.org, it was the first link I googled that discussed the origins of the 98% claim, but you can find that information in lots of places. Heck, find the original survey yourself and look at what numbers are used to come up with that stretch of a statement.
The other thing to keep in mind with all this, and I’m sure vector is waiting to bash my sources (as you kind of already did), but you can’t bash a source and say, “we’ll they’ve received funding from big oil” or whatever and not take the other side of the story at face value without realizing that they receive all their funding from the NIH and other institutions that give them the incentive to come up with findings that support global warming’s or climate change, or whatever the term of the day is. There’s many scientist who talk about having their research suppressed or their grants being revoked when they come up with conclusions or propose ideas that are contrary to the accepted dogma.
Look into it if you’re interested. I gave you some good people to start with.
Or dont. Up to you.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,640
Last edited:
Dang.
Mind changed.
Thanks Vec
Now, this isn’t a hand drawn cartoon from a ‘webcomic’ blog, but maybe it’s still got some validity.
But it’s just from this guy, so again, maybe not as valid as what Vec posted.
“Dr. Roy Spencer was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.”
But it’s just from this guy, so again, maybe not as valid as what Vec posted.
“Dr. Roy Spencer was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.”
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,967
- Reaction score
- 21,188
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,640
G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia (Published 2020)
A nearly 1,000-page report confirmed the special counsel’s findings at a moment when President Trump’s allies have sought to undermine that inquiry.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
- that's from 2012
- in his summary he states 'human caused global warming exists'
- we will run out of fossil fuels
- renewable energy isn't efficient (my take - again, that's from 2012 and the efficiency of solar power for example, increases every year, and has increased substantially in the last decade)
I spent some time on the NASA Climate Change website. Sources include Science and Nature. Maybe it's my bias but I find that more reliable than the heartland foundation.
I don't think its very debatable, and it shouldn't be political but oddly it is, that we need to take better care of the planet. I don't understand the point of trying to say climate change isn't 1) happening and 2) bad for us.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
Here is the New Yorker questioning the wisdom of spending TRILLIONS of dollars we don't have while having a minimal impact on climate:
As a bonus, many low-tech conservation actions (restoring forests, preserving grasslands, eating less meat) can reduce our carbon footprint as effectively as massive industrial changes.
All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was winnable. Once you accept that we’ve lost it, other kinds of action take on greater meaning
www.newyorker.com
I'm all for a Greener planet but let's not BANKRUPT this nation by spending Trillions of dollars that likely will have minimal impact on climate but will ruin this country for generations.
As a bonus, many low-tech conservation actions (restoring forests, preserving grasslands, eating less meat) can reduce our carbon footprint as effectively as massive industrial changes.
All-out war on climate change made sense only as long as it was winnable. Once you accept that we’ve lost it, other kinds of action take on greater meaning
What if We Stopped Pretending the Climate Apocalypse Can Be Stopped?
The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it.
I'm all for a Greener planet but let's not BANKRUPT this nation by spending Trillions of dollars that likely will have minimal impact on climate but will ruin this country for generations.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
Also, a lot of white male Republicans that I either know or see online (Trump sons are classic example) love to exclaim their love of the outdoors, hunting, and fishing. At the same time, they want mining and drilling in Alaska and other US northwestern wildlife preserves. That's just counterintuitive. One may say - hypocritical. It's clear that mining, drilling, and fracking isn't good for the environment and our natural resources.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
" I don’t see human nature fundamentally changing anytime soon. I can run ten thousand scenarios through my model, and in not one of them do I see the two-degree target being met. "
"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. According to a recent paper in Nature, the carbon emissions from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions “allowance”—the further gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold of catastrophe. (This estimate does not include the thousands of new energy and transportation projects already planned or under construction.) To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country. Making New York City a green utopia will not avail if Texans keep pumping oil and driving pickup trucks.
The actions taken by these countries must also be the right ones. Vast sums of government money must be spent without wasting it and without lining the wrong pockets. Here it’s useful to recall the Kafkaesque joke of the European Union’s biofuel mandate, which served to accelerate the deforestation of Indonesia for palm-oil plantations, and the American subsidy of ethanol fuel, which turned out to benefit no one but corn farmers."
www.newyorker.com
CHINA and INDIA will NEVER ruin their economies for a GREEN NEW DEAL like AOC demands. It is pure folly to spend trillions on a hopeless fantasy that will bankrupt this nation and cause financial ruin to the middle class.
"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. According to a recent paper in Nature, the carbon emissions from existing global infrastructure, if operated through its normal lifetime, will exceed our entire emissions “allowance”—the further gigatons of carbon that can be released without crossing the threshold of catastrophe. (This estimate does not include the thousands of new energy and transportation projects already planned or under construction.) To stay within that allowance, a top-down intervention needs to happen not only in every country but throughout every country. Making New York City a green utopia will not avail if Texans keep pumping oil and driving pickup trucks.
The actions taken by these countries must also be the right ones. Vast sums of government money must be spent without wasting it and without lining the wrong pockets. Here it’s useful to recall the Kafkaesque joke of the European Union’s biofuel mandate, which served to accelerate the deforestation of Indonesia for palm-oil plantations, and the American subsidy of ethanol fuel, which turned out to benefit no one but corn farmers."
What if We Stopped Pretending the Climate Apocalypse Can Be Stopped?
The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it.
CHINA and INDIA will NEVER ruin their economies for a GREEN NEW DEAL like AOC demands. It is pure folly to spend trillions on a hopeless fantasy that will bankrupt this nation and cause financial ruin to the middle class.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
I agree with you. We can find a lot of common ground and maybe limit spending to 500 billion over 4 years? This nation tried outlawing ALCOHOL and how did that work out? Wasting trillions of dollars of unfunded taxpayer money while China and India go FULL THROTTLE is pure economic suicide. It's pure madness designed to destroy the very fabric of the USA.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
Numbers 1 and 2 are very good points by you but the conclusion that the USA should be the ONLY major economy (e.g. China, India, etc) to spend TRILLIONS on Green projects while raising taxes (Carbon tax) on the middle class is exactly what we should NOT be doing in 2021. The 2 trillion will likely be mostly wasted and go to special interests while having NO IMPACT on the Climate (negligible) change of the world.
Instead, we should begin to do those cost-effective things which MAY have an impact on temperature change without costing trillions of dollars or tanking our economy. I believe the temperature is indeed warming across our planet but the Green New Deal will destroy the USA economically long before Mother nature ever does.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 5,460
What we really should do is put a massive amount of money into research on a game-changing technology, like stable fusion.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 15,513
- Reaction score
- 22,007
Hardly necessary, but worthy of continued research.
Fission works. We could build new, modern reactors if we wanted to. We could build a lot of them. There's a more or less limitless supply of thorium on the planet. Limitless carbon-free energy is there for the making. But it's nuuuuuuuuuuclear and hippies are irrational.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,967
- Reaction score
- 21,188
So are we for or against the Tesla writeoff?
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,640
Humans are just exceedingly bad at evaluating risk. It’s why one can do those psychology experiments where an experimenter asks if a subject would like to run a bet 100 times...a bet that would have significant positive mathematical expected value (+EV) for the subject over the long run, but the subject doesn’t want to do it because they might lose bet number one.
Anyone talking about the cost of doing something now about climate change is totally missing the forest from the trees. And it’s because humans are also exceedingly bad at understanding things at extremes of sizes or extremes of time durations (how else could you have so many otherwise educated people claim macro evolution is not real). We should focus on just the environmental, clean jobs, and carbon reduction aspect and spend 1-2% of GDP per year for the next 30 yrs getting it done. The estimates for the cost of unchecked climate change are anywhere from 1% to 10% of GDP annually with a middle of the road estimate being around 4% depending on the temperature rise. Beyond the economics, this doesn’t even include the millions of people around the world who would be killed by extreme weather or at the very least be forced to migrate by rising seas.
www.gatesnotes.com
Also, it’s great that any idiot troll can come up with random YouTube videos denying climate change. But let’s see the actual consensus
-
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
“
—-
“Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[6] Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[7][8] It is "extremely likely"[9] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"[9] in the atmosphere.[10] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[11][12][13][14]”
en.m.wikipedia.org
Anyone talking about the cost of doing something now about climate change is totally missing the forest from the trees. And it’s because humans are also exceedingly bad at understanding things at extremes of sizes or extremes of time durations (how else could you have so many otherwise educated people claim macro evolution is not real). We should focus on just the environmental, clean jobs, and carbon reduction aspect and spend 1-2% of GDP per year for the next 30 yrs getting it done. The estimates for the cost of unchecked climate change are anywhere from 1% to 10% of GDP annually with a middle of the road estimate being around 4% depending on the temperature rise. Beyond the economics, this doesn’t even include the millions of people around the world who would be killed by extreme weather or at the very least be forced to migrate by rising seas.
COVID-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse.
Bill Gates believes if we learn the lessons of COVID-19, we can approach climate change more informed about the consequences of inaction, and more prepared to save lives and prevent the worst possible outcome.
Also, it’s great that any idiot troll can come up with random YouTube videos denying climate change. But let’s see the actual consensus
-
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
“
—-
“Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken.[6] Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.[7][8] It is "extremely likely"[9] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases"[9] in the atmosphere.[10] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect.[11][12][13][14]”
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
China's enormous carbon footprint
- 1/2of the world's coal supply is burned by China each year
- Over 25%of the world's climate pollution originates in China
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,423
- Reaction score
- 9,129
D
deleted126335
Understatement of the year.
If you ask people what they care about when they go to vote in a few weeks, I would bet big bucks that all of the following will rank higher than climate change:
-A second wave of Corona virus.
-Will the schools close.
-Will I Iose my job.
-Doing something (or not doing something) about inequality/racism.
-Will my pension be there/Stock market/taxes.
BTW, We never will run out of Fossil Fuels. If technology at extraction doesn't deliver in the future, as prices rise due to short supply (or brutal user fees/taxes-chortle) consumption will drop.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,704
- Reaction score
- 5,460
D
deleted126335
But Fission actually works. That makes it better.
It should be noted that The Heartland Institute, much like Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and countless other right wing organizations are funded by the individuals and industries that are contributing most to climate change. The tactics of these groups are the same ones used for smoking and car seat belt use. It’s insane we are even debating if we are responsible for climate change when we currently set new global temperatures almost every year, we are seeing dramatic changes to polar ice shelf’s, and all legitimate scientific data says we are doing this. It takes only a basic understanding of physics to understand that if oil is the product of carbon capture by early organisms here on earth and changes of massive pressure from the earth itself, freeing all that potential energy over the course of 150 years is likely to have severe and fairly rapid consequences.
To paraphrase Elon Musk,”we have a giant thermonuclear reactor that gives us free energy and it rises every day.”
Its not an argument as to whether humans are responsible for climate change. Most everyone agrees with that. It is the DEGREE to which we are responsible and the DEGREE to which we can change it, and if we do implement massive changes at ridiculous cost (both financially and on the developing world) to what DEGREE will that even help. The dire predictions from the "consensus" of scientist come from altered/flawed/selective data in a lot of cases and are being put into models that have never been shown to be very accurate in predicting outcomes. Do some digging yourself on climate models and see if you think they have been accurate in the past, and ask yourself why do we assume that some people's models are considered accurate now.
And ask yourself, if its truly "settled science" then why are there so many scientists that disagree that we are on the brink of catastrophe? It's very easy for me to see why people who are getting grants and funding for research in order to study climate change would have a bias towards finding catastrophic concerns that need more grants and funding to study. And the flip side would be to say that all the skeptics are being paid off by big oil??? Do you really believe that? Are there some people paid off by big money (on both sides of most big issues)? Of course. But I highly doubt that the majority of "skeptical" scientist are on the big oil payrolls. So why potentially tarnish your reputation, face public scorn of being a "science denier" and lose your funding for your research, unless you truly believe the science and data is showing something different than the catastrophic narrative? Doesn't make any sense.
I've heard many people who fall on the skeptic side of the argument say that they received the survey to be included in the 97% consensus, and that despite answering yes to the very in-depth survey below, they don't believe in the catastrophic claims that are being put out there.
2009 - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
- 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1.
- 82% answered 'yes' to question 2.
- 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1.
- 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
There IS a consensus that there is warming going on, and there IS a consensus that humans contribute to the problem. There is NOT a 97% consensus that humans are almost entirely responsible for massive catastrophic global warming that will destroy the earth in 12 years and therefore we must destroy our economy and developing countries around the world in order to implement massive restrictions and regulations and force a change of the entire energy sector before the efficient, effective tech has been developed to make such a move reasonable. That's the difference between the two sides here.
Everyone agrees we should pursue cleaner energy, and everyone believes we should try to control CO2 emissions. But its just easier for one side to just yell "science denier" and make insults when the other side simply says "whoa whoa whoa, lets slow down with the crazy, poorly thought out political nonsense like the green new deal because maybe, just maybe, the world isn't gonna melt in 12 years."
Koch brothers and Exxon. Look it up. Koch brothers and their conspiracy theories to discredit global warming are still used today. And I see that a few posters are using those same arguments.
Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups?
A decade after pledging to end its support for climate science deniers, ExxonMobil gave $1.5 million last year to 11 think tanks and lobby groups that reject established climate science and openly oppose the oil and gas giant’s professed climate policy preferences, according to the company’s annual
blog.ucsusa.org
“Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial
A new book by Christopher Leonard reveals how Charles and David Koch crippled government action on climate change.
Koch brothers and Exxon. Look it up. Koch brothers and their conspiracy theories to discredit global warming are still used today. And I see that a few posters are using those same arguments.
Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups?
A decade after pledging to end its support for climate science deniers, ExxonMobil gave $1.5 million last year to 11 think tanks and lobby groups that reject established climate science and openly oppose the oil and gas giant’s professed climate policy preferences, according to the company’s annualblog.ucsusa.org
“Kochland” Examines the Koch Brothers’ Early, Crucial Role in Climate-Change Denial
A new book by Christopher Leonard reveals how Charles and David Koch crippled government action on climate change.
I have posted this elsewhere but it should be noted that the Koch brothers basically have no regard for the law and if the US government had any b@lls they would have gone after them ages ago. They defrauded the government and Native American tribes out of oil royalties and this is well documented. They also have horrible safety standards and one of their leaking gas lines in Texas incinerated two Texas teens driving down a rural road. These people are greedy scum of the earth, they should rot.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,967
- Reaction score
- 21,188
Heather Cox Richardson’s daily briefings are the best.
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com
Letters from an American | Heather Cox Richardson | Substack
A newsletter about the history behind today's politics. Click to read Letters from an American, by Heather Cox Richardson, a Substack publication with millions of subscribers.
heathercoxrichardson.substack.com
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,640
lol, I love living in one of those states that's falling into the ocean as we speak and simultaneously having this dumb**** as a president
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,967
- Reaction score
- 21,188
First ever double hurricane could hit the Gulf of Mexico
There have never been two hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico at the same time before.
www.livescience.com
The 14-hour storm caused extensive damage. Now Iowans are trying to recover from the 'land hurricane'
Danielle Hecker is part of a bike club in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. But lately, the group of about 20 people isn't out leisurely enjoying late summer evenings. Instead, the group is carrying chainsaws to help remove destroyed trees almost two weeks after a massive windstorm wreaked havoc all over Iowa.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
Heather Cox Richardson’s daily briefings are the best.
Letters from an American | Heather Cox Richardson | Substack
A newsletter about the history behind today's politics. Click to read Letters from an American, by Heather Cox Richardson, a Substack publication with millions of subscribers.
I'd never seen this. The writing is excellent. Thank you!
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
The President of the United States of America is an internet troll. What a time to be alive!
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 1,699
So what, we just continue along until it's too late to even do anything? I have yet to see any Republican legislation even begin to adequately address this issue -- it's just stonewalling in the name of special interests. There is no such thing as clean coal. You have been astroturfed so hard.
And the notion that our economy will be destroyed through enviornmental regulation and investment in renewable energy is foolish and short-sighted. Throughout history there have been countless industries and jobs that have been destroyed as new ones blossomed through innovation. The farming, manufacturing, and services industries are all examples of this. It's just a natural cycle in the innovation and advancement of an economy. Keeping your head in the sand and trying to prop up these dying industries without investment in the future is also great way to ensure economic collapse.
Apparently you guys have trouble comprehending words when typed by someone who isn't a liberal??? That seems to be the only logical explanation for the responses like "So what, we just do nothing?" or "just keep your head in the sand" etc...
I've said nothing about denying climate change or doing nothing, yet the silly responses like yours (and others) come nonetheless.
My only point in all this is that we shouldn't take the false narrative that 97% of scientist think the world is gonna end in 12 years at face value. There are plenty of well educated people that know WAY more about climate than anyone on this board who are skeptical of catastrophic predictions that require idiotic policy solutions like the green new deal.
I've mentioned quite clearly (but apparently not to you and others) that we should invest in and pursue green energy for sure, but not force feed poorly developed technology onto the world via strict regulation when that tech isn't ready yet, and we also shouldn't remove the ability of third world and developing countries to pull themselves up out of poverty through the use of cheap fuel and energy simply to attempt to prevent the global temperature increases that are disputed by a large number of very qualified people and that are based on data that has been adjusted and corrupted to at least some degree by poor placement and maintenance of temperature monitoring stations.
Additional, its hilarious to me that you don't see the irony to your own statement and how you are actually making my own point during your attempt to make me sound like an "astroturfed" fool or something. And on a side note, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
My whole point is that we of course should move towards green energy through innovation, not through policy. There's nothing natural about the government mandating use of poorly developed green energy technologies and making it so costly for anyone to use cheap efficient fuels. The government should support green innovation through research and development, not legislation that is ahead of the tech.
You wanna know when fossil fuels will disappear and no one will even care or fight it? When cheap, efficient green energy is a real thing. Not when a legislator picks up a pen and wishes it into existence through regulations and the extinction of cows and airplanes.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
You don't want clean energy legislation? Here's what currently pulls the strings on Republican legislators:
Oil & Gas Lobbying
See lobbying totals by Oil & Gas industries/interest groups for every election cycle from 1998 to 2024, along with top lobbying clients in 2023.
www.opensecrets.org
D
deleted126335
USA still has a bigger carbon footprint per capita than anywhere except maybe Qatar.
We could do a few things that are relatively painless: Increasing incentives for smaller more fuel efficient cars, smaller more fuel efficient homes, Protecting forests, These would be a positive step. But the vitriol that comes out of the Republican party for even these relatively painless things makes me question their sanity.
These are the same folks who tried to stop the mandating of seatbelts in cars or warning labels on cigarettes sixty years ago as government overreach because the science wasn't settled.
You sound like a surgeon that would rather cost the hospital $1,000 so he could save 15 minutes of his personal time. "The free market and forces of unconstrained capitalism and low taxes will cure all" Doesn't pass the red face test anymore.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,640
In regard to alternative energy solutions, lemme quote myself from another thread a couple months ago when we were talking about private vs public sector.
"As for the private sector....you remember that company Solyndra that was suuuuchhh a big scandal for Obama? It was part of a DoE loan program to encourage risky corporate innovation in alternative energy and energy efficiency. I’m sure everyone thinks the program was a failure, but it actually turned a profit on its loans. There are 35 viable, utility-scale, now privately funded solar companies in existence when before the program there were 0. Every Tesla on the road is there because their Fremont factory was able to get funded by the govt when the private sector turned up their noses. The program ended up funding a company that has a market cap bigger than Ford at its peak, but yet the program has been sitting frozen since Trump has been in office."
"As for the private sector....you remember that company Solyndra that was suuuuchhh a big scandal for Obama? It was part of a DoE loan program to encourage risky corporate innovation in alternative energy and energy efficiency. I’m sure everyone thinks the program was a failure, but it actually turned a profit on its loans. There are 35 viable, utility-scale, now privately funded solar companies in existence when before the program there were 0. Every Tesla on the road is there because their Fremont factory was able to get funded by the govt when the private sector turned up their noses. The program ended up funding a company that has a market cap bigger than Ford at its peak, but yet the program has been sitting frozen since Trump has been in office."
Are you being dense or just truly not understanding my point? Lemme try and be as simplistic as I can for ya.You don't want clean energy legislation? Here's what currently pulls the strings on Republican legislators:
Oil & Gas Lobbying
See lobbying totals by Oil & Gas industries/interest groups for every election cycle from 1998 to 2024, along with top lobbying clients in 2023.
It is ok for the governement to invest in clean energy innovation/research, whether that means using existing programs to finance said innovation/research or writing new legislation to support research and innovation. Did I lose you yet?
It is NOT ok for the government, via ridiculous legislation like the green new deal, to mandate changes in energy policy that are not only ridiculously costly, but simply impossible due to our current green technology. Like this absurdity from the green new deal's 10 year plan that we must meet "...100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources..."
Ya get lost again, or were you able to follow?
The US accounts for 15% of the worlds CO2 emissions. Does it really matter what per capita emissions are? No on is looking at Qatar to just make some changes to solve global warming for everyone.
I am not the Republican party, so I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. And I'm all for some "relatively painless" things like you mention.
Not following your attempt at an insult here...
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,967
- Reaction score
- 21,188
Beyond a minimal basic level, there is little relationship between GDP and consumption to our happiness and well being. Despite what some people will say, perpetual GDP growth is not the end goal. If we try to out China China while they try to out USA the USA, we will lead the entire planet to disaster.
www.khanacademy.org
How well GDP measures the well-being of society (article) | Khan Academy
Does GDP capture everything we care about in an economy?
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 1,699
No, I’m pretty sure you’re the one who’s confused about astroturfing when it comes to climate change.
How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public
The top lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry in the western United States secretly ran more than a dozen front groups in an attempt to undermine forward-looking policy on climate change and clean technologies.
- Status
