Writes Van Jones, referring to Trump's executive order directed at ending Obama's Clean Power Plan which was aimed at slowing the changing of Earth's climate.
I love the intellectual honesty displayed in the qualification that completes Jones's dire statement — "at least, for a planet that is liveable for humans."
Perhaps Jones, like me remembers, George Carlin on the ridiculousness of the human notion Save the Earth (NSFW):
"The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
232 comments:
1 – 200 of 232 Newer› Newest»There was a good cartoon in "Basic Instructions" this week that made the same point. The earth may be better off if humans made it uninhabitable as soon as possible. Of course, when people talk of "saving the earth" they really mean saving it for humans to continue to use. Stop trying to appear selfless!
The single most important fact to know - coming from the EPA nonetheless - is that even if the US adopted the strict Paris Climate accords, the planet only avoids a 0.02 increase by 2100. That's it. 0.02.
Unless Gaia is unleashing Typhon on Zeus again or Trump has plans to detonate the sun, I think this claim is oversold.
Inanimate objects lives matter, or something.
Van Jones is the worst liberal political hack among panels and panels of liberal political hacks on CNN.
"I love the intellectual honesty displayed in the qualification that completes Jones's dire statement — "at least, for a planet that is liveable for humans.""
Oh, the intellectual dishonsety is much greater than that. Obama's Clean Power Plan would only shave a tiny fraction of a degree off the temperature rise the models predict. And the models are sacrosanct.
This comment by Van Jones is on par with Tom Friedman of the NYT writing that the election of Trump is on par with 9-11 and Pearl Harbor. To normal people it is clear that the Left is unhinged and crazy.
As long as Van Jones gets taken out with the rest of us, then it's probably worth it.
I'm sure they'll find a judge to grant a stay of execution
Could someone please explain Van Jones's use of the the modal verb "may"? Why doesn't he just say "Trump has signed a death warrant for our planet." Why the doubt?
Being overly hyperbolic when trying to make an argument about doomsday and government policy isn't a great way to be persuasive. If you really believe that a government program can save the world (or at least humanity), you have to hold some pretty big assumptions that are questionable at the very least. Reality doesn't always square with what you want to be true. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you have to be willing to be skeptical about your assumptions. You have to be able to admit that you may not know as much as you think you know. This especially holds true when thinking about vastly complex systems like Earth's climate.
So now, according to Jones, it's "climate disruption" and "climate chaos."
Still waiting for CO2 climate change fanatics to stop using ALL fossil fuels.
It was plant life and photosynthesis that made the atmosphere breathable in the first instance. I guess It is only fitting that life (giving Trump the benefit of the doubt) now destroy it for humans and many other species.
Here's the real conspiracy, people - Trump isn't in cahoots with the Russians. That's just a cover for his top-secret alliance with Marvin the Martian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkbWF-kDK8Y
EDH said...
So now, according to Jones, it's "climate disruption" and "climate chaos."
The other word for climate chaos is "weather".
Next thing you know we'll have a weather shortage.
So it's not Global Warming anymore, and it's not even Climate Change, now it's Climate Chaos? Good Lord!
Do these people really believe the sh@t they're peddling?
Curious George said...
As long as Van Jones gets taken out with the rest of us, then it's probably worth it.
3/30/17, 8:28 AM
Excellent point.
Albert
They don't believe. They just think people are too stupid to figure things out by applying common sense.
Well I guess that explains why they're trying to eliminate common sense from everything from public schools to reporting of the news.
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls, it's a mixed up world...
...except for Lola!
0.02 degrees @steve uhr.
Save a Penny and it soon turns into a Dollar.
Reduce by 0.02 here, there and by everyone and soon the global temperature reduces.
But Trumpies, do it your way ... keep burning all the fossil fuels you can get your mitts on.
So, Obama saved the world. Vote for Obama and you are a great person, fantastic. Vote for Hillary, and you've saved the world.
Vote for Trump and you destroy the world.
The talk about "Russians hacking the election" is bogus. What the Left believes is that the Russians hacked the election by getting you to vote for Trump. The bad people who are destroying the world are right here in the USA.
Fernandinande said...
EDH said...
"So now, according to Jones, it's "climate disruption" and "climate chaos."
The other word for climate chaos is "weather".
Next thing you know we'll have a weather shortage."
And conservative will be accused of weather sabotage.
David Begley: "They just think people are too stupid to figure things out by applying common sense."
I just read that 67% of people couldn't name a single person on the Supreme Court. No one ever didn't get elected by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
It's about time the grown-ups started shit-canning the junk science.
Blogger Unknown said...
Reduce by 0.02 here, there and by everyone and soon the global temperature reduces.
Unknown in fantasy land. Again.
No one is talking about reducing global temperature. They are talking about reducing atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 is not a thermostat.
And if you decrease global temps, you decrease growing seasons.
You want shorter growing seasons? How many people you gonna kill with that?
"Save a Penny and it soon turns into a Dollar.
Reduce by 0.02 here, there and by everyone and soon the global temperature reduces."
But the Paris climate accords already posit a drastic reduction in energy production. There aren't multiple 0.02s to be had.
That's a good clip, here is another one concerning mother nature.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=simpsons+burns+mother+nature&qpvt=simpsons+burns+mother+nature&view=detail&mid=6310BB47117A5200581E6310BB47117A5200581E&FORM=VRDGAR
Unknown:
The Left thinks Nebraska's average temp will be 7-9 degrees higher by 2100. That's nuts given that their models have been completely wrong for 30 years.
The real issue is that unless you have a time travel machine we will never know if this wild prediction is anywhere near to being accurate.
Fortunately all is not lost. I keep reading about Chelsea Clinton and how she is/is not running for office...
Run Chelsea run... you're our only hope to save the planet!!!
Common Sense tells you there is no such thing as climate change and, if there were, we could not do anything about it? Unless you have an advanced degree in climatology, your view on climate change is worthy of consideration about as much as your views on quantum chemistry.
While I am extremely unsettled by Trump on the environment, the fact remains that Van Jones is rarely effective. He's almost always too much by half, and I find myself filtering out almost everything he says.
In Trump's America, the planet Earth turns into Uranus.
Van Jones is a Marxist.
Marxists are like the worst predictors of the future, ever.
Which is ironic because the whole basis of Marxism is the idea that the future can be foreseen, but only by Marxists.
The Left and their phantom demons and frights. Russia is scarier than Iran. Trump is worse than ISIS or Little Kim. Letting men who say they are women into ladies rooms and putting 18 year old male illegals in classrooms with 9th graders - that’s no big whoop and you’re a bigot if you say otherwise. The big danger is the KKK (30 guys in a garage in Jackson, Mississippi, including the FBI plants) , not BLM thugs. White racist cops are the worst threat to the black community, not blacks shooting each other. White Christians who won’t bake cakes for gay weddings are terrible, but Muslims who perform female genital mutilations and toss gays off of roofs in the mother country should be welcomed to America.
There’s a word for people who fret over imaginary fears while ignoring the very real ones right in front of their faces.
Imbeciles.
@Unknown, damned right we will. Better to burn natural gas than to kill endangered bird species with your ugly windmills.
Without the Van Jones Radiation Belt, the Earth's pants would fall down.
@steve uhr: My science background is plenty to have an informed opinion, but you either can't or won't address the fact that 0.02 degrees is THEIR prediction.
Obama believes in this climate change bullshit, so what does he do about it? Why, fly to Tahiti to do his book thing. Sad.
Funny, I read yesterday that the XO won't change anything, and that Trump was bamboozling those poor miners because power plants are all going to natural gas anyway.
IF electing someone like Trump can lead to the end of human life, that means democracy is shit, right? The people can't rule themselves. They need self-selected people like Van Jones to tell them what to do. Van Jones isn't smarter than a lot of people who voted for Trump, or better educated, so how does Van Jones know just what is right?
Is he like Obama, where having a freakishly abnormal upbringing somehow made him more American than most Americans?
Nothing can cloud Van Jones' theory.
More hydroelectric. More nuclear.
Here's stat..
It takes 15 MWh to produce 1 kg of aluminum. 41+ metric tons of alum. are produced every year.
OK class
How many windmills will that take?
Keep in mind enviroweenies once those electrodes are energized the process don't stop for nutin'
"Save the planet" is the ultimate form of hubris, committed by people who intend to scold humans for their hubris.
The so-called intellectual honesty creates a little, umm, tension for the greens: since they regard humans as a plague on the planet, real intellectual honesty would compel them to applaud a death warrant for its habitability.
Unless you have an advanced degree in climatology, your view on climate change is worthy of consideration about as much as your views on quantum chemistry.
Common sense tells me that if the response to a request for the dataset you feed your computer models is to refuse to release it because you are afraid that other scientists will use it to prove you wrong, and the predictions you make using those models have been consistently wrong for decades, and the source code for one of the computer models was revealed to use a "fudge factor" to get the desired results, and you finesse the data by applying "corrections", and you were at one point trying to claim that the Middle Ages warming period and the Mini-Ice Age did not actually occur (though you had to drop that because it was entirely too blatant a lie), and you keep changing the term from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Chaos, then its bullshit.
Calling Van Jones a Marxist is like calling Nancy Pelosi a Catholic: ain't nothin in Capital about saving the planet.
Original Mike -- Tell me about your "plenty" science background that makes your views on climatology worthy of consideration. How do you explain the fact that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position, including American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meteorology Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, and the US National Academy of Sciences. Name one scientific association that takes a contrary view.
But you know better then all of them. Do you think you are qualified to teach an advanced course in climatology? If the answer is no, then your opinion is worth S**T
@Rusty
Iceland is essentially exporting its hydroelectric power by using it to make aluminum.
http://infoiceland.is/aluminium.html
The bottom line is that with the election of Trump the CAGW scam is over. The Left is just wailing and knashing their teeth. Over I say.
I'm a physicist Steve and that 97% figure is absolute bullshit. If you care, take the time to look into it.
And you still haven't addressed the fact that 0.02 degrees is their prediction, not mine.
Here's the deal: None of the muckety-mucks issuing the dire oracles about climate "disruption," (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), none of them are living their lives as if they believe their own bullshit.
Tell me that fossil fuels are going to destroy life on earth, and yet you fly around in private jets, get chauffeured around in SUV motorcades, and own multiple mansions? I grew up on a farm. I know bullshit when I smell it.
Unknown said...
Save a Penny and it soon turns into a Dollar.
Reduce by 0.02 here, there and by everyone and soon the global temperature reduces.
But Trumpies, do it your way ... keep burning all the fossil fuels you can get your mitts on."
In your honor, I will deliberately throw my recyclables into the nonrecylable bin when I get home today. I do it all the time anyway. Just to make Gaia cry.
Seriously, what a load of narcissistic horseshit, thinking that you are somehow saving the planet with your piddly little reusable cloth grocery bags and bike riding. Now there are good reasons to use those bags (I do because I already have a surplus of plastic grocery bags) and to bike, but not because you're helping the environment. China and India's carbon emissions alone make your silly little efforts completely insignificant except as a means of trumpeting your virtue. Of course, that’s the main point of it for liberals. They get to feel, in P J O’Rourke’s words, like St. Paul of the Recycling Bin.
In the meantime, Al Gore gets ever richer jetting around the world telling the little serfs what they need to do.
Ever notice that the lefty answer to every problem is a tax?
How do you explain the fact that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Financial incentives? If they don't tow the line, they don't get funding.
steve uhr said...
Unless you have an advanced degree in climatology, your view on climate change is worthy of consideration about as much as your views on quantum chemistry.
So Van Jones should keep his mouth shut?
steve uhr said...
It was plant life and photosynthesis that made the atmosphere breathable in the first instance.
Maybe not.
"The scientists show that the atmosphere of Earth just 500 million years after its creation was not a methane-filled wasteland as previously proposed, but instead was much closer to the conditions of our current atmosphere."
The religion of Climate Change has gone off into one of those spasms of delirium that tend to hit the adherents of new belief systems. Faith becomes stronger, not weaker, when the evidence before them indicates to true believers that perhaps their view of the cosmos isn't being validated. In the modern version of religious hysteria, believers don't sacrifice animals or virgins, they sacrifice the industrial economy. They think that will make life better, but life in the pre-industrial economy was considered nasty, brutish, short and poor.
@Rusty - Wow. Five of those behemoths running 1 hour to make 2 lbs of Al.
Steve Uhr:
The only science background one needs to "explain" what you said is a basic middle school science course with an introduction into the scientific method.
Everything you asked to explain is inconsistent with it. How many scientists agreed with the consensus that the earth was flat...?
Michael Moore said it yesterday, so copycat.
The scientific method is based on doubt, skepticism, and constant testing of assumptions and results. It would be illegal if leftists and Climate Change true believers had their way. Those who adhere to the scientific method are smeared as "deniers" by the believers.
Meanwhile, Obama has reportedly flown to the South Pacific island of Tetiaroa to work on his upcoming book. Apparently Fiji didn't provide the right vibe. I wonder if the new book will contain more Obama lectures about the need for common folk to reduce their carbon footprint.
It takes so much power to smelt aluminum, recycling it actually is productive.
Sebastian said...
Calling Van Jones a Marxist is like calling Nancy Pelosi a Catholic: ain't nothin in Capital about saving the planet."
That’s because Marx lived during the Industrial Age and saw the means of production as factories. He foresaw big government-owned factories of the sort that seriously polluted the countries of Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
But the Marxists adapted after the fall of the USSR and the rise of technology. Their ultimate goal remains state ownership and centralized control over everyone and they realized that environmentalism offered a golden opportunity to expand their power. The more intelligent ones realize it’s a ruse designed to fool the rubes. There’s a reason environmental activists are described as “watermelons” – green on the outside, red on the inside.
If you really believe climate change is a great danger, why on earth would you be on the internet contributing to the problem?
Original Mike said...@Rusty - Wow. Five of those behemoths running 1 hour to make 2 lbs of Al.
Next, consider how much energy is require to convert a kilo of sand into an equivalent of wafer grade solar chips. The Si-O bond is even stringer than the Al-O bond. People aren't even aware of these details.
The problem with "climate scientists" is that they aren't doing science. Look up what science is. You'll notice a mentions of repeatable results, and falsifiable theories.
Climate scientists don't do that. What they do is speculation, not science.
It's more like economics than science, and economics is one of the humanities, it is not one of the sciences.
Have any climate scientists ever made a correct prediction about the Earth's climate?
Blogger Ron Winkleheimer said..."Financial incentives? If they don't tow the line, they don't get funding."
Have you spent decades supporting yourself and your lab off federal grants, Steve? If not, your opinion is worth S**T.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/failed-earth-day-predictions/
How do you explain the fact that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
What is extremely likely? in percentage chance? How did the calculate the number? Some people treat "very likely" and "extremely likely" as though they mean certainty. They don't.
Unless you know what the level of uncertainty is, you can't calculate an economic trade off.
My understanding is that 97% figure is the number who think humans have any effect on temperature. Hell, I'd agree with that.
We need to change our behavior, and bad behavior needs to be shamed. People should not fly anywhere except for essential purposes, i.e. no air travel between LA and NYC. There should be no first class air travel, and private planes should not exist. I recommend demonstrations against those sick fucks who engage in unnecessary air travel. Activists should carry little bags of dog poop and pelt such offenders with them. I bet if Leonard DiCaprio got pelted with dog poop every time he walked down the red carpet, he would stop poisoning our air with his environmental excesses. Maybe when, he's away on location, some activists could arrange to occupy his home and fill every room of his house, floor to ceiling, with horseshit. It's worth a try.
Fernandinande said...
Next thing you know we'll have a weather shortage.
3/30/17, 8:37 AM
Is it time for "peak weather"?
It would behoove those who parrot the "97%" number to know what they are referring to. First, it is more like 97% of those who are allowed to publish in peer-reviewed climate "science" journals, which excludes those who believe in the scientific method (also referred to as "deniers"). But even those "97%" would be hard-pressed to come up with a case that supports such feverish language as "death warrant for the planet" or "lights out for the planet" which is the language used by Van Jones and other hysterics. When hysteria rules, science has long since gone by the wayside; we are dealing with a political objective, not one supported by science, facts, or reason. Politics thrives on name-calling and shaming. Science does not.
At some future point, it will be doomsday--if nothing else, when the sun becomes a red giant. I have already lived through several years that environmentalists have claimed were the point of no return. This year will pass, and the rising seas will fail yet again to drown the sage of Santa Barbara, Al Gore, or any of the concerned, caring people of Park Slope.
@steve uhr, I am a mathematician, and I know a poorly constructed and unvalidated mathematical model when I see one.
Thank you for featuring my very favorite Carlin bit. It's a sad day when comedians display more wisdom than 'scientists'.
Hiring Van Jones was a low point for the planet. Things are looking up now.
So glad I didn't vote for these people.
I don't believe it. So, smack that. Next case.
The "97% of scientists" is 99.9999% pure BS. Spend 15 minutes looking into Cook and Lewandowsky and their work, a literature review using rigged parameters, plus a rigged survey of a handful of people.
If this claim were associated with goods for sale, the FTC would have long since locked them up.
Lewis Wetzel said...
Have any climate scientists ever made a correct prediction about the Earth's climate?
3/30/17, 9:26 AM
I am not a climate scientist and I don't even play one on TV but I can make a 100% verifiable and 100% guaranteed prediction about the climate, ready?
For any specific spot on the surface of the planet, at no time will a specific minute over the next 24 hours, as compared to that same minute of the day prior, have the exact same set of readings for humidity, temperature, wind speed and direction, barometric pressure, and atmospheric density.
In other words, stuff will change. I stand by this prediction 100% and dare ANYONE to prove me wrong.
"The scientists show that the atmosphere of Earth just 500 million years after its creation was not a methane-filled wasteland as previously proposed, but instead was much closer to the conditions of our current atmosphere."
That's interesting. It just goes to show that scientists will go where the evidence leads them even if the result is the upending of long-help beliefs.
I guess we need more of them to read this blog to get educated on what's really happening in our atmosphere.
The Maunder Minimum we are entering into today will destroy much food supply and will ramp up the need for heating energy over an endless winter.
Global Cooling actually ends life on earth for many humans. Global warming is not a big problem for adaptable humans. The CO2 trace gas Hoax Scare has no effect, except as a good fertilizer for better growth of food crops.
Steve Uhr -- the man who believes scientists are never, ever wrong.
I notice Steve has never mentioned any of the times the "climate scientists" made an accurate prediction about the climate.
Because that's not what they do, Stevey my boy.
They speculate. They don't do science.
That's not fair, Lewis. They're doing science.
Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Cite the peer-reviewed study that reaches a contrary conclusion.
My understanding is that 97% figure is the number who think humans have any effect on temperature. Hell, I'd agree with that.
Yeah, that whole 90-97% consensus thing is at best misleading and at worst patently dishonest. All organisms have some kind of an effect on their environment. What specific effects an organism has, how severe those effects are, and at what rate those effects progress are entirely different discussions.
If you want to get pedantic about it, there's well over 7 billion humans transforming enormous amounts of matter from one form to another every second of every day just through normal metabolic processes (eating, drinking, respirating, ect), let alone any of our other more consciously directed efforts to modify our immediate environments to better suite are needs.
And that's just humans. There's something like 500 billion tonnes of non-bacterial biomass on Earth. It's blatantly obvious that all that churning, metabolizing stuff will have some effect on temperature one way or another.
The climate of Earth is a vastly complex system with an insane number of variables. Everything from fluctuations in the Earth's outer core, the gravitational pull of other planets, and minor variations in solar activity all have an effect. It's a bit silly to be overly reductive about what effects climate.
Lewis -- Where did I say that scientists are never, ever wrong? I'm saying that as a layman, it makes sense to accept what the vast majority of educated scientists say on the topic, and sort of dumb to refuse to do so. (Sort of like evolution vs creation ...)
Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
There is that phrase again. Real scientists never use that phrase. It is actually anti-science.
I'm sorry, but when leftist politicians come to me and scream "you are killing the planet with your breath! Give us complete and utter control of your money, life, decisions, finances and go huddle in a cave, Gaia Killer, while we fly to Bermuda on your dime to study this more!"
Common sense tells me that perhaps some caution is warranted before enacting liberals complete economic wishlist.
And past performance of leftist alarmism demonstrates considerable skepticism is warranted about future predictions.
--Vance
@steve uhr, I don't care that the "scientific consensus" is that 2 + 3 = 17. As a mathematician I say that they're wrong.
Clinton signed an Executive Order stating that the US Government wouldn't fund any research that didn't accept the AGW premise. All agencies were told to scour proposals for AGW dissent and to spell it out in new RFPs.
You would think that the die hard AGW believers would notice that when scientists do criticize 'climate science', those scientists are usually physicists, and they criticize climate science because, well, it's not science. They aren't following the scientific method. There is no hard link between physics and saying that if atmospheric CO2 levels increase by X by 2100 AD, there is an x% chance of the mean temperature of 2100 AD being x.x above the norm. Too many variables.
The climate scientists respond that the physicists don't understand their science. Well, science was invented so that people could communicate ideas about the natural world.If they can't explain what they are doing, it's not science. It's alchemy or some other gnostic thing.
For the past 400,000 years up to 1950, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never exceeded 300 ppm. It is now at 400 ppm. What is the Althouse-commentator consensus on the explanation?
What is the Althouse-commentator consensus on the explanation?
What do you expect happens after an Ice Age end? It gets warmer. Eventually, CO2 levels rise, because Carbon dioxide levels are a lagging indicator of warming.
Gotta say, I'd think you'd be a little more wary of this kind of extreme statement, Professor. I mean, it's pretty common these days for the Left to label "climate deniers" as mass murderers and/or call for criminal prosecution, but now we're getting mainstream Media people doing roughly the same thing. Kinda one of those things where you label your opponent as a killer and a criminal, loudly, and then if someone happens to take that seriously and decide that the best course of action (for the health of the planet, naturally) is to start killing the people so labeled...
Anyway I remember when we were all supposed to be careful about our hyperbole, about "eliminationist rhetoric," and about saying extreme things that might inspire wackos to take violent action.
Things change, I guess.
The geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000 ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.
OMG - That's it. If only the scientists would listen for a moment to non-scientist Darrell this whole thing could be put to rest.
I never said that CO2 levels are not impacted by things other than human activity.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Anyway I remember when we were all supposed to be careful about our hyperbole, about "eliminationist rhetoric," and about saying extreme things that might inspire wackos to take violent action.
Things change, I guess.
3/30/17, 10:51 AM
Well not really it is just that like most things that come with a "left side" and a "right side", there are just two sets of rules. Those not on the side of "all that is good and holy with the universe" need to just shut up and those on the left are free to say what ever they want about whom ever they want any time they want. m'Kay?
"If you don't buy these carbon credits, we'll kill this planet."
I worked at the Institute of Gas Technology for many years, was the first to put Leeds temperature data into a computerized data base for GRI, testified before Congress, and have numerous papers in the Library of Congress. Was a warrior in Jimmy Carter's Moral Equivalent of War. You?
Does this mean that the rise of the oceans has officially resumed?
So you have written peer-reviewed articles on climatology or not? You are qualified to teach a graduate course on climatology or not?
As for me - I never claimed to be an expert on the subject (though I do have an undergraduate degree in biology). That is why I rely on what the vast majority of scientists say. If their view changes, mine will also.
Steve Uhr, it is obvious you are not a scientist.
Every time Steve Uhr writes a variation of "you should listen to the scientists," I wonder why he cannot come up with a better argument.
Scientists are supposed to listen to skeptical points of view, aren't they? Maybe Steve Uhr should listen to skeptical points of view.
Well, Darrell, that should shut Steve Uhr up. But, of course, it won't.
I'm fully qualified to make comments on the internet.
We should hand over the entire issue to the polar bears and whales and do absolutely nothing until they tell us to.
Maybe Steve Uhr should listen to skeptical points of view.
3/30/17, 11:17 AM
That would be against his Religion.
Blogger Steve Uhr said..."So you have written peer-reviewed articles on climatology or not? You are qualified to teach a graduate course on climatology or not?"
I taught graduate courses on imaging physics and I would never say other scientists who have never taught imaging physics could not understand the science because that's silly (not to mention condescending).
Darrell - I imagine your former employer, the Institute of Gas Technology, has taken an official position on climate change? What is it?
Chicken Little rides again.
On the plus side, I saw Al Gore in a passenger terminal at the Nashville Airport last year. It appears he now flies commercial. So there is that.
If Google were to retire its private jets (including the 767) and sell them for scrap, people might take the Cassandras more seriously.
Until that happens, I'll bunch errands and drive my four-cylinder car sparingly in the belief that I am doing my bit.
Instapundit says it best: I'll believe there's a crisis when the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis.
My late husband had a PhD in biochemistry and I never once, in over 40 years, heard him say that 'scientists agree' or even use the term 'scientists' as a point of reference. It's not the way scientists think or talk. The truth is that scientists seldom agree on anything, which is why the journals are interesting to read.
97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings
The thing is, when you get percentages that sound like the results of an election in North Korea, that makes a lot of people suspicious. Especially since that is the kind of numbers you would have gotten in the late 19th, early 20th if geologists had been polled about Geosyncline. Or if you had talked to doctors about Ignaz Semmelweis and childbed fever before Pasteur proved the germ theory of disease.
Humans live quite successfully in the tropics and also in the Arctic. There is about a 50 degree average temperature difference between the two. I believe the various climate models have been shown convincingly to exaggerate the effects of CO2 but even if we believe their projections they only show a few degrees of warming by 2100.
Humans are very adaptable. We'll be fine.
Not sure I follow you ms. turtle -- So if scientists agree on something, that something is less likely to be true?
"This comment by Van Jones is on par with Tom Friedman of the NYT writing that the election of Trump is on par with 9-11 and Pearl Harbor. To normal people it is clear that the Left is unhinged and crazy."
????
Tom Friedman is certainly not on the left.
I imagine your former employer, the Institute of Gas Technology, has taken an official position on climate change? What is it?
Researchers work for money. You can't get a research contract unless you accept the AGW argument fully. What do you think their position is? And what position do you think whores take on getting paid for sex?
I'm sure you and your family will be just fine Blackbeard.
And what is your advice to the estimated 30 million in Bengledash who will likely become refugees because of climate change? Go with the flow?
Your former employer is like a whore? And you are proud of the fact that you worked there?
Darrell is the cherry on top of the melting ice cream cone.
Steve Uhr,
I notice you keep dismissing people as "non-scientist," saying if you don't have this flavor of degree, your opinion isn't worth anything, etc.
Here's the nice thing about science: All that is beside the point. It doesn't matter who is making the point. It only matters whether what is being said is correct.
I have a Ph.D. in chemistry. You apparently don't. If we get into an argument about chemistry, I *should* be able to mop the floor with you, not because of the degree of where it's from but because I read about this stuff for a living, and for fun, and have done so for decades.
If however you hear me switch from saying, "That's not correct and here's why," to "Who are you to question me? Where'd you get YOUR PhD, hm?" you can be confident I am losing the argument.
One exception would be if you're wrong but don't even understand you're wrong. Or if your argument is so illogical it's not even wrong. This may be the case with some AGW skeptics. The AGW activists use them to paint everyone who is unconvinced, as I am (against interest - I'm a CO2 chemist) that an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is the main driver in the ~one-degree-C temperature rise since before the industrial revolution.
And they absurdly denote as "anti-Science" anyone who notices that the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, when there wasn't enough CO2 to be the "main driver" - if I accept without challenge every aspect of your vaunted consensus! - looks a lot like the warming in the late-20th century, when the current theory gained force.
See, if we didn't have a conclusion to bolster, I might think that "Hey, how much of that warming is natural versus man-made? How important is land-use-change around the measuring sites? What else don't we understand?" were good questions, of the type that careful scientists ask, and don't dismiss casually with, No, that's not important, we've got this thing figured out.
Everyone in the research community is a whore. You do what the client wants.
"Tom Friedman is certainly not on the left."
Cook: Seriously? How far to the left do you have to be to exclude Friedman?
Listening to Carlin is a great reminder of why totalitarians need to suppress speech in general and humor in particular. He demonstrates the value of mocking every sacred cow, which especially extends to making sure that every organized religion, cult and political ideology may be be mocked with the utmost derision. Comedians, cynics and satirists have never burned anyone at the stake, stoned them, or turned artillery on works of art. Charlie Hebdo should be encouraged to "punch" in all directions, not just "up".
Inga told us to listen to Homeopathic medical practitioners in the event of an apocalypse.
Today's 'settled science' is tomorrow's object of derision.
I'll believe there's a crisis when the people who say there's a crisis act like there's a crisis.
They can always buy Al's credits if they feel guilty.
Not even close Darrell, little cherry. Gas fumes affected your brain maybe.
But even assuming that global warming is happening and the cause is CO2 (and not the big yellow ball of fire in the sky) the current proposed "solutions" do not necessarily follow.
Steve Uhr claims that 30 million Bangladeshi will become refugees, well that is a prediction. I seem to recall a decade or two ago, when there were lots and lots of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico predictions saying that there would be lots and lots more and they would be larger and more powerful, because of climate change. And then, after that didn't happen and instead we got fewer and weaker hurricanes (almost as if the occurrence of hurricanes followed some sort of natural cycle that had been observed before) we were told that was due to global warming or climate change as it was renamed too. So, even if AGW is a thing, it would seem that it is not understood well enough to actually base any real world decisions on. And since China and India aren't going to reduce their carbon emissions any, and the US carbon footprint is already trending down (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf) I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Inga--
It was some time around 2004--Classic Althouse. You thought that homeopaths knew all about herbs and medicinals, instead of just selling sea water and balloon juice, like they do. Look it up. It is the long-term permanent record of your stupidity and wrongheadedness. Own it.
Backed into a corner, Steve Uhr brings out the Leftist's favorite card:
Darrell doesn't care if millions of people in Bangladesh die because - White Privilege!
Hang your head in shame, Darrell and think about all those little brown children!
Darrell, I didn't start commenting on Althouse until 2011. I'm not into alternative medicine, I believe in evidence based medicine. You are tripping, lol.
One degree (C) of temperature rise in 150 years--according to IPCC's own data in the appendixes of their last several reports. That's 1/150 degrees per year on average. Even a snowflake can withstand such temperature extremes. Bangladesh will be fine. Only Lefty pocketpickers will be harmed by the changes in policy.
Inga--You started as Allie Oop, right? Then it was 2011--though, that seems wrong. You told us that you were a nurse and pretended to be a medical expert--even contradicting the MDs here. Several of us jumped on you for your homeopathic medicine endorsement. The thread went kilter from the OP, so I can't think of a way to find it in the Althouse archive. If I even can be bothered to do so.
I used to say that if politicians could figure out a way to tax the air you breath, they would. They figured out a way.
"Cook: Seriously? How far to the left do you have to be to exclude Friedman?"
Somewhere at least noticeably left of center. What left positions does Friedman hold? He's another member of the genteel rich, a self-satisfied apologist (and gasbag) for the status quo, like Charlie Rose.
A great example of the earth's innate ability to heal itself was seen after the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Not only did vegetation and wildlife return but returned healthier than before the eruption. NASA Article
"Darrell doesn't care if millions of people in Bangladesh die because - White Privilege!"
What are we going to do when they don't die?
Is there a timeline?
Are they going to be inundated?
Should they start building dykes now?
I'm asking because, basically, I don't give a shit about your moral preening.
Not Darrels' or his other brother Darrel, but Steves.
And what is your advice to the estimated 30 million in Bengledash who will likely become refugees because of climate change? Go with the flow?
I'd like to see the math on that one, please.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gore-was-lazy-dope-as-student-at-harvard-282723.html
PIA to hot link from my phone, but you get the idea. I think though that they wanted to say "doper."
Steve Uhr: "...And what is your advice to the estimated 30 million in Bengledash who will likely become refugees because of climate change?"
(1) It's "Bangladesh."
(2) "...likely become refugees..." When? Why? Oh, that's right: rising sea level. Which (see yesterday's thread) is under 3 mm/year. Admittedly Bangladesh is/near the deltas of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, other rivers. And is on the path of typhoons. So it has been hit hard and regularly for millennia by torrential rainfall. Which has exactly nothing to do with rising sea levels. Again, you see, your argument collapses. It embraces too many unidentified, uncharacterized processes out there in the world. You end up spitting tacks over a sentimental assertion because you haven't Done The Homework.
(3) "...refugees..." Why don't you talk about REAL refugee issues, like Syria or Libya, which (again) have exactly nothing to do with climate change? Aren't those issues worthy of your considerable indignation?
Tom Friedman is certainly not on the left.
Yes, he is. You're just farther left than he is.
Cook: Friedman is the poster child for pining for Chinese Communism. He literally calls for the US to implement the Chinese political system, including that of murdering their opponents.
He did this several times, calling for suppression of conservative thought. That's leftism pure and simple.
--Vance
Mock turtle -- it is funny you cite NASA as authoritative. They are my go to destination for climate change info. Climate.nasa.gov. Can we agree that if nasa says something it is more likely than not to be true?
He's another member of the genteel rich, a self-satisfied apologist (and gasbag) for the status quo, like Charlie Rose.
Being rich, self-satisfied, and an apologist for evil pretty much defines the aspirations of the global left, with the exception of the occasional wild-eyed teenager or two.
Darrel, the cherry. Are you having brain freeze? I've never been an advocate for homeopathic treatments of any kind. As I said I'm a practioner of evidence based medicine and always have been. You really need something to grasp onto to use as a cudgel that badly that you would make shit up? Yes, it must be those gas fumes.
He's another member of the genteel rich, a self-satisfied apologist (and gasbag) for the status quo, like Charlie Rose.
Where is it written that you have to be poor or middle class to be on the left?
steve uhr said... [hush][hide comment]
For the past 400,000 years up to 1950, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have never exceeded 300 ppm. It is now at 400 ppm. What is the Althouse-commentator consensus on the explanation?
Obviously an improvement in accuracy of measuring devices, duh!
Like comparing 1950 rotary dial phone to 2017 iPhone.
"Can we agree that if nasa says something it is more likely than not to be true?"
Fuck, no!
There is one difference between scientists and, to use your term, layman. Scientists don't bow down to other scientists.
Full Moon observes: Obviously an improvement in accuracy of measuring devices, duh!
Yes, infrared gas sensors were quite primitive 400,000 years ago.
Inga - You were Allie Oop though, right? I was trying to remember what name you went by before Inga.
Cook: Seriously? How far to the left do you have to be to exclude Friedman?"
Guys...Comrade Cookie considers Pol Pot to be a moderate........
Don't follow. I thought Your whole point is that scientists DO bow down to other scientists.
Steve: You'll have to elaborate. I don't understand what comment of mine you're referring to.
i thought the point of those who disagree with me is that the large scientific consensus on clmate change merely shows that scientists are not capable of acting independently
"it makes sense to accept what the vast majority of educated scientists say on the topic, and sort of dumb to refuse to do so."
So, where is the the evidence that 97% of climatologists believe that man-made global warming is an obvious danger to mankind?
I haven't see any evidence to prove this. Has anyone?
Steve Uhr, do you have that evidence? I read your articles, but none of them show the evidence in support of this claim....
"Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”"
1. In other words, the "97%" number is only for the article expressing position - not the percentage of climatologists. Correct?
2. Does the "scientific consensus" proclaims that man-made global warming is a huge risk for mankind? Does 97% of the papers say so?
Problem is, simple uneducated ignorant people hear the number "97%" and then assume it means something concrete, something they can take to the bank, something that makes them feel like the science is on their side. They are wrong. But it's not their fault - it's the fault of their teachers at high school, who did not teach them critical thinking.
“Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong. . . . ‘People just don’t do it.'”
Get that Uhr? According to a study of "scientific" papers PUBLISHED, less than 1% actually follow the scientific method. Please note the criteria that Professor Armstrong uses. Rather obvious aren't they? And yet your favorite 97%-of-1% group just won't be transparent and scientific when it comes to the "climate science" they do in secret.
Why is that? Why trust a "scientist" who won't "show his work" (as we make high school math students do)?
The left believes in diversity and in questioning conventional wisdom, The big exception to this rule seems to be global warming......My relentless pursuit of the Higgs boson has left little time for me to evaluate the pros and cons of global warming. I will note, however, that conventional wisdom has a very poor track record when it comes to predicting the future.......I predict that in the future the weather will vary and the stock market will fluctuate.
@Steve: I am still struggling to understand, but let me reply to what I think you're saying.
There's a point here that layman (your term, not being pejorative) don't appreciate. Every one of those scientists teaching a "graduate course on climatology" needs funding. They need funding to run a research lab and to pay their own salary. Federal grants have become highly competitive; there's a large number of people chasing few dollars. Who chooses who receives a grant, which will fund the climatologist for 5 years (if she's lucky)? Other climatologists!. There is absolutely group-think within a profession. Perhaps the best judge of the science are other scientists not in the field. Those "graduate course" teachers are perhaps the worst peer-group to listen to in such a highly politicized field as global warming.
"The left believes in diversity and in questioning conventional wisdom, The big exception to this rule seems to be global warming......"
Actually it's not the big exception to the rule because the left does not believe in diversity of thought and leftists get very angry when their Conventional Wisdom about everything from race to abortion is questioned in any way.
Exactly so, exiled. Liberals are the most narrow-minded and intolerant people on the planet.
Simple question to all the "deniers" out there (a term I think is loaded and not appropriate):
Cite me to the best peer-reviewed scientific article out there that you are aware of that supports your position on climate change.
mockturtle -- you never answered my question. When should NASA be relied upon and when should it be ignored?
Several problems.
One, the system is chaotic. That is incompletely, and, in fact, insufficiently characterized and unwieldy, which precludes predictions outside of a limited frame of reference (i.e. scientific domain). This is analogous to a human life, which is a semi-stable process with predictable boundaries (e.g. conception, death) but an unpredictable future.
Two, the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming does not track with past, present, and, since the first predictions, future states of the system. The models (i.e. hypothesis) are insufficiently representative and lack resolution to forecast local and regional physical processes and features.
Three, there is a belief that warming is not only a progressive (i.e. monotonic) condition but of negative quality. Both are speculation and assertions that do not track with the known reality. The processes in the system fluctuate, at times wildly, and warming is favored by the majority of surface-level life forms, including: plants, animals, and humans.
Four, the greenhouse effect refers to thermodynamic conservation, not a radiative effect of carbon dioxide that can be observed in isolation, predicted in theory, and poorly estimated with incomplete models and low resolution simulations.
That said, if the twilighters are really concerned for human value and dignity, then there are over one million [wholly innocent] human lives that are catastrophically aborted annually in America alone. End social justice adventurism that is a first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform and selective child. Lift the veil of privacy. Close the abortion chambers.
"Where is it written that you have to be poor or middle class to be on the left?"
It isn't so written. However, Friedman is not one of those who is rich and of the left. Rather, he expresses the self-satisfied noblesse oblige of many of the rich, thinking he's being quite liberal about seeing the lower castes as, you know, "human," and being down with their trials and tribulations and all, but he expresses the conventional assumptions and point of view of the ruling classes.
What views does he promote that are left views?
"Cook: Friedman is the poster child for pining for Chinese Communism. He literally calls for the US to implement the Chinese political system, including that of murdering their opponents."
When has he done this? Can you cite some examples? This just means he's more of an asshole than I believed him to be. It certainly doesn't mean he's of the left.
Calling for the murder of one's political opponents is not unique to the left, and is not something that all leftists believe in or agree with. I'd say no leftists whom I admire agree with or espouse this. That is the viewpoint of those with a will to power; in such persons, the politics is subordinate to the ambition for power and the willingness to employ any tactics to gain and hold dominating power.
There are murderous assholes at every point along the political spectrum.
The identity politics on this site is boring, and unscientific. How does my view on climate change relate to or inform in any way my views on gun control or health care or immigration or Hillary or Iran or dozens of other issues. Left on one issue (by simply agreeing with what most scientists say??) means far left on all issues? How is that logical?
Steve asks:
mockturtle -- you never answered my question. When should NASA be relied upon and when should it be ignored?
You're asking because I linked to a NASA article about Mt. St. Helens? I have seen with my own eyes both the devastation and the recovery in that area. I quoted the first article I came to in a Google search that describes it. To answer your question: Neither NASA nor the NIH nor any government funded agency should ever be relied upon, IMO. Whom you choose to rely on is entirely up to you.
You are on the Left, are you not, Steve Uhr?
Correct me if I am wrong.
"Cite me to the best peer-reviewed scientific article out there that you are aware of that supports your position on climate change."
I can only speak for myself.
I don't have a "position" except that there are a lot of uncertainties with the "consensus" claim.
BTW, "peer-reviewed" is not the end all and be all. I say that as a reviewer of many papers.
No government entity or private entity that receives any public funding should ever be relied upon for anything? That is a very extreme position I hope you recognize.
Steve, here's an experiment for you: Write down every item of medical 'news' from medical researchers and compare it a few years later to the new news.
Do you remember when medical opinion was overwhelmingly in favor or hormone replacement therapy for post menopausal women? And what say the 'experts' now?
"Cite me to the best peer-reviewed scientific article out there that you are aware of that supports your position on climate change."
You have to be more specific here. "Climate change" or " man made global warming"? Pick one please.
And btw, you were the one claiming that 97% of climatologists agree with your position on "climate change". Can you do the following:
1. State clearly your position on "climate change".
2. Show the evidence that 97% of climatologist agree with you.
Anyway, here are a few perl reviewed articles for you to read...
——— (1990). "Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 71 (3): 288–99. Bibcode:1990BAMS...71..288L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1990)071<0288:SCCGW>2.0.CO;2.
——— (1997). "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 94 (16): 8335–42. Bibcode:1997PNAS...94.8335L. doi:10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335. PMC 33750Freely accessible. PMID 11607742.
———; Chou, Ming-Dah; Hou, Arthur Y. (2001). "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 82 (3): 417–32. Bibcode:2001BAMS...82..417L. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2.
———; Choi, Yong-Sang (2009). "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data". Geophysical Research Letters. 36 (16). Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3616705L. doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.
———; Choi, Yong-Sang (2011). "On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications". Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. 47 (4): 377–90. Bibcode:2011APJAS..47..377L. doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.
——— (2011). "Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?)". The European Physical Journal Plus. 127 (5): 1–15. Bibcode:2012EPJP..127...52L. doi:10.1140/epjp/i2012-12052-8.
Or, do you recall when fat was the dietary culprit in coronary artery disease? Now it's sugar.
"Left on one issue (by simply agreeing with what most scientists say??) means far left on all issues? How is that logical?"
You keep repeating this mantra. Let me ask you again - what do "most scientists" say about the danger of man made global warming?
Blogger Steve Uhr said..."No government entity or private entity that receives any public funding should ever be relied upon for anything? That is a very extreme position I hope you recognize."
If that's directed at me; do you know how to say "straw man."? I didn't say anything remotely that extreme.
I don't consider myself on the left. I didn't vote for Hillary. So you stand corrected. Don't be so quick to make assumptions.
Steve Uhr:
Well, it works a bit indirectly. I can cite you peer-reviewed papers that made predictions that turned out to be wrong. They were all wrong in the same direction, that of corroborating the preferred theory in the field. This leads me to consider that some scientists, whether consciously or not, have their thumb on the scale.
Except that that implies dishonesty, and I think most of these people are sincerely trying to do it right. But they have the natural tendency (which must be fought at every turn), plus all kinds of structural incentives, to apply maximum skepticism to data that shake their preferred interpretation, and to accept uncritically data that confirm it. This is the most dangerous trap in science.
"I don't consider myself on the left. I didn't vote for Hillary. "
Can you name a few things that would out you on the right?
Illegal immigration?
Privatizing social security?
Getting rid of medicare?
Getting rid of Medicaid?
Getting rid of food stamps, welfare, subsidized housing?
Cutting top marginal tax rate?
cutting corporate taxes?
Repealing Obamacare?
Steve Uhr
"Cite me to the best peer-reviewed scientific article out there that you are aware of that supports your position on climate change"
You go first.
It wasn't directed at you Mike. It was directed at Mockturtle who said:
"Neither NASA nor the NIH nor any government funded agency should ever be relied upon, IMO"
I think I paraphrased her accurately. I took "agency" to mean "entity", otherwise it is redundant since all government agencies obviously receive government funding. If I'm wrong she can correct me.
Glad to hear you don't go quite that far.
"This is the most dangerous trap in science."
And usually it doesn't matter, because the truth will out in the end. But in the case of global warming, politicians want to spend trillions of dollars plus upend our power system, perhaps the most consequential technology we have, and we REALLY, REALLY, don't know yet.
Original Mike:
Yes - and to upend in directions that fit their preferred policy prescriptions. But we skeptics are the ones using motivated reasoning.
Hyphenated:
I think climate change is largely caused by human activity and will result in serious ill effects on a global scale if nothing is done to counteract it fairly soon. I think that is what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, and that is why I believe it as well. Should I design my own experiment?
So I am on the far left if I believe there is a place for the government in helping the poor, the elderly, and the disadvantaged? If I believe we should not deport people who illegally came here as babies and have never known any other place to live? Okay, I'm guilty.
"I think climate change is largely caused by human activity"
Let's cut it to something more scientific.... You are talking about "global warming", correct?
"and will result in serious ill effects on a global scale if nothing is done to counteract it fairly soon. "
Both terms "serious ill effects" and "fairly soon" are not scientific. Liberal arts majors can use them. Educated people cannot.
"I think that is what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, and that is why I believe it as well."
Care to provide empirical evidence to prove that the "vast majority of climate scientists believe" in all that? Or it's an emotional issue for you, so you don't care about evidence?
"So I am on the far left if I believe there is a place for the government in helping the poor, the elderly, and the disadvantaged?"
You said you were not on the left. I gave you an opportunity to show which position makes you not left-wing. It was a scientific test. Care to show how any of your views differs from what the non-left thinks on the questions I asked?
"If I believe we should not deport people who illegally came here as babies and have never known any other place to live? Okay, I'm guilty."
How can a baby possibly come to USA on his own illegaly? That makes no sense.
But more specifically, let's limit ourselves only to people who are in US illegally, and who came here when they were not "babies" - say, 10 years or older. Do you agree we should deport them? You can see how a 10 year old is NOT a baby, so I just bypassed your claim. Well? What do you say?
"The identity politics on this site is boring, and unscientific. How does my view on climate change relate to or inform in any way my views on gun control or health care or immigration or Hillary or Iran or dozens of other issues. Left on one issue (by simply agreeing with what most scientists say??) means far left on all issues? How is that logical?"
Steve, most of the commenters on this site are all about identity politics. They have rigid ideas of who holds what views. (Most seem to be hard right and cannot conceive that someone might have an array of views across the spectrum.)
I don't follow -- If I believe that SS and medicare and medicaid should not be eliminated, that means I'm on the far left? Who made that rule? I think my views put me in the center politically. I'm sure you believe your extreme positions put you in the center.
Obviously babies come here illegally with adults coming here illegally, and not on their own. You're smart enough to figure that out.
"I think climate change is largely caused by human activity and will result in serious ill effects on a global scale if nothing is done to counteract it fairly soon. I think that is what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, and that is why I believe it as well."
Entirely reasonable. How much of a temperature drop do the climatologists that you have decided to believe predict if we adopt the Paris accords?
Mike - The Paris accords are a start and if we drop out then why should India and China and others not do the same? It is the free rider problem.
Steve Uhr's appeals to authority are puzzling. The IPCC* does not say the like;ly outcome is catastrophic. That's what idiots like Bill Nye "the science guy" and AlGore say. Catastrophe is not what "science" says. And all of human history points to a change of less than ONE degree as minimal and beneficial to life on earth. Now if the propagandists posit that a COLDER climate is more beneficial than a WARMER climate, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with their alleged expertise.
*By the way, the IPCC is made up of global politicians and not scientists. Their reports on Global Warming are also political papers, not scientific ones, so I guess they also have to STFU in Steve's view of things.
I liked the way Carlin talked about the "big electron" including the sound effects, and how we mortals aren't capable of fully comprehending the scale of what the earth is doing. Also, his remarks about plastic and us humans being the agency of earth's intentions hit a chord for me.
I could relate because my own intuition is that "earth" contains the mysterious force of life and regeneration, and is preparing for the increase in population. Someone asked, where can those 30 million Bangladeshi's go? Where do they all want to go? To Canada, especially when Canada warms up. Canada wants more refugees, so what's the problem? Loss of coastal real estate investments?
Trump has talked about keeping the air and water clean rather than climate change and "clean coal." There's plenty of coal in the planet, coal supplies about 50% of the fuel for US electricity production, it's dirty and the clean up technology is expensive. But perhaps if scientists put their efforts into developing better technology for cleaning up coal that would be more productive than we are being told. What does the consensus of scientists say about this? Nobody is asking.
Also, Carlin surprised me by repeating the one statement my grandfather ever said to me personally. My grandfather, the most taciturn person I've ever met, completely out of the blue spoke to me when I was maybe 14-15 years old and said, "the earth is a beautiful place, it's the people who make it ugly." There is a lot of ugliness, that's for sure.
Steve Uhr,
"The Paris accords are a start and if we drop out then why should India and China and others not do the same?"
If this is such an obvious catastrophe for the planet, then India and China realize that, as well, and they will not drop out because it's in their own best interests to save the planet.
Of course, they might think that this is obviously a political issue, and not an actual problem.
Steve:
US. 0.02 degrees
Inda. 0.02 degrees
China. 0.02 degrees
Sum: 0.06 degrees
And if you object that India and China are bigger, call it 0.1 degrees.
You think you, as a layman, need to defer to the climatologists. You do not. Think deeper.
OM -- I don't understand what it is you are adding together?
Because of human caused climate change, land ice is decreasing by 280 billion tons per year and sea levels are rising 3.4 milimeters per year. According to NASA. That's a foot in a lifetime at current rates. Miami is six feet above sea level. Trump wants to end most research on climate change. Nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. Doesn't any of that concern you at all? You guys are partying on the titanic with Donald behind the wheel. Unfortunately, the rest of us are also on board.
I think climate change is largely caused by human activity and will result in serious ill effects on a global scale if nothing is done to counteract it fairly soon.
People have been saying that for at least fifty years....fairly soon never comes though.
In earlier times you'd be helping them throw virgins into the volcano to appease the fire gods.
I think that is what the vast majority of climate scientists believe, and that is why I believe it as well. Should I design my own experiment?
There's your problem. Try talking to a few paleo-geologists and physics majors..you know REAL scientists who rely on observed data instead of manipulated data.
Post a Comment